Laserfiche WebLink
5. Alternatives for Future Use of the DMMS <br />with an approximate high tide range of 2.7 to 4.0 ft over the spring -neap cycle. High water levels <br />at the SLSM intake are an unknown amount lower than Bay tides. <br />Existing culverts and weirs would be supplemented or replaced with additional hydraulic <br />structures to allow greater flows and management flexibility. O&M would consist primarily of <br />water management, vegetation management (less than current level of vegetation management), <br />and periodic levee maintenance and replacement of hydraulic structures. <br />Implementation of the Shorebird Habitat Enhancement would require up -front funding for <br />construction and ongoing funding for O&M. This alternative would have a relatively high cost <br />and would most likely be pursued only in partnership with a public or private entity, such as the <br />California Department of Fish and Game, who could help bring grant funding for construction <br />and assume responsibility for ongoing management. <br />Tidal Marsh Restoration <br />The tidal marsh restoration alternative would create a predominantly pickleweed marshplain with <br />channels and small areas of upland refugia. The extent of channels would depend on habitat <br />objectives and funding availability. The DMMS would function similarly to the adjacent SLSM <br />marshes, which provide suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) and California <br />clapper rail (CCR). <br />The site would be raised using up to 90,000 CY of dredged material to create the marshplain. The <br />90,000 CY fill volume assumes the site is filled to 2.7 ft. The design elevation and amount of fill <br />would depend on tide levels at the adjacent SLSM marshes and Estudillo Channel. Channels would <br />be excavated (or avoided during material placement) to provide drainage to and from the marshplain. <br />Additional channels (more than the minimum required for drainage) would provide additional <br />channel habitat for the CCR, as well as improved drainage, and would be constructed if funds <br />permit. The existing weirs and culverts at the site would be removed or abandoned in place. <br />O&M costs would be minimal, consisting primarily of vegetation management (much less <br />intensive than current levels of vegetation management). <br />Seasonal Wetland Restoration <br />The seasonal wetland alternative would fill the site above tidal elevations to create fresh to <br />brackish seasonally-ponded areas. The site would pond direct rainfall during the winter and <br />spring and be dry during the summer and fall. The site would be raised using approximately <br />210,000 CY or more of dredged material. <br />Limited monitoring of seasonal wetlands created on dredged material around San Francisco Bay <br />indicates that these areas provide shallow open water habitat used by shorebirds initially, then — <br />in the absence of vegetation management or an ongoing source of saline bay water — vegetate <br />with upland native and invasive plants over several years to a decade (e.g., seasonal wetlands at <br />Bair Island in San Mateo County and Corte Madera Ecological Reserve in Marin County). O&M <br />San Leandro Marina Harbor Basin 5-5 ESA / 210461 <br />Alternatives Study March 2011 <br />