Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Goleta Beach Park Bridge...

Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Goleta Beach Park Bridge Replacement Project, Santa Barbara County, California

05-SB-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO-5951 (120)

Prepared for:

County of Santa Barbara Department of Public Works

Prepared by:

SWCA Environmental Consultants

February 2015

Goleta Beach Park Bridge Replacement Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

05-SB-0-CR

Federal Project Number BRLO-5951 (120)

Prepared for:

County of Santa Barbara Department of Public Works

123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Attn: Charlie Elbert, County Project Manager (805) 568-3123

Prepared by:

Travis Belt, Senior Biologist

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-7095 www.swca.com

SWCA Project No. 26967

February 2, 2015

Goleta Beach Park Bridge Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

SWCA Environmental Consultants i

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 2.1 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ............................................... 1 2.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 1 2.3 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 2.4 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS TO BE IMPACTED BY HABITAT TYPE .................................. 4

2.4.1 Sarcocornia Pacifica Herbaceous Alliance (Southern Coastal Salt Marsh) ........................ 5 2.4.2 Restored Southern Bluff Scrub ........................................................................................... 5

3 GOALS OF THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROJECT ................................................ 6 3.1 SOUTHERN BLUFF SCRUB RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ................................ 6 3.2 SOUTHERN COASTAL SALT MARSH RESTORATION AND EXPANSION ..................... 9

3.2.1 Restore Tidal Flow and Estuarine Functions to Adjacent Wetlands ................................... 9 3.3 TIME LAPSE BETWEEN JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS AND EXPECTED

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SUCCESS .......................................................................... 9

4 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARILY IMPACTED AREAS ..................................................... 11 4.1 SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................................... 11 4.2 SOUTHERN COASTAL BLUFF SCRUB HYDRAULIC MULCH SEEDING ...................... 11 4.3 SOUTHERN COASTAL BLUFF SCRUB PLANTING ........................................................... 11 4.4 IRRIGATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 12 4.5 SOUTHERN COASTAL SALTMARSH RESTORATION...................................................... 13

4.5.1 Coastal Salt Marsh Material Salvage ................................................................................ 13 4.5.2 Coastal Salt Marsh Seed Collection and Propagation ....................................................... 14 4.5.3 Coastal Salt Marsh Material Planting ............................................................................... 14

5 ENHANCEMENT/EXPANSION OF EXISTING HABITATS ..................................................... 14 5.1 SOUTHERN COASTAL BLUFF SCRUB ENHANCEMENT................................................. 14 5.2 SOUTHERN COASTAL SALT MARSH ................................................................................. 15

5.2.1 Tidal Flow Restoration Project ......................................................................................... 15

6 MAINTENANCE PLAN.................................................................................................................... 15 6.1 WATERING ............................................................................................................................... 16 6.2 WEED CONTROL AND HERBICIDE USE ............................................................................ 16 6.3 DEBRIS REMOVAL AND VANDALISM ............................................................................... 16 6.4 REPLANTING ........................................................................................................................... 19

7 MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 19 7.1 MONITORING SCHEDULE..................................................................................................... 19 7.2 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SUCCESS CRITERIA............................. 19 7.3 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................................................ 20

7.3.1 Coastal Bluff Scrub Planting Percent Survival ................................................................. 20 7.3.2 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Planting Percent Cover ....................................................... 20


SWCA Environmental Consultants ii

7.3.3 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh and Tidal Flow Restoration in Adjacent Wetland .............. 21 7.3.4 Percent Cover Non-native Species .................................................................................... 21 7.3.5 Other Attributes to Monitor .............................................................................................. 22

7.4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................. 22 7.4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................................................... 22 7.4.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................... 22 7.4.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board ............................................................................ 22 7.4.4 California Coastal Commission ........................................................................................ 23

8 COMPLETION OF MITIGATION ................................................................................................. 23 8.1 NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION ....................................................................................... 23

9 CONTINGENCY MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 23

10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 24

Figures Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project Location Map .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Project Planting Plan ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Map of Estimated Tidal Inundation Following Culvert Replacement ......................................... 17

Tables Table 1. Impact and Mitigation Summary .................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Estimated Mitigation and Monitoring Schedule ............................................................................. 9 Table 3. Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Container Plant Palette .................................................................. 12 Table 4. Coastal Saltmarsh Salvage and Planting Palette ........................................................................... 14 Table 5. Annual Performance Standards ..................................................................................................... 20

Attachments Attachment A. Habitat and Jurisdictional Impacts Maps Attachment B. Tidal Flow Restoration Map and Data Sheet Attachment C. USACE Monitoring Report Guidelines


SWCA Environmental Consultants 1

1 INTRODUCTION This Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) has been prepared to mitigate project impacts within U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Coastal Commission (CCC) jurisdictions that will result from the Goleta Beach Park Bridge Replacement Project (project). The HMMP structure follows guidelines presented in the Checklist for Compensatory Mitigation Proposals, dated June 10, 2008, and the Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, dated April 10, 2008.

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Responsible Parties and Financial Assurances As the project applicant, the party responsible for meeting the mitigation obligation pursuant to the special conditions of the Clean Water Act and State agency permitting is:

County of Santa Barbara Department of Public Works 123 Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

The County of Santa Barbara Department of Public Works (County) will conduct the project with financial assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Bridge Program (HBP). Through FHWA programs and internal funds, the County has the financial and technical means to implement this HMMP and any required contingency actions. The need to establish a performance bond for the actions outlined in this HMMP or any subsequent contingency measure is not anticipated at this time. The site is located within a County-owned right-of-way; therefore, a third-party conservation easement or other site protection measures are not necessary.

2.2 Location of Project The proposed project is located in coastal Santa Barbara County, immediately east of the Santa Barbara Airport, and at the entrance to Goleta Beach Park (refer to Figures 1 and 2). Specifically, the project site is located at and adjacent to the Sandspit Road crossing over Goleta Slough. Sandspit Road is a two-lane road that provides access to Goleta Beach Park from State Route (SR) 217.

2.3 Project Summary The County proposes to replace the existing Bridge 51C-0158 over the Goleta Slough. Bridge 51C-0158 is eligible for replacement under the FHWA HBP in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the County. The existing bridge is a total of 34 feet wide and consists of two 12-foot lanes with two 2-foot shoulders and two 3-foot sidewalks. The existing piles that support the bridge are in a degrading condition due to reactive aggregate, which has reduced the load capacity of the bridge.

The proposed project will replace the existing bridge on a new alignment, west of the existing crossing. The bridge replacement on a new alignment will allow the existing bridge to remain in service during the construction of the new bridge. The new bridge and roadway approaches will provide two traffic lanes, shoulders, a sidewalk, and a bike lane for a total width of 53.5 feet. The realignment of the park access will require modifications to the Coastal Route bike path, relocation of utilities, and changes to the landscaping.



Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map



Figure 2. Project Location Map



The vertical profile along Sandspit Road is fixed due to the SR 217 overcrossing to the west and the northbound on- and off-ramps to the east. In addition, only minor vertical increases are desirable on the Goleta Beach Park side of the proposed bridge due to heavy pedestrian use. As a result of these vertical restrictions, the new bridge profile will need to conform closely to existing grades on each approach. Therefore, the new bridge will not be able to clear span the slough. A multi-span bridge with intermediate supports will be constructed within the banks of the slough in order to provide an at-grade bridge crossing. Permanent fills would be required within the slough banks behind the abutments in order to construct the new bridge approach.

The new bridge will be placed on cast-in-drill-hole (CIDH) concrete piles. CIDH installation would utilize crane and “wet” construction methods with slurry to keep the hole open until the concrete is poured. If the hole collapses while drilling, the contractor may install temporary or permanent casings. If a permanent casing is used, the contractor may grout the bottom of the casing in place. If used, the permanent casing would not extend above the scour line so it would not be visible after construction. After the casing is set, the contractor would drill material out through the middle of the casing.

Drilling slurry would be added to the hole as the drilling occurs. This viscous fluid stabilizes the hole and reduces caving. Drilled soil material saturated with slurry will be collected and disposed of off-site. After the hole is completely drilled and filled with slurry, the contractor would place a steel reinforcing cage in the hole. The contractor would then insert a tremie pipe to the pile tip and start pumping concrete into the bottom of the pile. As the concrete displaces the slurry, the slurry will be pumped out of the top of the hole into a baker tank and contained. Water in the baker tank will be treated and used as dust control or disposed of off-site.

The contractor will need access into the slough to install new CIDH piles and remove the existing bridge. Access may be achieved by temporarily diverting water through or around the work area and constructing a temporary access path into the slough channel. Water diversion may use a combination of cofferdams, pipes, sand bags, and temporary fill. Driven sheet piling with impact hammers for cofferdam construction will not be allowed; however, sheet piles may be vibrated into place while constructing the cofferdams.

The new CIDH piles, would be located just inside the wetted channel (depending on tidal influence), necessitating the installation of a temporary access path. The temporary access path would be located adjacent to the proposed bridge, traverse the slough bank, enter the slough channel, and extend under the proposed and existing bridges. The contractor may place clean crushed rock into the slough in order to create the temporary path and construct the CIDH piles that are just inside the wetted channel. All temporary fill associated with the creek diversion and the access path would be removed after construction is complete.

Equipment anticipated to be used in the construction of the new bridge includes excavators, dozers, cranes, dump trucks, concrete trucks, concrete pumps, and potentially vibrating or oscillating hammers. Removal of the existing bridge will require excavators, hoe rams, cranes, and dump trucks. Construction of the new bridge and demolition of the existing bridge is anticipated to be completed within one construction season spanning from May 1 to December 1.

2.4 Jurisdictional Areas to be Impacted by Habitat Type SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared a Jurisdictional Waters Assessment (SWCA 2013) and a Natural Environmental Study (SWCA 2014) for the project. The findings of these reports concluded that the jurisdictional areas to be impacted largely consist of open water, southern coastal salt marsh, and restored southern coastal bluff scrub habitats. As proposed, the project would result in 1.11 acres of temporary and permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. and the state.



Impact calculations are based on project plans provided by Quincy Engineering dated July 10, 2012. All jurisdictional areas that would be filled or otherwise replaced with a structure, or permanently altered from its current condition, were considered to be subject to permanent impacts. Permanent impacts were applied to the proposed bridge approaches, CIDH concrete piles, and abutments. Temporary impacts include all jurisdictional areas that are subject to temporary disturbance, but are expected to be returned to their current condition following project completion. Temporary impact areas include but are not limited to the estimated dewatering area, the estimated temporary access road, areas located under the proposed bridge but not subject to permanent impacts, and the bore pads for the culvert replacement. Temporary impact estimations were based on the following impact buffers: 1) 20 feet in all areas surrounding the proposed bridge, 2) 50 feet from the proposed bridge for dewatering and temporary access, 3) 40 feet surrounding existing bridge for bridge removal. Two maps showing the impact areas to habitats and jurisdictional areas are provided in Attachment A. Discussions of the existing habitats to be impacted are included below. Table 1 provides a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation.

Table 1. Impact and Mitigation Summary

Jurisdiction Permanent Impacts

Temporary Impacts

Area Needed for Mitigation

Proposed Mitigation Strategy

USACE Wetland 35.2 ft2 / 0.001 ac

5,510.1 ft2 / 0.13 ac

17,423.9 ft2 / 0.40 ac.

Restore 0.331 ac of coastal bluff scrub

Restore 0.254 ac of coastal salt marsh

Enhance 0.687 ac of coastal bluff scrub

Enhance 0.346 ac of coastal salt marsh

2.273 ac of tidal flow restoration and estuarine enhancement

USACE Other Waters 0.0 ft2 / 0.0 ac

9,336.6 ft2 / 0.23 ac

30,056.2 ft2 / 0.69 ac

CDFW/RWQCB/CCC Waters of the State

6,773.6 ft2 / 0.16 ac

25,573.3 ft2 / 0.59 ac

111,948.3 ft2 / 2.57 ac

Total 6,808.8 ft2 / 0.16 ac

41,381.7 ft2 / 0.95 ac

159,428.4 ft2 / 3.66 ac

Note: ft2 = square feet, ac = acres

2.4.1 Sarcocornia Pacifica Herbaceous Alliance (Southern Coastal Salt Marsh)

This salt marsh vegetative cover is often seen along the intertidal shores of bays and estuaries. This habitat is characterized by highly productive, herbaceous, salt-tolerant hydrophytes, in hydric soils subject to regular tidal inundation by salt water for at least part of each year (Holland 1986). The salt marsh vegetation within the project area occurs in the slough channel, in patches between the various roadways, and in patches in an adjacent wetland that is enclosed by the cloverleaf interchange parcel.

Associates of this community observed in the project study area include Pacific swampfire (Sarcocornia pacifica), western marsh rosemary (Limonium californicum), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and marsh jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). The proposed project is anticipated to result in 35.2 square feet of permanent impacts and 0.13 acres of temporary impacts to salt marsh vegetation, which constitutes USACE jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the state.

2.4.2 Restored Southern Bluff Scrub Due to past disturbances and restoration of the slough banks, the vegetation on the slough banks does not fit the description of any vegetation alliances as described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer,



et al. 2009). However, it does support associates of the Encelia californica Shrubland Alliance. For the purposes of this HMMP, the vegetation cover on the slough banks has been labeled Restored Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub. This is largely due to its similarities with Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub as defined in Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). This cover type consists of low scrubs (less than 2 meters tall) in areas exposed to winds with high salt content (Holland 1986). Shrub species observed in the study area include quail bush (Atriplex lentiformis var. breweri), California encelia (Encelia californica), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coastal golden yarrow (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), coast morning glory (Calystegia macrostegia), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Due to the close proximity to the slough, hydrophytic species such as alkali heath and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) are intermixed among the scrub associates. The project is anticipated to result in 0.15 acres of permanent impacts and 0.23 acres of temporary impacts to restored southern bluff scrub. These impacts are largely outside of USACE jurisdiction but within state regulated waters.

3 GOALS OF THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROJECT

The goals of this mitigation project include: 1) to ensure that permanent impacts do not result in a net loss of wetlands; 2) to replace southern coastal bluff scrub and salt marsh vegetation that is temporarily impacted; 3) to enhance and expand existing southern coastal bluff scrub and salt marsh vegetation in the project area; and 4) restore tidal ebb and flow in the adjacent wetland.

This HMMP provides for on-site and in-kind mitigation for temporary impacts at a 3:1 ratio; and on-site and in-kind habitat enhancement/expansion for permanent impacts at a 5:1 ratio. Restoration of temporarily impacted areas will focus on restoring disturbed areas with the appropriate vegetation (refer to Figure 3). Mitigation for permanent impacts will include habitat enhancement and expansion of southern coastal salt marsh and southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Mitigation activities will be conducted in the Goleta Slough channel, on the slough banks, and in an adjacent but hydrologically connected wetland.

The County will retain a qualified habitat restoration specialist to oversee the implementation of this HMMP and monitor the efficacy of the mitigation efforts. The habitat restoration specialist and landscape contractor may or may not be from the same firm. The County’s restoration specialist will utilize the project site plan (refer to Figure 3) and appropriate project plans when staking the mitigation areas and detailing plant locations. The restoration specialist will oversee all site preparations, plant salvage, and plant installation, and will ensure conformity with this HMMP.

3.1 Southern Bluff Scrub Restoration and Enhancement Southern bluff scrub occurs on the banks of the Goleta Slough and will be subject to 0.15 acres of permanent impacts and 0.23 acres of temporary impacts. To mitigate these impacts, the County will restore 0.331 acres of temporarily impacted southern bluff scrub and enhance 0.687 acres of existing southern coastal bluff scrub. Southern coastal bluff scrub restoration activities will focus on replacing existing southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation that is impacted by project activities. The temporary impact areas will be stabilized, seeded, and replanted with southern coastal bluff scrub associates. Southern coastal bluff scrub enhancement will occur in areas within the BSA that are not impacted by project activities. Habitat enhancement will focus on removing non-native species from existing southern bluff scrub habitat and reintroducing southern bluff scrub associates in areas supporting non-native vegetation. Figure 3 identifies the coastal bluff scrub restoration and enhancement areas.



Figure 3. Project Planting Plan



This page intentionally left blank.



3.2 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Restoration and Expansion Southern coastal salt marsh occurs on the margins of the Goleta Slough channel and in an adjacent wetland located in a parcel immediately north of the bridge. Project activities are expected to result in 35.2 square feet of permanent impacts and 0.13 acres of temporary impacts to southern coastal salt marsh vegetation. To mitigate these impacts, the County will restore 0.254 acres of temporarily impacted salt marsh vegetation and enhance 0.346 acres of existing southern coastal salt marsh.

Salt marsh restoration will be accomplished by salvaging and propagating salt marsh plant species from the work area. Following construction completion the salvaged materials will be reintroduced into the temporary impact areas. Coastal salt marsh habitat will be enhanced by conducting exotic species and urban debris control in existing salt marsh habitat.

3.2.1 Restore Tidal Flow and Estuarine Functions to Adjacent Wetlands

The County proposes to restore the tidal flow to the adjacent wetland which will enhance estuarine functions and promote the expansion of southern coastal salt marsh vegetation in the biological study area. The County will restore the tidal flow into and out of the adjacent wetland by replacing a broken and slopping existing 24-inch culvert that connects the slough channel to the wetland and grading a low tide channel at the culvert opening (refer to Figure 3). The goal of the culvert replacement is to allow a sufficient amount of tidal ebb and flow in the parcel to improve estuarine functions and promote the expansion of salt marsh vegetation. .

3.3 Time Lapse between Jurisdictional Impacts and Expected Compensatory Mitigation Success

Project construction is proposed to begin in May and is expected to be completed by fall of the year after the project is approved. Implementation of this HMMP will begin upon completion of all grading within the mitigation and restoration areas. Plant salvage activities are anticipated to occur in the fall and early winter the year prior to construction activities. The mitigation project is expected to attain the described success criteria within 5 years of project completion. Table 2 provides the projected schedule for project activities.

Table 2. Estimated Mitigation and Monitoring Schedule

IMPLEMENTATION TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Collect California saltbush, matscale, and western marsh rosemary seed. Salvage coastal salt marsh material prior to site disturbance.

X X X X

Propagate plant materials X X X X X X X X X X X X

Construction activities X X X X X X

Prepare planting areas X

Apply seed, install plantings X X X

Construction completion report X



Table 2. Estimated Mitigation and Monitoring Schedule

FIRST YEAR TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Watering (as necessary) X X X X X X X X X X

Weed control and debris removal X X X X X

Collect tidal data in adjacent wetland X X X

General site monitoring X X X X X X

Biological monitoring data collection X

Annual report X

SECOND YEAR TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Watering (as necessary) X X X X X X X



General site monitoring X X X X


Annual report X

THIRD YEAR TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Watering (as necessary) X X X X X X




Aerial image of adjacent wetland X


Annual report X

FOURTH YEAR TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Weed control and debris removal X X X




Annual report X

FIFTH YEAR TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Weed control and debris removal X X X


General site monitoring X X

Aerial image of adjacent wetland X


Mitigation completion report X



4 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARILY IMPACTED AREAS Temporarily impacted areas include those areas that will be physically disturbed by project activities, but can be revegetated (refer to Figure 3). It is anticipated that these areas will be cleared of all existing vegetation resulting in a bare substrate. The following discussions include the methods proposed for restoring the southern coastal bluff scrub and the southern coastal saltmarsh vegetation in the areas that will be temporarily impacted. Southern coastal bluff scrub and southern coastal salt marsh are two very different habitat types; therefore, methods that are specific to each habitat are discussed separately.

4.1 Site Preparation Preparation of temporarily impacted areas will consist of a mixed effort that utilizes both on-site construction equipment and small hand tools. Construction equipment will be used to mechanically shape temporarily impacted areas to achieve the desired topography. After the desired topography is achieved, the soil surface will be track-walked horizontal to the slope surface. Small hand tools will be used to facilitate installation of erosion control devices and restoration plantings.

4.2 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Hydraulic Mulch Seeding Once the desired topography is achieved and appropriate erosion control measures are installed, the County’s restoration contractor will utilize hydraulic seeding methods to apply a compost blanket with an erosion control seed mix consisting of the following species:

bush sunflower (Encelia californica) California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) California brome (Bromus carinatus) coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii) coastal morning glory (Calystegia macrostegia) giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus) small fescue (Vulpia microstachys)

The seed mix will be applied to all temporarily disturbed areas that are above the mean high tide line of the Goleta Slough and the banks of the adjacent wetland. The identified seed mix will be purchased from a reputable seed supplier and should be applied at the suppliers recommended rates. For soil stabilization, a hydraulically applied mulch will be included with the seed mix.

4.3 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Planting Upon completion of the site preparation and seeding, the County’s contractors will install southern coastal bluff scrub container plants. The container plants will be purchased from a local nursery that grows from locally collected seed. Table 3 provides the species palette to be used in the restoration project. Horticultural cultivars of these species are not acceptable for the restoration project. The identified native plant species were chosen because they are known to occur in or near the project area, they are common associates of southern bluff scrub communities, they are commercially available, and they provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape.



Table 3. Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Container Plant Palette

Common Name Scientific Name Material / Spacing Number

to be Planted

Comment

lemonade berry Rhus integrifolia 1 gallon / 8 feet on-center

45

Horticultural cultivars of these species are not acceptable for the restoration project. Planted in random distribution (not rows). These species should be distributed in a patchy mosaic that emulates natural distribution. Spacing is provided to assist in developing a materials inventory.

seacliff buckwheat Eriogonum parvifolium

1 gallon / 4 feet on-center

50

quail bush Atriplex lentiformis 1 gallon / 8 feet on-center

30

bush sunflower Encelia californica 1 gallon / 4 feet on-center

60

California sagebrush

Artemisia californica 1 gallon / 4 feet on-center

60

mugwort Artemisia douglasiana

1 gallon / 4 feet on-center

60

creek clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 1 gallon / grouped with other

shrubs

18

coast morning glory

Calystegia macrostegia

1 gallon / grouped with other

shrubs

30

giant wild rye Leymus condensatus

1 gallon / grouped in few

groupings

20

The following guidelines will be considered during the container plant installation:

The County’s restoration specialist will ensure that the container plants are placed in a mosaic that emulates natural patterns.

All planting holes should be equal the depth and 0.5 times the width of the plant rootball.

The soil in each planting hole should be saturated prior to planting.

The planting should be installed so that the backfill can be pressed firm around the rootball and watered; the crown of the rootball should be at or above the surrounding finish grade.

A watering basin should be created around the plant rootball.

4.4 Irrigation Plan The natural water source for the project site is the Goleta Slough and ambient rainfall. These natural sources will be insufficient to establish the coastal bluff scrub plantings during the first 3 years of the project. Therefore, a drip irrigation system will supply supplemental water to the planted coastal bluff scrub materials on the slough banks during the 3-year maintenance period. The drip irrigation system will be installed as part of the bridge project. Water supply for the irrigation system will be delivered via an existing water source at the adjacent park.



4.5 Southern Coastal Saltmarsh Restoration The coastal saltmarsh habitat in the project area is an important wetland resource. The saltmarsh vegetation constitutes USACE jurisdictional wetlands and supports several Local Plant Species of Concern. The Goleta Slough Management Committee considers California saltbush (Atriplex californica), matscale (Atriplex watsonii), western marsh rosemary (Limonium californicum), and three square (Schoenoplectus pungens) to be Local Plant Species of Concern. To preserve the genetic diversity of these species, this HMMP includes a plant salvage, propagation, and reintroduction program.

4.5.1 Coastal Salt Marsh Material Salvage The coastal saltwater marsh species to be used for the restoration project currently occupy the site, are locally adapted to the site conditions, and respond well when divided. The species’ favorable response to division and local adaptations will help provide for an increased success rate among the restoration plantings. These plant materials will be salvaged from the anticipated impact areas (including tidal flow culvert replacement area) prior to initial disturbances.

Prior to site grading or bridge demolition activities, the County’s contractor and restoration biologist will salvage the plant species listed in Table 4 from the immediate work area. The plant materials will be salvaged from the construction site, kept moist, transferred to an off-site nursery, divided and potted, and maintained until they are ready for reintroduction into the restoration areas. Plant salvage activities will be conducted with consideration to the following guidelines:

Salt marsh plant materials, including cuttings, divisions, plugs, and/or sod must be collected from the work area and temporary impact areas within and the identified biological study area (refer to Figure 3). Plant material may not be collected from areas outside of the disturbance area. If a species is not located in the actual disturbance area, it will not be included in the salvage efforts and will be omitted from success criteria requirements.

All reasonable efforts will be made to collect at least 75% of the saltmarsh vegetation from the impact area.

If preferred, the County’s contractor may harvest sod from the wetland areas rather than cuttings, divisions, or plugs.

Collection will occur from healthy populations, and no more than 20% of a plant grouping will be removed from any area located outside of the impact area.

Material should be excavated by hand using small hand tools.

All planting/collecting efforts will be overseen in the field by the County’s restoration specialist.

The restoration specialist will attempt to salvage and divide enough plantings to implement the restoration program; however, if salvaging sufficient amounts of saltmarsh materials to fulfill all planting requirements is not feasible, the County may purchase additional materials from a local nursery.



Table 4. Coastal Saltmarsh Salvage and Planting Palette

Common Name Scientific Name Material / Spacing Comment

three square Schoenoplectus pungens

Tree band / grouped at 1-2 feet on-center

Horticultural cultivars of these species are not acceptable for the restoration project. Plantings should be placed in intraspecific groupings. Groupings should be placed in a patchy mosaic. Saltmarsh plants should not be installed in areas where they will be frequently submerged. The contractor may substitute sod for tree band materials.

fleshy jaumea Jaumea carnosa Tree band / grouped at 1-2 feet on-center

pickleweed Salicornia pacifica Tree band / grouped at 1-2 feet on-center

alkali heath Frankenia salina Tree band / grouped at 1-2 feet on-center

shoregrass Monanthochloe littoralis

Tree band / grouped at 1-2 feet on-center

saltgrass Distichlis spicata Tree band / grouped at 1-2 feet on-center

4.5.2 Coastal Salt Marsh Seed Collection and Propagation California saltbush, matscale, and western marsh rosemary are best cultivated by seed. The County’s contractor will collect seed of these species from the biological study area approximately 6 months prior to the start of construction. The seed will be processed, germinated, and grown in an off-site nursery until the plants are ready for installation. Seed of California saltbush and matscale should be collected between September and October. Seed of western marsh rosemary should be collected between September and November.

4.5.3 Coastal Salt Marsh Material Planting Upon completion of the final site grading, hydraulic seeding, and installation of the appropriate erosion control measures the County’s contractors will install the salvaged coastal saltmarsh materials in the temporary impact areas. The County’s restoration specialist will ensure that the saltmarsh materials are installed in the high marsh zone. They should not be installed in areas where they will be frequently submerged. The anticipated saltmarsh planting areas are shown in Figure 3.

5 ENHANCEMENT/EXPANSION OF EXISTING HABITATS Portions of the biological study area contain degraded southern coastal bluff scrub and southern coastal salt marsh vegetation. Implementation of this HMMP will enhance these habitats via exotic species removal, urban debris removal, and restoring tidal flow to the adjacent wetland.

5.1 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Enhancement Southern coastal bluff scrub habitat in the area will be enhanced via exotic species removal, urban debris removal, and supplemental planting (as necessary). Exotic species and urban debris removal will be conducted in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this HMMP.

Once exotic species are removed from the enhancement area, portions of the area will have small openings in the vegetation. Absence of supplemental planting would allow the exotic species to recolonize the openings. To reduce the potential for exotic species recolonization, the County will install coastal bluff scrub plantings in the openings that provide sufficient space. The species to be installed are



listed in Table 3. Depending on the conditions in the planting area, the restoration specialist may choose to water the plantings or to rely on natural water sources.

5.2 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Existing southern coastal salt marsh habitat in the study area but outside of the disturbance areas will be enhanced via exotic species and urban debris removal. Exotic species and debris removal will be conducted in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this HMMP. The southern coastal salt marsh vegetation in the adjacent wetland will be expanded by restoring tidal ebb and flow to the adjacent wetland, as discussed below.

5.2.1 Tidal Flow Restoration Project The County will partially mitigate impacts resulting from the bridge replacement project by restoring tidal flow to the parcel located just north of the bridge. This parcel is connected to the slough through a poorly functioning 24-inch diameter concrete culvert. The culvert runs parallel to the existing bridge and crosses under Sandspit Road just east of the bridge. During high tide, slough water flows through the culvert to the parcel; however, flows that reach the parcel are reduced due to the slope of the culvert towards the slough. As the tide retreats, the slope of the culvert traps water in the parcel to an elevation just below the bottom of the culvert. This results in salt water being trapped in the parcel and evaporating, leaving high concentrations of salt. The County proposes to install a new 48-inch culvert adjacent to the existing culvert and grading a graduated channel at the culvert openings. The existing culvert would be abandoned but left in place. The new culvert would have a level slope to allow for tidal inundation of the trench at a 2.1-foot tide, inundation of the remaining portions of the parcel at tides greater than 5.5 feet, and for water to leave the parcel when the tide drops below 2 feet. Figure 4 shows the extent of tidal flow that is expected to be realized by installing a new culvert.

Jack-and-bore methods would be used to install the culvert; standard grading equipment would be used to create the tidal flow channel. A jack-and-bore entry pit would be excavated in the northern parcel; a receiving pit would be excavated on the slough side of Sandspit Road. A bore machine, welding machine, and carrier stock pipe would be assembled in the northern parcel. The bore machine equipped with an auger would then jack and bore a level hole parallel and adjacent to the existing culvert. Carrier pipe would be installed just behind the auger in order to keep the hole stable. Additional carrier pipe segments (typically in 10-foot increments) will be welded on and advanced as the auger travels through the existing roadway fill material. Fill generated by the operation would be removed from the site or incorporated with native fill material for the bridge replacement project. After the borehole is complete, the carrier pipe would stay in place and the remaining equipment would be removed. The site would then be graded to provide tidal flow channels at the culvert openings (both sides of culvert) and revegetated with appropriate species. All impacts associated with the bore pads would be temporary. The restored tidal flow would improve estuarine functions in the parcel and promote the growth of southern coastal salt marsh vegetation in the area.

6 MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance during plant establishment is necessary to ensure success of the mitigation effort. The maintenance period will begin immediately upon completion of the mitigation planting. With exception to the coastal bluff scrub watering, the maintenance activities will continue through the 5-year program (refer to Table 2). Coastal bluff scrub watering will only be conducted for the first 3 years of the mitigation program, or until the restoration specialist determines the plantings to be self-sustaining.



The maintenance program will ensure that watering of installed plants, weed control, debris removal, vandalism control, replanting, and plant and site protection are performed adequately. The County’s contractors will be responsible for site maintenance.

6.1 Watering Supplemental water will be supplied to the coastal bluff scrub plantings via a drip irrigation system (refer to Section 4.4). This HMMP provides for a monthly watering schedule for the first year after planting; the plantings maybe watered monthly in the summer months for the second and third years of the program. Supplemental watering may cease during the winter months. The actual watering regime will be adjusted by the County restoration specialist based on the planting’s vigor and needs. All supplemental watering will be performed in a manner that ensures deep penetration of water to the soil around the plant roots. At the end of 3 years, the County’s restoration specialist will evaluate the coastal bluff scrub plantings and determine if the supplemental watering will need to be continued.

Since the southern coastal salt marsh species will be installed in locations that are subject to soil saturation from tidal influence, these species will not receive supplemental water on a regular basis. If during the course of the establishment period the County restoration specialist determines that the coastal salt marsh plantings need supplemental water, the County’s maintenance contractors will water the individuals with a hose that is fed by the irrigation system. If repeated watering is determined necessary, the County’s restoration specialist must assess whether or not the plantings were installed in the proper location and if they need to be relocated.

6.2 Weed Control and Herbicide Use Weed control will be conducted to minimize competition from exotic plants. Exotic species will be removed during grading activities; however, additional weed abatement will be required during the 5-year mitigation program. The weed control program will emphasize manual removal of exotic species. However, manual removal may be augmented with herbicide applications. If herbicide applications are necessary, they will be conducted by an individual holding a valid Qualified Applicators License. The Qualified Applicator must use herbicides that are approved for use in and adjacent to aquatic areas (i.e., Rodeo or similar). Exotic plant species to be targeted for removal include, but are not limited to, myoporum (Myoporum laetum), Russian thistle (Kali tragus), onionweed (Asphodelus fistulosus), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), castor bean (Ricinus communis), and cape ivy (Delairea odorata).

6.3 Debris Removal and Vandalism Removal of trash and litter will occur on a regular basis. Non-fruiting organic debris created from hand removal of weeds may be left on-site if it will not significantly impact the establishment of the mitigation plantings. Noxious weed debris will be disposed of off-site to avoid further invasions of the exotic species. The slough channel tends to accumulate urban debris from the surrounding park and roads. The County’s maintenance contractor will remove the debris with a handheld net during routine maintenance activities. All urban debris will be removed from the site and properly disposed of at a local landfill.

Due to the sites proximity to public areas, vandalism may be a problem. If vandalism occurs and plants are removed or trampled, the County will replace the vandalized plants and take appropriate actions to prohibit further vandalism. As such, incidents shall be recorded and reported to regulatory agencies within the annual reports to be produced per this HMMP.



Figure 4. Map of Estimated Tidal Inundation Following Culvert Replacement



6.4 Replanting The County’s restoration specialist will adjust specific replanting requirements if needed, including species, quantities, and schedules. Species selection will be consistent with those currently occupying the immediate area and at the direction of the County and their restoration specialist. Any replanted vegetation will be monitored and maintained until the restoration specialist determines that the plantings are self-sustaining.

7 MONITORING PLAN In order to accomplish project goals, a monitoring program will provide both quantitative and qualitative data to be used to determine the success of the mitigation project. The restoration biologist will collect and evaluate data indicating the relationship between actual site conditions and established performance criteria (refer to Table 5). The data will be presented in annual reports that include photo-documentation and evaluate whether or not the annual performance goals for the year were met. All monitoring shall be conducted by a restoration specialist with documented experience preparing mitigation restoration monitoring reports.

7.1 Monitoring Schedule The 5-year monitoring program will consist of general monitoring visits and annual biological data collection. The County’s restoration specialist will perform general monitoring site visits every other month during the first year of the program; quarterly for the second, third, and fourth years of the program; and semi-annually in the fifth year (refer to Table 2). General monitoring visits can be conducted concurrently with maintenance visits. The focus of general monitoring visits is to assess the plantings need for water, or other maintenance related issues. General monitoring visits should be conducted directly following storm events to determine if the plantings were damaged by the event.

The restoration specialist will perform biological monitoring data collection annually throughout the 5-year monitoring program. The focus of the biological monitoring visits is to collect quantitative data that will provide an assessment of the site’s vegetative cover, success rates, and overall vigor.

7.2 Annual Performance Standards and Success Criteria According to the USACE Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (April 10, 2008), HMMPs must include ecologically based success criteria. This HMMP includes annual performance standards that are based on the vegetative structure observed on-site prior to construction related disturbances and the type of vegetation to be replanted. The Performance Standards and Success Criteria will document the status of the following attributes:

Percent survival of southern coastal bluff scrub plantings; Percent cover of southern coastal salt marsh plantings; Percent increase of southern coastal salt marsh vegetation in the adjacent wetland; Percent tidal inundation in the adjacent wetland; and, Percent cover of exotic (non-native) species in restored temporary impact areas (southern coastal

bluff scrub and southern coastal salt marsh).

The mitigation areas will be monitored for 5 years or until the final success criteria are met. It is anticipated that by the fifth year, the site will be self-sustaining for the long-term. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, the restoration specialist will evaluate the site to determine if the success criteria are satisfied. If the program is determined to be unsuccessful, the restoration specialist in consultation with



the County and the USACE will recommend appropriate contingency measures. The mitigation site will not be considered successful until USACE has provided written verification that the final success criteria have been met.

Table 5. Annual Performance Standards

Performance Standards Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Percent survival of planted southern coastal bluff scrub plantings1.

80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percent cover of southern coastal salt marsh plantings 20% 30% 45% 60% 75%

Documented tidal ebb and flow in adjacent parcel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Percent of non-native cover (in temporary impact area; excludes annual grasses)

<35% <30% <25% <20% <15%

Notes: 1. If stated plant survivorship is not attainable the plantings must attain 75% cover after 3 years and 90% cover after 5 years for

the life of the project. 2. The mitigation site must be self-sustaining (i.e., no irrigation) for a minimum of 2 years to be considered successful. 3. Nursery stock plant survivorship may include original plantings, remedial plantings, or volunteers. 4. Any remedial plantings will be monitored until the restoration specialist determines that they are self-sustaining. 5. Percent non-native cover calculations exclude non-native annual grasses; however, includes non-native perennial grasses.

The final goal for percent non-native cover is less than 15% (excluding annual grasses). If achieving 15% non-native cover in the restoration areas is not feasible, the restoration specialist can adjust the final success criteria to be at least 5% less than the non-native vegetation percent cover found in undisturbed areas immediately adjacent to the site.

7.3 Biological Monitoring Program Biological attributes of the mitigation areas will be monitored annually for 5 years following plant installation or until the USACE agrees that mitigation is complete. Annual quantitative monitoring visits will be conducted in the late fall or winter of each year. The objective of the monitoring program is to ensure that the mitigation efforts achieve the established performance standards.

7.3.1 Coastal Bluff Scrub Planting Percent Survival Plant survival calculations will be based on the number of individual plants installed. Percent survival will be obtained by counting the number of surviving plants and dividing the result by the number of plants installed (initial and remedial installations). Volunteer plants will be counted if they are the same species as the planted vegetation. Consequently, this calculation method can result in a survival rate greater than 100%. A plant is considered “surviving” if at least half of the foliage (or stem if deciduous) is green and flexible.

7.3.2 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Planting Percent Cover Percent cover of the installed salt marsh species will be obtained annually throughout the 5-year monitoring program. Percent cover calculations must be determined by a documented vegetation monitoring method such as Daubenmire, point intercept, or similar. The restoration specialist may choose the method to be implemented, but must use the same method for the entire duration of the program. Individual transects must be monitored in the bridge replacement restoration area and the tidal flow channel restoration area. For the southern coastal salt marsh plantings to be considered successful, at the end of 5 years, salt marsh plant species should provide at least 75% cover in the temporary impact restoration areas (inclusive of the tidal flow project restoration area).



7.3.3 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh and Tidal Flow Restoration in Adjacent Wetland

Monitoring the tidal flow restoration project will include vegetation and tidal flow monitoring. The percent cover of salt marsh vegetation in the tidal flow restoration area will be collected utilizing the same methods discussed in Section 7.3.2. In addition, the monitor will note on the provided data sheet whether or not the planted salt marsh vegetation is growing beyond the County right-of-way. The vegetation monitoring will be conducted during low tide to ensure the restoration plantings are accessible. The goal of the salt marsh restoration in the northern parcel is to achieve 75% cover of salt marsh vegetation in the restoration area at the end of Year 5.

Tidal flow in and out of the parcel will be monitored and documented three times per year during the mitigation program. Monitoring efforts will utilize a fixed observation and photo point to document ebb and flow in/out of the parcel at various tides and months. Based on elevation data and project plans, the following levels of inundation in the adjacent wetland are expected:

At tides ranging from 0.0 feet to 2.1 feet, the low tide flow channel should have 1.0 to 1.5 feet of water in its thalweg.

At tides ranging from 2.2 feet to 5.49 feet, the low tide flow channel should be approaching bank full depth.

At 5.5 feet or greater tides, flows should exceed bank full of the low tide flow channel and be inundating the remainder of the adjacent wetland.

The County’s restoration biologist will visually inspect and photo document the percent of tidal inundation during low and high tides in the months identified in the monitoring schedule (refer to Table 2). Estimates of percent inundation will be based on the provided map; tidal inundation will be documented on the provided datasheet (refer to Attachment B). Photo documentation and graphs plotting the percent inundation against recorded tides will be included in the annual reports. The tidal restoration project will be considered successful if tidal ebb and flow to/from the parcel is documented. Since the slough mouth is closed during portions of the year and tidal influence is variable, it is expected that tidal flow will not be observed during every monitoring visit.

7.3.4 Percent Cover Non-native Species The County’s restoration specialist will utilize a documented method, such as line intercept or similar, to measure the percent cover of non-native species (excluding annual grasses) in the temporary impact restoration areas. At no time during the monitoring program should the restoration areas contain more than 35% cover by non-native species. For the mitigation project to be considered successful, non-native species (excluding annual grasses) should not exceed 15% cover in the temporary impact restoration areas at the end of Year 5. Areas directly adjacent to the proposed restoration area support non-native species. These areas are a source of non-native seed dispersal that will likely be deposited in the restoration area. If at the end of the 5-year program, it is evident that the non-native cover cannot be kept below 15%, the success criteria can be adjusted to be at least 5% less than the percent cover of non-native species found in natural areas directly adjacent to restoration area. For example, if the percent cover of non-native vegetation adjacent to the restoration area is 25% (excluding annual grasses) then the final success criteria for the restoration areas can be adjusted to be less than 20%. The restoration program will not be considered successful if the non-native percent cover in the restoration area exceeds or equals that of the adjacent areas.



7.3.5 Other Attributes to Monitor Another important monitoring activity is to detect the presence and advance of invasive plant species, such as introduced whitetop (Lepidium draba), pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), or English ivy (Hedera helix). Monitoring activities will identify the establishment of invasive species and identify the appropriate action to control their advance.

All wildlife observed in and around the mitigation areas will be documented as to species and functional use of habitat (e.g., feeding, nesting, roosting, etc.). Observations of the general habitat quality will be documented in the annual report.

Permanent photo points will be established throughout the mitigation site to assist in tracking the success of the mitigation program. Permanent photo points will be established during the preparation of the as-built planting plan, and ground view photos will be taken during each monitoring year from the same vantage point.

7.4 Reporting Requirements The various regulatory agencies having discretionary approval over the bridge project have different reporting requirements for the revegetation efforts. The County will ensure that the appropriate agencies receive the required reports on a timely basis. Although permits have yet to be obtained for the project, the following reporting requirements are anticipated.

7.4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monitoring reports will be prepared annually during the 5-year monitoring period. The County will be responsible for ensuring that monitoring reports are submitted to the USACE on the required basis. Annual reports must be prepared by the restoration specialist, and be submitted to the USACE by December 31st of each year. The annual reports shall be written pursuant to the USACE Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines requirements (refer to Attachment C).

7.4.1.1 AS-BUILT CONDITIONS An as-built planting plan will be prepared and submitted to the USACE in the first annual report. The plan will illustrate the final construction of the restoration areas, showing planting locations and any modifications to this HMMP. Other than remedial plantings, there will be no deviation from the as-built planting plan without USACE coordination.

7.4.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife The County is responsible for preparing and submitting annual reports to CDFW within 30 days of the end of each calendar year for 5 years. The reports must include photo documentation and detail the progression of the revegetation efforts.

7.4.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board Typically, RWQCB water quality certifications require submittal of three reports pertaining to a project. The first report would document the completion of the construction efforts including revegetation activities. This report must be submitted within 30 days of project completion and include a summary of daily activities, monitoring observations, problems incurred, and actions taken. The second and third reports must be submitted annually by December 31st of the second and third monitoring years. The annual reports must quantify growth and progress of the restoration plantings to determine if the



performance criteria have been met. All three of the required reports must include photographs that document the revegetation progress over time.

7.4.4 California Coastal Commission The County anticipates preparing and submitting annual reports to the Executive Director of the CCC within 30 days of the end of each calendar year for 5 years. The annual reports will document the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation program. Each report shall include all monitoring data, shall describe the progress towards achieving the success criteria of the HMMP, and shall make recommendations, if any, on changes necessary to better meet the HMMP’s objectives.

8 COMPLETION OF MITIGATION 8.1 Notification of Completion The County will notify the USACE, CDFW, RWQCB, and CCC in writing upon completion of the monitoring period and attainment of the success criteria. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, the restoration specialist will submit a final monitoring report requesting agency verification that the final success criteria have been met. Following receipt of the final monitoring report, the County understands that the agencies may request a site visit to confirm the completion of the mitigation effort. The mitigation will not be considered complete without an on-site inspection by an agency representative or written confirmation that approved success criteria have been achieved.

9 CONTINGENCY MEASURES If it becomes apparent that the on-site mitigation will not attain the final success criteria within the 5-year timeframe, the County will begin an assessment of reasons for failure, and will work with the USACE to determine an acceptable solution. If the site trends indicate that the success criteria will eventually be met in a longer timeframe than anticipated, maintenance and monitoring will continue until the criteria have been satisfied. If replanting is determined to be necessary, the replanted areas will be monitored and maintained until the restoration specialist determines that they are self-sustaining, or for a period agreeable to the USACE. Any species substitutions proposed for contingency planting due to low survival of originally planted species must be coordinated with the USACE. The mitigation site should be self-sustaining (i.e., no artificial irrigation) for a period of 2 years to be considered successful. If a total site failure is evident, the County will consult with the USACE to determine what alternative compensatory mitigation will be required. Should this occur, identification of an alternative mitigation site may be necessary. No alternative locations for contingency mitigation are identified at this time.



10 REFERENCES Emery, Dara. 1988. Seed Propagation of Native California Plants. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden.

Baldwin, et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. January 2012.

Goleta Slough Management Committee (GSMC). 1997. Goleta Slough Ecosystem Management Plan. Prepared by the City of Santa Barbara. December 1997.

Holland, Robert F., Ph.D. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society.

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2013. Goleta Park Bridge Replacement Project Jurisdictional Waters Assessment. Prepared for the County of Santa Barbara Department of Public Works. August 2013.

———. 2014. Goleta Park Bridge Replacement Project Natural Environmental Study. Prepared for the County of Santa Barbara Department of Public Works. March 2014.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1999. Sampling Vegetation Attributes, Interagency Technical Reference. Published by the Cooperative Extension Service: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Natural Resource Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996, revised in 1997 and 1999.



Attachment A. Habitat and Jurisdictional Impacts Maps


SWCA Environmental Consultants A-1



Attachment B. Tidal Flow Restoration Map and Data Sheet


SWCA Environmental Consultants B-1


SWCA Environmental Consultants B-2




Attachment C. USACE Monitoring Report Guidelines


SWCA Environmental Consultants C-1


SWCA Environmental Consultants C-2

Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Goleta Beach Park Bridge...

Documents

Transcript of Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Goleta Beach Park Bridge...