A. Unvegetated mudflat infauna While there are pros and cons to both of the proposed mitigation plans I believe that Alternative 1 would be the more appropriate restoration plan to successfully support infauna communities within Mission Bay. While alternative 3 does provide a deeper and wider mudflat habitat on the Western side of the bay, which would support a more distinct and developed tidal flat zonation community, it severely lacks mudflat area zonation on the Eastern portion of the bay. This imbalance and lack of available habitat on the Eastern portion of the bay could result in an imbalanced infauna community, which could then lead to future implications in regards to oxygenation within the eastern part of the bay (due to lack of infauna community to replenish and oxygenate sediments), and sediment stabilization issues in the Western part of the bay (due to the overwhelming abundance of infauna communities). In addition, even though alternative 3 does also include a tidal creek which possess mudflat habitat that would support infauna community …show more content…
This data would be compared with infauna community presence prior to mitigation as well as samples that would be conducted from a nearby natural marsh that resembles similar physical characteristcs to the Mission Bay marsh. This data would then be used to assess if the restoration was successful in comparison to prior bay infauna conditions as well as other natural marsh conditions. In addition, physical parameters such as temperature, salinity, turbidity, etc. as well as primary productivity within the overlying waters and sediments would also be obtained during the samples in order to aid in a deeper understanding and comparison of infauna presence in the bay to help scientist understand how the implemented restoration has influenced the back bay as well as its infauna