Exhibit_B_Revised_Draft_MOTCO_Habitat_Restoration_Plan.11012016.pdf

Draft Habitat Restoration Plan for the Pier 2 Replacement &

Upgrade Project, Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO)

Concord, CA

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

Prepared by:

GEI-GF Joint Venture

2868 Prospect Drive, Suite 400

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Moffatt & Nichol

2185 N. California Boulevard, Suite 500

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Kjeldsen Sinnock Neudeck

1355 Halyard Drive, Suite 180

West Sacramento, CA 95691

Mosaic Associates

1690 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D

Pinole, CA 94564

November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Demolition

2.2 Modernization and Repair

2.3 Shoreside Road and Electrical Infrastructure

2.4 Habitat Restoration

3.0 BASELINE INFORMATION

3.1 Existing Conditions in Restoration Area

3.1.1 Subtidal Area

3.1.2 Intertidal Brackish Marsh Plain

3.1.3 Non-tidal Wetlands

3.2 Wetland Delineation

4.0 RESTORATION PLAN

4.1 Objectives

4.2 Project Impacts

4.2.1 Design Alternatives to Avoid or Minimize Wetland Impacts

4.3 Compensatory Mitigation Credits

4.3.1 Subtidal

4.3.2 Intertidal Brackish Marsh Wetland

4.3.3 Freshwater Emergent Wetland

4.3.4 Upland

4.4 Site Selection

5.0 RESTORATION WORK PLAN

5.1 Restoration Methods

5.1.1 Subtidal Restoration

5.1.1.1 Demolition

5.1.1.2 SAV Mitigation

5.1.2 Intertidal Brackish Marsh Restoration

5.1.2.1 Demolition and Earthwork

5.1.2.2 Soils Analysis

5.1.2.3 Native Marsh Plant Salvage and Planting

5.1.2.4 Mason’s Lilaeopsis Salvage and Planting

5.1.2.5 Containerized Plantings

5.1.2.6 Protection from Herbivores

5.1.2.7 Protection from Wave Energy and Erosion Control in Disturbed Wetlands ... 20

5.1.2.8 Restoration in 100-Foot Construction Buffer

5.1.3 Upland Restoration

5.2 Invasive Species Control

5.2.1 Invasive Plant Treatments

5.2.1.1 Perennial Pepperweed and Common Reed

5.2.1.2 Iceplant

5.2.1.3 Other Non-native Invasive Plants

5.2.1.4 Disposal of Invasive Plant Materials

5.2.1.5 Post-construction Invasive Plant Control

5.2.1.6 General Precautions on Invasive Plant Treatment

6.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

8.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

9.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT

10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN

11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

13.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

14.0 REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Impacts to Waters of the U.S

Table 2. Compensatory Mitigation Credits

Table 3. Creosote Timber Pile Removal Estimates

Table 4. Plant Palette

Table 5. Upland Restoration Seed Mix

Table 6. Invasive Plants in the Pier 2 Habitat Restoration Areas, MOTCO

Table 7. Performance Standards

Table 8. Monitoring Schedule

Table 9. Roles, Responsibilities and Schedule for Habitat Restoration Plan Tasks

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

Figure 2. MOTCO Property

Figure 3. MOTCO Habitat Restoration Area

Figure 4. Habitat Restoration Grading Plan (Figs. 4A-H) .................................. map pocket

Figure 5. Soils Map of the Restoration Area

Figure 6. Intertidal Brackish Marsh Planting Plan (Figs.6A-H) .................................. 45-52

Figure 7. Typical Detail for Rope-lines to Deter Goose Herbivory

APPENDICES

Appendix A Preliminary Wetlands Delineations

Appendix B Photographs of the Restoration Area

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) is an Army Military Surface Deployment and

Distribution Command (SDDC) munitions and general cargo transshipment facility located in

Concord, California (Figures 1 and 2). This Department of Defense (DOD) installation is the primary West Coast common-user ammunition transshipment facility and is home to the SDDC’s

834th Transportation Battalion (TRANS BN). MOTCO is in the East San Francisco Bay region, approximately 10 nautical miles inland past the Carquinez Strait that connects Suisun Bay to San

Pablo Bay. San Francisco is 30 miles to the southwest, Oakland is 20 miles to the southwest, Sacramento is 65 miles to the northeast, and the City of Concord is located approximately 5 miles south.

This document contains the MOTCO Pier 2 Habitat Restoration Plan (MOTCO P2 HRP), which has been prepared to describe compensatory habitat restoration required by the Environmental

Impact Statement for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal

Concord, CA (Department of the Army, 2015) or EIS and the Supplemental Environmental

Assessment for Pier 2 Modernization and Repair Design Changes at Military Ocean Terminal

Concord, CA (Department of the Army 2016) or SEA. The Army signed a Record of Decision

(ROD) for the EIS on April 14, 2015. Design changes adopted after the ROD was signed necessitated the preparation of the SEA. The SEA is in preparation and public review will occur in accordance with Army policy.

The MOTCO P2 HRP has been prepared consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2008 Compensatory Mitigation

Rule (USACE and EPA 2008) and the USACE Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Region (USACE 2015). In addition to fulfilling

MOTCO EIS and SEA requirements, it is also prepared to meet mitigation requirements for

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 and 401 permits for the Pier 2 project from the USACE and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as well as project-specific requirements of the March 24, 2015 Letter of Conditional Concurrence for the

Consistency Determination No. C2003.003.05 issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).

Habitat restoration described in this plan mitigates for impacts of the Pier 2 project on intertidal brackish marsh wetlands. The HRP briefly notes mitigation for impacts of the project on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and Delta smelt and salmonids, but details on SAV and federally listed fish mitigation are fully addressed in other documents and agreements.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Army proposes to modernize and repair the existing, non-functional Pier 2 at MOTCO through implementation of the Pier 2 Modernization and Repair Project. The project consists of the following components:

1. Demolition of existing Pier 2 except the East Trestle, and reconstruction of structural elements and utilities.

2. Upgrade shore-side roads and electrical infrastructure.

3. Habitat restoration along the shoreline as required by the EIS and to meet USACE and

Regional Water Quality Control Board regulatory requirements.

The project will replace the existing Pier 2 with a new platform and will replace three existing trestles with a single new trestle, reducing the existing footprint of Pier 2 by 30,942 square feet

(SF). In addition to demolition, modernization and repair of the existing Pier 2 structure, habitat restoration and shoreline protection will be implemented in the marsh and uplands between

White Road and Pier 2. Construction and demolition elements are shown on Figure 3.

Components of the project are described below.

2.1 Demolition

A considerable portion of Pier 2 will be demolished. The total estimated area for demolition is

153,667 SF of pier structure, which includes the removal of 4,395 creosote-treated timber piles ranging from 55 to 75 feet long and 254 concrete square piles approximately 70 feet long. In addition to pile removal, demolition will include removing concrete slabs, reinforcing steel, timber pile cap beams, stringers, decking boards, and asphalt. The existing west trestle, middle trestle and pedestrian trestles will be removed.

Because the main platform and west trestle are seriously degraded, demolition may be conducted from the water. In very shallow water and intertidal areas, demolition crews will use either smaller equipment that can be operated safely from the pier or amphibious equipment that can work from the adjacent mud substrate. Land-based equipment and a bin to contain the demolished materials may be used at the shoreward ends of the approaches.

Demolition will most likely begin at the western end of the main platform and proceed to the east before returning to demolish the west trestle. Debris may be trucked off over the west trestle, which may result in reduced barging of demolition debris.

Due to the 1944 Port Chicago Disaster, there may be unexploded ordnance (UXO) and other munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) located in the vicinity of the Pier 2 work.

Demolition and construction contractors will follow all scheduling, coordination, security, safety, permitting, and other matters pertinent to work accomplishment in accordance with DOD

Manual 6055.09, DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, and as directed by the

Explosive Safety Submission (ESS). As part of the proposed action, the clearance of MEC will occur within a specified and delineated work area.

Following the MEC clearance operations, pile removal will commence. Piles within the area circumscribed by a line 10 feet beyond the footprint of the new pier will be removed as much as possible, while piles outside the footprint of the new pier will be cut off 2 feet below the mud line and the portion below the mud line will be left in place.

Demolition is expected to take 7 months.

2.2 Modernization and Repair

Main Platform and West Trestle. The existing pier and west, middle and pedestrian trestles will be replaced with a modernized pier with a platform that is 95,000 SF, with access provided by the existing east trestle and the new west trestle. The west trestle will be reconstructed between the west end of the new pier and White Road.

Pile Driving. Seven hundred and ninety-three (793) 24-inch octagonal pre-stressed concrete piles will be installed to support the new pier and west trestle. Pile driving will begin approximately 7 months after the start of initial demolition, and is expected to proceed from west to east.

Approximately 134 16-inch piles will be installed along the face of the main platform.

East Trestle Rehabilitation. The existing railroad rails will be removed and the pavement surface will be removed and replaced.

2.3 Shoreside Road and Electrical Infrastructure

White Road Repairs. Repairs to White Road include raising and widening the road surface for approximately 1,350 feet to correct subsidence.

Electrical Substation. A new electrical substation will be constructed within the existing Pier 2 parking lot. New underground conduits for electrical lines will be installed in uplands along

Anderson, White and Pruitt Roads to connect with existing lines.

Shoreline Protection. Existing rock revetment along the shoreline will be removed where it is not consistent with rock slope protection (RSP) specifications and new RSP will be installed north of

White Road to protect the roadway and the Port Chicago National Memorial from erosion.

Shoreline protection RSP removal and installation is shown on Figures 4A-H.

2.4 Habitat Restoration

Habitat restoration will be accomplished in three distinct phases of work. The restoration area encompasses subtidal, intertidal brackish marsh, and upland habitats (Figure 3). The restoration also includes intertidal wetlands within the 100-foot buffer of the existing Pier 2 structure that may be disturbed during construction.

Phase 1 - Shoreline Grading and Rock Slope Protection. This work is anticipated to be done toward the end of the Pier 2 construction project in the fall of 2018 and will be performed by the

Army’s Contractor.

Phase 2 - Native Plant Salvage, Planting and Seeding, Invasive Plant Control, Maintenance, and

Monitoring and Reporting. These activities shall be performed by the Army’s Restoration

Contractor, selected to implement plant salvage, planting and seeding, invasive plant control, and establishment maintenance. Native plant salvage, planting and seeding and the initial invasive plant control will be conducted towards the end of Pier 2 construction. Invasive plant control and maintenance will continue during the five-year establishment maintenance period.

Restoration area monitoring and reporting will be conducted during the five-year establishment maintenance period following restoration implementation. Monitoring and reporting will be performed by the Army’s Restoration Ecologist, selected to identify locations for native plant salvage, manage soils analysis, monitor implementation of the MOTCO P2 HRP, and conduct performance-based monitoring and reporting during the five-year mitigation monitoring period.

The Restoration Ecologist role may be filled by USACE Landscape Architecture staff or a consultant selected by the USACE Landscape Architecture staff.

Phase 3 - Long-term Management. After performance standards described in Section 7 of this report have been achieved, long-term management of the site to ensure sustainability of the resource will be conducted by the Army.

3.0 BASELINE INFORMATION

3.1 Existing Conditions in Restoration Area

The restoration area encompasses the existing and future Pier 2 footprint and the marsh plain and uplands between the shoreline and White Road (Figure 3). Existing conditions for each habitat type in the restoration area are described below.

3.1.1 Subtidal Area

Pier 2 is located on the south side of Suisun Bay, which is an estuarine system that experiences fluctuating salinity concentrations both annually and seasonally based on upstream freshwater flow and tidal inundation. Suisun Bay represents a brackish tidal environment with variable salinities, ranging from oligohaline (0.5-5 parts per thousand [ppt]) to mesohaline (5-18 ppt) and polyhaline (18-30 ppt) (USACE 2011). Tides in Suisun Bay as elsewhere along the West Coast are mixed semidiurnal, with two high and low tides of unequal amplitude occurring approximately every 24.8 hours, and tidal amplitude increasing or diminishing concurrent with lunar cycles. The difference between the highest high tides and lowest low tides is approximately

8 feet at MOTCO. Except during periods of heavy outflows from the Delta, the dominant currents of Suisun Bay are those associated with the rising or falling tides.

The majority of deep-water subtidal habitat in Suisun Bay is comprised of unconsolidated bottom sediments. Deep bay/channel habitat is associated with the John F. Baldwin Ship

Channel which is just offshore of MOTCO (between the mainland and islands to the north) and the seaward edge of the MOTCO piers where depths are 30-40 feet below mean lower low water

(MLLW). These areas have been previously dredged, but dredging is infrequently required at the

MOTCO piers as sediment builds slowly under natural conditions. The last dredging event occurred in 1986. Soil samples taken from bottom sediments in the in-water work area yielded silt and clay with sandy components in the sampled cores (USACE 2016).

Shallow bay habitat is found inshore of Pier 2 as well as in the sheltered lees of the piers and headlands. Although not common in Suisun Bay, numerous small beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) consisting of eelgrass (Zostera marina), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata), and fineleaf pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis) have been observed in this area at MOTCO. An eelgrass resource assessment was conducted in

May 2013 (Department of Army 2015) and a pre-construction SAV survey was conducted at Pier

2 in October 2015 (Department of Army 2016). The 2015 survey recorded the presence of

California bulrush, sago pondweed, fineleaf pondweed and eelgrass in-board and to the east of

Pier 2. Sago pondweed and eelgrass occurred in waters no deeper than -6.6 feet MLLW. The presence and cover of SAV is known to vary between years; no eelgrass was observed during

SAV surveys conducted in 2013 (Department of Army 2015), while the pondweed cover was less in 2015 than what was observed in 2013.

3.1.2 Intertidal Brackish Marsh Plain

There are a number of habitats within the 8-foot height between extreme low to extreme high tides in the Pier 2 project area. Low intertidal shores and flats that are largely unvegetated and occur below mean tide level are present along the shoreline. The seaward edge of the marsh is marked by a short, steep bank, and appears to be eroding, especially outside of the pier. Brackish tidal marsh is present above the shoreline with the distribution of tidal marsh plants influenced by tidal elevation and salinity. Low-, mid- and high-tidal brackish marsh communities are found south of Pier 2. While elevations tend to drop from the uplands north of White Road, there is variability in the elevation of the marsh plain, with attendant variability in the distribution of vegetation.

Low-Tidal Brackish Marsh (3.0-3.5 feet1). The low tidal brackish marsh vegetation is characterized by several tall emergent monocot species, including common reed (Phragmites australis), hardstem tule (Schoenoplectus acutus), and California bulrush. In addition to the tall emergents, on wave-exposed consolidated mud banks there is a low-growing turf made up of dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula), low bulrush (Isolepis cernua), Delta mudwort (Limosella subulata), and Mason’s and western lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii and L. occidentalis). Mason’s lilaeopsis, has a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1 plant (rare throughout its range; significant declines over the past century).

Mid-Tidal Brackish Marsh (3.5-5.2 feet). The mid-tidal zone supports low-growing herbaceous vegetation patchily dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica), Baltic rush (the Juncus balticus-lesueurii complex), spearscale (Atriplex triangularis), jaumea

(Jaumea carnosa), creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), dodder (Cuscuta salina), arrowgrass (Triglochin spp.), and the highly invasive perennial pepperweed.

High-Tidal Brackish Marsh (4.9-6.2 feet). This zone supports perennial pepperweed, San

Francisco Bay gumplant (Grindelia stricta var.angustifolia), western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), salt marsh baccharis (Baccharis douglasii), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus), and Suisun Marsh aster (Symphyotrichum

1 Elevation ranges for low- mid- and high-tidal brackish marsh noted here are based on observations made during perennial pepperweed mapping conducted in June 2016 and do not represent minimum/maximum elevational ranges for these species.

lentum). The upland transition portion of the high marsh zone is structurally dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), Himalaya blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and fennel

(Foeniculum vulgare) where the marsh transitions to the elevated grade constructed for White

Road.

The boundary between wetlands and upland north of White Road is irregular, reflecting uneven topography and the mosaic nature of soils and vegetation where the frequency and duration of inundation and saturation can change markedly within a few inches’ elevation difference

(Figures 4A-F). The area mapped as wetland is generally middle to high brackish marsh, subject to infrequent inundation by the higher tides, but remaining saturated within the rooting zone. The most common dominants include Baltic rush, cattail, hardstem tule, common reed, California bulrush, pickleweed, salt grass and Olney’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus). The invasive perennial pepperweed is present throughout much of the marsh plain north of White Road.

Sneezeweed (Helenium bigelovii) is also present in the low to middle tidal brackish marsh.

Soil properties vary by location relative to topography, elevation and proximity to tidal inundation, and presence of fill material. White Road is built up on fill, as are the railroad tracks that cross the area and access the pier. Sandy and silty soils with varying organic and clay components are found in the marsh and uplands north of White Road (USACE 2016). Urban land (Ub) is the only soil type that has been mapped in the restoration area in the Web Soil

Survey (NRCS 2016). Urban land consists of soils impacted by non-native fill material and other development. Soil types in and near the restoration area are shown on Figure 5.

Historically, tidal brackish marshes extended from the shoreline south to areas drained and filled decades ago to support use of the site as a military facility. The diked, muted wetlands west and east of this area were historically part of the extensive brackish marsh that formed the interface between the Suisun Bay and the hilly areas to the south.

3.1.3 Non-tidal Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland is present in a man-made drainage ditch south of White Road that will be disturbed by construction. Vegetation consists of hardstem tule, narrow-leaf cattail and salt grass that is routinely cut to within inches of the ground surface to maintain positive drainage through a culvert beneath White Road. Hydrologic sources are direct precipitation, surface and subsurface runoff. Soils are classified as Urban land by NRCS.

3.1.4 Upland Habitat

Within the restoration area, upland habitat is present above the marsh plain north of White Road

(i.e. south of the intertidal brackish marsh wetlands), as well as non-native grassland south of

White Road (Figure 4). North of White Road, non-native species including perennial pepperweed, Himalaya blackberry, iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis), radish (Raphanus sativus), fennel, bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides) and annual grasses are present, as well as native coyote bush.

South of White Road there is non-native grassland, the parking lot for Pier 2 and seasonally ponded depressions in areas where drainage is impeded by the railroad tracks and/or White

Road. A linear ditch that conveys runoff from the south is located south of Pier 2. Vegetation in the non-native grassland consists of grasses and forbs adapted to disturbance, including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), rattail fescue (Festuca myuros), bristly ox-tongue, soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), sweet clover (Melilotus indicus), garden vetch

(Vicia sativa), red stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum).

Soils south of White Road are comprised of non-native fill material and area classified as Urban

Land (NRCS 2016).

Prior to the fill and drainage to support military uses on the property, low-lying areas south of

White Road supported a tidal brackish marsh.

3.2 Wetland Delineation

Two preliminary wetland delineations have been conducted to encompass the area of impacts for the Pier 2 project, including:

1. A preliminary wetland delineation was prepared in 2013 for most of the Pier 2 project area (Department of Army 2013).

2. A delineation was prepared in May 2015 in support of base-wide planning for road repairs (Department of the Army 2016, in prep.).

Together, these delineations cover the marine and terrestrial areas in which construction activities and habitat restoration for the Pier 2 project will be conducted. To date, the USACE has not made a jurisdictional determination on the delineations. These delineations are included in Appendix A. Jurisdictional features identified in these delineations are shown on Figures 4A-

F.

4.0 RESTORATION PLAN

Restoration plan objectives, project impacts, compensatory mitigation credits and site selection are described below.

4.1 Objectives

The objectives of the MOTCO P2 HRP are to:

Restore 0.71 acres of subtidal and 0.08 acres of shoreline and tidal brackish marsh habitat within areas currently occupied by Pier 2 structures.

Reduce the cover of invasive non-native plants in the tidal brackish marsh and upland buffer (upland buffer is the area between White Road and the wetland boundary to the north) to not more five percent within five years of HRP implementation.

Establish 1.32 acres of self-sustaining, native tidal marsh wetland vegetation in areas that are disturbed during construction. This includes 0.67 acres of re-establishment in wetlands impacted during construction, 0.57 acres of wetlands restored in existing uplands, and 0.08 acres of re-establishment of wetlands in areas previously shaded by trestle structures.

4.2 Project Impacts

Table 1 describes the unavoidable impacts of the project on subtidal, intertidal brackish marsh, and freshwater emergent wetland areas resulting from the Pier 2 project. Alternatives to the proposed fill of intertidal and freshwater emergent wetlands that were considered during project design are described in Section 4.2.1.

Table 1. Impacts to Waters of the U.S.

Pre-construction Site Conditions

Post-construction Site Conditions

Habitat Type Hydrology Existing fill to be removed

Activity Impact (P = permanent, T = temporary)

Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

Subtidal

(Estuarine)

Tidal 0.09 ac

Pilings

Pile installation 0.07 ac (P), fill

Subtidal

(Estuarine)

Tidal 0 RSP for west trestle abutment

0.125 ac (P), fill

Total Fill 0.195 ac (P)

Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

(Estuarine)

Tidal 0.08 ac

RSP

RSP for west trestle abutment

& shoreline protection

0.244 ac (P), fill

490 LF

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

(Estuarine)

Tidal 0 Excavation to remove perennial pepperweed & lower marsh plain in existing wetlands

0.672 ac (P), restore in place

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

(Estuarine)

Tidal 0.081

Existing trestles

Remove existing trestles

0.08 ac (P), restore in place

Freshwater

Emergent

(Palustrine)

Seasonally flooded

0 White Road repairs

0.02 ac (P), fill

Total Fill 0.264 ac (P) Existing trestles shade but do not fill waters of the U.S.

In subtidal waters, 0.09 acres of existing pilings will be removed, 0.07 acres of new pilings and

0.125 acres of RSP will be installed. In estuarine intertidal brackish marsh wetlands, 0.08 acres of existing non-conforming RSP and concrete blocks will be removed from the shoreline, and

0.242 acres of RSP will be installed to protect the shoreline, the Port Chicago National

Memorial, the new Pier 2 west abutment and White Road. White Road widening will result in the placement of 0.02 acres of granular engineered fill in freshwater marsh wetlands. The removal of the existing west, middle and pedestrian trestle structures will disturb 0.08 acres of intertidal brackish marsh during construction, but then allow the re-establishment of native marsh vegetation in areas that are currently shaded by trestle structures. Restoration of 0.572 acres of existing uplands at the upper edge of the marsh plain to tidal marsh wetlands will be accomplished by excavation and fill removal, which will also require the excavation and re-establishment of 0.672 acres of existing estuarine intertidal brackish marsh wetlands that are shoreward of the uplands that will be excavated. Perennial pepperweed will be removed from both the excavated wetlands and uplands.

4.2.1 Design Alternatives to Avoid or Minimize Wetland Impacts

Based on evaluation with respect to the specific requirements of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean

Water Act, the Army believes that the proposed project, including the MOTCO P2 HRP and associated shoreline protection plan described herein represents the Least Environmentally

Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to achieve the project purpose and need.

Alternative approaches to shoreline protection considered during the design process are described in detail in the Army’s Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application, which includes

Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis for the Modernization and Repair of

Pier 2 Military Ocean Terminal Concord (Geier & Geier Consulting, in preparation). To modernize and repair Pier 2 necessitates in-water and shoreline construction which cannot avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., including special aquatic sites (wetlands, mud flats, and vegetated shallows). Accordingly, throughout the design process, the Army has sought to avoid and minimize these impacts.

As shown in Figure 3, the new west trestle is located in the area of the shoreline with the least intertidal brackish marsh wetland habitat; alternative locations for the new west trestle would have required a greater area of wetland fill than that proposed by the project. The location, orientation, and configuration of the new west trestle minimizes the fill of waters of the U.S. and the aforementioned special aquatic sites to the extent practicable. Furthermore, the use of a single trestle rather than the three currently in existence reduces the overall trestle footprint required to meet the objectives of the project.

Alternative approaches to shoreline protection considered during the design process included the use of a seawall and the use of vegetative buffers in place of or to reduce the area of RSP in wetlands. A seawall would have entailed the construction of a vertical structure along eroding sections of the shoreline. While a seawall would have avoided some of the wetland fill included in the proposed project, it would have some notable disadvantages related to cost, safety and hydraulic effects. A seawall would be substantially more expensive in terms of materials and installation than RSP. At the new west trestle, the proposed 3:1 slope of the RSP on both sides of the abutment creates a greater horizontal separation between White Road and Suisun Bay, which would be less hazardous to motorists than a vertical plunge over a seawall in the event that a vehicle inadvertently veered off of White Road. Finally, while a seawall would protect the shoreline, it would not dissipate wave energy, which would be reflected and potentially increase erosion on sections of the shoreline adjacent to the seawall.

The proposed project includes the protection of the Port Chicago National Memorial from further erosion by wave action, which would ultimately impact the integrity of the Memorial and limit its accessibility to the public. The RSP proposed to repair and protect the eroding shoreline on the east side of the Memorial is the minimum necessary, and matches the existing RSP that is on the north and west side of the shoreline. The alternative of a seawall on the east side of the

Memorial would be inconsistent with the appearance of the shoreline and would alter and potentially impair views from the Memorial to the remnants of Pier 1, the site of the explosion during World War II. By matching the existing RSP, the proposed shoreline protection will protect the Memorial in a manner befitting its historic significance.

Vegetative buffers to protect the shoreline were also considered during design. Retreat from the eroding shoreline is not feasible due to the presence of White Road and significant infrastructure needed to meet the Army’s mission at MOTCO. Furthermore, retreat would not correct the continued erosion of the west side of the shoreline at Pier 2. The only means of creating a vegetated buffer at Pier 2 would be to expand the marsh plain to the north by discharging fill in

Suisun Bay and re-creating an expanded intertidal brackish marsh. This would substantially increase the area of intertidal brackish marsh wetland fill beyond the 0.244 acres proposed by the project.

The proposed shoreline protection minimizes the area of RSP that will be discharged in waters of the U.S. An earlier shoreline protection concept considered but subsequently rejected would have required the discharge of 0.38 acres of RSP in wetlands to protect White Road and landside infrastructure.

Alternatives to the discharge of 0.02 acres of fill in freshwater emergent wetlands south of White

Road were not practicable. To serve the reconstructed Pier 2, the elevation of the subsided portions of White Road must be restored, which results in the fill of a small area of highly disturbed wetland. In order to avoid the wetland fill, White Road would need to be shifted to the north, which would result in substantial increases in cost well out of proportion to the limited ecological value of the existing wetland to be filled.

Alternatives to the 0.264 acres of wetland fill for the project that were considered were infeasible or not practicable and potentially resulted in additional adverse effects, including the potential increase in the area of wetland fill. The Army concluded that there are no practicable alternatives to the fill required for the proposed project, and that the project constitutes the LEDPA, as required under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

4.3 Compensatory Mitigation Credits

Mitigation credits, methods of compensation, anticipated functions and a brief explanation of the rationale for the proposed mitigation are described below. Table 2 summarizes compensatory mitigation by type of habitat. Mitigation methods are further explained by habitat type in

Sections 4.3.1 – 4.3.4.

Table 2. Compensatory Mitigation

Pre-construction

Site

Conditions

Post-construction Site Conditions

Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

Habitat Type Habitat Type Hydrology Mitigation

Method/Activity

Area

Subtidal Subtidal Tidal Re-establishment/

Pier & trestle replacement

0.71 ac net increase in unshaded subtidal

Total 0.71 ac

Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

Tidal Re-establishment/ Plant native marsh species salvaged from impact areas and container native marsh plants. Remove perennial pepperweed.

0.67 ac

Upland Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

Tidal Restoration/Restore wetlands in existing uplands by removing fill, lowering elevation and restoring full tidal connectivity, removing perennial pepperweed and planting salvaged and container native marsh plants

0.57 ac

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

(unvegetated due to shading)

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

Tidal Re-establishment/

Plant salvaged and container native marsh species where trestle structures are removed

0.08 ac

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

Intertidal

Brackish Marsh

Tidal Enhancement/ 4.70 ac

Pre-construction

Site

Conditions

Post-construction Site Conditions

Control invasive exotic plants

Total 6.02 ac

Wetland Restoration Mitigation Ratio

(0.57 ac wetland restoration/0.26 ac wetland fill)

2.19

Buffer Habitat

Upland Upland N.A. Enhancement/

Control invasive exotic plants in uplands north of

White Road.

3.03 ac

Total 3.03 ac

4.3.1 Subtidal

The existing Pier 2 platform, transitions and trestles have a footprint of 3.53 acres (153,667 SF).

The proposed project will have a footprint of 2.82 acres (122,725 SF). The project will result in a net reduction in bay coverage of 0.71 acres (30,942 SF). This reduction will restore 0.71 acres of subtidal habitat, increasing the area available for SAV colonization. The Baylands Goals Project

Update (California State Coastal Conservancy 2015) recommends the protection and restoration of native eelgrass beds along the Carquinez Strait from the Carquinez Bridge to Pittsburg. With the increased unshaded bay surface resulting from the project, additional area will be available for eelgrass colonization. The increase in the area of open water is expected to be beneficial, and will support native and non-native aquatic organisms and contribute to the food web critical to native fish populations. Removal of approximately 4,500 creosote-treated timber piles will improve the quality and quantity of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular

Concern (HAPC) in Suisun Bay.

The project will also reduce the area of subtidal fill from pilings. Approximately 0.09 acres of pilings will be removed. The reconstructed pier will require installation of 0.07 ac of concrete pilings, resulting in a 0.02 acre net reduction in the area of subtidal habitat filled by pilings.

Mitigation for impacts to SAV will be accomplished through implementation of the SAV

Mitigation Plan (Department of Army 2014), which describes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for any net loss of SAV acreage attributable to the project. The 0.71-acre increase in unshaded subtidal habitat will result in an equivalent functional gain in aquatic resource conditions.

The Army has also purchased 3.7 acres of credit from the Liberty Island Conservation Bank in

Yolo County (pers. comm. Guy Romine, 7/20/2016) to mitigate for impacts to listed fish species and aquatic habitat, as stipulated by the Biological Opinions issued by NMFS (2014, Conservation Recommendation #1) and the USFWS (2015, Conservation Measure #16 for delta smelt and delta smelt critical habitat). By restoring 0.71 acres of subtidal habitat, and the purchase of 3.7 acres of credit at Liberty Island Conservation Bank, the project will fully mitigate for the unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources during and after construction. Subtidal habitat restoration will be accomplished through the demolition of the existing Pier 2 structures, removal of existing piles, and reduction in the area of structural fill and shading in Suisun Bay.

The project will increase the area of unshaded subtidal habitat by 0.71 acres through the removal of existing structures and replacement with a new platform and west trestle that will have a smaller footprint.

4.3.2 Intertidal Brackish Marsh Wetland

Restoration of this habitat will be accomplished through the removal of structures and the excavation of existing wetlands and uplands north of White Road to remove dense stands of the invasive perennial pepperweed. Excavation of these areas will restore a marsh plain with elevations of 3.0-4.0 feet that will be subject to tidal inundation (MHW is at 4.4 feet; datum is

Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)) and will support the development of native brackish marsh vegetation. These elevations have been selected to reduce suitability of the restored marsh plain for colonization of perennial pepperweed, which achieves higher cover above elevation 4.1 feet, based on the elevations of mapped dominant (>50% cover) and sub-dominant (15-50% cover) stands of this species in the restoration area (Figures 4A-F). Control of perennial pepperweed in proximity to marsh-upland transition zones, in high-elevation marsh and in tidal marsh restoration generally are identified as desired actions with habitat and wildlife benefits in the

Baylands Goals Update (California State Coastal Conservancy 2015). Wetlands disturbed during construction will be planted with native brackish marsh plants that are present in the existing marsh. Native brackish marsh species that are dominant between elevations 3.0 and 4.0 feet, including hardstem tule, California bulrush, Baltic rush, Olney’s bulrush, and pickleweed, as well as other species will be salvaged and replanted in the restored marsh plain. In addition to salvaged plant materials, custom-grown containerized stock will be planted and natural recruitment of marsh species is also expected from adjacent, undisturbed areas of existing marsh.

Compensatory mitigation for impacts of the project on intertidal brackish marsh wetlands includes the re-establishment of 0.67 acres of wetlands in wetlands disturbed during construction, re-establishment of 0.08 acres of wetlands where trestle structures are removed,

0.57 acres of wetland restoration by removing fill from existing uplands, and the enhancement of wetlands and uplands north of White Road through the control of invasive plants. The project proposes a wetland restoration mitigation ratio of 2.19 (0.57 acres of wetland restoration/0.26 acres of wetland fill). In aggregate, 6.02 acres of combined wetland re-establishment, restoration and enhancement, as well as 3.03 acres of buffer enhancement are proposed as compensatory mitigation.

While the project requires the fill of 0.26 acres of intertidal brackish marsh wetlands, the project results in a net gain of 0.31 acres of brackish marsh wetlands.

The compensatory wetland mitigation will reduce fragmentation between existing wetlands that are currently separated by uplands or structures. These wetlands will increase the area that functions as a circulatory system for water, oxygen, sediment and nutrient and detrital transport into Suisun Bay, which will be beneficial for the life functions of native fish and aquatic wildlife.

Restoration will increase the area of habitat suitable for nesting, foraging, nursery, and refuge by a variety of fish and wildlife. Conversion of existing wetlands and uplands that are presently dominated by perennial pepperweed will increase the area and ecological value of the marsh for native flora and fauna.

4.3.3 Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Improvements to White Road will result in the permanent fill of 0.02 ac. of freshwater emergent wetlands in an existing man-made ditch. Mitigation for the loss of wetlands due to White Road construction will be accomplished through the intertidal brackish marsh restoration noted above.

The area south of White Road was historically a brackish marsh, which was filled and diked to support military operations, therefore compensatory mitigation through the restoration of an expanded area of brackish marsh is appropriate.

4.3.4 Upland

Upland habitats disturbed during construction will be reseeded with a native seed mix.

4.4 Site Selection

Alternatives considered in the design of Pier 2 are addressed in the EIS and SEA prepared for the project. Given the location of the existing facilities which have been in use since 1944, the water-dependent nature of the project, and the need to replace the aging Pier 2 with a structure that meets the current needs of the Army, off-site alternatives were not feasible.

The tidal marsh restoration described in this plan is proposed because it will restore wetland ecological functions to areas that are currently occupied by structures, are proximate to construction activities and can be feasibly accomplished to ensure the establishment of an expanded self-sustaining brackish marsh that has full tidal connectivity. The marsh plain north of

White Road will be accessible to equipment needed to accomplish the earthwork required during construction, and the proximity of the restored marsh to White Road will ensure that planting, weed control and monitoring is feasible following the completion of construction. Finally, the project will also reduce the cover of the invasive perennial pepperweed and increase the area of tidal marsh wetland. The proposed tidal marsh restoration at the project site will ensure no net loss of wetlands and will contribute to regional goals to conserve and enhance brackish tidal wetlands in Suisun Bay.

5.0 RESTORATION WORK PLAN

Restoration will be accomplished within the subtidal and intertidal wetland areas shown on

Figures 3, 4 and 6. A detailed description of the construction methods, timing, sequence, methods of plant establishment and post-construction management is provided herein. A schedule for HRP implementation is provided in Section 13. Avoidance, minimization and compensation measures adopted in the SEA and EIS to ensure that construction activities do not adversely affect sensitive resources will be observed during restoration activities.

5.1 Restoration Methods

5.1.1 Subtidal Restoration

Restoration in the subtidal zone will be accomplished by the demolition of existing structures and the net reduction in fill and shading in this zone following construction of the new Pier 2 platform and west trestle.

5.1.1.1 Demolition

Creosote-Treated Timber Piles to be Extracted/Cut. It is anticipated that the existing creosote-treated timber piles within the footprint of the new pier and for a distance of 10 feet outside of the new pier footprint will be extracted. Piles that are outside the footprint of the new pier would be cut off two feet below the mud line and the portion below the mud line would be left in place.

Table 3 details pile removal estimates. These estimates are based on best available data and include an approximate five percent margin of error. More accurate estimates will not be available until after the construction contractor has conducted a pre-construction survey.

Table 3. Creosote Timber Pile Removal Estimates

Method Numbers

Extractions 2,053

Cuts 2,352

Total 4,395

Demolition Timeline and Operations. The demolition will most likely begin at the western end of the main platform and proceed east before returning to demolish the west trestle. Debris may be trucked off over the west trestle, which may result in reduced barging of demolition debris.

The estimated Pier 2 demolition schedule is 7 months. It is anticipated the west trestle will be used for 6 months while demolition is taking place; under this concept, the west trestle can be used for access in lieu of some or all barging.

5.1.1.2 SAV Mitigation

No planting or seeding will be undertaken in the restored subtidal zone. The restoration of 0.71 acres of subtidal habitat resulting from the reduced footprint of the pier and trestles is expected to result in an increase in the area of SAV in the Pier 2 area due to colonization of SAV and bulrush in areas previously shaded by structures. The SAV Mitigation Plan (Department of Army 2014) describes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for any net loss of SAV acreage attributable to the project. If a net loss of SAV is detected, the SAV Mitigation Plan will be implemented. The first component of SAV mitigation would be met by the net reduction in covered surface resulting from reconstruction of Pier 2. If additional SAV mitigation is needed, the Army would remove unused waterfront structures at the MOTCO installation. Removal of these structures would expose approximately 0.21 acres of unshaded area and 0.02 acres of unoccupied bottom surface, making these areas available for SAV colonization.

5.1.2 Intertidal Brackish Marsh Restoration

5.1.2.1 Demolition and Earthwork

Demolition to remove the existing trestles, rock, pavement and railroad lines, utilities and other improvements inboard of the shoreline will be accomplished with the use of land-based equipment, including low-ground pressure excavators and backhoes. Earthwork will be timed to coincide with tidal cycles to ensure that the work area will not be inundated while grading is underway.

Grading to remove perennial pepperweed and restore the wetland marsh plain will be conducted concurrent with the structure removal noted above. Existing wetlands and uplands in the areas shown on Figures 4A-H will be excavated with the use of low-ground pressure equipment, with up to six feet of soil and vegetative matter excavated and removed from the site. Excavation will be conducted to remove pepperweed roots and the seedbank in the treated areas and to restore marsh elevations to ensure tidal circulation in the restored areas of the marsh. Equipment will access the restoration area from White Road. The two percent design slope of the restored marsh plain is not expected to be vulnerable to erosion from tidal or upland sources. Vegetation established on the marsh plain will help stabilize soils exposed during earthwork. The RSP will protect the roadway embankment above the marsh plain.

Portions of the excavated and restored marsh may become subtidal in the coming decades due to sea level rise but restoring a marsh that continues to function as a middle to high brackish marsh over the next 50 years would necessarily require elevations that are favored by perennial pepperweed. Therefore, the design elevations in the excavated portions of the marsh are those that were determined to be less favorable for the growth of perennial pepperweed but will continue to support tall emergent monocots and halophytes native to the marsh in the decades to come.

Earthwork for land-based structure removal and excavation for pepperweed removal and restoration of the marsh plain in the pepperweed removal areas is expected to be accomplished after pier construction and during construction of White Road improvements.

5.1.2.2 Soils Analysis

Analysis of the suitability of soils to support the establishment of native marsh plants in the areas to be excavated has not been conducted. The Restoration Ecologist will collect and have a soils laboratory with experience in analyzing soils for brackish marsh restoration projects analyze four composite samples from the excavated portions of the marsh plain and four composite samples from intact areas of the marsh plain. Standard pre-planting analysis of chemical suitability, salinity, available nutrients, texture and organic matter content will be conducted, with comparisons between samples collected from the excavated and intact portions of the marsh. The soils laboratory will provide recommendations on amendments if the results indicate that soils in the excavated areas of the marsh exhibit soil properties that would impair native plant establishment or promote exotics. If soil amendment is determined to be warranted, it would be implemented by the Restoration Contractor prior to planting.

5.1.2.3 Native Marsh Plant Salvage and Planting

Areas disturbed during trestle removal and excavation will be replanted with native wetland plants common to the marsh plain north of White Road that are salvaged from the wetland portion of the area to be excavated as well as custom-grown containerized stock (Figures 6A-E).

Planting will aid in the establishment of native cover that will be resistant to the dominant colonization of the site by invasive non-natives. In addition to planted materials, natural recruitment of native plants including pickleweed, jaumea, Baltic rush, hardstem tule, California and low bulrush, saltgrass, alkali heath, gumplant and other species are expected to colonize the marsh plain during the five-year monitoring period.

Prior to construction activities between the shoreline and White Road, the Restoration Ecologist will identify and mark locations in the marsh plain where native plant salvage will be conducted.

The general locations of plant salvage are identified on Figures 6A and 6E.

Native plant salvage sites must meet the following criteria:

Located in or adjacent to portions of the marsh plain that will be disturbed during construction;

Native vegetative cover is greater than 75%;

Absence of perennial pepperweed;

Located in wetland (See Figures 6A-F for wetland boundary);

Accessible to equipment (small backhoe, excavator, skidsteer);

Support any or all of the following species (other native marsh species are also acceptable):

o Hardstem tule (Schoenoplectus acutus) o California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) o Cattail (Typha latifolia) o Olney’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus).

o Dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula) o Low bulrush (Isolepis…