delineation of waters of the u.s. reportnps.acgov.org/nps-assets/docs/npstrb.pdf · 2169-g e....

Delineation of Waters of the U.S. Report CEMEX Eliot Mine Alameda County, California

Client: CEMEX 5180 Golden Foothills Pkwy. El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Contact: Ronald D. Wilson Consultant: WRA, Inc. 2169-G E. Francisco Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 Contacts: Geoff Smick, President [email protected] Leslie Lazarotti, Project Manager [email protected] Date: October 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Area Background .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................... 5

2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS .................................................... 6 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.......................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.2 Waters of the United States .....................................................................................10

3.2 Problem Areas and Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West ....................................10 3.3 Atypical Situations and Man Induced Wetlands ..............................................................11 3.4 Areas Potentially Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction .................................................11

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................12 4.1 Location .........................................................................................................................12 4.2 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................12 4.3 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................12 4.4 Soils ...............................................................................................................................13

5.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................19 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.........................................................................19

5.1.1 Wetlands .................................................................................................................19 5.1.2 Non-wetland Waters ................................................................................................20

5.2 Floodplain Areas with One of Two Wetland Parameters .................................................21 5.3 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West ...................................................................21 5.4 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction ..................................................................21

6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION ....................................................23 7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area Location Map ........................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Soils Map ..................................................................................................................16

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Potential Aquatic and Wetland Features in the Study Area. ..................... 6

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - Preliminary Section 404 Jurisdictional Map Appendix B - Wetland Delineation Data Sheets Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area Appendix D - Plant Species Observed in the Study Area

ii

LIST OF PREPARERS

Geoff Smick, M.S., Principal-in-Charge Chris Gurney, M.S., Project Manager Scott Yarger, B.S., Senior Technician Cara Scott, M.S., Senior Technician Derek Chan, B.S., GIS Analyst

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On February 1, and February 17, 2016, WRA, Inc. (WRA) completed a routine wetland delineation on behalf of CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific LLC (CEMEX) at their Eliot Quarry site (Study Area) located in unincorporated Alameda County, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this wetland delineation was to determine the presence of potential wetlands and non-wetland waters subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The wetland delineation is based on information available at the time of the study and on site conditions that were observed during the multiple site visits. This report presents the results of this delineation. 1.1 Study Area Background

The Eliot Quarry Study Area consists of approximately 968 acres1 situated between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore in unincorporated Alameda County, California. Eliot Quarry is a sand and gravel quarry that has been in active use since 1906. Arroyo del Valle, part of the Alameda Creek watershed and one of the major drainages of the Livermore/Amador Valley, flows through the southern portion of the Study Area. Adjacent land uses include industrial operations (e.g. Vulcan Materials quarry), open space (e.g. Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area [a former mine site] and Sycamore Grove Park), residential development, and agricultural land. The Study Area’s hydrology and topography have been substantially altered by mining activities and regional development. Prior to completion of the Del Valle Reservoir in 1968, the arroyo had an intermittent flow, containing water in most winters and springs and drying in the summer. The topography of the site was historically a broad outwash plain with a braided stream channel. The arroyo now contains a perennial flow due to managed releases from Lake del Valle, and the eastern reach of the arroyo has been realigned and artificially straightened with minimal riffles, pools, or meanders. The shift to perennial flows has encouraged the establishment of willows (Salix spp.) and cottonwood (Populus fremontii) at the expense of sycamore (Platanus racemosa), buckeye (Aesculus californica), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). The western reach of the arroyo flows through the southern edge of its historical floodplain and in between former mine pits. Artificially created aquatic features on the site include silt ponds that are used to capture and store stormwater runoff and wastewater, and created quarry ponds that have formed where excavation below the water table has caused groundwater infiltration and periodic stream flows through inlet channels to fill former mine pits. These quarry ponds may be used by Zone 7 Water Agency for water storage and groundwater recharge.

1Note: This acreage is approximate and is based on GIS calculations. As such, it may differ slightly from the surveyed parcel acreages presented in other reports.

2

This page intentionally left blank

Figure 1. Project Area Location Map

Eliot QuarryAlameda County, California

.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26007\GIS\ArcMap\Fig1_LocMap_20160129.mxd

Map Prepared Date: 9/26/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014Data Source(s): WRA

0 0.5 10.25Miles

This map may contain data from publicly availablesources including, but not limited to, parcel boundaries.

These data sources may be inaccurate. They areintended for reference purposes only and do notrepresent legal boundaries or absolute locations.

Detail Area

Project Area

4


5

1.2 Regulatory Background

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters of the United States.” Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.” Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines the term “waters of the United States” as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of “waters of the United States” in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) “other waters” such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of the determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, “navigable waters” as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as “waters of the United States” defined in the CFR above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the United States: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the United States: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. There are also areas exempt from 404 jurisdiction including industrial process ponds and mining pits excavated for sand and gravel (see the preamble to 33 CFR Part 328 in the November 13, 1986 Federal Register [51 CFR 4217, Section 328.3]). The extent of 404 jurisdiction has also been heavily litigated for the past 15 years and has shifted over time due to federal case law (e.g. SWANCC vs. Army Corps) and regulatory changes (e.g. the 2015 Clean Water Rule). The most recent 2015 Clean Water Rule is currently the subject of a federal court stay. However, that 2015 regulation explicitly exempts sand and gravel mining pits from 404 jurisdiction.

6

2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS

Appendix A depicts the extent of Corps jurisdiction within the Study Area based on a wetland delineation conducted by WRA. The extent of potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas is summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Summary of Potential Aquatic and Wetland Features in the Study Area.

Aquatic Feature Type and Classification1

Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States (acres/linear feet)

Potentially Exempt from Jurisdiction

(acres/linear feet) Wetlands: Freshwater Marsh (PEMF) 1.39 acres n/a

Willow Riparian Wetland (PFO3C) 21.47 acres n/a

SUBTOTAL 22.86 acres n/a Non-Wetland Waters: Perennial Stream (Arroyo del Valle, R2UB1)

14.56 acres; 15,000 linear feet n/a

Perennial Stream Impoundment (R2UB3) 26.40acres n/a

Intermittent Stream (R4SB1)

0.31 acres; 794 linear feet n/a

Quarry Pond (L1UB3) n/a 79.55 acres

Silt Pond (L2UB3) n/a 140.15 acres

SUBTOTAL 41.27 acres; 15,794 linear feet 219.70 acres

TOTAL 64.13 acres; 15,794 linear feet 219.70 acres

1Source: Cowardin et al. 1979

7

3.0 METHODS

Prior to conducting field surveys, reference materials were reviewed, including online soil data (CSRL 2016), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data (USFWS 2016), rainfall data (UCANR 2016), WETS precipitation data (USDA 2016), the Livermore USGS 7.5' quadrangle (USGS 2015), and aerial photos of the site (Google Earth 2016). WRA also reviewed and incorporated preliminary data that were collected by LSA Associates in September and October 2015 (LSA 2015). A focused evaluation of indicators of wetlands and other waters was performed in the Study Area on two dates, February 1, 2016 and February 17, 2016. The methods used in this study to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters are based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (“Corps Manual”; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (“Arid West Supplement”; Corps 2008). The routine method for wetland delineation described in the Corps Manual was used to identify areas potentially subject to Corps Section 404 jurisdiction within the Study Area. A general description of the Study Area, including plant communities present, topography, and land use was also generated during the delineation visits. The methods for evaluating the presence of wetlands and non-wetland “waters of the United States” employed during the site visit are described in detail below. 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S

3.1.1 Wetlands

The Study Area was evaluated for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008). Section 328.3 of the Federal Code of Regulations defines wetlands as:

"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas."

EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3 (b) The three parameters used to delineate wetlands are the presence of: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. According to the Corps Manual, for areas not considered “problem areas” or “atypical situations”:

"....[E]vidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination."

Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils collected at sample points during the delineation site visit was reported on Arid West Supplement data forms. Once an area was determined to be a potential jurisdictional wetland, its boundaries were delineated using GPS equipment and mapped on a topographic map. The areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands were measured digitally using ArcGIS software. Indicators described in the Arid West Supplement were used to

8

make wetland determinations at each sample point in the Study Area and are summarized below. Vegetation Plant species observed in the Study Area were identified using the Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2016). Plants were assigned a wetland indicator status according to the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL; Lichvar et al. 2014). Where differences in nomenclature occur between the Jepson Manual or the Jepson eFlora and the NWPL, the species name as it occurred in the NWPL is listed in brackets. Other relevant synonyms may also be provided in brackets. Wetland indicator statuses listed in the NWPL are based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as follows: Classification (Abbreviation) Definition* Hydrophytic

Species? (Y/N)

Obligate (OBL) Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands Y

Facultative Wetland (FACW)

Usually is a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands Y

Facultative (FAC) Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or non-hydrophyte Y

Facultative Upland (FACU) Occasionally is a hydrophyte but usually occurs in uplands N

Upland/Not Listed (UPL/NL) Rarely is a hydrophyte, almost always in uplands N

*See Lichvar et al. (2014). The presence of hydrophytic vegetation was then determined based on indicator tests described in the Arid West Supplement. The Arid West Supplement requires that a three-step process be conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the delineator to apply the “50/20 rule” (Indicator 1; Dominance Test) described in the manual. To apply the “50/20 rule”, dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. Dominant species are determined for each vegetation stratum from a sampling plot of an appropriate size surrounding the sample point. Dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total vegetative cover. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species have an OBL, FACW, or FAC status, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. If the sample point fails Indicator 1 and both hydric soils and wetland hydrology are not present, then the sample point does not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, unless the site is a problematic wetland situation. However, if the sample point fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2. Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2

9

requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one stratum. The delineator must then organize all species into groups according to their wetland indicator status and calculate the Prevalence Index using the following formula, where A equals total percent cover:

PI = AOBL + 2AFACW + 3AFAC + 4AFACU + 5AUPL

AOBL + AFACW + AFAC + AFACU + AUPL The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to or less than 3, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. However, if the community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3. Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species have morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered to be a hydrophyte and its indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicators 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for this species. The sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion if either test is satisfied. Hydrology The Corps jurisdictional wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied if an area is inundated or saturated for a period sufficient to create anoxic soil conditions during the growing season (a minimum of 14 consecutive days in the Arid West region). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include primary indicators, such as visible inundation or saturation, drift deposits, oxidized root channels, and salt crusts, or secondary indicators such as the FAC-neutral test, presence of a shallow aquitard, or crayfish burrows. The Arid West Supplement contains 16 primary hydrology indicators and 10 secondary hydrology indicators. Only one primary indicator is required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion; however, if secondary indicators are used, at least two secondary indicators must be present to conclude that an area has wetland hydrology. The presence or absence of the primary or secondary indicators described in the Arid West Supplement was utilized to determine if sample points within the Study Area met the wetland hydrology criterion. Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a hydric soil as follows:

“A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.”

Federal Register July 13, 1994, United States Department of

Agriculture, NRCS Soils formed over long periods of time under wetland (anaerobic) conditions often possess characteristics that indicate they meet the definition of hydric soils. Hydric soils can have a hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor, low chroma matrix color, generally designated 0, 1, or 2,

10

used to identify them as hydric, presence of redox concentrations, gleyed or depleted matrix, or high organic matter content. Specific indicators that can be used to determine whether a soil is hydric for the purposes of wetland delineation are provided in the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA 2010). The Arid West Supplement provides a list of 23 of these hydric soil indicators which are known to occur in the Arid West region. Soil samples were collected and described according to the methodology provided in the Arid West Supplement. Soil chroma and values were determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (Munsell Color 2009). Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met one or more of the 23 hydric soil indicators described in the Arid West Supplement. 3.1.2 Waters of the United States

This study also evaluated the presence of “waters of the United States” (other than wetlands) potentially subject to United States Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Other areas, besides wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction include lakes, rivers and streams (including intermittent streams) in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal influence. Jurisdiction in non-tidal areas extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) defined as:

“...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.”

Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219,

Part 328.3 (e). November 13, 1986 Identification of the ordinary high water mark followed the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (Corps 2005). 3.2 Problem Areas and Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West

The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) includes recommended procedures for completing wetland delineations in areas of “difficult wetland situations.” The Corps Manual describes “problem areas,” defined as naturally occurring wetland types which periodically lack wetland indicators due to normal seasonal or annual variability. The list of difficult wetland situations provided in the Arid West Supplement includes wetlands with problematic hydrophytic vegetation, problematic hydric soils, and wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology. Although the Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement were utilized in the wetland determination, they do not provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations and problem areas that can arise during delineations in the Arid West. Thus, it is important to use best professional judgment and knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region during the collection and interpretation of wetland delineation data for problematic sites.

11

3.3 Atypical Situations and Man Induced Wetlands

“Atypical situations” are defined in the Corps Manual as wetlands in which vegetation, soil, or hydrology indicators are substantially altered due to recent human activities or natural events. Atypical situation methods apply to the following specific situations:

• Unauthorized activities. Unauthorized activities are instances where one or more wetland indicators are not observable due to unauthorized activities such as filling or draining areas that were previously wetland.

• Natural events. Natural events include instances such as fire, flood, or beaver dams which may affect the ability to observe wetland indicators, or may permanently change and alter conditions such that former wetlands are converted to uplands, or former uplands are converted to wetlands.

• Man-induced wetlands. These are areas which were intentionally or unintentionally created by human activities. These areas may or may not be jurisdictional, depending on the type, source, and relative permanence of the man-induced alteration. In some cases, man-induced wetlands are considered jurisdictional. Areas where wetland conditions exist due to the man-induced hydrology (such as leaky irrigation or irrigated fields), and would not exist in the absence of that man-induced condition are not considered wetlands.

3.4 Areas Potentially Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction

Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the CWA per Section 404 regulations, federal case law, and the Corps Manual. Included in this category are:

• Some man-induced wetlands, including areas that are maintained only due to the presence of man-induced hydrology (1987 Corps Manual)

• Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the CWA (33 CFR 328.3a)

• Ditches dug wholly in, and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water (51 Fed. Reg. 41206, Corps 2008)

• Water filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (51 Fed. Reg. 41217)

• Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing·(51 Fed. Reg. 41206)

• Artificial reflecting or swimming pools, or other similar ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons (51 Fed. Reg. 41206)

• Areas that are isolated from and/or do not have a significant nexus to navigable waters of the United States (Corps 2008)

Features meeting the criteria for wetlands and non-wetland waters within the Study Area were evaluated in the context of these exemptions for making determinations of areas potentially within the Corps’ jurisdiction.

12

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 Location

The Eliot Quarry Study Area consists of approximately 968 acres2 situated between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore in unincorporated Alameda County, California. Elevations range from approximately 268 to 460 feet NGVD. Arroyo del Valle, part of the Alameda Creek watershed and one of the major drainages of the Livermore/Amador Valley, flows through the southern portion of the Study Area. Almost every portion of the site has been previously disturbed by mining activities at some point over the last century, including the Arroyo del Valley channel, and the site is now dominated by ruderal areas, active quarry operations, and quarry ponds. 4.2 Vegetation

The upland portions of the Study Area are dominated by a sparse cover of weedy, typically non-native herbaceous species such as short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, NL), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens, NL), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare, NL), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, NL), slender oat (Avena barbata, NL), and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus, FACU). Occasional shrubs are present including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea, NL) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica, NL)

The wetland portions of the Study Area include willow riparian wetland and perennial freshwater emergent marsh. Dominant vegetation in willow riparian wetland and within the perennial stream channel include red willow (Salix laevigata, FACW) and arroyo willow (Salix laevigata, FACW), interspersed with occasional white alder (Alnus rhombifolia, FACW) and cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii, FAC) trees. In some areas, giant reed (Arundo donax, FACW) is co-dominant with willows. Dominant vegetation within freshwater marsh included tule (Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis, OBL), narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia, OBL), and common reed (Phragmites australis, FACW). Other hydrophytic forbs observed on the outer fringes of freshwater marshes and the perennial stream channel include watercress (Nasturtium officinale, OBL), tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum, FACW, dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum, FAC), and fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher, FAC). 4.3 Hydrology

Natural hydrological sources for the Study Area include precipitation and surface run-off from adjacent lands. Additionally, mining operations have resulted in several sand and gravel quarry pits that have filled with water as a result of excavation in groundwater, groundwater seepage, and surface water capture. The average annual rainfall for Livermore, located approximately 4 miles northeast, is approximately 14.82 inches (USDA 2016). A comparison of rainfall data from the closest weather station with suitable data (Pleasanton, CIMIS #191; UCANR 2016) to WETS data (Livermore, CA4997; USDA 2016) showed that wet conditions were present during the February 1, 2016 site visit. The WETS assessment is based on whether a site received normal rainfall in the preceding three months (USDA 1995). Rainfall for the month of November, December, and January were above normal. The prior rainy seasons were considered drought years. 2 Note: This acreage is approximate and is based on GIS calculations. As such, it may differ slightly from the surveyed parcel acreages presented in other reports.

13

4.4 Soils

The online soil survey of the Study Area (CSRL 2016) indicates that the Study Area contains eleven soil mapping units encompassing four native soil series and three miscellaneous mapping areas which have essentially no soil: Livermore gravelly loam; Livermore very gravelly coarse sandy loam; Pleasanton gravelly loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes; Yolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Yolo loam over gravel, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Yolo sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Zamora silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes; gravel pit; riverwash; and water. The native soil series that make up the aforementioned mapping units, and miscellaneous areas are descried below and are shown in Figure 2. Livermore Series: The Livermore series consists of very deep, slightly acid to slightly alkaline, gravelly coarse sandy loam, and coarse sandy loam soils formed by alluvial processes from sandstone and shale parent materials. A typical pedon of Livermore series soil has dark brown to very dark grayish brown, very gravelly coarse sandy loam Ap and A horizons, underlain by dark brown very gravelly coarse sandy loam B horizons, underlain by dark brown, very gravelly coarse sand C horizons. These soils are somewhat excessively drained, with negligible to low runoff and moderately rapid permeability. Utilization of these soils is primarily vineyard and orchard cultivation, and native or naturalized vegetation includes annual grasses, forbs and scattered oak trees (CSRL 2016).

Within the Study Area, Livermore very gravelly, coarse, sandy loam, and Livermore gravelly loam soil types occupy a small area of the southern portion of the Study Area on nearly level to slopes of less than 5 percent. Both soil mapping units contain inclusions of Positas, Pleasanton, and Yolo series soils, and neither mapping unit is considered a hydric soil (USDA 2015).

Pleasanton Series: The Pleasanton series consists of very deep, slightly acid to neutral, fine-loamy soils formed from sedimentary parent materials (CSRL 2016, Westover and Van Duyne 1910). A typical pedon of Pleasanton series soil has grayish brown, gravelly fine sandy loam A horizons, underlain by gravelly sandy clay loam B2t horizons, underlain by gravelly fine sandy loam C horizons. These soils are well drained, with slow to medium runoff, and moderately slow permeability. Utilization of these soils is primarily dry farmed grain and hay, vineyards, orchards, and row crops. Native or naturalized vegetation includes annual grasses, forbs, and scattered oak trees (CSRL 2016).

Within the Study Area, Pleasanton gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, and Pleasanton gravelly loam 3 to 12 percent slopes soil types occupy small areas along the southern perimeter of the Study Area. Both soil mapping units contain inclusions of Positas, Rincon, and Livermore series soils, and neither mapping unit is considered a hydric soil (USDA 2015).

Yolo Series: The Yolo series consists of moderately deep to very deep, neutral to mildly alkaline, fine-silty to loamy soils formed in alluvium from shale and sandstone parent material (CSRL 2016, USDA 1966). A typical pedon of Yolo series soil has very dark grayish brown to dark brown, silt loam Ap and A horizons, underlain by olive brown, silt loam C horizons. These soils are well drained, with slow to medium runoff, and moderate permeability. Utilization includes intensive row, field, and orchard crops, and native or naturalized vegetation includes annual grasses, forbs and scattered oak trees (CSRL 2016).

Yolo loam over gravel is mapped in a small area in the northwestern corner of the Study Area, Yolo sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes is mapped within the northeastern corner of the Study

14

Area, and Yolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes is mapped within the northeast corner, and along the southern perimeter of the Study Area. All mapping units contain inclusions of Sycamore, Livermore, and unnamed soil series, and all mapping units are considered hydric soils (USDA 2015).

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26007\GIS\ArcMap\FigX_Soils.mxd

Map Prepared Date: 9/26/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014Data Source(s): WRA, SSURGO

.

Figure 2.Soils Map

Eliot QuarryAlameda County,

California

0 1,000 2,000500

Feet

SoilsMapunit Name

Livermore gravelly loamLivermore very gravelly coarse sandy loamPleasanton gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopesPleasanton gravelly loam, 3 to 12 percent slopesYolo loam over gravel, 0 to 3 percent slopesYolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopesYolo sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopesZamora silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopesGravel pitRiverwashWaterProject AreaNatGeo_World_Map

Project AreaSoilsMapunit Name

Livermore gravelly loamLivermore very gravelly coarse sandy loamPleasanton gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopesPleasanton gravelly loam, 3 to 12 percent slopesYolo loam over gravel, 0 to 3 percent slopesYolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopesYolo sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopesZamora silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopesGravel pitRiverwashWater

This map may contain data from publicly availablesources including, but not limited to, parcel boundaries.

These data sources may be inaccurate. They areintended for reference purposes only and do notrepresent legal boundaries or absolute locations.

17


18

Zamora Series: The Zamora series consists of very deep, slightly acid to moderately alkaline, fine-silty to loamy soils formed in alluvium from sedimentary parent material (CSRL 2016, USDA 1966). A typical pedon of Zamora series soil has a very dark grayish brown silt loam Ap horizon, underlain by dark brown, silty clay loam Bt horizons, underlain by dark yellowish brown, silt loam to gravelly loam C horizons. These soils are well drained, with slow to medium runoff, and moderate permeability. Utilization includes orchard, row, and field crops, and native or naturalized vegetation includes annual grasses, forbs and scattered oak trees (CSRL 2016).

Zamora silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes, is mapped in a small area in the northeastern corner of the Study Area. This mapping unit contains inclusions of Pleasanton and Rincon soil series and is not considered a hydric soil (USDA 2015).

Gravel Pit: This mapping unit consists of areas large enough to map where excavations have been made and where the original soil has been removed. Excavations in this area have been principally for concrete aggregate materials including sand and gravel. Riverwash: Riverwash is a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobblestones that contains little or no silt and clay. This land type occupies stream channels and is exposed at low water. Riverwash is subject to movement in spring during periods of runoff and during stream flooding. Vegetation supported by this type within the Study Area includes giant reed, cottonwoods, arroyo willow, red willow, and white alder.

Water: This mapping unit consists of areas large enough to map consisting of open water. Areas mapped as open water may include jurisdictional waters and non-jurisdictional operational water features such as quarry sedimentation basins.

19

5.0 RESULTS

Potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas are described in the following sections and depicted in Appendix A. Vegetation, soils and hydrology data collected during delineation site visits are reported on standard Corps Arid West Region data forms in Appendix B. Photographs of representative portions of the Study Area and sample points are shown in Appendix C. A list of plant species observed during the site visits is included in Appendix D. 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S

5.1.1 Wetlands

Freshwater Marsh (PEMF)

Approximately 1.39 acres of freshwater marshes are present within the Study Area. Within the Study Area, freshwater marshes generally occur in slightly concave depressions within or adjacent to the perennial stream, Arroyo del Valle. These features are characterized by episaturated conditions; hydrology sources include direct precipitation and under- and over-land sheet flow, which forms a water table within the upper portion of the soil profile. These features are likely saturated for the majority of the year during a normal rainfall year. The vegetation is dominated by native and non-native FACW to OBL species. The most frequently observed species include common cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL), narrowleaf cattail (OBL), tule (OBL), and common reed (FACW).

Freshwater marshes are situated on gravelly loam to sandy loam soils, sometimes overlain with a thin organic muck layer. Soils were typically very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) with a dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) organic muck layer within the upper 3 inches. Hydric soil indicators included (A4) Hydrogen Sulfide odor, and problematic hydric soils with high sand and/or gravel content, which are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 below. Observed wetland hydrology indicators included (A1) Surface Water, (A2) High Water Table, and (A3) Saturation.

Willow Riparian Wetland (PFO3C)

Approximately 21.47 acres of willow riparian wetlands are present within the Study Area. Within the Study Area, willow riparian wetland occurs primarily within the floodplain of the downstream reach of Arroyo del Valle. Within this reach, the floodplain is broader and the channel is less entrenched compared to the upstream reaches. The hydrology has been modified by the downstream impoundment (PS-1), and adjacent quarry ponds. In addition, invasive giant reed has altered hydrogeomorphic processes within the reach and contributed to a less well-defined channel compared to the upstream reaches. Willow riparian wetland occurs where the channel becomes poorly defined and regularly spills out across the floodplain. This area is likely saturated for the majority of the wet season during a normal rainfall year. The vegetation is dominated by a mix of native and non-native species tolerant of winter flooding and/or a high water table, including giant reed, red willow (FACW), arroyo willow (FACW), and white alder (FACW). The understory is dominated by native and non-native FAC to OBL species including common cattail (OBL), narrowleaf cattail (OBL), tule (OBL), and tall cyperus (FACW).

Willow riparian wetlands within the Study Area are situated on gravelly loam to sandy loam soils. Soils were typically very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to brown (10YR 4/2) with a faint dusky red (2.5YR 3/2) reduced matrix. Hydric soil indicators included problematic hydric soils

20

with high sand and/or gravel content, which are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 below. Observed wetland hydrology indicators included (A2) High Water Table, and (A3) Saturation.

5.1.2 Non-wetland Waters

Perennial Stream (R2UB1) Arroyo del Valle flows through the Study Area from southeast to northwest and occupies 14.56 acres (15,000 linear feet). Arroyo del Valle was historically an intermittent stream, but was converted to a perennial system by the creation of Del Valle Reservoir in 1968. Arroyo del Valle presently appears to flow perennially during a normal rainfall year. Flows out of Del Valle Reservoir are now closely moderated and the stream form has shifted from an intermittent, braided system to a primarily single thread perennial system. As such, most of its historical floodplain has become hydrologically disconnected from the stream. . During the WRA site visits (February 1 and 17, 2016), flowing water was observed and soils within the streambed were saturated. The bed of the channel is primarily composed of coarse material (cobble, gravel, and sand) with a low proportion of fines (silt and clay). The most frequent OHWM indicators used to delineate this feature include presence of a bed and bank, scouring, wrack, sediment deposition, and water stains on the banks.

Perennial stream channels within the Study Area are typically moderately to weakly entrenched and flanked by willow riparian scrub on both sides. The active channel is typically sparsely vegetated with herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation such as watercress (OBL), and common knotweed (Persicaria lapathifolia, FACW). Where the channel deepens into pools and flow velocities are slowed, vegetation becomes denser and includes cattails, bulrushes, and common reed. The upstream reach adjacent to Lake “A”3 is generally more entrenched and has a narrower floodplain compared to the downstream reach adjacent to Lake “B” which has maintained a braided form within a comparatively broad floodplain. The most downstream reach in the Study Area has a weakly defined channel that intergrades with the adjacent willow riparian wetland before flowing into Island Pond. Perennial Stream Impoundment (R2UB3) A perennial stream impoundment called Island Pond occupies 10.28 acres of the Study Area. This feature is located in-line with the Arroyo del Valle stream channel and receive flows directly from Arroyo del Valle. Island Pond appears to have been created via excavation and mining activities within the Arroyo del Valle channel during the 1950s. Vegetation surrounding Island Pond includes willow riparian scrub composed of red willow (FACW), arroyo willow (FACW), and mulefat (FAC). Three additional perennial stream impoundments, totaling 16.12 acres, that are also the result of mining-related excavation activities are present south of Arroyo del Valle. Similar to Island Pond, the vegetation is comprised of riparian scrub and connect to Arroyo del Valle through series of inlet channels; thus, contributing to the hydrology of Arroyo del Valle. Although man-made, these features are potentially jurisdictional as impoundments of potentially jurisdictional non-wetland waters (Arroyo del Valle).

3 “Lake A” and “Lake B” are described and shown in the Reclamation Plan Amendment Application for the CEMEX Eliot Quarry Facility (Spinardi Associates and Mitchell Chadwick LLP 2014). Lake A includes features described in this report and shown in Appendix A as QP-05 and QP-06. Lake B includes silt pond S-03, and an adjacent basin that is currently dry.

21

Intermittent Stream (R4SB1) The Study Area contains three small, intermittent tributaries to Arroyo del Valle, which originate outside of the Study Area, and flow into the Study Area through culverted crossings under Vineyard Avenue. These tributaries occupy 0.31 acre (794 linear feet) and appear to flow solely during the rainy season, and are likely dry throughout the majority of the year. The most frequent OHWM indicators used to delineate these features include presence of a bed and bank, and sediment deposition. Intermittent streams within the Study Area generally lack adjacent riparian vegetation and streambanks are dominated by upland ruderal vegetation.

5.2 Floodplain Areas with One of Two Wetland Parameters

In some portions of the Study Area, Arroyo del Valle is flanked by a broad floodplain that is characterized by cobble to gravel substrate with sparse to dense cover of hydrophytic shrubs such as mulefat, willow, and giant reed. However, this area is largely a remnant of the historical hydrology regime, prior to the damming of Arroyo del Valle and the construction of the Del Valle Reservoir. Under the historical hydrological regime this floodplain area was likely within the ordinary high water mark of Arroyo del Valle and was likely inundated on an annual basis during winter high flow events. Under existing conditions the flow of Arroyo del Valle is carefully managed via releases from Del Valle Reservoir and there are only minimal seasonal fluctuations in flow volumes. As such, this floodplain terrace is no longer considered to be part of the active floodplain and would be outside of the new ordinary high water mark. Although these areas support hydrophytic shrubs, these species can be characterized as phreatophytes, deep-rooted plants capable of obtaining a significant portion of the water they need from the phreatic zone (zone of saturation) or capillary fringe about the phreatic zone. Therefore, the presence of these species reflects the presence of a relatively shallow groundwater table, and not regular saturation within the upper 24 inches of the soil profile.

5.3 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West

The Study Area contains wetlands that lacked hydric soil indicators, and were determined to be naturally problematic. Seven sample points (SP2, SP3, SP6, SP9, SP10, SP13, and SP15) contained naturally problematic soils. These sample points are located on vegetated sand and gravel bars within the floodplain of Arroyo del Valle. As described in the Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008), coarse textured soils within floodplains often lack hydric soil indicators due to seasonal or annual deposition of new soil material, low iron or manganese content, and low organic matter content. 5.4 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction

Quarry Ponds

Approximately 79.55 acres of quarry ponds were mapped within the Study Area. These artificially created ponds have formed where mining excavation below the water table has caused groundwater and high stream flows to fill former mine pits. We believe these features are not “Waters of the United States” based on the preamble to 33 CFR Part 328 in the November 13, 1986 Federal Register (51 CFR 4217, Section 328.3), which states:

“For clarification, it should be noted that we generally do not consider the following waters to be ‘Waters of the United States’:…(c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing,…(e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits

22

excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States.”

Silt Ponds

Approximately 140.15 acres of operational silt ponds were mapped within the Study Area. These basins are actively managed as part of the ongoing quarry operations and were constructed in uplands for the purpose of settling suspended solids. Sedimentation basins capture silt-laden runoff as designed, and generally support herbaceous hydrophytic plant species. However, regular maintenance generally prevents the growth of woody species. We believe these features are not “Waters of the United States” based on the preamble to 33 CFR Part 328 (see Quarry Pond section above), and based on 33 CFR 328.3a, which excludes water treatment systems and treatment ponds from the definition of “Waters of the United State.” Specifically, it excludes:

“Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the CWA.”

23

6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION

Potentially jurisdictional features within the Study Area include 22.86 acres of wetlands and 41.27 acres of non-wetland waters. Wetland types within the Study Area include freshwater marsh dominated by emergent perennial hydrophytes (e.g. cattails, bulrushes, and common reed) and willow riparian wetlands dominated by willows, cottonwoods, and giant reed. These features generally occur within or directly adjacent to Arroyo del Valle. The area outside of the Arroyo del Valle corridor generally lacks wetland features due to the presence of very well drained soils and long history of regular disturbance. Non-wetland waters within the Study Area include Arroyo del Valle and Island Pond, as well as three natural intermittent tributaries of Arroyo del Valle and three perennial stream impoundments. Arroyo del Valle is tributary to Alameda Creek, which flows into San Francisco Bay, a traditional navigable waterway. As such, these features are likely to be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Another 219.70 acres of aquatic features are believed to be exempt from jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These features include artificial ponds and lakes that were excavated in uplands for quarry activities and are actively used for water storage and groundwater recharge, and/or part of an ongoing mining operation on the overall property, as well as sediment basins within the active quarry operations area.

24

7.0 REFERENCES

Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The

Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

[Corps] United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05.

Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. [Corps] United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). September. [CSRL] California Soil Resources Lab. 2016. Online Soil Survey. Online at:

http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/; most recently accessed: February 2016. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department

of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Google Earth. 2016. Aerial Imagery 1993-2015. Most recently accessed: February 2016. Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2016. Jepson eFlora. Online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html;

most recently accessed: February 2016. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant

List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42. Munsell Color. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Grand Rapids, MI. Spinardi Associates and Mitchell Chadwick LLP. 2014. CEMEX Eliot Facility (CA Mine ID No.

91-01-0009) SMP-23 Reclamation Plan Amendment. Lead Agency: Alameda County Community Development Agency, Neighborhood Preservation and Sustainability Department, Hayward, California. Operator: CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific LLC, El Dorado Hills, California.

[UCANR] University of California Agriculture & Natural Resources. 2016. UC-IPM Weather

Data. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WEATHER/index.html Data from Pleasanton station, CIMIS #191. Most recently accessed: February 2016.

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil Survey

of Alameda Area, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil Survey

of Alameda Area, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

1995. WETS Table Documentation. NRCS, Water and Climate Center, Portland, OR. May 15, 1995. Available at: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/; accessed: December 2015.

http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/

25

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2010 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2015. Hydric Soils of the United States,

National List. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed March 2016.

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2016. WETS Station Livermore, CA4997,

1971-2000 analysis. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Online at: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/06111/wets/results. Most recently accessed: February 2016.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory website.

United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Online at: http://www.fws.gov/nwi/; most recently accessed: February 2016.

[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2016. Livermore 7.5-minute Quadrangle map. Westover, H.L. and C. Van Duyne. 1910. Soil Survey of the Livermore Area, California. Field

Operations of the Bureau of Soils.

http://www.fws.gov/nwi/

Appendix A - Preliminary Section 404 Jurisdictional Map

Eliot Quarry

Alameda County,California

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26007\GIS\ArcMap\Updated September 2016\FigX_Delin_Overview_20160606.mxd

Map Prepared Date: 11/2/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Airphrame (2016) , USGS 2011Data Source(s): WRA

.Hol

mes

St.

Vallecitos R

d.

Vineyard Ave.

Stanley Blvd.

Stanley Blvd.

Isabel Ave.

Vineyard Ave.

Isabel Ave.

Concannon Blvd.

Alden Ln.

Vineyard Ave.

Isabel Ave.

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

StudyArea - 968.32 acres

Mapbook Pages

OHWM

JurisdictionalFreshwater Marsh (PEMF) - 1.39 acres

Intermittent Stream (R4SB1) - 0.31 acre,794 lin. ft.

Perennial Stream (Arroyo del Valle,R2UB1) - 14.56 acres, 15,000 lin. ft.

Willow Riparian Wetland (PFO3C) - 21.47acres

Perennial Stream Impoundment (R2UB3) -26.40 acres

Non-JurisdictionalSilt Pond ((L2UB3) - 140.15 acres

Quarry Pond (L1UB3) - 79.55 acres

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

Appendix A.

DelineationMapbook Overview

River Right OHWMis Approximate

Eliot Quarry


Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26007\GIS\ArcMap\Updated September 2016\FigX_Delin_20160606.mxd


.

E

E

Stanley Blvd.

Lat: 37.6668Long: -121.8378

Lat: 37.6769Long: -121.8216


#* OHWM Cross-Section Location

Sample Points

") Culverts

OHWM








0 200 400 600 800

Feet

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

Map A1

1 inch = 400 feet

Appendix A.

Delineation Map

Eliot Quarry




.

E

E

Stanley Blvd.

Isabel Ave.

Lat: 37.6773Long: -121.8182

Lat: 37.6676Long: -121.8021



Sample Points

") Culverts

OHWM








0 200 400 600 800

Feet

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

Map A2

1 inch = 400 feet

Appendix A.

Delineation Map

Eliot Quarry




.

")

#*

E

E

Vineyard Ave. River Right OHWMis Approximate

SP-5

SP-6SP-7

SP-8

SP-9

SP-17

SP-18

SP-19

OHWM 2

Lat: 37.6656Long: -121.8212

Lat: 37.6559Long: -121.8367



Sample Points

") Culverts

OHWM








0 200 400 600 800

Feet

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

Map B1

1 inch = 400 feet

Appendix A.

Delineation Map

Eliot Quarry




.

")

E

E

Isabel Ave.

Concannon Blvd.

Alden Ln.

SP-10

Lat: 37.6553Long: -121.8184

Lat: 37.6656Long: -121.8025



Sample Points

") Culverts

OHWM








0 200 400 600 800

Feet

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

Map B2

1 inch = 400 feet

Appendix A.

Delineation Map

Eliot Quarry




.

#*

E

E

Vineyard Ave.

Isabel Ave.

SP-4

SP-3

SP-2

SP-13SP-14

OHWM 1

Lat: 37.6546Long: -121.8180

Lat: 37.6446Long: -121.8019



Sample Points

") Culverts

OHWM








0 200 400 600 800

Feet

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

Map C2

1 inch = 400 feet

Appendix A.

Delineation Map

Eliot Quarry




.

")

E

E

Hol

mes

St.

Vallecitos R

d.

Vineyard Ave. SP-1

SP-11

SP-12

SP-16

SP-15

Lat: 37.6443Long: -121.7986

Lat: 37.6543Long: -121.7828



Sample Points

") Culverts

OHWM








0 200 400 600 800

Feet

A1 A2

B1 B2

C2 C3

Map C3

1 inch = 400 feet

Appendix A.

Delineation Map

Appendix B – Wetland Delineation Data Sheets

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project Site: CEMEX Eliot Mine City/County: Pleasanton, Alameda County Sampling Date: 09/28/2015

Applicant/Owner: CEMEX State: California Sampling Point: SP 1

Investigator(s): Tim O’Donnell, Chip Bouril Section/Township/Range: S30, T3S, R2E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2

Subregion (LRR): C- California Lat: 37.6462919073021 Long: -121.78765701667 Datum: WGS84

Soil Map Unit Name: Riverwash NWI classification: None

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Yes X No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No

Remarks:

Inside OHW of Arroyo Del Valle.

VEGETATION

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25’ radius) Absolute

Cover % Dominant Species?

Indicator Status

Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Salix lasiolepis 25 X FACW Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

4 (A)

2.

3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

4 (B)

4.

Total Cover: 25 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

100 (A/B)

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15’ radius)

1. Salix laevigata 30 X FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

3. OBL species x 1 =

4. FACW species x 2 =

5. FAC species x 3 =

Total Cover: 30 FACU species x 4 =

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5’ radius) UPL Species x 5 =

1. Typha latifolia 35 X OBL Column totals (A) (B)

2. Persicaria lapathifolia 30 X FACW

3. Schoenoplectus acutus 10 OBL Prevalence Index = B/A =

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. X Dominance Test is >50%

6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8.

Total Cover: 75 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present.

1.

2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Total Cover: Yes X No

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust

Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: SP 1

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks

0-3 7.5YR 3/2 100 Muck Organic muck

3-12 10YR 3/2 100 Loam Gravel @ 12”.

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains

2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)

Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)

Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)

X Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)

Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Restrictive Layer (If present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No

Remarks:

Hydric soil.

HYDROLOGY

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

X High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

X Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2"

Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0” Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No

(includes capillary fringe)

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:





Investigator(s): Tim O’Donnel, Chip Bouril Section/Township/Range: S19, T3S, R2E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Pool Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0





Are Vegetation Soil X or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)





Remarks:

Adjacent pool fills from water table of Arroyo del Valle. Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high gravel content, and low organic matter content.

VEGETATION

Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute


Indicator Status


1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

3 (A)

2.


3 (B)

4.

Total Cover: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

100 (A/B)









1. Typha latifolia 80 X OBL Column totals (A) (B)

2. Persicaria lapathifolia 20 X FACW

3. Prevalence Index = B/A =






8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-3 10YR 3/2 100 Muck

3-12 Pure gravel







Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)

Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) X Other (Explain in Remarks)







Type: Gravel

Depth (inches): 3 Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No

Remarks:

Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high gravel content and low organic matter content.

HYDROLOGY



X Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)






Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 1

Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 1

Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No



Remarks:

Water at surface in some areas. Water level is nearly equal to creek.






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Creek Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2










Remarks:

Basin adjacent to active channel. Standing water and cattails in deeper areas. Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within a floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high sand content, and low organic matter content.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



4 (A)

2.


5 (B)

4.


80 (A/B)









1. Polypogon monspeliensis 20 X FACW Column totals (A) (B)

2. Salix lasiolepis 20 X FACW

3. Persicaria lapathifolia 20 X FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =

4. Dittrichia graveolens 20 X NL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:





8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-12 10YR 4/2 100 Sand















Type:


Remarks:

The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high sand content, and low organic matter content.

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:


Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 9”




Remarks:

Basin adjacent to active stream channel.






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local Relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3







Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Yes No X

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X

Remarks:

Upland adjacent to creek.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



1 (A)

2.


5 (B)

4.


20 (A/B)





4. FACW species 20 x 2 = 40

Total Cover: 20 FACU species 35 x 4 = 140

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5’ radius) UPL Species 55 x 5 = 275

1. Dittrichia graveolens 40 X NL Column totals 112 (A) 461 (B)

2. Bromus hordeaceus 10 X FACU

3. Hordeum murinum 10 X FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.19

4. Erigeron bonariensis 10 X FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. Avena barbata 8 NL Dominance Test is >50%

6. Bromus diandrus 5 NL Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

7. Aira caryophyllea 5 FACU Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting


8. Lotus corniculatus 2 FAC

9. Brassica nigra 2 UPL



1.


Total Cover: Yes No X


Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-12 10YR 4/2 100 Sand















Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X

Remarks:

No redox features.

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:


Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X



Remarks:

No saturation to 12”.






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Creek basin Local Relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0


Soil Map Unit Name: Gravel pit NWI classification: PSSA








Remarks:

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



4 (A)

2.


5 (B)

4.


80 (A/B)


1. Salix lasiolepis 50 X FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Arundo donax 30 X FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:






1. Dittrichia graveolens 40 X NL Column totals (A) (B)

2. Juncus phaeocephalus 20 X FACW

3. Typha latifolia 15 OBL Prevalence Index = B/A =

4. Cyperus eragrostis 15 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:





8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-2 10YR 3/2 92 2.5YR 3/2 8 RM M Sandy loam

2-7 10YR 4/3 100 Loamy sand











Thick Dark Surface (A12) X Redox Depressions (F8)




Type:


Remarks:

Redox features present.

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:





Investigator(s): Tim O’Donnell Section/Township/Range: S24, T3S, R1E



Soil Map Unit Name: Riverwash NWI classification R4USA








Remarks:

Inside OHWM. Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high gravel content, and low organic matter content.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



2 (A)

2.


2 (B)

4.


100 (A/B)


1. Arundo donax 60 X FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:







1. Juncus phaeocephalus 20 X FACW Column totals (A) (B)

2.







8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-2 10YR 3/2 100 Muck

2-12 Gravel















Type:


Remarks:

The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high gravel content, and low organic matter content.

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2”


Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No



Remarks:






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Creek basin Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2










Remarks:

Adjacent to creek. Outside of OHW.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



1 (A)

2.


1 (B)

4.


100 (A/B)








Herb Stratum (Plot size: N/A) UPL Species x 5 =

1. Column totals (A) (B)

2.







8.

Total Cover: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)


1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-2 10YR 4/3 100 Sand and silt

2-12 Pure gravel















Type:


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Creek Basin Local Relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2










Remarks:

Adjacent upland outside of OHW of creek.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



1 (A)

2.


1 (B)

4.


100 (A/B)

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15’radius)









2.







8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-12 N/A Pure gravel















Type:


Remarks:

Pure gravel in creek basin.

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

Outside of OHW.






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Creek basin Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2


Soil Map Unit Name: Riverwash NWI classification None








Remarks:

Depressional pool, slough near creek. Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high gravel content, and low organic matter content.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



2 (A)

2.


2 (B)

4.


100 (A/B)









1. Juncus phaeocephalus 20 X FACW Column totals (A) (B)

2.







8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-2 10YR 3/2 100 Muck

2-12 Gravel















Type:


Remarks:


HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 3”





Remarks:






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Creek basin Local Relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0










Remarks:

Inside OHW of creek. Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high gravel content, and low organic matter content.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



2 (A)

2.


2 (B)

4.


100 (A/B)










2.







8.



1.




Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-3 10YR 3/2 100 Muck

3-12 Gravel















Type:


Remarks:


HYDROLOGY



Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) X Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)







Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No



Remarks:
















Remarks:

Upland adjacent to seasonal wetland.

VEGETATION



Indicator Status


1. Salix laevigata 30 X FACW Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

1 (A)

2.


2 (B)

4.


50 (A/B)

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A)

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:



4. FACW species 30 x 2 = 60


Total Cover: FACU species x 4 =

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5’ radius) UPL Species 20 x 5 = 100

1. Avena barbata 20 X NL Column totals 50 (A) 160 (B)

2.

3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2


5. Dominance Test is >50%




8.



1.



% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust

Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-4 10YR 4/4 100 Sand & Gravel















Type:


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 10










Remarks:

VEGETATION



Indicator Status



0 (A)

2.


2 (B)

4.


0 (A/B)

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A)

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:





Total Cover: FACU species x 4 =


1. Brassica nigra 40 X NL Column totals (A) (B)

2. Centaurea soltsitalis 30 X NL

3. Avena barbata 10 NL Prevalence Index = B/A =


5. Dominance Test is >50%




8.



1.



% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 % Cover of Biotic Crust

Remarks:






2 Texture Remarks

0-3 10YR 4/4 100 Sand & gravel















Type:


Remarks:

50/50 sand gravel mix.

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

No hydrology.



Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)


Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland? Yes No

Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.


Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =

Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%

Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting


Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1.

2.

3.

4.

= Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:

CEMEX Eliot Mine Pleasanton, Alameda County 2/1/16

CEMEX CA SP 13

Cara Scott, Chris Gurney S19, T3S, R2E

Creek basin Concave 0-2

C- California 37.6520629352497 -121.802284872635 WGS84

Riverwash None✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

015' radius

Baccharis salicifolia 15 X FACBaccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea 5 X NL

205' radius

Typha angustifolia 25 X OBLEpilobium ciliatum 25 X FACWCyperus eragrostis 15 FACWHelminthotheca echiodes 10 FACUHirschfeldia incana 5 NL

80N/A

0

Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within a floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high sand and gravel content, and low organic matter content.

20 0

3

4

75

✔

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text


SOIL Sampling Point:


Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type

1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.

2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.









Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present,

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY


Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)







Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)


Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations:



Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe)



Remarks:

SP 13

0-10 Sand Sand with gravel

Flashy riverine system- recently deposited. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, very high sand and gravel content, and low organic matter content.

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

20
















Is the Sampled Area


Remarks:








OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =












1.

2.

3.

4.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:


CEMEX CA SP 14


Concave 1-5

C- California 37.6521505569941 -121.802169860023 WGS84

Riverwash None✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

015' radius

Bacchris pilularis ssp. consanguinea 5 X NL

55' radius

Centaurea solstitialis 40 X NLHirschfeldia incana 15 X NLErodium cicutarium 10 NLDittrichia graveolens 5 NLGalium sp. 5 NL

75N/A

0

25 0

0

3

0

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text





1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks















Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

SP 14

0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Loam Gravely with some sand

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
















Is the Sampled Area


Remarks:








OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =












1.

2.

3.

4.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:


CEMEX CA SP 15


Creek basin Concave 0-2

C- California 37.6465117838329 -121.788073368407 WGS84

Riverwash R4USA✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

015' radius

Bacchris pilularis ssp. consanguinea 25 X NLSalix exigua 15 X FACW

405' radius

Paspalum dilatatum 65 X FACCyperus eragrostis 30 X FACWTypha latifolia 5 OBL

100N/A

0

Soil is problematic as the sample point is located in a vegetated gravel bar within a floodplain. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, high sand content, and low organic matter content.

0 0

3

4

75

✔

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text





1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks















Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

SP 15

0-6 7.5YR 3/1 Silt Loam Sandy

Flashy riverine system- recently deposited. The soil lacks hydric indicators due to seasonal deposition of new soil material, high sand content, and low organic matter content.

✔

✔

✔✔

✔✔ 0
















Is the Sampled Area


Remarks:








OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =












1.

2.

3.

4.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:


CEMEX CA SP 16


Creek basin Convex 2-5

C- California 37.6465483134333 -121.788068552991 WGS84

Riverwash None✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

015' radius

Bacchris pilularis ssp. consanguinea 15 X NL

155' radius

Centaurea solstitialis 15 X NLErodium cicutarium 5 NLGalium aparine 2 NLBromus diandrus 2 NLHirschfeldia incana 2 NLFoeniculum vulgare 2 NLEuphorbia peplus 2 NL

30N/A

0

70 0

0

2

0

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text





1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks















Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

SP 16

0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Loam Gravely loam with some sand.

✔

✔
















Is the Sampled Area


Remarks:








OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =












1.

2.

3.

4.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:


CEMEX CA SP 17

Geoff Smick, Cara Scott S23, T3S, R1E

Creek basin Concave <5

C- California 37.6618476145795 -121.82476806878 WGS84

Gravel Pit N/A✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

015' radius

Salix laevigata 20 X FACWQuercus agrifolia 5 X NL

255' radius

Nasturtium officinale 20 X OBLHelenium bigelovii 20 X FACWHirschfeldia incana 15 X NLEpilobium ciliatum 15 X FACW

70N/A

0

30 0

4

6

66

✔

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text





1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks















Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

SP 17

0-5 10YR 4/2 100 Silt/Loam Sandy. Large cobbles and gravels.

5-12 10YR 4/2 100 Silt/cl/lo Medium-small gravels.

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

In flood terrace of regular flow channel 3 feet from OHWM.
















Is the Sampled Area


Remarks:








OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =












1.

2.

3.

4.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:


CEMEX CA SP 18


Concave 0

C- California 37.6618313060541 -121.824763886922 WGS84

Gravel pit None✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

0N/A

05' radius

Typha angustifolia 15 X OBLArundo donax 10 X FACWCyperus eragrostis 5 FACWRumex pulcher 5 FACVeronica americana 5 OBL

40N/A

0

60 0

2

2

100

✔

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text





1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks















Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

SP 18

No pit dug, standing water. Assumed presence.

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

00
















Is the Sampled Area


Remarks:








OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

FACU species x 4 =

UPL species x 5 =












1.

2.

3.

4.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


1.

2.

= Total Cover



Remarks:


CEMEX CA SP 19


None 0

C- California 37.6603000321896 -121.822374817947 WGS84

Gravel pit None✔

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

N/A

0N/A

05' radius

Festuca perennis 20 X NLBromus hordeaceus 15 X FACUPlantago lanceolata 10 X FACUDittrichia graveolens 10 X NLFestuca myuros 10 X NLHordeum murinum 10 X FACErodium cicutarium 10 X NLGeranium molle 5 NL

90

0

Ruderal upland.

10 0

1

7

14

✔

dzwick

Typewritten Text





1 Loc

2 Texture Remarks















Type:

Depth (inches):


Remarks:

HYDROLOGY












Field Observations:






Remarks:

SP 19

0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Loam Gravely loam with some sand.

✔

✔

Appendix C – Representative Photographs of the Study Area

Photograph 1. Representative willow riparian scrub, composed of giant reed (Arundo donax) interspersed with cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and various willows (Salix spp.) along Arroyo de Valle. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.

Photograph 2. Arroyo del Valle at the Isabel Avenue bridge crossing. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.

Appendix C. Site Photographs 1

Photograph 3. Representative ruderal uplands adjacent to willow riparian scrub, dominated by non-native annual grasses, and stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens). Photograph direction is southeast. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.

Photograph 4. Representative freshwater marsh dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis). Photograph direction is south. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.


Photograph 5. Photograph depicting active mining operations and silt pond within the CEMEX Eliot Mine facility. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.

Photograph 6. Quarry pond (QP-6). Photograph taken February 17, 2016.


Photograph 7. Arroyo del Valle with palustrine emergent plants such as cattails (Typha spp.), bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), dock (Rumex sp.), and watercress (Nasturtium officinale). Photograph taken February 17, 2016.

Photograph 8. Freshwater marsh dominated by cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) adjacent to willow riparian scrub. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.


Photograph 9. Photograph depicting remnant stands of California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) alluvial woodland. Photograph taken February 1, 2016.

Photograph 10. Representative floodplain area within the Arroyo del Valle stream corridor, consisting of cobbles and gravel, with sparse vegetation. Willow riparian scrub and giant reed stands in background. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.


Photograph 11. Photograph depicting native revegetation area dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) on a previously graded slope on the right. Perennial stream impoundment (PS-03) and adjacent willow riparian scrub is shown on the left. Photograph taken February 17, 2016.

Photograph 12. Photograph depicting Arroyo del Valle stream channel. Photograph taken February 3, 2016.


Appendix D – Plant Species Observed in the Study Area

D-1

Appendix D. Plant species observed in the Study Area.

Family Scientific Name Common Name Origin Form Wetland Indicator

Status CAL-IPC Status

Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum

Poison oak native vine, shrub FACU -

Apiaceae Conium maculatum Poison hemlock non-native (invasive) perennial herb FACW Moderate

Apiaceae Daucus carota Carrot non-native (invasive) perennial herb UPL -

Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Fennel non-native (invasive) perennial herb - High

Arecaceae Phoenix canariensis Canary island date palm non-native (invasive) tree - Limited

Asteraceae Artemisia californica Coastal sage brush native shrub - -

Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea

Coyote brush native shrub - -

Asteraceae Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia

Mule fat native shrub FAC -

Asteraceae Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle non-native (invasive) annual herb - High

Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Bullthistle non-native (invasive) perennial herb FACU Moderate

Asteraceae Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort non-native (invasive) annual herb - Moderate

Asteraceae Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved horseweed non-native annual herb FACU -

Asteraceae Gnaphalium palustre Lowland cudweed native annual herb FACW -

D-2



Asteraceae Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue non-native (invasive)

annual, perennial herb FACU -

Asteraceae Senecio sylvaticus Woodland groundsel non-native annual herb UPL -

Asteraceae Silybum marianum Milk thistle non-native (invasive)

annual, perennial herb - Limited

Asteraceae Sonchus asper ssp. asper Sow thistle non-native (invasive) annual herb FAC -

Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur native annual herb FAC -

Betulaceae Alnus rhombifolia White alder native tree FACW -

Brassicaceae Brassica nigra Black mustard non-native (invasive) annual herb - Moderate

Brassicaceae Brassica rapa Common mustard non-native (invasive) annual herb FACU Limited

Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana Mustard non-native (invasive) perennial herb - Moderate

Brassicaceae Lobularia maritima Sweet alyssum non-native (invasive) perennial herb - Limited

Brassicaceae Nasturtium officinale Watercress native perennial herb (aquatic) OBL -

Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus Russian thistle non-native (invasive) annual herb FACU Limited

Crassulaceae Crassula connata Sand pygmy weed native annual herb FAC -

Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus native perennial grasslike herb FACW -

D-3



Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis

Tule native perennial grasslike herb OBL -

Dipsacaceae Dipsacus fullonum Wild teasel non-native (invasive) perennial herb FAC Moderate

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia peplus Petty spurge non-native annual herb - -

Fabaceae Acmispon glaber var. glaber

Deerweed native perennial herb - -

Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil non-native (invasive) perennial herb FAC -

Fabaceae Lupinus nanus Valley sky lupine native annual herb - -

Fabaceae Vicia americana ssp. americana

American vetch native perennial herb, vine FAC -

Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia

Coast live oak native tree - -

Geraniaceae Erodium botrys Big heron bill non-native (invasive) annual herb FACU -

Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Coastal heron's bill non-native (invasive) annual herb - Limited

Geraniaceae Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium non-native (invasive)

annual, perennial herb - -

Juncaceae Juncus patens Rush native perennial grasslike herb FACW -

Juncaceae Juncus phaeocephalus Brown headed rush native perennial grasslike herb FACW -

Juncaceae Juncus xiphioides Iris leaved rush native perennial grasslike herb OBL -

D-4



Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare White horehound non-native (invasive) perennial herb FACU Limited

Lamiaceae Salvia mellifera Black sage native shrub - -

Malvaceae Malacothamnus fremontii Fremont's bush mallow native shrub - -

Montiaceae Claytonia perfoliata ssp. perfoliata

Claytonia native annual herb FAC -

Myrsinaceae Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel non-native annual herb FAC -

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum non-native (invasive) tree - Limited

Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum Glossy privet non-native (invasive) tree, shrub - -

Oleaceae Olea europaea Olive non-native (invasive) tree, shrub - Limited

Onagraceae Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum

Willow herb native perennial herb FACW -

Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy native annual, perennial herb - -

Phrymaceae Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky monkeyflower native shrub FACU -

Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Ribwort non-native (invasive) perennial herb FAC Limited

Platanaceae Platanus racemosa California sycamore native tree FAC -

Poaceae Aira caryophyllea Silvery hairgrass non-native (invasive) annual grass FACU -

D-5



Poaceae Arundo donax Giant reed non-native (invasive)

perennial grass FACW High

Poaceae Avena barbata Slim oat non-native (invasive)

annual, perennial

grass - Moderate

Poaceae Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome non-native (invasive) annual grass - Moderate

Poaceae Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess non-native (invasive) annual grass FACU Limited

Poaceae Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass non-native (invasive)

perennial grass FACU High

Poaceae Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass non-native (invasive) annual grass FACU -

Poaceae Festuca perennis Italian rye grass non-native annual,

perennial grass

FAC -

Poaceae Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley non-native (invasive) annual grass FACU -

Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass non-native perennial grass FAC -

Poaceae Phragmites australis Common reed native perennial grass FACW -

Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beard grass non-native (invasive) annual grass FACW Limited

Poaceae Stipa miliacea var. miliacea

Smilo grass non-native perennial grass - -

Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia Common knotweed native annual herb FACW -

Polygonaceae Rumex pulcher Fiddleleaf dock non-native perennial herb FAC -

D-6



Rosaceae Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon native shrub - -

Rosaceae Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry non-native (invasive) shrub FACU High

Rubiaceae Galium aparine Cleavers native annual herb FACU -

Salicaceae Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii

Cottonwood native tree FAC -

Salicaceae Salix laevigata Polished willow native tree FACW -

Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow native tree, shrub FACW -

Sapindaceae Aesculus californica Buckeye native tree - -

Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Woolly mullein non-native (invasive) perennial herb FACU Limited

Typhaceae Typha angustifolia Narrow leaf cattail non-native perennial herb (aquatic) OBL -

Typhaceae Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail native perennial herb (aquatic) OBL -

delineation of waters of the u.s. reportnps.acgov.org/nps-assets/docs/npstrb.pdf · 2169-g e....

Documents