APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table

MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Sediment Dynamics No significant decrease in ƒ Area of restored mudflat. ƒ Change in tidal mudflat and ƒ Change in tidal mudflat & ƒ Outboard mudflat decreases ƒ Will sediment movement ƒ Convene study session to review Project Objective 1 South Bay intertidal and ƒ Area of outboard mudflat. subtidal shallows expected subtidal shallow: 10–20 greater than the range of into restored tidal areas and interpret findings to assess if (Preserve existing subtidal habitats (south of San ƒ Area of subtidal shallows to vary at the pond complex years, assuming significant natural variability + significantly reduce habitat observed changes are due to estuarine habitat areas) Bruno shoal), including and channel. scales. Areas will be tidal habitat restoration observational area and/or ecological restoration actions or system- restored pond mudflat, estimated and reported on continues beyond Phase 1. variability/error. functioning (such as wide changes in the sediment Methods: intertidal mudflat, subtidal the pond complex scale. ƒ Subtidal channel change: 0– plankton, benthic, fish or budget (e.g., effects of sea level Bathymetry and LiDAR shallow and subtidal channel ƒ Changes in South Bay need 5 years. bird diversity or abundance) rise). surveys will be performed areas. to be placed within system- in the South Bay? ƒ Study biological effects of loss of periodically, initially every 3–5 wide (San Francisco ƒ Development of a 2- and 3- mudflat, subtidal shallows, and/or years and then less frequently Estuary) context to assess D South Bay tidal habitats subtidal channel habitat. if data suggest slower rates of influence of external factors. evolution model. changes over time. ƒ Adjust restoration phasing and design to reduce net loss of tidal mudflats. Potential actions include remove bayfront levees to increase wind fetch and sustain tidal mudflat, phase breaching to match demand and supply, and/or breach only high-elevation ponds to limit sediment demand ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase Sediment Dynamics Accretion rate of the restored ƒ Areas of inboard mudflat ƒ Pond scale ƒ 2–10 years depending on ƒ Projections based on the rate ƒ Will sediment accretion in ƒ Convene study session to review Project Objective 1 (Rate ponds is sufficient to reach and pioneer marsh inside initial pond elevation of inboard mudflat accretion restored tidal areas be findings to assess if observed of accretion indicates vegetation colonization ponds suggest vegetation adequate to create and to changes are due to restoration trajectory toward elevations. ƒ Sedimentation rate inside colonization elevations are support emergent tidal actions and whether colonization vegetated marsh) breached ponds. not likely to be achieved marsh ecosystems within the is compromised. Methods: within the planning time 50-yr projected time frame? ƒ Study biological effects of slower frame. Transects or SET in breached tidal flat evolution. ponds, annually at first and ƒ Adjust phasing and design to then less frequently as rates of increase inboard mudflat accretion slow. LiDAR accretion. Potential management surveys (see above). actions include adding wave breaks or adding fill. ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase

APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Sediment Dynamics ƒ No long-term net loss of Total area of tidal salt marsh Pond Complex and South Bay 10 to 20 years ƒ Observed net loss of tidal ƒ Will sediment accretion in ƒ Convene study session to review Project Objective 1 vegetated tidal marsh Methods: salt marsh (area of outboard restored tidal areas be findings to assess if observed (Maintenance or increase throughout the South Bathymetry and LiDAR fringe marsh losses > greater adequate to create and to changes are due to restoration of current vegetated Bay. surveys and/or Iconos satellite area of tidal marsh in support net increase in actions. marsh is essential to key data and/or aerial photography restored ponds) than the emergent tidal marsh habitat ƒ If tidal marsh area is not meeting species) and ground truthing range of natural variability + within the 50-yr projected projections, assess biological observational time frame? significance of long-term loss of variability/error. ƒ Development of a 2- and 3- tidal marsh. D South Bay tidal habitats ƒ Adjust phasing and design to evolution model accelerate marsh development. Potential management actions include filling to colonization elevations, adding wave breaks and/or preserving bayfront levees ƒ Adjust phasing and design to reduce erosion of existing marsh. For example, phase tidal restoration to match sediment demand and supply. Flood Protection ƒ No increase in tidal or ƒ Survey slough channel Slough (drainage) scale ƒ Slough channel cross- ƒ Flood modeling predicts a Will restoration activities ƒ Adjust phasing and design to Project Objective 2 fluvial flood risk at any cross-sections (scour) in the sections, marshplain current or future increase in always result in a net decrease provide fluvial flood protection. project phase and vicinity of breaches; accretion, and water levels: flood risk (e.g., decrease in in flood hazard? For example, set back or lower improve tidal and fluvial ƒ Survey marshplain accretion rapid initial response (within levee freeboard). additional levees to increase in the ponds; initially approximately five years) ƒ Significant levee erosion flood conveyance or dredge flood protection in the followed by slower changes channels. South Bay in specific frequently, then less often observed over decades. ƒ Adjust phasing and design to areas ƒ Measure water surface ƒ Elevated water surface elevations inside the ponds ƒ Flood high waters: elevations projected by protect levees. For example, and in the sloughs in the approximately every ten modeling effort and/or adjust levee maintenance or vicinity of breaches; initially years (depends on timing of observed in the field implement levee improvements annually, then less large events) ƒ Field data collection and/or (e.g. widen shoulder, raise, frequently ƒ Levee erosion: same observation indicates that armor, set back levee) ƒ Collect high water mark timeframe as channel cross- flood risk is greater than that elevations in the vicinity of section and marshplain predicted by models (e.g., breaches and upstream, accretion responses above, water surface elevation is following large flood events or as dictated by rainfall, higher) ƒ Inspect for levee erosion tidal, and other events. initially monthly, then ƒ Relative sea level rise: annually, and after major approximately ten years or rainfall and/or tidal events longer ƒ Monitor relative sea level rise (sea level rise and land subsidence) every few years ƒ Water levels and cross- sections upstream in flood- prone channels APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Water Quality ƒ Water quality parameters ƒ Water quality parameters Ponds, receiving waters, and Ongoing ƒ Annual data review to ƒ What is the effect of a) pond ƒ Applied studies to find causes of Project Objective 4 in ponds will meet (DO, pH, suspended entire South Bay determine variation from management, including water quality problems in ponds RWQCB standards sediment and turbidity, trace past trends increased pond flows and (need salinity, temperature, wind contaminants other than ƒ Review of RMP results associated managed pond speed, solar radiation, sediment ƒ South Bay water quality mercury, etc.) set by indicate abnormal conditions effects, and b) increased oxygen demand, and net primary will not decline from RWCQB in ponds and Bay ƒ Other indication of abnormal tidal prism from tidal marsh production) baseline levels (methods as per Takekawa, conditions such as fish kills restoration on water quality, ƒ Applied studies of Bay-wide et al. 2005). phytoplankton and fish ƒ DO levels meet Basin ƒ Increases in chlorophyll-a to conditions diversity and abundance, Plan Water Quality ƒ Sediment oxygen demand levels indicating eutrophic ƒ Applied studies of WQ effects on and food web dynamics in Objectives ƒ Continue as is under conditions pond/Bay species (plankton, South Bay? regulatory requirements for ƒ Increases in sediment shrimp, fish, birds) ƒ Can residence time be managed ponds. oxygen demand to levels ƒ Active management such as altered to prevent low ƒ Relate to RMP for indicating risk of low DO baffles, aerators, etc. dissolved oxygen? conventional pollutants (Use ƒ Low dissolved oxygen in ƒ Decrease number of ponds ƒ Is it possible to re-aerate RMP infrastructure for Far ponds or receiving waters monitored as conversion away South Bay main water water prior to discharging to from managed ponds to full tidal mass.) the Bay? occurs. Focus on managed ponds ƒ Relate to RMP for trace ƒ What effect would progress with compliance issues. contaminants (Use RMP all the way to 90/10 ƒ Review all available data. (Alternative C) have on the process for determining ƒ Reduce pond residence times. frequency and methods for BOD loading to the Bay? ƒ Accelerate conversion from Far South Bay main water managed ponds to tidal habitat. mass. Also use RMP process for determining need ƒ Eliminate managed pond for and frequency of tidal discharges by converting to habitat special studies.) seasonal wetlands. ƒ Decrease pond residence time ƒ Introduce re-aeration mechanisms at discharge points ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase Mercury ƒ Levels of Hg in sentinel Hg levels in sediment, water Ponds and pond complexes 1–3 years depending on ƒ One or more sentinel species ƒ Will tidal marsh restoration ƒ Applied study of sources of Hg Project Objective 4 species do not show column and sentinel species specific data and overall show higher levels of Hg in and associated channel scour and causes of increases significant increases over (methods as per Collins, et al. geographic scope target habitats than existing increase methylmercury ƒ Applied study of sediment baseline conditions 2005) habitats (MeHg) levels in marsh and capping methods (if relevant) ƒ One or more sentinel species bay-associated sentinel ƒ Levels of Hg in sentinel ƒ Applied study of methylation show higher than ambient species? processes (e.g., photo- species are not higher in levels of Hg in Pond A8 or ƒ Will pond management degradation, microbial target restoration habitats Alviso Slough. increase MeHg levels in methylation) than in existing habitats ponds and pond-associated ƒ Adjust phasing and design; for sentinel species? example, undertake preventative dredging or prevent draining of interstitial spaces or pore water. ƒ Reconsider opening more Alviso ponds to tidal action. APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Algal composition and ƒ Nuisance and invasive Algal species – visual Ponds (visual), Bay (plankton Annually ƒ Nuisance macrophytes are ƒ Does pond configuration ƒ Alter pond configuration abundance species of algae are not observations of macrophytes tows) observed affect algal composition and ƒ Introduce artificial shading released from the Project and plankton tows ƒ Harmful exotic species of abundance? ƒ Stop progression towards Area to the Bay. phytoplankton are ƒ Do harmful exotic species of Alternative C characterized in Bay algae persist in the Bay? ƒ Algal blooms do not Chlorophyll-a Ponds Annually cause low DO within Sediment oxygen demand (SOD) managed ponds Tidal Marsh Habitat ƒ Tidal marsh ƒ Tidal marsh habitat acreage Entire South Bay Establishment depends on ƒ Vegetation deviates ƒ Review sediment dynamics Establishment vegetation/habitat mosaic (e.g., vegetation, mudflat, initial pond elevation, significantly (30–50%) from ƒ Study causes of slow vegetation Project Objective 1A (including vegetation channel, pan, transition vegetation colonization projected trajectory after establishment and channel acreage and density, zones, etc.; collected via anticipated to be detectable colonization elevations are development (ex: gypsum) remote imagery with limited within 5 years (or less) of achieved. ƒ Active revegetation species composition, ground-truthing) as a percent reaching appropriate ƒ Channel and marsh pond ƒ Increased non-native invasive acreage of mudflat, of the total restoration area; elevations, while habitat formation does not occur as species control channels, marsh ponds plant species composition, development trajectory predicted. and transition area) is on including abundance of non- anticipated to be detectable ƒ If invasive species cannot be ƒ Non-native Spartina present controlled, study biotic response a trajectory toward a natives such as non-native within 15 years (and possibly on the site. reference marsh and/or Spartina spp. (qualitative less) of the onset of vegetation to non-native vegetation other successful marsh assessments for invasive colonization ƒ Continue to re-evaluate what is restoration sites in South species will occur annually, meant by “control” of invasive San Francisco Bay. quadrant or transect species and adjust monitoring and sampling once marsh has management triggers based on 20% vegetation cover); the latest scientific consensus habitat trajectory toward a ƒ Adjust phasing and design reference marsh and other ƒ Reconsider movement up restoration sites staircase ƒ Tidal marsh habitat quality rated as high, medium, or low based on usefulness to clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, determined every 2-3 years using aerial photos and ground-truthing ƒ Habitat mapping will take place every 5 years, beginning 5 years after the restored area has reached vegetation colonization elevation. Once 40% native vegetation cover has been achieved, species composition will be collected (in years corresponding to the habitat mapping) in a variety of zones (low marsh, high marsh, upland transition) within each restored marsh. (It would be beneficial to have increased frequency of APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING monitoring in the early Project phases.) Vector Control ƒ The need for mosquito ƒ Presence/absence of Focal areas that may support Ongoing ƒ Detection of breeding ƒ Adjust design to enhance Project Objective 5 control does not exceed mosquitoes in former salt mosquito sources throughout mosquitoes in a former salt drainage or tidal flushing, control NEPA/CEQA baseline as ponds the South Bay pond vegetation in ponded areas, determined by the Vector ƒ Number of acres of breeding ƒ Detectable increase in and/or facilitate access (for control) to marsh ponds Control agencies mosquitoes monitoring parameters ƒ Number of larvae/dip in (relative to NEPA/CEQA ƒ Increase level of vector control potential breeding habitat baseline), particularly in (preferably only as an interim ƒ Number of acres within the areas with human measure while design issues are Project Area treated for activity/exposure addressed to reduce mosquito mosquitoes ƒ Detection of mosquitoes that breeding habitat) ƒ Costs/level of effort (e.g., are known disease vectors ƒ Study relationships of fish hours spent in treatment, and/or are of particular abundance and community amount of material applied, concern (i.e., Aedes composition and mosquito larval helicopter cost, etc.) to squamiger, A. dorsalis) in abundance in marsh features control mosquitoes the Project Area (e.g., ponds and pannes) and managed ponds ƒ Ensure management actions are consistent with Refuge mosquito management policies Clapper Rails ƒ Meet recovery plan Clapper rail tidal salt marsh Entire South Bay Likely decades for high-quality See triggers for Sediment ƒ How do clapper rails and/or ƒ See Vegetation Establishment Project Objective 1A criteria for clapper rail habitat acreage, quality (see tidal marsh development (10- Dynamics, Vegetation other key tidal marsh species above habitat within the SBSP Tidal Marsh Habitat year targets) Establishment above respond to variations in tidal ƒ Reconsider movement up Restoration Project Area Establishment above) marsh habitat quality and staircase what are the habitat factors contributing to that response? ƒ Meet recovery plan Winter numbers, censused Entire South Bay Monitoring not expected to ƒ Numbers drop below 0.20 ƒ See Vegetation Establishment criteria for clapper rail during high-tide airboat show substantial results until birds/ac in any given year above numbers (0.25 birds/ac surveys, and breeding-season 5–10 years after cordgrass for Project Area as a whole ƒ Applied studies of habitat over 10-year period) numbers, censused at establishment in 300 acres or ƒ Rate of increase in clapper parameters, contaminant levels, representative locations more (10-year targets) within the SBSP rail numbers deviates and predation pressure related to Restoration Project Area significantly from projection rail densities and productivity (and implement related management actions as appropriate) ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase Salt Marsh Harvest ƒ Meet recovery plan Salt marsh harvest mouse tidal Entire South Bay Likely decades for high-quality See triggers for Sediment ƒ How do salt marsh harvest ƒ See Vegetation Establishment Mice criteria for salt marsh salt marsh habitat acreage, tidal marsh development (10- Dynamics, Vegetation mice and/or other key tidal above Project Objective 1A harvest mouse habitat quality (see Tidal Marsh year targets) Establishment above marsh species respond to ƒ Adjust phasing and design; for within the SBSP Habitat Establishment above) variations in tidal marsh example, add or enhance upland habitat quality and what are Restoration Project Area transition habitat within and the habitat factors between restored marshes contributing to that ƒ Reconsider movement up response? staircase APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING ƒ 75% of viable habitat Capture efficiency (targeting Entire South Bay Monitoring not expected to Rate of increase deviates ƒ See Vegetation Establishment areas within each large multiple areas with a CE of at begin for 5–10 years after significantly from projection above marsh complex with a least 5.0) pickleweed establishment in ƒ Adjust phasing and design; for capture efficiency level 300 acres or more example, add or enhance upland of 5.0 or better in five transition habitat within and consecutive years between restored marshes ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase Migratory Shorebirds ƒ Maintain numbers of ƒ Use previously collected ƒ Monitoring stations in a ƒ Changes in shorebird ƒ Three consecutive years in ƒ Will the habitat value and ƒ Analyze all available monitoring Project Objective 1B migratory shorebirds at data (USGS, PRBO, sample of habitats/locations foraging densities are which observed densities of carrying capacity of South data for South Bay, Bay Area, pre-ISP baseline SFBBO) on foraging within the SBSP Restoration expected to be immediate foraging shorebirds for Bay for nesting and foraging and entire Pacific Flyway to numbers, if known, or as shorebird densities, as well Project Area (for collection upon changes in selected habitat types are migratory and resident birds determine whether declines are as modeled densities, to set of data on shorebird management (e.g., below targets. be maintained or improved likely the result of SBSP close to that baseline as targets for densities of densities in various habitats) reconfiguration and relative to current Restoration Project, or the result can be determined. ƒ Three consecutive years in foraging shorebirds for each and throughout the Bay Area management of a pond for which the percentage of S.F. conditions? of external factors. Coordinate restored/managed habitat (for collection of data on the optimal foraging depths, or Bay small migratory ƒ Will ponds reconfigured and with other Pacific Flyway type (e.g., reconfigured percentage of small conversion of a salt pond shorebirds that use the South managed to provide target studies; develop the larger ponds and restored migratory shorebirds that bottom to intertidal mudflat Bay is below the baseline (as water and salinity levels structure for a centralized flyway mudflats) by season. occur in the South Bay upon breaching of levees), determined using window significantly increase the monitoring network. Targets would be based on compared to the entire Bay) although any changes in survey data). prey base for, and pond use ƒ Conduct Bay-wide survey to densities (by habitat type densities within a given by waterfowl, shorebirds determine whether Project has and/or geographic area) habitat type will be slower. and phalaropes/grebes displaced birds to other areas necessary to maintain pre- ƒ May take years or decades compared to existing ponds ƒ If declines are likely the result of ISP numbers. Conduct for the percentage of S.F. not managed in this manner? SBSP Restoration Project: limited surveys in a sample Bay birds using the South ƒ To what extent will the Adjust design, for example of habitats/locations within - Bay to change in response to creation of large isolated reconfigure more ponds for the SBSP Restoration SBSP Restoration Project. islands in reconfigured use by foraging shorebirds Project Area to estimate ponds maintain numbers foraging densities. - Adjust management, for (and reproductive success) example, manage more ponds ƒ Use existing data from of terns and other nesting for optimal water levels and Flyway Project surveys and birds in the South Bay, salinities for foraging data from initial few years of while increasing densities of shorebirds window surveys to foraging birds over the long ƒ Reconsider movement up determine the percentage of term compared to ponds not staircase small migratory shorebirds managed in this manner? that occur in the South Bay (including studies of compared to the entire Bay. mudflats and managed Monitor abundance in fall, ponds invertebrate winter, and spring via high- productivity, time-energy tide, baywide “window” budgets for foraging birds, surveys (in which multiple relative importance of and observers census a number prey use in ponds with of locations in a brief [e.g., different salinities) 3-day] period) conducted ƒ Will intramarsh pond and throughout San Francisco panne habitats in restoring Bay. SBSP Restoration tidal marshes provide habitat Project would provide for for significant numbers of the coordination of these foraging and roosting surveys. shorebirds and waterfowl? APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Breeding Avocets, ƒ Maintain numbers and ƒ Monitor total numbers of ƒ Local (pond-level) scale for ƒ Immediate response ƒ Decline in numbers (in the ƒ Will the habitat value and ƒ Analyze all available monitoring Stilts, and Terns breeding success of nesting Forster’s and management actions, such as (increase) expected due to South Bay as a whole) or carrying capacity of South data for South Bay, Bay Area, Project Objective 1B breeding avocets, stilts, Caspian terns in the South island creation, at specific Phase 1 actions reproductive success of Bay for nesting and foraging and entire Pacific Flyway to and terns using the South Bay via comprehensive ponds ƒ Longer-term trends breeding stilts, avocets, and migratory and resident birds determine whether declines are breeding-season surveys ƒ Entire South Bay for monitored annually Forster’s and Caspian terns be maintained or improved likely the result of SBSP Bay at pre-ISP baseline (per methods currently below baseline for two relative to current Restoration Project, or the result numbers, if known, or as estimates of numbers (with employed by SFBBO). estimates of breeding consecutive years conditions? of external factors (taking into close to that baseline as Baseline has been success in a few ƒ To what extent will the account the downward trends in can be determined. established through representative areas) creation of large isolated abundance of Forster’s terns over past/ongoing monitoring islands in reconfigured last few decades, which are conducted by SFBBO. ponds maintain numbers unrelated to salt pond ƒ Sample selected areas within (and reproductive success) conversion). the South Bay during the of terns and other nesting ƒ If declines are likely the result of breeding season to birds in the South Bay, SBSP Restoration Project: determine the numbers of while increasing densities of - Undertake applied studies of stilt/avocet nests in those foraging birds over the long habitat parameters, areas. term compared to ponds not contaminant levels, prey ƒ Estimate reproductive managed in this manner? availability and type, success by sampling a subset (including predation and juxtaposition of nesting and of breeding predator control studies, brood rearing/foraging areas, locations/colonies. vegetation management predation pressure, and approaches and Hg uptake in disturbance to determine eggs, and related toxicity appropriate studies) design/management ƒ Will California gulls, ravens, adjustments and crows adversely affect - Conduct Bay-wide survey to (through predation and determine whether SBSP encroachment on nesting Restoration Project has simply areas) nesting birds in displaced birds to other Bay- managed ponds? area locations. - Adjust design to construct more, or more optimal, nesting islands - Adjust design to reduce Hg uptake - Adjust management. For example, manage more ponds for optimal water levels and salinities for breeding and foraging stilts and avocets, manage more ponds for optimal water depths and salinities for foraging terns and/or control predation, vegetation, human disturbance. ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Diving Ducks ƒ Maintain numbers of Use mid-winter waterfowl Entire South Bay Local changes in abundance Decline in South Bay numbers ƒ Will sediment movement ƒ Analyze all available monitoring Project Objective 1C diving ducks using the survey data to monitor winter are expected to be immediate below baseline conditions for into restored tidal areas data for South Bay, Bay Area, South Bay at pre-ISP numbers of diving ducks in the upon changes in management two consecutive years significantly reduce habitat and entire Pacific Flyway to baseline numbers South Bay. Baseline has been (e.g., reconfiguration and area and/or ecological determine whether declines are set by previous mid-winter management of a pond, or functioning (such as likely the result of SBSP surveys and Accurso’s studies. conversion of a salt pond plankton, benthic, fish or Restoration Project, or the result bottom to intertidal mudflat bird diversity or abundance of external factors upon breaching of levees). in the South Bay? ƒ If declines are likely the result of Larger-scale changes in ƒ Will the habitat value and SBSP Restoration Project: abundance will likely be carrying capacity of South - Undertake applied studies of slower (on the order of years to Bay for nesting and foraging habitat use and effects of decades). migratory and resident birds human disturbance to be maintained or improved determine appropriate relative to current design/management conditions? adjustments ƒ Will intramarsh pond and - Adjust design to increase the panne habitats in restoring restoration of shallow subtidal tidal marshes provide habitat habitat for significant numbers of - Adjust management. For foraging and roosting example, manage more ponds shorebirds and waterfowl for optimal water depths and over the long term? salinities for foraging diving ducks and/or control human disturbance ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase Salt Pond Associated ƒ Maintain these species’ use Focused surveys would be Entire South Bay (as Local changes in abundance Three consecutive years in ƒ Will the habitat value and ƒ Analyze all available monitoring Migratory Birds of SBSP Restoration Project conducted targeting seasonal determined by surveys in areas are expected to be immediate which numbers are more than carrying capacity of South data for South Bay, Bay Area, (Wilson’s and Red- Area peaks (i.e., late summer/early where these species are upon changes in management 25% below the NEPA/CEQA Bay for nesting and foraging and entire Pacific Flyway to necked Phalaropes, ƒ Minimize declines in the fall for phalaropes, fall and concentrated) (e.g., reconfiguration and baseline, or any single year in migratory and resident birds determine whether declines are Eared Grebes, South Bay relative to pre- winter for Eared Grebes and management of a pond, or which numbers are more than be maintained or improved likely the result of SBSP Bonaparte's Gulls) ISP baseline Bonaparte’s gulls) and conversion of a salt pond 50% below NEPA/CEQA relative to current Restoration Project, or the result Project Objective 1B geographic concentrations bottom to intertidal mudflat baseline conditions? of external factors (taking into (e.g., high-salinity ponds and upon breaching of levees). ƒ Will ponds reconfigured and account declines that have other areas known to support Larger-scale changes in managed to provide target already occurred due to ISP). large proportions of South Bay abundance will likely be water and salinity levels ƒ If declines are likely the result of numbers of these species) to slower (on the order of years to significantly increase the SBSP Restoration Project: determine the numbers of these decades). prey base for, and pond use - Adjust management to have species using the South Bay. by waterfowl, shorebirds more ponds with optimal and phalaropes/grebes water levels and salinities for compared to existing ponds foraging pond-associated birds not managed in this manner? ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING Western Snowy Plovers ƒ Contribute to the Snowy plover numbers and Entire South Bay for estimates Local changes in abundance ƒ Rate of population change Will shallowly flooded ponds ƒ Analyze all available monitoring Project Objective 1A recovery of the western estimated nest success, of numbers (with estimates of are expected to be immediate declines substantially from or ponds constructed with data for South Bay, Bay Area, snowy plover by determined through breeding success in a few upon changes in management projected trajectory toward islands or furrows provide and entire Pacific Flyway to providing habitat to comprehensive, annual South representative areas) (e.g., reconfiguration and water target breeding habitat to support determine whether declines are Bay surveys and monitoring level/prey management of ƒ South Bay population sustainable densities of snowy likely the result of SBSP support 250 breeding during the breeding season ponds). Longer-term trends plovers while providing Restoration Project, or the result birds within SBSP declines in any given year will be monitored annually. below 2006 baseline foraging and roosting habitat of external factors (taking into Restoration Project Area, for migratory shorebirds account the downward trends in and maintain a 5-year compared to existing ponds not abundance of plovers over last average productivity managed in this manner? few decades, which are unrelated level as required by the (including predation studies to salt pond conversion). Recovery Plan. and predator control studies, ƒ If declines are likely the result of vegetation management SBSP Restoration Project: approaches, and Hg- related - Undertake applied studies of toxicity studies habitat parameters, contaminant levels, prey levels/type, juxtaposition of nesting and brood rearing/foraging areas, predation pressure, and disturbance to determine appropriate design/management adjustments - Adjust design to construct more, or more optimal, nesting habitat, create more open salt panne habitat, and/or to reduce Hg uptake - Adjust management of water levels and salinities in more ponds for optimal breeding and foraging habitat and/or control predation, vegetation, human disturbance ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase California Least Terns ƒ Maintain numbers of Counts of birds using the South Post-breeding foraging sites Local changes in abundance Decline in total number of ƒ If numbers decline, first use post-breeding California Bay as a post-breeding and breeding colonies may be immediate upon birds using the South Bay as a available information to attempt least terns in the Project foraging area (or breeding area, changes in management (e.g., post-breeding foraging area or to determine whether declines are Area at multi-year if that occurs) and breeding reconfiguration and breeding pairs in the S.F. Bay resulting from SBSP Restoration pairs at Bay-area nesting management of a pond, or Area below 2006 baseline Project or other factors (e.g., the average levels including colonies conversion of a salt pond levels, in any given year impact of South Bay California natural variation in bottom to intertidal mudflat gulls on nesting colonies or numbers; avoid negative upon breaching of levees). changes in Bay fisheries). effect of SBSP Larger-scale changes in ƒ Conduct applied study of post- Restoration Project on abundance will likely be breeding habitat use and diet, Bay-area least tern slower (on the order of years to especially in the South Bay. breeding bird numbers decades). ƒ Implement management or adjust (multi-year average design (e.g., if applied study finds APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING levels with natural more foraging occurs in ponds variation) than Bay, manage more ponds for suitable least tern foraging conditions). ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase. Steelhead ƒ Enhance numbers of Counts of upstream-migrating South Bay spawning streams 5–10 years likely for effects of Reduction in number of Will increased tidal habitat ƒ If numbers decline, first use Project Objective 1C salmonids and juvenile in salmonids to monitor spawning restoration on salmonids to be upstream-migrating salmonids increase native fish and harbor available information to attempt rearing and foraging populations in South Bay detectable seal survival, growth and to determine whether declines are habitats relative to streams reproduction? (including resulting from SBSP Restoration specific study of steelhead) Project or other factors (e.g., NEPA/CEQA baseline factors associated with spawning numbers streams). ƒ Conduct applied study of constraints to population growth (ex: Hg, water quality, food chain). ƒ Conduct applied study of condition of salmonids seaward of restoration site (sample Chinook using minnow net upstream from, at, and downstream from restoration sites before and after restoration; determine whether fish are larger and healthier after than before restoration). ƒ If numbers decline, conduct diet studies on piscivorous birds (to determine whether increased bird predation is responsible). ƒ Implement management or adjust design (e.g., restore more tidal habitat adjacent to spawning streams). ƒ Reconsider movement up staircase. Estuarine Fish • Enhance numbers of native ƒ Presence/abundance of Monitoring results will reflect Varies by trigger – ƒ Detection of a fish die-off Will increased tidal habitat ƒ Use available information to Project Objective 1C adult and juvenile fish in surfperch in restored conditions at monitoring ƒ fish are expected to move ƒ Absence of detections of increase native fish abundance attempt to determine whether foraging and rearing marshes (as measured in stations scattered throughout into newly restored areas surfperch using restored and will restored habitat declines are resulting from SBSP habitats relative to permanent monitoring the SBSP Restoration Project almost immediately but tidal marsh support healthy populations? Restoration Project or other NEPA/CEQA baseline locations with pilings Area, in tidal habitat, ponds, assemblages will change as ƒ Increase in percent of (including specific study of factors (e.g., factors associated numbers installed to facilitate and sloughs habitat matures individuals sampled in native estuarine fish) with spawning streams). monitoring) ƒ surfperch not expected to restored marshes that are ƒ Applied study of constraints to ƒ Presence/ absence of native use restored marshes until non-native population growth (ex: Hg, water flatfish, such as starry vegetation is established ƒ Detectable reduction in quality, food chain) flounder, in restored un- ƒ negative impacts may be water quality (as determined ƒ If fish populations decline, vegetated shallow water immediate if poor water by monitoring described conduct diet studies on areas quality from a pond under “Water Quality” Key piscivorous birds (to determine ƒ Species richness and whether increased bird predation APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING abundance of native fish discharge causes a die-off Category) is responsible). species in a range of habitats ƒ Deviation from expected ƒ Consider possible effects of including restored marshes trajectory of native fish use recreational angling pressure. and associated unvegetated of restored marshes and ƒ Implement management or adjust shallow water areas, major associated unvegetated design (e.g., remove more levees and minor sloughs, and deep shallow water areas to increase connectivity in and shallow-water ponds restored ponds) based on study ƒ Water quality parameters results (see “Water Quality” Key ƒ Reconsider movement up Category) staircase Harbor Seals ƒ Maintain or enhance ƒ Conduct periodic monitoring Focal areas (i.e., known haul- Negative response to human ƒ Decline in overall South Bay ƒ Will increased tidal habitat ƒ See management actions under Project Objective 1C numbers of harbor seals at known South Bay haul- out sites) throughout South disturbance from improved numbers and pup increase native fish and “Mercury” and “Public Access” using the South Bay out sites (e.g., Mowry, Bay public access may be production, if known, at harbor seal survival, growth Key Categories Newark & Alviso Sloughs, immediate; response to habitat haul-out sites below 2006 and reproduction? ƒ Other potential management and expand to include haul- restoration or increased baseline levels for 2 ƒ Will increases in boating actions may include: out site in Corkscrew mercury availability may be consecutive years access significantly affect - Restrict public access and/or Slough) to determine trends longer-term (a decade or more) ƒ Reduction in frequency of birds, harbor seals or other improve public education near in productivity and use and pup production, if target species on short or seal haul-out sites abundance, and changes in known, of Mowry Slough long timescales? Create seasonal closure in distribution. If incidental - and adjacent haul- areas that might be appropriate sightings at other areas are out/pupping areas for seal protection during not adequate to determine if pupping season, including new haul-out sites are buoys restricting access to established, periodically sloughs to boats and land- survey other locations as based trails. well. Existing data include over 5 years of weekly - Enforce protective measures survey data for Mowry and such as increased patrolling Newark sloughs, and 5 years etc. of monthly survey data for ƒ If seal populations decline or Alviso Slough. pupping rates decline, conduct ƒ Mercury parameters (see studies on seal health (pollutant “Mercury” Key Category) exposure), potential disturbance changes, habitat/prey alternations (fish declines or fish community changes), or reduced access to sites due to steep gradient, tidal restrictions, or insufficient deep water Public Access ƒ High quality visitor ƒ Visitor use surveys Within the Project Area. Based on construction of ƒ Survey results show ƒ Will public access features ƒ Adjust design. For example, Project Objective 3 experience is maintained (numbers, activities, facilities and public use (5+ dissatisfaction provide the recreation and limit number of visitors to a ƒ Facilities are not degraded demographics, overall years of usage) ƒ Overcrowding at staging access experiences visitors given area, provide alternate use by over usage experience and peak use areas and the public want over times for certain activities and/or (surveys yearly) ƒ Conflicts between users short or long timescales? reduce development of some ƒ Staff observations (recorded incidences) (Study visitor traits and use uses, increase others, based on patterns, visitor satisfaction demand. ƒ Complaints or compliments ƒ Maintenance costs exceed with experience, public registered with land budget ƒ Hold public meetings/workshops managers demand for other uses, to inform the public of applied facility degradation) ƒ Cost of maintaining studies findings to determine how facilities best to meet public recreation APPENDIX 3. Adaptive Management Summary Table (Continued) MONITORING PARAMETER SPATIAL SCALE FOR MONITORING EXPECTED TIME FRAME FOR CATEGORY/ PO RESTORATION TARGET MANAGEMENT TRIGGER APPLIED STUDIES POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTION (METHOD) RESULTS DECISION-MAKING desires given specific problems ƒ Hold charrette (group design process over 1-day) Public Access ƒ Public use does not prevent Numbers, species richness and Within the Project Area, except Some parameters are ƒ For species or guilds without ƒ Will landside public access ƒ Adjust design. For example, Project Objective 1A, B, reaching restoration targets behavior of target species in as noted in restoration targets immediate (i.e., behavior); specific population targets: significantly affect birds or provide edge condition to prevent C as measured by significant public access areas for shorebirds, diving ducks, others may take 3 years or statistically significant other target species on short visitors from moving off-trail impacts to target species. breeding birds, California much more abundance, species richness or long timescales? (e.g., fencing). change design to clapper rail, Western snowy or behavioral changes (including studies of reduce wildlife disturbance based plovers, and harbor seals. compared to control sites waterfowl, clapper rail and on study findings, or, in sensitive ƒ For species with population snowy plover responses to areas, restrict public access and targets: reduction in public access, and roosting redirect. abundance or density of bird response to public ƒ Increase public access if species breeding and/or non- access) goals are met, but continue to breeding animals due to ƒ Will increases in boating monitor species’ response public access access significantly affect ƒ Evaluate changes in population or birds, harbor seals or other density of species with target species on short or population targets in light of long timescales? (including restoration targets and other studies of waterbird impacts on the species response to boaters) ƒ Design future phases to avoid significant impacts to species and optimize public access in areas of little or no species impact