III.A LIST OF REVISIONS TO SMP DOCUMENT
Revisions to the SMP Document are indicated below. These are organized by page numbers. Revisions to SMP Tables and Appendices E and G, and a MMRP are attached at the end of this section.
Page 1.5, add to third paragraph
3. Bank Protection
Bank protection involves any action by the District to repair streambanks that are eroding as well as preventative erosion protection. The District implements bank protection when the problem (1) causes or could cause significant damage to a property or adjacent property, (2) is a public safety concern, (3) negatively affects transportation, (4) negatively affects beneficial uses of surface water, (reference Chapter 2, Beneficial Uses, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Water Quality Control Plan) or (5) negatively affects riparian habitat. Repairs may take several forms ranging from the installation of "hard" structures (i.e., rock, concrete, sack concrete, gabions) to the use of "soft" structures (i.e., willow brush mattresses, log crib walls, pole plantings), or a combination of hard and soft structures. Bank protection also includes preventative maintenance to ensure that banks do not erode in the future. Such bank protection can reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.
P. 2-13, second paragraph
BANK PROTECTION
1. Overview
Bank protection involves an action by the District to repair streambanks that are eroding or are in need of preventative erosion protection. The District implements bank protection when the problem (1) causes or could cause significant damage to a property or adjacent property, (2) is a public safety concern, (3) negatively affects transportation or recreational use, (4) negatively affects water quality or beneficial uses, or (5) negatively affects riparian habitat. Repairs may take several forms:
from installing "hard" structures (e.g., rock, concrete, sack concrete, gabions) to "soft" structures (e.g., willow brush mattresses, log crib walls, pole plantings) or a combination of hard and soft structures.Appendix E includes descriptions and cross-sections of over 30 designs.
P. 2-14, fourth paragraph
2. Bank Protection Methods
The general design criteria and plan for each of the bank protection methods used by the District are included in Appendix E. Figure E-1 in Appendix E presents the process for the selection of bank protection alternatives. In addition to these criteria, design of a particular bank protection project includes evaluation of other site-specific characteristics such as bank slope, shear stress, location (such as the inside or outside of a curve), soil type, flow velocity, characteristics of the channel adjacent to the site, and the available right of way. The site is evaluated for the repair method consistent with the characteristics of the site. Revegetation potential is also evaluated for each bank protection project. This potential is not only dependent upon the method of bank protection used, but also the physical properties of the stream where the repair is taking place.
P 2-16, second paragraph
In the past
1413 years, the total length of bank protection activities in an individual year ranged from approximately 1,500 to 13,000 feet. The District has completed an average of 38 bank protection jobs per year, based on historical records, but there is considerable deviation. For example, there were nine jobs in 1994 and 73 in 1987. A more detailed summary of historical bank protection activities is provided in Table 2-3.
P. 3-4, fourth paragraph, add last sentence
Annually, in November, District staff will hold a "Lessons Learned" meeting to evaluate the effectiveness of both resource protection and maintenance methods used in the preceding construction season. The information and assessments will be used to update BMPs, Stream Maintenance Program processes, and the Maintenance Guidelines and to create a greater understanding of how to accomplish environmentally-sensitive, fiscally sound maintenance work. The "lessons learned" meeting will include BMPs as a specific topic of discussion on the agenda. The annual report will summarize that discussion and any resulting modifications to BMPs.
P. 3-5, second & third paragraph
A final annual report detailing what work was accomplished will be submitted to the District's Chief Executive Officer, USACE, USFWS, CDFG, BCDC, NMFS, the San Francisquito Joint Powers Authority and RWQCB at the end of the maintenance season (prior to January 1) which will specify which projects were completed for the year including type of work, location, and size of the project. Sediment removal, vegetation management, and bank protection work which has been repeated under the SMP will be distinguished from areas where such work is being undertaken for the first time under the SMP. Any modifications of BMPs recommended at the annual lessons learned meeting will be summarized in the annual report.
In addition to reporting on the maintenance activity completed for the year, the District will also provide reporting on the implementation of the mitigation program, including maps showing the location of compensatory mitigation sites, a description of the current stage in the planning and implementation schedule, progress towards success criteria, and a general summary of maintenance of mitigation sites. For the first 5 years of the program, the District will provide the agencies with a tour of representative work areas (especially those along target streams and watersheds) for that year and all mitigation sites. This tour will take place after completion of the work season. Preconstruction photographs will also be provided.
P. 4-11, sixth paragraph
Potential impacts to steelhead will be avoided by timing stream maintenance projects in streams where there are or could be steelhead so that work is conducted outside of the migration and spawning season. Steelhead migration and spawning season is generally between December
to June 30.to June 15 in Santa Clara county streams.
P. 5-2, additional paragraph at end of page
All sites for mitigation will either be held in ownership or easement by the District or another cooperating public agency or private conservation organization, or have a conservation easement held by one of these agencies.
P. 5-6, third paragraph
The District's Board of Directors has expressed the desire to mitigate for wetland impacts by creating new wetlands. At this time, the mitigation proposal includes three sites where there are certainties that new wetlands can be created. The District will continue searching for additional sites for freshwater wetland creation. An extensive search initially conducted in 1997 will be reviewed. The District is currently investigating the feasibility of establishing freshwater wetlands as mitigation at the Coyote Valley Campus Industrial area and at the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) adjacent to Llagas Creek in the City of Gilroy. A preliminary investigation of the SCRWA site has found approximately 150 acres of the site could potentially be converted to wetland habitat (Philip Williams & Associates and H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2000). If additional freshwater wetland sites are located, then the Stream and Watershed Protection component of the mitigation package would be reduced. The sites currently identified for freshwater wetland creation are described further below.
P. 5-11, fourth paragraph
The mitigation component will focus on preservation and improvement of streams that are generally in a fairly undisturbed state and in good ecological condition. Streams that are currently disturbed, but that can be returned to good ecological condition under the program (as defined under MMRP criteria), can also be included.
P. 5-11, fifth paragraph
This effort consists primarily of land acquisition, but also provides for some restoration, rehabilitation, and/or management
of acquired landsto improve or protect stream condition (see MMRP). Acquisition will provide 92 acres of mitigation credits; and restoration and management on selected parcels will provide 10 acres of credit. The relative contribution of these subcomponents could be adjusted based on opportunity and resource needs identified as the mitigation component progresses.
P. 5-11, new sixth paragraph
Restoration, rehabilitation and management projects may be conducted on land acquired under this program, and may be also conducted on other lands. Other lands must meet the same physical and location criteria as those for land acquisition parcel selection (i.e., stream size, stream condition, habitat contiguity, basin and watershed locations, and land management).
P. 5-13, second paragraph
Each acquired property will be further evaluated to determine if the stream resources would benefit from restoration or management actions. Other lands not acquired under this program, but meeting the land selection criteria and available for mitigation use, will also be evaluated. Examples of the many types of restoration or management actions that could be undertaken to improve stream health include: removal of nonnative riparian plant species and revegetation with native species, repair and rehabilitation of denuded or otherwise degraded stream segments, replacement of in-stream road crossings with more environmentally-sensitive crossings, installation of erosion control measures on roads adjacent to streams (dirt or paved roads run parallel to most sizeable streams in the county), and installation of fencing to limit cattle access to the riparian area.
P. 5-14, fourth paragraph
The projected
total Stream Maintenance Programcost for the Stream & Watershed Protection Mitigation cost is based on an average estimated land value of $15,000 per acre. Most land is expected to cost less than this amount. Land cost under this Stream Maintenance Program is not-to-exceed $25,000 per acre.
P. 5-22, (see revised SMP Table 5-3)
P. 6-22, end of page
13. Pajaro River Basin Study (District Project No. 501601)
Purpose: Continued liaison with the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (Pajaro Authority), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, plus other agencies and organizations to coordinate a watershed management plan and feasibility study to remedy water quality, flood damage and other problems in the Pajaro River Basin.
Location: Pajaro River watershed.
Environmental Resources: Water quality and watershed habitats
Type of Documents: A Final Reconnaissance Report and Draft Project Management Plan is due to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2001. Implementation documents will follow.
Schedule for Development and Implementation: Ongoing. Local agencies and organizations have been working with state and federal agencies on this watershed for over a decade. The current period can be characterized as a period of development and implementation of specific watershed improvement measures.
Participants: Santa Cruz, San Benito, Santa Clara and Monterey Counties, San Benito County Water District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Santa Cruz Zone 7 Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are the eight agencies that comprise the Pajaro Authority. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies are also involved with the proposed work. Business, environmental and other interest groups are also active participants in the basin study efforts.
Linkages: The Pajaro River Basin Study project provides ongoing coordination to facilitate multi-jurisdictional planning and implementation of flood control protection, water quality improvement and habitat restoration. Stream maintenance and mitigation is a central issue for the Pajaro Authority JPA and others, which links it to the District Stream Maintenance Program.
14. San Francisquito Creek Coordination (District Project No. 102805)
Purpose: Continued liaison with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council, previously known as Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Group (CRMP), to coordinate a multi-objective watershed improvement project, supportive projects and cost allocations.
Location: San Francisquito Creek watershed.
Environmental Resources: Water quality and watershed habitats
Type of Documents: The San Francisquito CRMP prepared a Draft Watershed Management Plan in 1997, and a Reconnaissance Investigation Report of San Francisquito Creek in 1998. In 2000, a San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Master Plan Report was sponsored and completed by the members of the JPA (initiated prior to hiring staff for the JPA). Since CEQA and regulatory permits have not been completed for any of these documents, implementation cannot be started. The report serves as a guideline for acceptable bank stabilization and revegetation projects. There are also interim maintenance efforts under design.
Schedule for Development and Implementation: Ongoing. Local groups have been working on this watershed since the early 1990s. The current period can be characterized as a period of development and implementation of specific watershed improvement measures.
Participants: The cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, plus San Mateo County and the District comprise the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority membership. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies are also involved with the proposed work. Business, environmental and other interest groups are also active participants in the JPA efforts.
Linkages: The San Francisquito Creek Coordination project provides ongoing coordination to facilitate multi-jurisdictional planning and implementation of flood control protection, water quality improvement and habitat restoration. Stream maintenance and mitigation is a central issue for the JPA, CRMP and others, which links it to the District Stream Maintenance Program.
P. 7-1, sixth paragraph
Philip Williams & Associates and H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2000. South County Regional Wastewater Authority Site Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mitigation Opportunities and Constraints Analysis. September 22, 2000.
Appendix A - page A-4
Appendix A - page A-8
| Revetment | A term used to describe any number of hard structures used in bank protection. See Riprap. |
Appendix A - page A-8
| Riprap | |
Appendix A - page A-9
| Scour | |
| Sediment | |
Appendix A - page A-10
Appendix A - page A-12