Attachment_B_Golf_Course_(ICF)_Mitigation_&_Monitoring_Plan_061416.pdf
PDF 7 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Golf Course Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
- Solicitation number
- 196239
- Issued by
- Santa Clara County, California
About this file
This is a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by ICF International for the City of Palo Alto, specifically addressing wetland mitigation and monitoring requirements for the Palo Albert Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project located at 1875 Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, California. The project involves comprehensive monitoring and restoration of impacted federal and state wetlands as mandated by Clean Water Act Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Board. The monitoring plan encompasses five years of intensive biological, physical, and hydrologic assessments across 8.45 acres of compensatory wetland mitigation, consisting of 8.03 acres of expanded wetlands and 0.42 acres of enhanced wetlands. The monitoring protocol includes quarterly biological assessments measuring native hydrophytic vegetation cover, species richness, and health and vigor; annual physical evaluations using California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) scoring and hydric soil indicator assessments; hydrologic monitoring with biweekly site visits during storm season documenting ponding extent, depth, and duration; salinity tracking; and photographic documentation from permanent stations. Performance criteria are tiered annually, requiring minimum native vegetation cover increasing from 30% in year one to 70% by year five, and species richness escalating from two native species to five species over the monitoring period.
The City of Palo Alto assumes full financial and operational responsibility for all mitigation plan implementation, maintenance, and monitoring activities throughout the five-year period or until success criteria are met. A restoration ecologist must be present during all project phases, with particular emphasis on adaptive management during initial clearing, grading, and planting activities. Annual monitoring reports must be submitted by December 31 to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other requesting resource agencies, detailing vegetation establishment, hydrologic function, invasive species management, and remedial measures implemented. The mitigation planting palette includes eight native brackish marsh species deployed through combined hydroseeding and plugging methodologies at densities of 10,890 plants per acre. Plant establishment period maintenance includes weekly irrigation during the first year, transitioning to bimonthly application in years two and three, with biannual weed control focused on California Invasive Plant Council-ranked high and moderate risk species. Long-term site protection will be secured through a perpetual real estate instrument such as a conservation easement or deed restriction, precluding future golf course development within mitigation wetland areas without regulatory agency approval, and the City will provide permanent financial resources for ongoing management and monitoring beyond the initial five-year period.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
RECONFIGURATION PROJECT
MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
P R E P A R E D F O R :
| City | of | Palo | Alto | |
| 250 | Hamilton | Avenue, | 6th | Floor |
| Palo | Alto, | CA | 94301 | |
| Contact: | Joe | Teresi |
650.329.2129
P R E P A R E D B Y :
| ICF | International | |||||
| 75 | East | Santa | Clara | Street, | Suite | 300 |
| San | Jose, | CA | ||||
| Contact: | Shilpa | Trisal |
408.216.3452
June 14, 2016
| ICF | International. | 2016. | Palo | Alto | Municipal | Golf | Course | Reconfiguration | ||
| Project | Mitigation | and | Monitoring | Plan. | (ICF | 631.12) | San | Jose, | CA. | |
| Prepared | for | the | City | of | Palo | Alto, | Palo | Alto, | CA. |
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan i June 2016
ICF 631.12
Contents
Page
List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1 Introduction
Project Location
Project Description
Chapter 2 Purpose and Need
Need for Mitigation
Purpose of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Chapter 3 Site Conditions
Elevation
Precipitation and Growing Season
Hydrology/Hydrologic Features
Soils and Miscellaneous Land Types
Vegetation and Land Use Types in the Project Site
Chapter 4 Planting Plan
Mitigation Planting Design
Hydrology
Vegetation
Plant Establishment Period and Maintenance
As‐Built Report and Drawings
Responsible Parties
Chapter 5 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Monitoring Protocol and Performance Criteria
Physical
Biological
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Natural Recruitment
Hydrologic Monitoring
Salinity
Photographic Documentation
Adaptive Management
Data Analysis
Post‐Construction Jurisdictional Delineation ii
Documentation and Reporting
Chapter 6 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Site Protection
Chapter 7 References Cited
Appendix
Appendix A Landscaping Plan iii
Tables and Figures
Tables Page
Table 1. Project Impacts on Waters of the United States by Activity Type
Table 2. Summary Total Impact Areas of Waters of the United States by Wetland ID
Table 3. Soil Map Units and Land Types within the Project Site
Table 4. Summary of Potential Waters of the United States
Table 5. Wetland Planting Palette
Table 6. Physical Performance Criteria
Table 7. Performance Criteria for Wetlands
Table 8. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Quantities
Figures Follows Page
1 Regional Location
2 Project Location
3 Proposed Golf Course Reconfiguration
4 Delineation of Potential Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands
5 Mitigation Areas
6 Wetland Expansion and Enhancement Cross‐Section
7 Trend Line for Mean Cover of Wetland Species along a Hypothetical
Transect iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Baylands Master Plan Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRAM California rapid assessment method
CWA Clean Water Act
DFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
MHHW mean higher high water
MHW mean high water
MMP Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
PEP plant establishment period
Project Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
RWQCB Region Water Quality Control Board
SF Bay San Francisco Bay
SPD South Pacific Division
SPD Mitigation Guidelines Draft 2013 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division the City City of Palo Alto
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Chapter 1 Introduction
| This | Mitigation | and | Monitoring | Plan | (MMP) | is | designed | for | restoration | of | impacted | water | bodies | ||||||
| within | the | Palo | Alto | Municipal | Golf | Course | in | the | City | of | Palo | Alto | (the | City), | herein | referred | to | as | the |
| Palo | Alto | Municipal | Golf | Course | Reconfiguration | Project | (Project). | The | MMP | fulfills | the | City’s | |||||||
| commitments | under | the | California | Environmental | Quality | Act | (CEQA) | to | provide | in‐kind | |||||||||
| replacement | for | impacts | on | Federal | and | State | wetlands | and | waters | due | to | the | Project. | The | MMP | also | |||
| fulfills | the | anticipated | conditions | of | the | Clean | Water | Act | (CWA) | Section | 404 | permit | issued | by | the | ||||
| Army | Corps | of | Engineers | and | CWA | Section | 401 | Water | Quality | Certification | (in | process) | issued | by | the | ||||
| San | Francisco | Bay | Region | Water | Quality | Control | Board | (RWQCB). |
This MMP includes the following components.
An introduction to the MMP and Project – Chapter 1.
| A | description | of | the | requirements | for | mitigation | due | to | the | Project | and | the | role | of | the | MMP | to |
| fulfill | these | requirements | – | Chapter | 2. |
| A | description | of | existing | conditions | at | the | Golf | Course, | including | information | on | topography, |
| hydrology, | soils, | and | vegetation | – | Chapter | 3. |
| An | overview | of | the | mitigation | planting | design | and | maintenance | requirements | following | project |
| completion | – | Chapter | 4. |
| A | discussion | of | the | performance | criteria | for | the | mitigation | wetlands, | adaptive | management, | and |
| documentation | requirements | – | Chapter | 5. |
| A | discussion | of | the | real | estate | instrument | to | be | recorded | for | permanent | mitigation | site |
| protection | – | Chapter | 6. |
References – Chapter 7.
Project Location
| The | Golf | Course | is | on | 169.8 | acres | located | at | 1875 | Embarcadero | Road | in | the | northern | part | of | the | City |
| of | Palo | Alto, | Santa | Clara | County, | California. | The | Project | site | is | situated | east | of | U.S. | Highway | 101 | and | |
| is | bound | by | San | Francisquito | Creek | and | the | Faber | Tract | to | the | north | and | west, | the | Palo | Alto | Airport |
| of | Santa | Clara | County | (Palo | Alto | Airport) | to | the | east, | and | Embarcadero | Road | to | the | south. | The | ||
| Project | location | is | shown | on | Figure | 1 | and | Figure | 2. |
| According | to | the | City’s | Comprehensive | Plan, | the | Project | site’s | land | use | designation, | including | both | |||
| the | Golf | Course | and | Athletic | Center, | is | Public | Parks | (City | of | Palo | Alto | 2007). | The | Project | site |
| comprises | Assessor’s | Parcel | Numbers | 008‐06‐001 | and | 008‐002‐032. |
ALAMEDA
CONTRA
COSTA
MARIN
NAPA
SAN
JOAQUIN
SAN
FRANCISCO
SAN
MATEO
SANTA
CLARA
SOLANO
Livermore
Mountain View
Walnut Creek
Fair�eld Petaluma
San Rafael
Tracy
Berkeley
Napa
Santa Rosa
San Francisco
San Jose
Oakland
Project Location
Base map: © OpenStreetMap contributors (http://www.openstreetmap.org/), CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
6,0002,000 Feet0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Miles
4,000 8,000
Figure 1 Regional Location
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
G ra ph ic s
.1
(2
-1 3-
) t m
Project Site
Embarcadero Rd
Alma St
El Camino Real
Central Expressway
Sa n
A nt ol io
R d
Bay Rd
N or th S ho re lin e
Bl vd
Project Site
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Santa Cruz County
Contra Costa CountyMarin County Major Road
Highway
County
Creek
Project Site
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 2 Project Location
P a th
K
P ro je ct s_
\C ity o f_ P a lo
A lto \0
_1
G o lf_
C o u rs e
E
IR
\m a p d o c\
F ig u re
_2
P ro je ct
L o ca tio n
.m xd
Project Description
Golf Course Reconfiguration
| The | Project | would | reconfigure | the | entire | Golf | Course | to | an | 18‐hole, | par | 71, | PGA‐regulation | course | ||
| that | would | measure | 6,685 | yards | from | the | back | tees. | Figure | 3 | shows | the | layout | of | the | reconfigured |
| Golf | Course. | Approximately | 10.5 | acres | of | the | existing | Golf | Course | would | be | incorporated | into | a | ||
| future | expansion | of | the | adjacent | Baylands | Athletic | Center, | and | 7.4 | acres | of | the | Golf | Course | would | be |
| incorporated | into | the | San | Francisco | Joint | Power | Authority’s | San | Francisquito | Flood | Reduction | |||||
| Project. | The | resultant | reconfigured | Golf | Course | would | be | approximately | 156 | acres. | The | existing | ||||
| driving | range | would | be | expanded | to | the | north | by | approximately | 8,000 | square | feet | to | accommodate | ||
| approximately | six | new | driving | stations | or | “bays.” | The | Project | would | include | new, | approximately | 6.5‐ | |||
| foot‐wide | concrete | golf | cart | paths, | concrete | footpaths | at | the | practice | putting | green | area, | and | |||
| compacted | gravel | maintenance | path | connections | between | the | concrete | cart | paths. | Other | Project | |||||
| features | are | described | below. |
| A | pedestrian/bicycle | trail | would | be | constructed | to | link | the | Bay | Trail | to | the | Golf | Course | ||||
| clubhouse | area. | The | new | trail | would | start | at | the | Embarcadero | Road | trail | and | travel | north | behind | |||
| the | existing | driving | range, | then | along | the | proposed | southernmost | athletic | field. | The | trail | would | |||||
| then | turn | east | between | the | fields | on | to | the | Baylands | for | easy | access | to | the | levee | trail. | Figure | 3 |
| shows | the | location | of | the | new | trail. |
| The | existing | chain | link | fence | along | the | north | and | east | side | of | the | Golf | Course | would | remain | in |
| place. | The | existing | chain | link | fence | along | the | west | side | of | the | Golf | Course | would | be | removed | and |
| replaced | with | a | new | chain | link | fence | as | part | of | the | Flood | Reduction | Project. |
| The | reconfigured | Golf | Course | would | not | result | in | a | change | to | lighting, | operational | hours, | or | |
| number | of | employees. | However, | rounds | of | golf | played | per | year | are | expected | to | rise | to | 62,700 |
| rounds | by | FY2019 | and | 71,000 | rounds | by | FY2020. | In | 2011, | 65,653 | rounds | of | golf | were | played. |
The Golf Course reconfiguration would involve the following changes.
Relocate 18 golf holes
Construct 18 new greens on the course and two new greens in the practice areas
Create a par 71 course
Create a course with the following yardages from each of the tees.
Championship Tee: 6,685
Back Tee: 6,091
Regular Tee: 5,374
Forward Tee: 4,588
Reconstruct existing or construct new bunkers
Transform 66 irrigated acres to naturalized areas (non‐managed turf)
Reduce irrigated turf from 135 acres to 81.3 acres
| Develop | a | new | player | development | area, | practice | green, | and | short | game | area | and | a | youth |
| golf | area |
Baylands Athletic Center
GENG ROAD
EM
BARCADERO ROAD
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Palo Alto Airport
Palo Alto Airport
San Francisquito Creek
Future Athletic Fields
(City)
Youth Golf Area
Range Tee Expansion
Practice Putting Greens
Parking (E)
Maintenance Facility (E)
Clubhouse (E)
New On-Course Restroom
Practice Range
(Existing Arti�cial
Turf)
Player Development
Area
Bu�er Mounds
Trail Connection
G ra ph ic s
.1
(4
-2 6-
) t m
Figure 3 Proposed Golf Course Reconfiguration Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
Feet
200 300 400 500 6001000
Source: Forrest Richardson & Associates, 2012.
Expand practice range tee area
Install new signage
Replace irrigation system (all areas of the 18‐hole Golf Course)
| Temporarily | prepare | the | field/recreation | area | (not | field | development | or | improvement). | At |
| minimum | it | will | be | graded | and | seeded | with | drainage. |
Construct a new restroom on the 15th hole
Golf Course Design
| The | Golf | Course | would | be | designed | with | a | “Baylands” | theme. | The | Palo | Alto | Baylands | Master | Plan |
| (City | of | Palo | Alto | 2008) | (Baylands | Master | Plan) | “advocates | a | unification | of | the | Baylands” | and | |
| provides | goals | and | policies | intended | to | foster | that | unification. | These | include | a | focus | on | overall | |
| environmental | quality, | such | as | minimizing | urban | intrusion, | fostering | pedestrian | and | bicycle | |||||
| activities, | preserving | environmentally | sensitive | areas, | and | restoring | diversity | of | native | species. | |||||
| Facility‐specific | policies | allow | continuation | of | current | use | of | the | Golf | Course | and | Athletic | Center. |
| Further, | the | Site | Assessment | and | Design | Guidelines | document | for | the | Palo | Alto | Baylands | Nature |
| Preserve | details | the | following | general | design | principles | (Richman | 2005). |
| Use | only | muted, | natural | colors | except | where | necessary | for | safety. | Choose | materials | and | finishes |
| that | will | weather | without | degrading. |
| Preserve | the | horizon | line | with | low | and | horizontal | elements. | Mount | fences, | enclosures, | and |
| identity | signs | low | to | the | ground. |
| Reduce | the | size | and | mounting | heights | of | regulatory | signs | (i.e., | relax | urban | standards | for |
| regulatory | signs, | in | recognition | of | low | traffic | volumes | and | speeds). |
Design for practicality (i.e., easy maintenance and low life‐cycle costs).
| More | specific | design | guidelines | provide | specific | guidance | for | signs, | vehicle | control, | paving, | site |
| furniture | (e.g., | benches | and | trash | receptacles), | and | fences | and | enclosures. |
Parking and Access
The Golf Course Reconfiguration would not result in any changes in parking or access.
Utilities and Stormwater Quality Management
| The | amount | of | impervious | surface | on | the | Golf | Course | would | increase | by | approximately | 14,000 | |||
| square | feet | due | to | an | increase | in | the | linear | feet | of | concrete | cart | paths. | The | existing | stormwater |
| drainage | system | that | was | installed | in | 1998 | would | be | retained. | Runoff | would | continue | to | flow | ||
| through | turf | and | native | grassland | areas | (biofilters) | and | would | be | collected | in | many | drain | inlets | that | |
| feed | into | the | pump | station. | The | pump | station | would | continue | to | discharge | the | stormwater | to | the | |
| regional | stormwater | pump | station | at | the | Palo | Alto | Airport | and | thence | into | the | Bay. |
| The | Project | would | replace | the | existing | irrigation | pipe | systems | in | the | Golf | Course | with | a | new | high‐ |
| density | polyethylene | pipe | system | with | limited | metal | components | to | eliminate | corrosion | and | leaks. | ||||
| The | irrigation | system | would | use | Rain | Bird | 751 | or | equivalent | sprinklers, | which | would | emit | |||
| approximately | 23 | gallons | per | minute | of | water | per | sprinkler | head. | The | sprinkler | heads | would | be |
| individually | controlled | and | would | be | adjustable | to | provide | full | or | part | circle | coverage. | The | Project |
| would | include | underground | soil | sensor | units | that | would | monitor | soil | moisture | levels | to | prevent | |
| overwatering. | Water | usage | for | irrigation | is | expected | to | be | reduced | by | 30% | to | 35%. |
| The | Golf | Course | reconfiguration | would | require | utility | extensions | (i.e., | sanitary | sewer | pipe, | pump, |
| and | electrical) | to | the | new | 300‐square‐foot | restroom. | The | reconfigured | Golf | Course | would | not |
| require | any | other | new | utilities. |
Chapter 2 Purpose and Need
Need for Mitigation
| Impacts | on | wetlands/waters | of | the | United | States | and | State | (waters) | due | to | the | Project | will | be | |
| mitigated | to | ensure | there | is | no | nest | loss | of | wetlands. | Impacts | on | wetlands/waters | that | will | occur | as |
| the | result | of | the | Project | are | as | follows: |
| Permanent | impacts | on | wetlands | that | will | be | modified | for | cart | path | construction, | fairway |
| construction, | turf | installation, | and | native | grass | planting. |
| Temporary | impacts | caused | by | removal | and | disturbance | of | vegetation, | including | removal | of | non‐ | |||
| native | species | and | California | Invasive | Plant | Council | ranked | “high” | and | “moderate” | risk | species, | |||
| within | existing | wetlands | that | will | ultimately | be | enhanced | with | new | native | wetland | vegetation | |||
| and | minor | transition | finishing | to | blend | such | areas | to | adjacent | expanded | wetland | areas. | |||
| Vegetation | within | temporarily‐impacted | areas | is | expected | to | return | to | pre‐project | conditions | |||||
| within | one | to | two | years | of | the | disturbance, | less | non‐native | species | that | will | be | removed | during |
| vegetation | disturbance. |
Purpose of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
| The | federal | CWA | is | the | primary | federal | law | protecting | the | quality | of | the | nation’s | surface | waters, |
| including | lakes, | rivers, | and | coastal | wetlands. | CWA | empowers | the | Environmental | Protection | Agency | ||||
| (EPA) | to | set | national | water | quality | standards | and | effluent | limitations, | and | establishes | permit | review | ||
| mechanisms | to | enforce | them. | Most | CWA | provisions | are | at | least | indirectly | relevant | to | the | ||
| management | and | protection | of | biological | resources | because | of | the | link | between | water | quality | and | ||
| ecosystem | health. | The | portions | that | are | most | directly | relevant | to | biological | resources | management | |||
| are | contained | in | Section | 404, | which | regulates | the | discharge | of | dredged | and | fill | materials | into | waters |
| of | the | United | States | (comprising | wetlands | and | other | waters | of | the | United | States), | which | include: |
| All | areas | within | the | ordinary | high | water | mark | of | a | stream, | including | non‐perennial | streams | with | |||
| a | defined | bed | and | bank | and | any | stream | channel | that | conveys | natural | runoff, | even | if | it | has | been |
realigned.
Seasonal and perennial wetlands, including coastal wetlands.
| Section | 404 | requires | project | proponents | to | obtain | a | permit | from | the | U.S. | Army | Corps | of | Engineers |
| (USACE) | for | all | discharges | of | dredged | or | fill | material | into | waters | of | the | United | States, | including |
| streams, | ponds, | and | wetlands, | before | proceeding | with | a | proposed | activity. | CWA | Section | 401 | |||
| requires | that | applicants | for | a | Section | 404 | permit | must | first | obtain | certification | from | RWQCB | that | the |
| proposed | project | will | comply | with | state | water | quality | standards. | Wetland | compensation | habitat | will | |||
| be | set | aside | and | protected | in | perpetuity | through | appropriate | legal | means, | consistent | with | U.S. | Army | |
| Corps | of | Engineers’ | requirements | and | as | specified | in | permits. | Impacts | due | to | the | Project | are | |
| summarized | in | Table | 1 | and | the | permanent | impacts | by | wetland | feature | are | provided | in | Table | 2. |
Table 1. Project Impacts on Waters of the United States by Activity Type
Impact
Temporary Permanent
Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet
Excavation/Fill in Wetlands 0.29 12,632 1.36 59,242
Table 2. Summary Total Impact Areas of Waters of the United States by Wetland ID
| Wetland | ID | Existing | Acre | (acre) |
| Total | Permanent | Impact |
| Area | (acre) | |
| Total | Temporary | Impact |
Area (acre)
NTBM‐3 0.08 0.03 0.013
NTBM‐4 0.88 0.77 0.125
NTBM‐5 0.07 0.07 ‐
NTBM‐6 0.04 0.003 0.021
NTBM‐8 0.03 ‐ ‐
NTBM‐9 0.07 0.02 0.015
NTBM‐10 0.24 0.24 ‐
NTBM‐11 0.1 0.1 ‐
NTBM‐13 0.06 ‐ 0.003
NTBM‐14 0.02 ‐ ‐
NTBM‐15 0.12 ‐ 0.005
NTBM‐16 0.14 0.05 0.011
NTBM‐17 0.13 0.006 0.011
NTBM‐18 0.05 0.02 0.016
NTBM‐20 0.83 ‐ ‐
NTBM‐21 0.07 0.04 0.03
NTBM‐22 0.01 0.01 ‐
Project Total 2.94 1.36 0.24a
Notes:
| NTBM=Non‐Tidal | Brackish | Marsh | |||||||||||
| a | The | difference | between | temporary | impact | totals | in | Table | 1 | and | Table | 2 | are |
| due | to | rounding | differences | and | recent | changes | to | the | wetlands | affected | by | ||
| the | adjacent | Lower | San | Francisquito | Creek | Improvement | Project. |
Chapter 3 Site Conditions
Elevation
| The | approximate | elevations | within | the | Project | site | are | between | mean | sea | level | and | 14 | feet | above. | |||
| The | topography | of | the | region | is | relatively | level, | with | the | exception | of | a | levee | along | the | west | and | |
| northwest | edge | of | the | Project | site | that | borders | San | Francisquito | Creek. | The | Project | site | exhibits | an | |||
| overall | gradual | slope | north | towards | the | southern | portion | of | San | Francisco | Bay | (SF | Bay). | |||||
| Topographic | variations | within | the | Golf | Course | are | generally | due | to | the | previous | reconfiguration, | ||||||
| with | fairways, | building | pads, | and | cart | paths | being | the | highest | areas, | while | drainage | ditches | and | ||||
| depressions | between | Golf | Course | facilities | are | the | lowest | areas. | The | adjacent | Palo | Alto | Municipal | |||||
| Airport | is | surrounded | by | levees | that | also | serve | to | prevent | the | intrusion | of | the | SF | Bay | into | the | Project |
| site. | Portions | of | the | Project | site | have | been | artificially | built | up | from | the | natural | elevation | through | the | ||
| placement | of | fill. | Additionally, | a | pump | station | located | immediately | east | of | the | Project | site | and | west | |||
| of | the | Airport | runway | drain | some | of | the | ditches | that | flow | from | the | Golf | Course | into | the | Airport | |
| property. | This | pump | station | discharges | into | the | portion | of | SF | Bay | immediately | southeast | of | the |
Airport.
Precipitation and Growing Season
Descriptions of the Project site’s climate are listed below.
Climate type: Mediterranean with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers.
| Precipitation: | approximately | 15.21 | inches | annually | for | Palo | Alto, | most | of | which | falls | from |
| November | through | March | (Western | Regional | Climate | Center | 2013). |
| Air | temperature: | Air | temperatures | range | between | average | January | highs | of | 57.4°F | and | average | |
| July | highs | of | 78.4°F | for | Palo | Alto. | The | year‐round | average | highs | are | approximately | 69.3°F |
| (Western | Regional | Climate | Center | 2012). |
| Growing | season: | The | soil | temperature | regime | (i.e., | the | growing | season) | is | thermic | throughout |
| the | Project | site | (U.S. | Department | of | Agriculture, | Natural | Resources | Conservation | Service | 2013), | |
| with | an | average | growing | season | length | of | approximately | 301 | days | from | February | through |
| November | for | Santa | Clara | County | (U.S. | Department | of | Agriculture, | Natural | Resources | ||
| Conservation | Service | National | Water | and | Climate | Center | 2006). |
Hydrology/Hydrologic Features
| The | Project | site | is | located | within | U.S. | Geological | Survey | Hydrologic | Map | Unit | Number | ||||
| 180500041001 | (SF | Bay | Estuaries). | The | Golf | Course | was | designed | to | be | hydrologically | separated | by | |||
| levees | from | the | abutting | Bay | and | San | Francisquito | Creek. | The | study | area | includes | depressions | and | ||
| ditches | that | serve | to | drain | the | Golf | Course | and | surrounding | areas. | The | study | area | (along | Geng | and |
| Embarcadero | Roads) | drains | either | to | the | City’s | storm | drain | system | or | (the | Golf | Course) | through | a | |
| series | of | ditches | to | a | managed | pump | station | near | the | Palo | Alto | Municipal | Airport. | Both | the | storm |
| drain | system | and | pump | station | ultimately | discharge | into | SF | Bay. | One | freshwater | pond | that | supports | ||
| freshwater | marsh | vegetation | along | its | margins | receives | periodic | contributions | of | freshwater | from |
| the | Golf | Course | staff | and | is | managed | for | aesthetic | value. | The | freshwater | pond | is | shown | in | a | historic |
| aerial | photograph | taken | on | September | 25, | 1948 | (U.S. | Geological | Survey | 1948) | and | was | part | of | a | ||
| larger | wetland | feature. |
Soils and Miscellaneous Land Types
| One | soil | map | unit | and | two | land | types | were | identified | within | the | Project | site. | The | Soil | Survey | of | Santa |
| Clara | Area, | California, | Western | Part | (U.S. | Department | of | Agriculture, | Natural | Resources | Conservation | |||||||
| Service | 2013) | classifies | the | soils | located | within | the | Project | site | as | predominantly | consisting | of | loams | ||||
| and | clays. | Soil | map | units | occurring | within | the | Project | site | are | described | in | the | aforementioned | soil | |||
| survey. | Table | 3 | lists | the | soil | map | unit | and | land | type, | as | well | as | associated | characteristics | within | the | |
| Project | site. |
Table 3. Soil Map Units and Land Types within the Project Site
Soil Map Unit Name (Map Symbol) Hydric Status Landform
| Aquic | Xerorthents, | bay | mud | substratum, |
| 0%–2% | slopes | (120) |
Non‐hydric component with no hydric inclusions
Basin floors, marshes
Vegetation and Land Use Types in the Project Site
| The | Project | site | is | located | in | the | Central | Coast | subregion | of | the | California | Floristic | Province |
| (Baldwin | et | al. | 2012) | and | contains | predominantly | upland | vegetation | communities. | Upland | ||||
| vegetation | communities | observed | within | the | Project | site | include | annual | grassland, | ruderal, | and |
developed/landscaped.
| The | natural | vegetation | community | types | follow | the | California | Department | of | Fish | and | Wildlife’s | ||
| (CDFW’s) | The | Vegetation | Classification | and | Mapping | Program: | List | of | California | Terrestrial | Natural | |||
| Communities | Recognized | by | the | California | Natural | Diversity | Database | (California | Department | of | Fish | |||
| and | Game | 2003) | where | applicable. | Waters | of | the | United | States | are | present | as | inclusions | within |
| these | habitat | types | and | are | addressed | in | subsequent | sections. | A | description | of | each | vegetation | and |
| habitat | type | is | presented | below. |
Upland Vegetation and Land Use Types
Annual Grassland
| Annual | grasslands | in | the | Project | site | are | found | in | scattered | patches | between | the | Golf | Course |
| fairways | and | greens. | Annual | grasslands | commonly | intergrade | with | ruderal | habitat | in | these | areas | ||
| and | are | dominated | by | nonnative | annual | grasses | and | forbs, | including | Italian | rye | (Festuca | perennis), | |
| soft | chess | (Bromus | hordeaceus), | rip‐gut | brome | (Bromus | diandrus), | Mediterranean | barley | (Hordeum | ||||
| marinum | ssp. | gussoneanum), | bristly | ox | tongue | (Picris | echioides), | and | curly | dock | (Rumex | crispus). |
Ruderal
| At | the | Golf | Course, | ruderal | areas | are | typically | found | adjacent | to | buildings, | landscape | waste | piles, | |
| parking | lots, | and | cart | paths. | Ruderal | refers | to | plant | species | that | colonize | disturbed | areas, | such | as |
| roadsides | or | vacant | lots. | Ruderal | is | also | used | to | describe | disturbed | areas | where | nonnative | and/or | |
| invasive | species | are | dominant. | Because | ruderal | areas | are | typically | disturbed | on | a | regular | basis | by |
| human | activity, | they | generally | provide | low‐quality | wildlife | habitat | and | primarily | support | species | |
| adapted | to | human | presence. | Ruderal | species | include | field | bindweed | (Convolvulus | arevensis), | Italian | |
| thistle | (Carduus | pynocephalus), | bull | thistle | (Cirsium | vulgare), | bristly | ox | tongue, | and | redstem | filaree |
| (Erodium | cicutarium). |
Disturbed/Landscaped
| Developed/landscaped | land | in | the | Project | site | includes | the | City’s | Municipal | Golf | Course | and | ||
| associated | buildings | and | artificial | levees | along | both | sides | of | San | Francisquito | Creek. | Vegetation | in | |
| developed/landscaped | areas | is | highly | variable, | ranging | from | nonexistent | in | paved | areas | and | along | ||
| the | levees, | mowed | turf | grasses | associated | with | the | Golf | Course, | to | ornamental | shrubs | and | shade |
| trees | associated | with | the | Golf | Course | and | its | buildings. |
Wetlands/Waters
| Wetland | and | other | waters | within | the | Project | site | occur | in | the | form | of | non‐tidal | brackish | marsh, | |
| freshwater | marsh, | tidal | salt | marsh, | tidal, | and | a | freshwater | pond. | An | acreage | summary | of | Wetland | ||
| and | other | waters | is | presented | in | Table | 4. | Figure | 4 | depicts | the | locations | and | boundaries | of | these |
| features | within | the | Project | site. |
Table 4. Summary of Potential Waters of the United States
Wetland/Water Type Feature(s) on Figure 4 Total Acreage
Non‐Tidal Seasonal Salt Marsh NTBM‐1 to NBTM‐23 5.819
Freshwater Marsh FM‐1 and FM‐2 0.324
Tidal Salt Marsh TSM‐1 to TSM‐6 1.569
Freshwater Pond FP‐1 1.127
Tidal Channel and Bay Water TC‐1 1.068
Total Waters of the United States 9.906
Non‐tidal Brackish Marsh
| Non‐tidal | brackish | marshes | (NTBM‐1 | to | NTBM‐23 | on | Figure | 4) | were | mapped | in | areas | on | the | ||||
| landward | side | of | the | levees | along | San | Francisquito | Creek | and | between | fairways | within | the | Golf | ||||
| Course. | Such | areas | appear | to | have | to | have | been | tidal | salt | marsh | before | levees | were | constructed | in | ||
| the | area | and | appear | to | not | have | received | significant | amounts | of | fill | material | as | part | of | levee | and | Golf |
| Course | construction. |
| The | non‐tidal | brackish | marsh | community | (represented | by | data | points | 1, | 27, | 33, | 35, | 41, | 45, | and | 48 |
| on | Figure | 4) | met | the | hydrophytic | vegetation | criterion | based | on | a | dominance | of | saltgrass | (Distichlis | ||
| spicata) | (FACW), | pickleweed | (Salicornia | depressa | [=S. | virginica]) | (OBL), | alkali | heath | (Frankenia | ||||||
| salina) | (FACW), | Mediterranean | barley | (Hordeum | marinum | ssp. | gussoneanum) | (FAC), | and | other | ||||||
| hydrophytes. | Percent | vegetative | cover | is | low | is | some | areas, | but | overall | greater | than | the | 5% | cover | |
| threshold | required | for | an | area | to | qualify | as | a | wetland | (U.S. | Army | Corps | of | Engineers | 2008). | Wetland |
| hydrology | was | documented | either | by | a | salt | crust | (B11), | surface | soil | cracks | (B6), | or | oxidized | ||
| rhizospheres | (C3). | Hydric | soil | was | documented | either | by | a | depleted | matrix | (F3) | or | redox | dark | ||
| surface | (F6). |
GF
GFGF
GFGF
GFGF
GF
GF
!C !C
GF
GF
TC-1
TSM-6
NTBM-4
NTBM-20
NTBM-19
NTBM-15
NTBM-21
NTBM-22
NTBM-16
NTBM-17
NTBM-3
NTBM-13
NTBM-14
NTBM-18
NTBM-7
NTBM-9
FM-2
NTBM-8NTBM-5
NTBM-6
NTBM-11
NTBM-10
TSM-2
NTBM-23
FP-1
FM-1
NTBM-2
NTBM-12
TSM-1
TSM-3
TSM-4
TSM-5
NTBM-1
dp44 dp46 dp48 dp49 dp47 dp45 dp43 dp28 dp34 dp36 dp38 dp40 dp41 dp42 dp39 dp37 dp35 dp33 dp27 dp1 dp2
°6 '5
"W
°7 '0
"W
°7
'1
"W
°7
'2
"W
°7
'3
"W 37°27'10"N37°27'20"N37°27'30"N37°27'40"N37°27'50"N
P a th
K
P ro je ct s_
\C ity o f_ P a lo
A lto \0
_1
G o lf_
C o u rs e
E
IR
\m a p d o c\
F ig u re
4_
W et
D e ln a n n o ta tio n
.m xd
; A u th o r:
D a te
/1
/2
Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
0 200 400100
Feet
E
1 inch = 400 feet
Notes:
1) See attached spreadsheet for wetland acreage calculations
2) Wetlands outside of delineation boudary are for display only and are not included in acreage calculations
Base Map Source: ICF, 2013 Imagery Source: NAIP 2010 USGS Topo Quad: Palo Alto; Mountain View PLSS: Township: 5S, Range: 2W;
Township: 6S, Range: 2W;
Land Grants, Civil Colonies
Prepared By: ICF International 408.216.2800 Delineated By: Eric Christensen Delineation Date: December 2012 Drawn By: Sacha Selim
Legend Data Point
Delineation Boundary (143.69 acres)
Wetland Type Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater Pond
Non-Tidal Brackish Marsh
Tidal Channel and Bay Waters
Tidal Salt Marsh
Golf Course Infrastructure GF Culvert
!C Drain
Drainage Channel
Figure 4 Delineation of Potential Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands
| The | non‐tidal | brackish | marshes | generally | appear | to | be | supported | primarily | by | incident | ||||
| precipitation | and | groundwater | infiltration. | However, | the | marshes | that | occur | within | or | adjoining | the | |||
| Golf | Course | are | expected | to | receive | inputs | from | the | turf | sprinkler | systems, | both | indirectly | and | as |
runoff.
Freshwater Marsh
| The | freshwater | marsh | (FM‐1 | and | FM‐2 | on | Figure | 4) | community | was | mapped | at | only | one | location, |
| along | the | shore | of | a | freshwater | pond | within | the | Palo | Alto | Municipal | Golf | Course. |
| Freshwater | marsh | is | represented | by | data | point | 44 | on | Figure | 4 | and | is | dominated | by | cattail | (Typha |
| sp.) | and | hardstem | bulrush | (Schoenoplectus | acutus) | (both | obligate | wetland | species). | The | marsh | met | ||||
| the | hydrophytic | vegetation | criterion | based | on | dominance | by | cattail. | Wetland | hydrology | was | |||||
| documented | by | the | presence | of | surface | water. | Hydric | soil | was | documented | by | redox | dark | surface |
(F6).
| The | freshwater | marsh | appears | to | be | supported | by | water | piped | into | the | associated | freshwater | pond |
| and, | to | a | lesser | degree, | groundwater. |
Tidal Salt Marsh
| Tidal | salt | marshes | (TSM‐1 | to | TSM‐6 | on | Figure | 4) | were | mapped | along | the | side | of | San | Francisquito |
| Creek. | The | marshes | are | supported | primarily | by | tidal | exchange. |
| The | tidal | salt | marsh | community | (represented | by | data | points | 37 | and | 39 | on | Figure | 4) | met | the |
| hydrophytic | vegetation | criterion | based | on | a | dominance | of | Pacific | cordgrass | (Spartina | foliosa) | (OBL) | ||||
| [at | approximately | mean | high | water | (MHW) | and | below], | pickleweed | (OBL) | [both | at | approximately | ||||
| MHW | to | mean | higher | high | water | (MHHW)]; | and | perennial | peppergrass | (Lepidium | latifolium) | |||||
| (FACW), | gumplant | (Grindelia | stricta) | (FACW), | and | alkali | heath | (FACW) | (all | at | approximately | |||||
| MHHW). | Wetland | hydrology | was | documented | either | by | sediment | deposits | (B2), | saturation | (A3), | or | ||||
| drift | deposits | (B3). | Hydric | soil | was | documented | either | by | a | redox | dark | surface | (F6), | stratified | layers | |
| (A5), | Histic | epipedon | (A2), | or | depleted | matrix | (F3). |
| Included | within | the | mapped | areas | of | tidal | salt | marsh | are | tidal | channels | that | were | too | narrow | to | map |
| at | the | scale | used. | Also | included | are | narrow | bands | of | brackish | tidal | marsh | along | a | few‐hundred‐foot‐ | ||
| long | section | of | San | Francisquito | Creek | adjacent | to | the | Baylands | Athletic | Center | and | Golf | Course. | In | ||
| the | brackish | marsh, | bulrush | is | the | dominant | species | rather | than | cordgrass | and | pickleweed. |
Freshwater Pond
| The | freshwater | pond | (FP‐1 | on | Figure | 4) | community | was | mapped | at | only | one | location, | on | the | Palo |
| Alto | Municipal | Golf | Course. | The | pond | is | supported | by | domestic | water | piped | into | it | by | the | Golf |
| Course | and | to | a | lesser | degree | by | groundwater. |
Chapter 4 Planting Plan
Mitigation Planting Design
| The | mitigation | planting | design | proposes | enhancement | of | existing | wetlands | and | expansion | ||||
| (creation) | of | new | wetlands | at | the | Project | site. | Wetland | expansion | will | involve | excavating | fill | from |
| elevated | terrain | surrounding | existing | wetlands | to | increase | the | surface | area | and | volume | of | the | |
| existing | wetland | (Figures | 5 | and | 6). | Wetland | enhancement | will | involve | rehabilitating | areas | of | ||
| existing | brackish | marsh | by | removing | invasive | species | and | seeding | with | native | species. |
Hydrology
| Areas | of | upland | fill | would | be | excavated | by | approximately | 2 | feet | to | match | adjacent | wetland | ||
| elevations | and | extended | up | to | approximately | 125 | feet | (Figure | 6). | Converting | the | landscape | position | |||
| of | elevated | terrains | to | contiguous | depressions | will | change | the | hydrologic | characteristics | of | the | area | |||
| from | dryland | to | brackish | marsh. | In | these | areas, | wetland | species | (Table | 5) | will | be | hydroseeded | in | the |
| depression, | and | native | dryland | species | will | be | installed | along | the | wetland | border. |
Vegetation
| Mitigation | wetlands | would | be | hydroseeded | or | plugged | with | up | to | eight | brackish | marsh | plant | ||||
| species: | Brown‐Headed | Rush | (Juncus | phaeocephalus), | Slough | Sedge | (Carex | obnupta), | Alkali | Barley | |||||||
| (Hordeum | depressum), | Clustered | Field | Sedge | (Carex | praegracilis), | Salt | Rush | (Juncus | lescurii), | |||||||
| Meadow | Barley | (Hordeum | brachyantherum), | Marsh | Sunflower | (Centromadia | pungens | maritima | or | ||||||||
| pungens), | and | Creeping | Wildrye | (Elymus | triticoides). | (Table | 5). | The | services | of | a | nursery | will | be | |||
| retained | to | propagate | all | eight | plant | species | in | the | quantities | listed | in | Table | 5 | for | planting | within | the |
| “enhanced” | and | “expanded” | wetlands | to | ensure | their | availability | during | initial | planting | activities | or | |||||
| within | 12 | months | of | initial | planting | activities. | The | top | 4 | inches | of | suitable | topsoil | from | existing | ||
| wetlands | proposed | to | be | filled | will | be | stripped | and | stockpiled | for | reapplication | after | grading | is | |||
| complete | in | order | to | salvage | the | existing | seed | bank; | therefore, | existing | marsh | plant | species | such | as | ||
| Pickleweed | and | Saltgrass | are | expected | to | revegetate | naturally. |
| A | combination | of | plugging | and | hydroseeding | of | plant | materials | will | be | conducted | as | described | ||||||
| below | within | the | mitigation | wetland | areas. | Plugs | of | the | available | plant | species | will | be | planted | at | a | |||
| rate | of | 10,890 | plants | per | acre | (dee | pot | size | plants | at | roughly | 24‐in | spacing) | at | a | ratio | listed | in | the |
| wetland | planting | palette | table | below | (Table | 5). | Areas | between | plugs | in | these | areas | will | be | disked | ||||
| with | harvested | topsoils | from | disturbed | wetlands | to | form | a | mulch | bed | in | and | around | plug | plantings. | ||||
| Hydroseeding | will | not | overlap | plugging | areas | because | of | the | waste | associated | with | seeds | that | hang | |||||
| up | on | the | plugged | plants. | Plug | areas | shall | be | those | areas | that | form | the | outer | 30 | feet | of | all | |
| Enhancement | Areas | and | Expansion | Areas | (i.e., | the | areas | of | the | perimeters | of | the | wetland | areas | to | be | |||
| enhanced | and | expanded.) | This | perimeter | represents | the | slopes | of | the | enhanced | and | added | wetland | ||||||
| areas | where | plugs | will | be | most | advantageous | and | have | the | most | suitable | soils | for | plug‐type | |||||
| planting. | Hydroseeding | per | the | rates | listed | below | (Table | 5) | shall | be | applied | to | all | other | areas | to | be | ||
| enhanced | and | expanded. | These | areas, | in | general, | form | the | lower | floors | of | the | areas | where | soils | and |
San Francisquito Creek
Palo Alto Airport
San Francisco
Bay
Baylands Athletic Facility
Palo Alto Airport
EMBARCADERO RD
0.41 ac
0.3 ac
1.66 ac
0.25 ac
2.61 ac
0.06 ac
2.73 ac
NTBM-12
0.48 ac
NTBM-10
0.24 ac
NTBM-11
0.10 ac
NTBM-6
0.04 ac
NTBM-5
0.07 acNTBM-8
0.03 ac
NTBM-9
0.07 ac
NTBM-7
0.02 ac
NTBM-18
0.05 ac
NTBM-14
0.02 ac
NTBM-13
0.06 ac
NTBM-3
0.08 ac
NTBM-4
0.88 ac
NTBM-17
0.13 ac
NTBM-16
0.14 ac
NTBM-22
0.01 ac
NTBM-21
0.07 ac
NTBM-15
0.12 ac
NTBM-20
0.83 ac
0.186 ac
0.021 ac
0 ac
0.015 ac
0.016 ac
0.003 ac
0.013 ac
0.112 ac
0.011 ac
0.011 ac
0.03 ac
0.005 ac
P at h : K
P ro je ct s_
\C ity _o f_ P a lo
A lto \0
1_
_G ol f_ C o ur se
E
IR
\m ap d oc
\4
4_ B
A \F ig u re _5
_W e tla n d_ M iti ga tio n_
.m xd
; A ut h or
D at e
: 2 /1
7/
0 200 400
Feet
E
Legend Project Area
Undisturbed Zone
Existing Wetlands (3.44 ac)
Enhanced Wetlands (0.42 ac)
Expanded Wetlands (8.03 ac)
Wetlands Cross-Section (See Figure 6)
Figure 5 Mitigation Areas
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
1 inch = 400 feet
NOTE:
Undisturbed Zones shall be staked in the field to provide the best possible transition between existing wetlands and expansion areas.
UN-
DISTURBED
ZONE
EXISTING
WETLAND WETLAND EXPANSION
ENHANCED
WETLAND
WETLAND
EXPANSION
G ra ph ic s
.1
(6
-1 0-
) t m
Figure 6 Wetland Expansion and Enhancement Cross-Section
| conditions | are | not | as | suitable | for | plug‐type | planting. | Hydroseeding | per | the | specified | rates | shall | be |
| applied | to | areas | requiring | augmentation | in | areas | to | be | preserved | (i.e., | “No | Disturbance” | Areas). |
Table 5. Wetland Planting Palette
Species Name Common Name Rate (lbs./acre) Plant Spacing Propagule
Juncus phaeocephalus Brown‐Headed Rush 5 ‐ live seed
Carex obnupta Slough Sedge 3 ‐ live seed
Hordeum depressum Alkali Barley 5 ‐ live seed
Carex praegracilis Clustered Field Sedge ‐ 24 inches plantlet1
Juncus lescurii Salt Rush ‐ 24 inches plantlet
Hordeum brachyantherum
Meadow Barley 5 24 inches plantlet;
live seed
| Centromadia | pungens | ||||||
| maritima | (or pungens) | Marsh | Sunflower | 4 | ‐ | live | seed |
Elymus triticoides Creeping Wildrye 24 inches plantlet
Total (no./density) 22 10,890 / ac2
1 Plantlets may be as deepots # 16‐50
2 Planting density per combined species
Plant Establishment Period and Maintenance
| The | City | will | be | responsible | for | maintaining | the | planting | area | for | the | life | of | the | monitoring | effort | |
| (i.e., | 5 | years) | to | ensure | that | the | plantings | become | established | and | performance | criteria | are | met. | The | ||
| plant | establishment | period | (PEP) | will | occur | during | the | first | 3 | years | following | completion | of | ||||
| construction | activities. | Maintenance | activities | during | the | PEP, | at | a | minimum, | will | include | plant | |||||
| watering, | weed | control, | removal | of | debris, | and | removal | of | non‐native | invasive | species | if | they | affect | |||
| the | viability | of | the | plantings. | No | active | maintenance | following | the | PEP | (i.e., | the | final | 2 | years | of | the |
| monitoring | effort) | is | anticipated; | the | planting | areas | would | only | be | monitored | in | years | 4 | and | 5. | Long‐ | |
| term | maintenance | activities | following | the | 5‐year | monitoring | period | will | be | the | responsibility | of | the | ||||
| Palo | Alto | Golf | Course | staff | and | maintenance | contractor | (See | Chapter | 6). |
Plant Watering
| It | is | anticipated | that | irrigation | will | be | applied | to | the | planting | area | during | the | PEP. | During | the | first |
| year | after | planting, | irrigation | will | be | applied | weekly | during | the | dry | season. | In | the | second | and | third | |
| years | following | planting, | irrigation | will | be | applied | bimonthly | or | as | needed | based | on | the | success | of | ||
| plantings. | The | application | method | and | rates | will | be | determined | during | development | of | the | planting | ||||
| plan. | The | typical | irrigation | season | will | extend | from | April | 1 | to | October | 31; | however, | the | irrigation | ||
| schedule | and | application | rates | may | be | adjusted | by | the | revegetation | contractor | depending | on | annual | ||||
| rainfall | patterns. | The | irrigation | schedule | and | application | rates | may | also | be | adjusted | by | the | ||||
| revegetation | contractor, | as | necessary, | during | the | PEP | based | on | plant | performance | and |
establishment.
Weed Control
| Weed | control | will | be | provided | on | an | as | needed | basis | to | reduce | competition | with | the | plantings | |
| during | the | entire | 5‐year | monitoring | period. | Weed | control | will | include | the | control | of | invasive | plants | ||
| categorized | as | “high” | or | “moderate” | risk, | as | defined | in | the | California | Invasive | Plant | Council’s | |||
| Invasive | Plant | Inventory | (Cal‐IPC | 2006, | 2007). | Site | evaluations | will | be | performed | on | a | bi‐annual | |||
| basis | by | a | restoration | ecologist | to | determine | whether | weed | control | is | necessary. | Weed | control | may | ||
| include | weed | whacking | (outside | plant | basins), | hand‐pulling, | string‐trimming, | or | herbicide | |||||||
| treatments. | Only | herbicides | that | are | approved | for | use | in | or | near | aquatic | environments | will | be | ||
| utilized. | Weed | control | activities | will | eradicate | the | majority | (>75%) | of | invasive | plants | in | the | planting | ||
| areas. | If | evidence | exists | that | eradication | would | have | a | negative | effect | on | native | plant | populations, | ||
| the | City | will | consult | with | CDFW | and | RWQCB | to | find | an | appropriate | alternative. | In | addition, | any | litter |
| found | on | the | restoration | site | will | be | removed | during | each | monitoring | visit | and | disposed | of | off‐site. |
Plant Replacement
| During | the | first | 3 | years | of | the | monitoring | period, | any | replacement | plantings | that | are | required | based | |
| on | failure | to | meet | success | criteria | will | be | provided | by | the | City | and | installed | by | the | revegetation |
| contractor. | Replacement | will | include | planting | a | sufficient | number | of | plants | or | seedlings | such | that | |||
| the | total | number | of | living | plants | meets | or | exceeds | the | performance | criteria | for | percent | cover | and | |
| species | richness. | Replacement | plants | will | be | installed | according | to | the | original | plant | installation | ||||
| methods. | If, | in | any | year | during | the | 5‐year | monitoring | period, | more | than | 20% | of | plants | require | |
| replacement, | the | City | will | extend | the | monitoring | period | to | ensure | that | new | plantings | are | subject | to | 5 |
| years | of | monitoring. |
As‐Built Report and Drawings
| Pursuant | to | the | Draft | 2013 | Regional | Compensatory | Mitigation | and | Monitoring | Guidelines | for | South | ||
| Pacific | Division | (SPD | Mitigation | Guidelines), | a | letter | report | and | as‐built | drawing | will | be | submitted | to |
| USACE | and | other | regulatory | agencies | within | 60 | days | following | completion | of | construction. | The | ||
| report | will | include | the | following | information: |
Date(s) all compensatory mitigation construction activities were completed.
| Schedule | for | future | mitigation | monitoring, | implementation, | and | reporting | pursuant | to | final, |
| USACE‐ | and | Water | Board‐approved | mitigation | plan. |
| Summary | of | compliance | status | with | each | special | condition | of | the | associated | USACE | and | Water |
| Board | permit | or | verification | (including | any | noncompliance | previously | having | occurred | or | |||
| currently | occurring | and | corrective | actions | taken | to | achieve | compliance). |
| Color | photographs | of | the | aquatic | habitats | constructed | at | the | compensatory | mitigation | site | for |
| those | aspects | directly | associated | with | pre‐existing | waters | of | the | United | States. | Photos | taken |
| before | aquatic | habitat | is | constructed | shall | also | be | provided. |
One copy of the as‐built drawings as described below.
| The | as‐built | drawings | will | be | prepared | and | submitted | to | USACE | in | accordance | with | South | Pacific |
| Division | (SPD) | Map | and | Drawing | Criteria. | As‐built | drawings | will | be | provided | on | the | original | |
| construction | drawings | and | will | indicate | the | following | features. |
Extent of re‐established and rehabilitated areas (in plan view).
Extent of both cut and fill.
Spot elevations to accurately characterize the finished surfaces, including high and low points.
As‐built cross sections.
Location of any permanent markers (e.g., identification stakes, photodocumentation stations).
Seeded and planted areas.
Other pertinent features.
Any changes from the original construction drawings will be indicated in indelible red ink.
Responsible Parties
| The | City | will | be | the | responsible | entity, | financially | and | otherwise, | for | ensuring | that | all | aspects | of | this |
| MMP | are | implemented. | The | City | may | assign | this | responsibility, | in | part | or | in | full, | to | another | entity, |
| provided | that | such | assignment | will | also | assign | (in | a | legally | enforceable | manner) | the | same | |||
| implementation | responsibility. |
Chapter 5 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
| To | ensure | the | long‐term | success | of | the | restoration | effort, | it | will | be | necessary | to | monitor | the |
| condition | of | the | restoration | site | and | potentially | implement | adaptive | management1 | practices | as | the | |||
| site | develops | toward | a | sustainable | equilibrium | condition. | The | following | sections | provide | details | on | |||
| each | component | of | the | monitoring | and | adaptive | maintenance | program, | and | describe | requirements | ||||
| for | documentation | and | reporting. |
Monitoring Protocol and Performance Criteria
| During | the | 5 | years | following | planting | (or | until | the | time | the | established | success | criteria, | defined | |
| below, | are | met), | monitoring | and | adaptive | management | will | focus | on | the | physical | and | biological | ||
| development | of | the | mitigation | wetlands. | The | two | different | types | of | mitigation | wetland, | expanded | |||
| and | enhanced, | will | be | tracked | and | analyzed | separately. | Monitoring | will | occur | in | the | spring | of | each |
| calendar | year | (March | through | May, | dependent | on | rainfall) | so | that | annual | species | may | be | identified. |
| Table | 6 | summarizes | the | performance | criteria | that | will | be | used | to | evaluate | the | survival | of | wetland |
| vegetation. | These | plantings | will | be | considered | successful | if | they | meet | or | exceed | the | criteria. | Overall | |
| success | of | the | site | may | require | accepting | a | mosaic | balance | of | native | and | non‐native | vegetation. | Plant |
| communities | will | be | assessed | as | a | whole, | regardless | of | whether | they | were | planted | or | seeded. |
Physical
| To | ensure | that | the | mitigation | wetlands | are | functioning | as | physical | wetlands, | the | California | Rapid | |
| Assessment | Method | (CRAM) | will | be | used | to | perform | a | qualitative | evaluation | of | the | wetland. | In |
| addition, | the | presence | or | absence | of | hydric | soil | indicators | will | be | assessed | annually | at | several |
| locations. | Table | 6 | lists | the | physical | performance | criteria | for | the | Project | site. | Physical | performance | |
| criteria | will | be | assessed | in | years | 1, | 3, | and | 5. |
Table 6. Physical Performance Criteria
P1. CRAM Assessment P2. Hydric Soil Indicators
Year 1 Target CRAM score between 90 and 95 Presence of hydric soils
Year 3 Target CRAM score between 90 and 95 Presence of hydric soils
Year 5 Target CRAM score between 90 and 95 Presence of hydric soils
| 1 | Adaptive | management | describes | a | resource | management | style | that | embodies | change | or | modification | ||
| (“adaptation”) | in | response | to | the | outcome | of | previous | management | actions | or | to | advances | in | scientific |
| understanding. | Under | adaptive | management, | management | action | is | initiated, | results | are | monitored, | and | |||
| subsequent | management | actions | are | adjusted | for | better | outcome, | based | on | information | collected | during | ||
| monitoring | or | other | new | data. |
Performance Criteria P1: CRAM Assessment
| The | CRAM | assessment | will | follow | the | protocols | found | in | the | latest | version | of | the | California | Rapid |
| Assessment | Method | for | Wetlands: | Depressional | Wetlands | Field | Book | (San | Francisco | Estuary | Institute | ||||
| 2013). | A | pre‐Project | CRAM | analysis | will | be | performed | to | evaluate | the | baseline | condition | of | the | |
| wetland | habitats | within | the | Project | site. | The | pre‐Project | CRAM | scores | establish | the | baseline | for | ||
| comparative | purposes | during | the | monitoring | program. | Representative | assessment | areas | will | be | |||||
| established | within | the | expanded | and | enhanced | wetlands | to | measure | the | change | in | ecosystem | |||
| functions | and | services | over | the | course | of | the | 5‐year | monitoring | program. |
Performance Criteria P2: Hydric Soils
| Hydric | soil | indicators | will | be | evaluated | by | excavating | soil | pits | in | several | locations | to | approximately | ||||||
| 20 | centimeters | in | depth | and | examining | the | morphological | characteristics | of | the | soil | profile. | In | |||||||
| particular, | the | profile | will | be | examined | for | the | presence | of | those | redoximorphic | features | and | other | ||||||
| indicators | that | may | occur | in | the | soils. | Such | features | generally | include | low | chroma | colors, | soft | ||||||
| masses, | and | high | organic | matter | content. | These | features | and | indicators | are | described | in | Field | |||||||
| Indicators | of | Hydric | Soils | in | the | United | States, | Version | 7.0, | by | L. | M. | Vasilas, | G. | W. | Hurt, | and | C. | V. | Noble |
| (U.S. | Department | of | Agriculture | 2010). | If | the | soil | profile | displays | the | relevant | indicators, | the | soil | is | |||||
| regarded | as | having | met | the | criteria | for | a | hydric | soil. | Any | excavated | soil | pits | will | be | immediately | ||||
| backfilled | after | soil | examination | and | will | not | be | left | open | overnight. |
Biological
| Successful | establishment | of | wetland | vegetation | will | be | based | on | health | and | vigor | of | native, | |
| hydrophytic | wetland | species, | absolute | percent | cover | of | both | native, | hydrophytic | and | invasive | |||
| species, | and | native | plant | species | richness | (Table | 7). |
Table 7. Performance Criteria for Wetlands
B1. Absolute cover (native/invasive) B2. Heath and Vigor B3. Species Richness
Year 1 Target
| >30% | native | hydrophytic | plant |
| cover/<30% | invasive | plant | cover |
>50% in Good or Fair condition
| At | least | 2 | native |
| wetland | plant | species |
Year 2 Target
| >40% | native | hydrophytic | plant |
| cover/<25% | invasive | plant | cover |
>70% in Good or Fair condition
| At | least | 2 | native |
| wetland | plant | species |
Year 3 Target
| >50% | native | hydrophytic | plant |
| cover/<25% | invasive | plant | cover |
>75% in Good or Fair condition
| At | least | 3 | native |
| wetland | plant | species |
Year 4 Target
| >60% | native | hydrophytic | plant |
| cover/<20% | invasive | plant | cover |
>80% in Good or Fair condition
| At | least | 4 | native |
| wetland | plant | species |
Year 5 Target
| >70% | native | hydrophytic | plant |
| cover/<15% | invasive | plant | cover |
>90% in Good or Fair condition
| At | least | 5 | native |
| wetland | plant | species |
Hydrophytic Vegetation
| All | native | wetland | vegetation | will | be | evaluated | based | on | the | dominance | of | species | that | are | |
| hydrophytic, | which | is | defined | as | species | that | persist | in | inundated | landscapes. | Hydrophytic | ||||
| vegetation | is | based | on | the | wetland | indicator | status | of | a | plant | species | (Lichvar | 2013). | Species | listed |
| as | facultative | occur | in | both | wetlands | and | non‐wetlands, | and | species | listed | as | facultative | wetland | or |
| obligate | are | more | often | found | or | almost | always | found | (respectively) | in | wetlands. | These | species | |
| illustrate | wetland | functionality | because | the | hydroperiod | is | controlling | the | plant | species | assemblage. | |||
| Absolute | cover | of | native | hydrophytic | vegetation | will | be | monitored | using | the | line | transect | method | |
| described | below. |
Performance Criteria B1. Absolute Cover
| The | line | transect | survey | method | will | be | used | to | determine | absolute | cover | of | native, | hydrophytic | ||
| species | and | invasive | species. | Absolute | cover | provided | by | seeded | and | naturally | recruited | wetland | ||||
| plant | species | for | each | area | will | be | monitored | using | randomly | selected | 1‐square‐meter | quadrats | ||||
| placed | along | permanent | 100‐meter‐long | transects. | If | wetland | dimensions | do | not | accommodate | a | |||||
| 100‐meter | transect, | the | transect | length | and/or | quantity | will | be | shortened | to | the | dimensions | of | the | ||
| wetland. | Figure | 7 | illustrates | a | trend | line | based | on | plot | samples | from | a | hypothetical | data | collection. | |
| Transect | monitoring | will | identify | the | dominant | species | and | note | any | changes | in | the | dominant | |||
| species | over | the | length | of | each | transect. | Although | transect | monitoring | will | be | conducted | and | |||
| tracked | in | each | wetland, | Performance | Criteria | B1 | will | have | been | met | if | the | mean | absolute | cover | per |
| square | meter | in | the | expanded | wetlands | and | the | mean | absolute | cover | per | square | meter | in | enhanced | |
| wetlands | meets | or | exceeds | that | year’s | target. |
| Absolute | cover | of | all | plant | species, | including | invasives, | will | be | determined | by | sampling | randomly | |||
| placed | 1‐square‐meter | plots | along | the | transects | established | through | each | rehabilitation | area. | Plot | |||||
| sampling | will | be | conducted | using | a | stratified | random | design. | Transects | will | be | stratified | by | dividing | ||
| them | into | 10 | equal‐sized | subtransects. | One | 1‐square‐meter | sample | plot | will | be | placed | at | random | in | ||
| each | subtransect, | for | a | total | of | 10 | plots | per | transect. | Within | each | plot, | absolute | cover | will | be |
| estimated | for | every | plant | species. |
| To | determine | whether | the | number | of | plots | from | each | transect | is | sufficient | to | allow | statistical | ||
| analysis, | the | data | will | be | subjected | to | a | trend | line | analysis. | An | accurate | estimate | of | the | necessary |
| number | of | plots | can | be | determined | by | graphing | data | for | percent | cover | vs. | number | of | plots. | The |
| appropriate | number | of | plots | corresponds | to | the | point | at | which | the | trend | line | becomes | flat | (i.e., | |
| neither | ascending | nor | decreasing). |
| At | the | end | of | the | each | transect, | the | total | cover | of | wetland | species | will | be | calculated | for | each | plot. | |||||
| Then | the | cumulative | means | will | be | graphed | (e.g., | Plot | 1, | Plots | 1 | + | 2, | Plots | 1 | + | 2 | + | 3). | If | the | trend | line |
| for | mean | cover | across | the | 10 | plots | is | flat, | then | sampling | for | that | transect | will | be | considered | |||||||
| complete. | The | trend | line | will | be | considered | flat | if | the | difference | between | the | means | for | 9 | plots | and | ||||||
| 10 | plots | is | equal | to | or | less | than | 1% | of | the | mean | for | 10 | plots. | If | the | trend | line | is | not | flat, | five | more |
| plots | will | be | randomly | sampled | in | subtransects | 1, | 3, | 5, | 7, | and | 9. | The | cumulative | means | for | the | ||||||
| additional | five | plots | will | be | graphed, | and | again | the | trend | line | examined. | If | the | trend | line | for | mean | ||||||
| cover | has | flattened, | sampling | for | that | transect | will | be | considered | complete. | If | the | trend | line | has | still | |||||||
| not | flattened, | five | more | plots | will | be | randomly | sampled | in | subtransects | 2, | 4, | 6, | 8, | and | 10, | and |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .