Final
COHO-FRIENDLY HABITAT AND OPERATIONS PLAN For the San Geronimo Golf Course
Prepared for June 2014 Salmon Protection And Watershed Network (SPAWN)
Final
COHO-FRIENDLY HABITAT AND OPERATIONS PLAN For the San Geronimo Golf Course
Prepared for June 2014 Salmon Protection And Watershed Network (SPAWN)
Funded by California Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries Restoration Grant Program
550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Springs
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Cruz
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
121008
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Approach 1-2 2. Background 2-1 2.1 Physical Setting and Landuse History of the San Geronimo Valley 2-1 2.2 Geomorphic Setting 2-4 2.3 Hydrologic Setting 2-11 2.4 Salmonid Utilization 2-14 2.5 Previous Work 2-19 3. Habitat Restoration & Management 3-1 3.1 Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Assessment 3-1 3.2 Large Woody Debris Assessment 3-18 3.3 Salmonid Barrier Assessment 3-31 4. Stormwater Management Plan 4-1 4.1 Background 4-1 4.2 Creating a Stormwater BMP Toolkit 4-3 4.3 Recommendations 4-9 5. Golf Course Operations & Management 5-1 5.1 Water Conservation Plan 5-1 5.2 Integrated Pest Management Plan 5-21 5.3 Invasive Species Management Plan 5-34 6. Summary and Recommendations 6-1 7. References 7-1 8. Acknowledgments 8-1
Appendices A Stormwater Management BMPs A-1 B Irrigation Equipment Cut Sheets B-1 C Pesticide Use Tables C-1 D Integrated Pest Management Plan D-1 E CDFW FRGP Grant Requirements E-1 F Comments and Responses to Draft Report F-1
List of Tables 2-1 Present Time Landuse in San Geronimo Valley 2-2 2-2 Geomorphic Reaches 2-11 2-3 San Geronimo Golf Course Pond Sizes and Depths at Maximum Capacity 2-14 3-1 Recommended Prioritization of Riparian Enhancements 3-17 3-2 Riparian Enhancements Summary 3-18
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan i D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL Table of Contents
3-3 Summary of Lwd Reconnaissance Survey 3-25 3-4 LWD Opportunities and Constraints 3-30 3-5 LWD Planning-Level Cost Estimates 3-30 3-6 Summary of Salmonid Barrier Assessment 3-36 4-1 San Geronimo Creek Major Land Uses 4-2 4-2 Existing San Geronimo Golf Course Land Uses 4-2 4-3 Typical Pollutants Present in Runoff from Various Land Uses 4-10 4-4 Typical Pollutants Present in Runoff from Various Land Uses Paired with Treatment BMPs 4-10 4-5 Typical Bmps and Construction Costs 4-11 5-1 Monthly ETc Rates, Irrigation Precipitation, and Rainfall for 2012 5-4 5-2 WCP Measures, Cost and Benefit Analysis, and Status Summary 5-20 5-3 Greatest Bullfrog and Pacific Tree Frog Audio Indices of Each Pond 5-38 5-4 Frog Audio Call Index Values 5-38 5-5 Summary of Angling Survey Statistics at Golf Course Ponds 5-42 5-6 Invasive Species Management Recommendation Summary 5-52 5-7 Itemized List of Equipment Needed for the Project with Corresponding Costs 5-53 6-1 Potential Comprehensive Projects 6-3
List of Figures 2-1 San Geronimo Valley – Aerial Photograph (1952) 2-3 2-2 Lagunitas and San Geronimo Creek Watersheds 2-4 2-3 San Geronimo Creek Watershed 2-5 2-4 Project Site 2-7 2-5 Project Reaches – San Geronimo Creek 2-8 2-6 Project Reaches – Larsen Creek 2-9 2-7 SGGC Hydrologic Setting – San Geronimo Creek 2-12 2-8 SGGC Hydrologic Setting – Larsen Creek 2-13 2-9 Existing and Historic Coho Habitat 2-16 2-10 Lagunitas Creek Watershed Development 2-17 2-11 Coho Redds by Lagunitas Creek Sub-watershed 2-18 2-12 Recent SGGC Restoration & Enhancement Projects 2-21 3-1 Historic Alignments of San Geronimo Creek 3-2 3-2 Flooding at San Geronimo Creek 3-3 3-3 Historic Alignments of Larsen Creek 3-4 3-4 In-channel Enhancement Opportunities – Schematic Cross Section 3-7 3-5 Off-channel Enhancement Opportunities – Schematic Cross Section 3-8 3-6 Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Enhancements - San Geronimo Creek 3-9 3-7 Channel Complexity Enhancements - Alcove, Schematic Plan View 3-11 3-8 Channel Complexity Enhancements - Schematic Plan View 3-13 3-9 Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Enhancements - Larsen Creek 3-15 3-10 Large Woody Debris Assessment - San Geronimo Creek 3-21 3-11 Large Woody Debris Assessment - Larsen Creek 3-22 3-12 Existing Large Woody Debris Photographs 3-23 3-13 Residual Pool Depths associated with LWD 3-24 3-14 Large Woody Debris – Log Weir 3-27 3-15 Large Woody Debris – Log Deflector 3-28 3-16 Salmonid Barrier Assessment - San Geronimo Creek 3-32 3-17 Salmonid Barrier Assessment - Larsen Creek 3-33 3-18 Salmonid Barrier Assessment – Photographs of Complete Barriers 3-35 4-1 Stormwater Enhancements San Geronimo Creek and Maintenance Areas 4-5 4-2 Stormwater Enhancements - Clubhouse and Sir Francis Drake Blvd Areas 4-6
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan ii D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL Table of Contents
4-3 Stormwater Enhancements - Larsen Creek Area 4-7 5-1 Irrigation Pond and Piping Schematic Layout 5-7 5-2 Recommended Native Plant Species List 5-13 5-3 Typical Turf Removal, Schematic Layout 5-14 5-4 Water Conservation Measure Implementation Decision Tree 5-22 5-5 Water Conservation Measure Evaluation Decision Tree 5-23 5-6 Bullfrog Audio and Visual Counts 5-39 5-7 Pacific Tree Frog Audio Counts 5-40 5-8 Parrot’s Feather Infestations in Golf Course Ponds 5-40 5-9 Decision Tree of Parrot’s Feather Management Options 5-51 5-10 Culvert Cage Schematic 5-52
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan iii D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan iv D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
The Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan for the San Geronimo Golf Course is a planning document for the golf course, stakeholders, and community members to understand and prioritize opportunities for improving salmonid habitat through direct enhancement actions and management strategies on the golf course property. The plan specifically targets habitat and management improvements to benefit coho salmon at a range of lifestages.
The San Geronimo Golf Course (SGGC) is situated in the headwaters of the Lagunitas Creek Watershed. San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek flow through the Golf Course. These two creeks are part of a larger riparian assemblage extending to Tomales Bay that primarily supports coho salmon, steelhead trout, and to a lesser extent Chinook salmon. The golf course is one of the largest parcels of land adjacent to San Geronimo Creek within the San Geronimo Valley and salmonids actively use the creeks for spawning and rearing throughout the year. This makes the golf course highly suitable for development and implementation of restoration and management strategies that can have a significant benefit to salmonids. The residents and community of the San Geronimo Valley are deeply engaged and invested in improving the quality of habitat for coho and increasing likelihood for successful recovery of the species. This is a guidance document developed specifically for the SGGC, to benefit of coho salmon and steelhead trout, in the context of the greater San Geronimo Valley watershed and community.
This study was undertaken as part of a grant from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), obtained by the Salmon Protection AND Watershed Network (SPAWN). SPAWN is a community-based non-profit organization located in western Marin County that formed in 1996 as an effort to increase public support and funding for salmonid habitat restoration and protection projects within the Lagunitas Creek watershed. Over the years SPAWN has worked to create partnerships with public agencies and private property owners to protect and restore salmonid habitat, with the SGGC being one such partner. SPAWN and the past and current owners of the SGGC have worked together on previous habitat improvement projects including invasive plant removal, enhanced fish passage, floodplain restoration, bank stabilization, and in-stream habitat enhancements (LWD). This study furthers this previous work by developing a site scale restoration and management plan for the golf course aimed at improving conditions for salmonids at the golf course and within the greater watershed. The overall project goals related to golf course’s role in salmonid recovery include:
Directly improve coho salmon habitat, instream structure and riparian habitat Improve stormwater quality and manage peak flows
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 1-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 1. Introduction
Improve golf course operations and management (water use, integrated pest management, and invasive species management) The existing habitat conditions, management and treatment of stormwater, management and use of water for irrigation are three components that are central to developing a holistic management plan for the SGGC that will benefit salmonids.
The primary objectives of the Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan are to:
Identify opportunities to enhance and restore in-stream, riparian and floodplain habitat Identify opportunities to refine golf course operations to benefit riparian ecosystems while reducing operational costs Minimize impacts to the current playable footprint of the golf course Work collaboratively and effectively with the golf course and project stakeholders
This study evaluates the inter-relation of these components and provides recommendations for the golf course and stakeholders to consider for further development and implementation. The recommendations provided herein are provided for planning purposes and are not intended to be viewed as specific requirements to revise current or future operations of the golf course. This document was developed through a joint effort by ESA PWA, Restoration Resources, and SPAWN, with significant input from the staff of SGGC. 1.1 Approach
The project approach was developed based on the scope of work outlined in the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP) grant provided from CDFW. For reference, the grant requirements are cross referenced with the associated sections of this document included as Appendix E. In general the scope of work included review of relevant recent studies and literature, field investigations, and presentation of the findings for seven key study areas (see below). An initial kick-off meeting was held at the golf course to outline the key components of the study. Community members and stakeholders were invited to attend the kick-off meeting and also to participate in a site walk to discuss initial thoughts for habitat enhancement actions and management strategies. The project team conducted a reconnaissance level site investigation focused on the three (3) major components of the habitat and operations plan. Representatives from ESA PWA and SPAWN conducted a stream walk of San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek within the golf course to identify existing habitat features and potential restoration action locations. Representatives from ESA PWA and SPAWN also conducted a site review to
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 1-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 1. Introduction
inventory existing stormwater infrastructure within the golf course. Staff from Restoration Resources met with the golf course superintendent to review current irrigation and pest management practices. Golf course staff provided valuable input to each project team group during and subsequent to the reconnaissance field work.
Following the field investigations, the project team continued to coordinate with SPAWN, golf course staff, and where appropriate, industry representatives to inform the analyses conducted in this study. Additionally, SPAWN staff conducted literature review and site investigations to inform the invasive species management analysis.
The Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan includes the following key study areas:
Riparian and floodplain habitat assessment Large woody debris assessment Salmonid barrier assessment Stormwater management plan Water conservation plan Integrated pest management plan Invasive species management plan
This plan provides background and existing conditions or operations information for each of the key study areas. The information obtained during literature review, field reconnaissance and discussions with the golf course staff were used to formulate restoration and management opportunities for consideration at SGGC. In addition to this information each section of this plan provides recommendations for implementation actions associated with each study area, including cost considerations, where appropriate. Cost estimates are provided for reference and planning only and additional outside funding sources will likely be used for implementation of recommended actions. Finally, as part of the summary and recommendations, a suite of site scale implementation projects is presented that incorporates recommended actions from each study area as a means to initiate the next steps towards implementation of this plan.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 1-3 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 1-4 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 2 Background
2.1 Physical Setting and Landuse History of the San Geronimo Valley
The San Geronimo Valley is carved into the Central terrane of the Franciscan Mélange (a mix of marine sediments and metamorphic rocks). The valley floor is composed of Quaternary alluvial deposits around the project area; with a bedrock controlled valley further downstream (Stillwater Sciences, 2009). South facing valley side slopes tend to be moderately steep and covered in shrubs and grassland, while north facing slopes are steeper and covered with coniferous forest.
There is archaeological evidence of Coastal Miwok settlements in Marin from around 4,000 to 6,000 years before present (BP). Evidence elsewhere in the Bay Area shows Miwok settlements from 10,000 years BP and it seems likely that Marin was populated at this time, so the later dates for Marin may simply reflect the scarcity of early archaeological sites (for example coastal settlements that have been submerged by sea level rise in the last 10,000 years) (Striplen et.al., 2004). Coast Miwok lived in small hunter gatherer bands, with a diet that included salmon, acorns, nuts and deer. The Miwok managed vegetation cover extensively using fire to encourage oak trees to grow and to create open space for deer and other desirable plants and animals. Following the settlement of San Francisco’s Mission Dolores in 1776 the Coast Miwok population in Marin and Sonoma crashed from an estimated number between 1,500 and 2,000 in 1770 to 300 in 1848 and 60 by 1880 (Kroeber, 1925; Cook, 1976). The last recorded Miwok in Marin County, the Huimen Band, left the county by 1805. Striplen et. al. (2004) report a gap in organized land management between around 1805 and 1830, when Euro-American settlers started to move into the area that the Coast Miwok had formerly managed.
Early Euro-Americans started hunting and then settling in the San Geronimo valley around the 1830s, with clearance of land for arable crop production and timber harvesting. In 1844 8,701 acres of land along San Geronimo Creek (encompassing the present day towns of San Geronimo, Woodacre and Forest Knolls) was granted to Rafael Cacho to form the Rancho San Geronimo cattle ranch. In 1846 Joseph Revere bought the property and described it as follows:
“The Canada of San Geronimo is one of the loveliest valleys in California, shut in by lofty hills, the sides of which are covered with redwood forests, and pines of several kinds, and interspersed with many flowering trees and shrubs peculiar to the Country. Through it flows a copious stream, fed by the mountain brooks; and the soil in the bottomlands is so prolific, that a hundred bushels
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
of wheat to the acre can be raised with the rudest cultivation and other crops in corresponding abundance.”
In addition to cattle ranching, dairy and arable farming, the watershed was extensively logged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, primarily for paper production. Studies by Stillwater Sciences and others have estimated that sedimentation rates from the Lagunitas Creek watershed (of which San Geronimo Creek is a part) increased by a factor of ten between 1850 and 1900, presumably due to forest clearance. Sediment production slowed after 1900 due to replacement of arable land by pasture and eventual preservation of open space in the mid and late 20th century. San Geronimo Creek enlarged significantly during the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries but slowed down after this time as it reached bedrock and as watershed runoff rates are assumed to have stabilized or reduced (Stillwater, 2009).
In 1905-06 much of the valley was subdivided and sold to the Lagunitas Development Company, who developed the towns of San Geronimo, Forest Knolls, Lagunitas, and Woodacre. By 1925 San Geronimo had approximately 20 families (Marin County CDA, 1997). The valley was slated for much more extensive development in the 1960s, with the San Geronimo Golf Course being an early element of a much larger planned development, but efforts in the 1970s led to much of the remaining open space being preserved. Figure 2-1 shows an aerial photograph of San Geronimo Valley from 1952, taken prior to the construction of the golf course and current alignment of Sir Francis Drake Blvd. At the present time landuse in the San Geronimo Valley is as follows (modified from Stillwater Sciences, 2009):
TABLE 2-1 PRESENT TIME LANDUSE IN SAN GERONIMO VALLEY
Land Use Acres Percent of Watershed
Public open space 2,236 37% Single family residential 1,817 30% Agriculture 523 9% Institutional 423 7% Rural (unknown) 328 6% Roads 293 5% Commercial 190 3% Other 189 3% Total 5,999 100%
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Larsen Creek
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: USDA (1953) Figure 2-1 San Geronimo Valley - Aerial Photograph (1952)
2. Background
2.2 Geomorphic Setting
San Geronimo Creek is situated in the headwaters of the Lagunitas Creek Watershed (Figure 2-2). San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek flow through the Golf Course. Originating on the western slope of White’s Hill in western Marin County, the San Geronimo Creek Watershed (SGCW) encompasses an area approximately 5,995 acres and flows 4.5 miles to its confluence with Lagunitas Creek (Figure 2-3). This sub-watershed contains twelve tributaries including Woodacre Creek, Larsen Creek, Montezuma Creek, and Arroyo/El Cerrito/Barranca Creek complex. These are the four major tributaries to San Geronimo creek and serve as critical spawning habitat for coho salmon and steelhead trout (NOAA 2008 Lagunitas Creek Watershed).
SOURCE; NOAA, 2009 Figure 2-2 Lagunitas and San Geronimo Creek Watersheds
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-4 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
SOURCE: Marin County DPW Figure 2-3 San Geronimo Creek Watershed
2.2.1 San Geronimo Creek The project study area comprises portions of upper San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek (Figure 2-4). In the study area, San Geronimo Creek is a highly confined, gravel-bed stream. The channel is generally alluvial, but in some areas it is characterized and controlled by bedrock expressions. In general San Geronimo Creek is no longer connected to its historic floodplain, and even during rare flood events (e.g., 50- and 100-year events) the channel width is generally only twice as wide as the active channel width (e.g., the channel width that is inundated by smaller, more frequent flood events occurring every year or two on average). The channel generally ranges between pool-riffle and plane bed morphology, and the bed material ranges from small cobbles and coarse gravel down to sand. The channel gradient through the project area generally ranges from 0.0056 to 0.0060 (feet/feet) (except for the lowermost reach), a range commonly associated with pool-riffle morphology.1 This is consistent with the gradient estimate reported in the ECR.
In many areas the channel is scoured down to bedrock, suggesting that reach-scale channel incision may have slowed substantially or ceased altogether, and the processes of channel
1 Herein, all channel gradient estimates were based on points extracted from a LiDAR dataset (USGS, 2010).
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-5 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
widening and bank erosion may be equal or more dominant under present conditions. However, relatively thick bank and near-bank riparian vegetation, and generally cohesive bank materials, likely counter the process of fluvial erosion and widening to some degree, and mechanical bank failure may be the primary mode of bank material loss.
For purposes of analysis and discussion, San Geronimo Creek was broken into three (3) separate reaches (Figure 2-5) within the study area. The active channel width is notably wider (35 to 45 feet) in the upper half of the project reach (Reach SG3) as compared to the lower half of the project reach (25 to 35 feet) (Reaches SG1 and SG2).
Reach SG1 – The study area (and Reach SG1) begins just upstream of the cart path crossing and the drainage area to this point is approximately 4.1 square miles (USGS, 2013). This short reach is extremely flat with essentially a gradient of zero. The bed gradient and elevation through this reach is controlled to a large degree by Roy’s Pools at the downstream end of the study area. Though in the past, the channel has incised deeply into the valley, this reach currently appears depositional as evidenced by relatively large bar deposits and the presence of more fine bed material.
Reach SG2 – This is the most confined reach within the study area, and though gravel appears to be deposited and temporarily stored within this reach, the high degree of confinement does not allow for much fluvial sorting of potential spawning gravels. The availability of high flow refuge is also very limited. Bed topography is more variable overall within this reach (e.g., residual pool depths are slightly deeper), though there are few lateral bar deposits within this reach
Reach SG3 - As mentioned above, this reach is notably wider than the downstream project reaches. There are areas where the channel has scoured to bedrock, but more gravel is being temporarily stored and sorted within this reach as compared to areas downstream. As a result, the low-flow channel is slightly more sinuous, exhibiting more distinct and more frequent pool-riffle forms and lateral bar deposits. However, the overall bed topography is slightly less variable (i.e., pool depths are slightly shallower). Gravel deposits within this reach appear to exhibit more size- selective sorting. A number of spawning redds have been observed within this reach (from the Hole #6 bridge extending approximately 400 feet upstream) as evidenced by flagging from recent surveys conducted by MMWD and SPAWN.
2.2.2 Larsen Creek The headwaters of Larsen Creek are located in Roy’s Redwoods, immediately to the north and east of the golf course. The Larsen Creek mainstem is separated into two (2) distinct reaches, upstream and downstream of the large bedrock expression (control) located approximately at the mid-point of the project area (see Figure 2-6). The lower Larsen Creek reach (Reach L1) is a small, highly confined gravel bed channel, with an active channel width that varies from 10 to 20 feet, approximately. The drainage area for the project reach of Larsen Creek (from the point of confluence with North Fork Larsen Creek) is approximately 0.6 square miles (USGS, 2013). The bed material in Larsen Creek generally ranges from small cobbles and coarse gravel down to sand. However, as compared to San Geronimo Creek, the bed sediments are more angular,
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-6 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: Google Earth (2013) Figure 2-4 Project Site
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: ESRI (Basemap) Figure 2-5 Project Reaches San Geronimo Creek
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: ESRI (Basemap) Figure 2-6 Project Reaches Larsen Creek
2. Background
suggesting less fluvial abrasion and perhaps more episodic sources and transport. The channel gradient is relatively steep, approximately 0.0166 (feet/feet), which is within the range commonly associated with pool-riffle and/or plane bed morphology. The majority of bank erosion and failure locations noted during the field reconnaissance occurred along the right bank (north side) of the channel. The bank erosion is consistent with the relatively cohesive valley deposits, while the left bank exposes more bedrock sporadically throughout the channel and is typically more stable.
The upper reach of Larsen Creek (Reach L2) is much less confined, shallower, and has a notably gentler channel gradient based on visual observation. The active channel width is approximately 10 feet. The channel here has the impression of flowing through a wide, perched valley, or possibly a historic wetland complex. Habitat availability and complexity within the channel is extremely limited throughout this upper reach. Based on visual estimates, the channel bed within this upper reach had a higher percentage of fine material (e.g., fine sands and silt) as compared to the downstream reach.
It is also important to note that a portion of Larsen Creek, approximately 1,500 feet, is conveyed in culverts and routed through two (2) irrigation ponds within the SGGC. Larsen Creek currently enters the SGGC via a culvert under Nicasio Valley Road at the northeast corner of the golf course. Flow is directed to an old irrigation pond that discharges via a combination of channel flow and culvert to the primary irrigation pond for the golf course. The outlet of this pond is a 16- inch culvert that discharges directly to the upstream end of Larsen Creek near the Hole #10 fairway.
2.2.3 North Fork Larsen Creek The North Fork (NF) Larsen Creek is a small, relatively wide channel (i.e., high width-to-depth ratio) with an active width of approximately 5 to 10 feet. The watershed area for NF Larsen Creek is very small; less than 0.1 square miles (USGS, 2013), and the flow regime appears to be highly seasonal with ephemeral flows linked directly to storm events (the channel was dry during our field reconnaissance). Generally, the channel is very shallow, flat, and lacking well defined banks with a range of vegetation structure and cover. The channel between the confluence with Larsen Creek main stem and the lower cart path (130 feet, approximately) is open with limited riparian canopy – managed for golf course play. Above the cart path the creek channel is characterized by an undefined channel flowing through a thick and mature willow over-story. The ability of the channel to scour and mobilize sediment appears limited as there were no distinct pools observed within the majority of the reach. However, the upper extent of the reach (the upper approximately 230 feet upstream of the second cart path crossing) does exhibit some riffle-pool formations and increased sinuosity, though the channel was still relatively shallow (e.g., less than one foot deep across the active width). Though the riparian canopy in this reach is generally good, channel complexity and variation in bed topography is minimal (no LWD, bedrock pools, riffle-pool formations, etc.). Two headwater tributary streams join at this section of NF Larsen Creek. The tributaries are characterized by steep, well defined channels that extend upslope on the surrounding hills.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-10 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
TABLE 2-2 GEOMORPHIC REACHES
Reach Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Length (feet)
San Geronimo Creek SG1 Roy's Pools/Cart path bridge 40 feet downstream of maintenance 570 building SG2 40 feet downstream of maintenance Cart path bridge at hole 6 680 building SG3 Cart path bridge at hole 6 Property boundary 1,600 Larsen Creek L1 Cart path culvert Large bedrock barrier 800 L2 Large bedrock barrier Pond 4 culvert outlet 1,400 NFL Cart path culvert Headwaters 1,600
2.3 Hydrologic Setting
The southern portion of the San Geronimo Golf Course is bisected by San Geronimo Creek, which flows year round, but is seasonally variable with the lowest flow during summer months. San Geronimo Creek receives flow from the golf course from overland flow paths and concentrated flow paths, including discharges from several Ponds on the golf course (Figure 2-7). San Geronimo creek meanders through the southern portion of the golf course where Ponds 5, 6, and 7 border its floodplains. Pond 6 receives a small amount of runoff from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and the surrounding fairways. When at capacity, Pond 6 overflows into Pond 5, which overflows through a culvert that travels under San Geronimo Valley Drive and ultimately discharges to San Geronimo Creek downstream of the golf course. Pond 7 receives runoff from the surrounding fairways and when at capacity, overflows through a small culvert that transports the water under a cart path before emptying into a rock-lined swale that diffuses into San Geronimo creek south of Roy’s pools.
Pond 8 at the far eastern edge of the golf course receives a very small amount of runoff from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard but primarily serves as a holding pond for newly purchased irrigation water that is later pumped through the irrigation system to Pond 4 when needed for irrigation. Ponds 4, 5, and 8 are used for irrigation and are linked through a series of pumps that can transport water among these three ponds. Pond 8 does not have an overflow culvert and simply fills to capacity and spills over its banks during a large storm event. However, water is usually pumped to Ponds 4 or 5 before Pond 8 could overflow and flood the adjacent fairways. The Golf Course does not pump water during the winter months in order to use local runoff captured in the ponds and limit water purchases
On the back side of the SGGC, Larsen Creek flows under Nicasio Valley Road and empties directly into Pond 3 (Figure 2-8). During a storm event, Pond 3 overflows into Pond 4, which overflows through a culvert that discharges directly into Larsen creek approximately 700 feet southwest of the pond. Pond 1 in the southwest corner of the SGGC, receives runoff from the surrounding course and overflows through a culvert that empties into an ephemeral drainage
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-11 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Southern Portion of SGGGC
Blue lines indicate intermittent and perennial streams. Red lines indicate culverted or buried sections of the creek.
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: Google Earth (2013) Figure 2-7 SGGC Hydrologic Setting San Geronimo Creek
Northern Portion of SGGGC
Blue lines indicate intermittent and perennial streams. Red lines indicate culverted or buried sections of the creek.
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: Google Earth (2013) Figure 2-8 SGGC Hydrologic Setting Larsen Creek
2. Background
which spills into San Geronimo Creek after crossing under Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Pond 2, located adjacent to West Nicasio Road, receives runoff from the road, residential properties, and two unnamed ephemeral drainages. This pond has an outflow culvert that flows into a drainage ditch that connects with Larsen creek south of the pond.
The SGGC ponds range in sizes from less than half an acre to just over two acres. Due to the complexity of the course’s irrigation regime and the collection of recent rainfall, the water levels in these ponds can fluctuate greatly throughout the year. In spring, at the end of the rainy season, all the ponds are usually at or near capacity. As the summer progresses, the water levels in Ponds 1, 2, and 3 are greatly reduced. Pond 2 is the only pond on the course that completely dries. Ponds 1 and 3 generally dry up in certain areas but usually keep water in their deepest sections. Ponds 4, 5, and 8 see fluctuations in water levels due to irrigation water transfers between them. These ponds generally fill near capacity after new water has been purchased by the third week of every month. Ponds 6 and 7 are simply used for aesthetics and undergo moderate fluctuations in water levels throughout the year but generally retain most of their water as long as the course is irrigated.
TABLE 2-3 SAN GERONIMO GOLF COURSE POND SIZES AND DEPTHS AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY
Pond Number Pond Area (acre) Pond Depth (m) Pond Depth (feet)
1 0.84 acres 1.15 3.77 2 0.24 acres 1.07 3.51 3 0.43 acres 1.28 4.20 4 1.83 acres 2.32 7.61 5 2.01 acres 2.18 7.15 6 0.76 acres 1.20 3.94 7 0.19 acres 1.48 4.86 8 0.43 acres 1.76 5.77
2.4 Salmonid Utilization
The Lagunitas Creek Watershed located in Western Marin County serves as critical spawning habitat for the largest and most stable population of Central Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in California (Moyle et al. 2008). The Central Coast coho salmon are considered an Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) and are listed as critically endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Lagunitas Creek Watershed also supports a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) which are considered threatened under the ESA (NOAA 2013 Steelhead Trout).
2.4.1 Lagunitas Coho and Steelhead The Lagunitas Creek Watershed (LCW) originates on the northern slope of Mt. Tamalpais and flows northwest until it empties into Tomales Bay. The LCW encompasses an area of roughly
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-14 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
69,646 acres and contains approximately 35 miles of coho salmon habitat, and approximately 37 miles of steelhead trout habitat (NOAA 2008 Lagunitas Creek Watershed).
Central Coast coho salmon hatch and emerge from redds during late winter or early spring where they will spend about one year and grow into juveniles. After one year in the stream, the juveniles experience a physiological smolting process before migrating to the ocean the following spring. During the smolt stage, juveniles slough off scales and parr markings and grow larger to become ready for life in the ocean. After approximately one year and six months in the ocean, adults migrate upstream to their birth locations to spawn and die (NOAA 2013 Coho Salmon). This reproductive strategy is referred to as semilparity.
Steelhead trout have a slightly different life history from coho salmon. Steelhead fry generally hatch later in the spring and spend anywhere between one and two years in the stream before undergoing the smolting process and migrate to the ocean. Steelhead generally spend anywhere from six months to two years in the ocean before migrating upstream to spawn. One distinct difference between and coho is that steelhead can make several spawning trips back and forth from the ocean (Pincetich, Bouley, and Steiner 2008). This reproductive strategy is referred to as iteroparity.
The LCW coho and steelhead have experienced dramatic declines in abundances during the last several decades due to various human-induced and natural factors. The population of ESU Central Coast coho Salmon that occur in the LCW has dropped from 125,000 spawning adult coho to less than 5,000 (PCI, 2010). Given the complexity of salmonid life history, no single factor has contributed to their decline but instead, a combination of factors such as habitat loss, stream channel alteration, erosion, spawning habitat degradation, migration barriers, pollution, climate variability, and invasive species (NOAA 2013 Coho Salmon).Within the LCW, major habitat loss from the construction of reservoirs can be attributed as a significant factor to the decline of coho and steelhead. For instance, there are seven (7) impassible dams in the LCW and two (2) major reservoirs - Nicasio Reservoir and Kent Lake. These two reservoirs have reduced the available salmonid spawning habitat in the LCW by approximately 24% (NOAA 2008 Lagunitas Creek Watershed).
Encompassing only 9% of the entire LCW, the SGCW can support up to 40% of the LCW spawning coho salmon (Figure 2-9). This is critical considering that 48% of the SGCW is under private ownership with up to 40% of private properties and structures occurring within 100 feet of San Geronimo creek and its tributaries. A large amount of salmonid habitat degradation in the SGCW can be attributed to the encroachment of residential development on stream floodplains and riparian areas (Figure 2-10). In addition, the large amount of impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways, and rooftops, as well as inadequate septic tanks associated with urban development contributes to high velocity stream flows and non-point source pollution. These developments have caused stream bank failure, incised stream channels, stream bed erosion, and the presence pesticides, vehicle fluids, and fecal bacteria to occur in the streams (PCI, 2010).
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-15 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
San Geronimo Creek
SOURCE: NOAA, 2009 Figure 2-9 Existing and Historic Coho Habitat
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-16 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
San Geronimo Creek
SOURCE: NOAA, 2008 Figure 2-10 Lagunitas Creek Watershed Development
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-17 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
Given the current conditions the project reach of San Geronimo Creek continues to support active spawning habitat for coho and steelhead based on data collected by MMWD (Stillwater, 2009). The reach of Larsen Creek immediately downstream of the project reach actively supports spawning for coho and steelhead (Stillwater, 2009). A summary of coho redd surveys is presented below for large subwatersheds of the LCW. Spawning on the tributaries to San Geronimo Creek is highly variable and based on spawning numbers and water year conditions. The data presented in Figure 2-11 represents a snapshot of recent spawning redd data. It is important to note that the tributaries have historically provided critical spawning habitat for the population. MMWD spawning data indicated that in 2004-2005, a total of 57 coho redds were observed in San Geronimo Creek between Roy’s Pools and the confluence with Woodacre Creek. This accounted for over 65% of all the coho redds in the San Geronimo Creek, and over 11% of all the coho redds in the entire Lagunitas Creek Watershed (Ettlinger et al. 2005). This was the most ever observed in the watershed since population monitoring began in 1983.
Figure 2-11 Coho Redds by Lagunitas Creek Sub-watershed (MMWD, SPAWN)
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-18 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
2.5 Previous Work
This document and the findings and recommendations presented herein rely heavily on previous studies and analyses conducted specifically to understand and protect salmonids in the San Geronimo Valley. Additionally, the enhancement actions discussed and recommended herein are intended to build upon existing and ongoing restoration efforts at the golf course and within the San Geronimo Valley.
2.5.1 Recent Studies There are two (2) recent documents directly related to improving habitat for coho in the San Geronimo Valley that provide a strong background and basis for the findings of this study. These two documents were prepared for the Marin County Department of Public Works (Marin DPW) and are highlighted here because of their importance and direct correlation and application to coho-friendly improvements at SGGC:
1. The San Geronimo Valley Enhancement Plan Existing Conditions Report (ECR) prepared by Stillwater Sciences, 2009. 2. The San Geronimo Valley Salmon Enhancement Plan was prepared by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI), 2010.
Together, these documents resulted in a compilation of science-based field data assessments with linkages to land-use practices in the San Geronimo Valley. The studies were used to develop recommendations for salmonid habitat enhancement in the San Geronimo Creek watershed. A key characteristic of these documents is that they were developed to be 1) science-based and 2); readily accessible and understandable to a broad public audience. As such, this study utilizes both of these studies as a basis for developing more specific analyses and recommendations for the SGGC.
2.5.2 Past and Current Restoration Projects The SGGC has experienced several restoration efforts over the years with the purpose of enhancing the riparian zone and in-stream habitat for coho salmon. Some of these projects have been grant funded, while others have been spear-headed by groups of volunteers wanting to make a positive impact on the creek.
Perhaps one of the most well-known projects was to install a fish ladder at ‘Roy’s Pools’ in 1999 to help fish migration. A small dam that was a fish barrier was removed and pilings were installed to form a series of step pools, with a small fish ladder on the left bank. However, Roy’s Pools has been plagued with problems of flow going subsurface through the structure during late spring and summer when salmon and steelhead smolts are outmigrating. This results in the stranding of both young-of-the-year and smolting salmonids between the weirs in often times lethal water quality conditions. The pools heat up in the summer and dissolved oxygen levels plummet as algal growth within the pools decays (Steiner, 1999). Since 2000, SPAWN (with permits from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and CDFW) has rescued fish from these pools (Figure 2-12). In more recent years, SPAWN and Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) have jointly
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-19 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 2. Background
conducted juvenile fish rescue and relocation efforts using electro-fishing techniques in Roy’s Pools as a short-term approach for addressing the current situation. This structure is currently identified as a partial passage barrier. SPAWN recently received notification that CDFW will be funding the design phase for removal of the structure at Roy’s Pools to restore a passable channel. The initial phase of the design is schedule to begin during the summer of 2014.
Other past projects include a willow wall installation and riparian buffer widening by SPAWN and volunteers, with consultation from Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI) for bank stabilization just upstream from Roy’s Pools. The invasive Himalayan blackberry plants have also been removed on both sides of Roy’s Pools and planted with native, riparian plants by SPAWN and volunteers (Figure 2-12). Bird nest boxes were also installed along both sides of the riparian corridor of San Geronimo Creek to increase the abundance of nesting birds within the SGGC.
In 2011, SPAWN and Dragonfly Restoration, with consultation by Streamline Engineering, installed three large woody debris (LWD) structures to increase fish habitat. The LWD sites are located in Reach SG3 (explained below) of San Geronimo Creek. Himalayan blackberries were removed near tee box 5 and planted with native riparian vegetation in 2012. Maintenance at this site continues today. Both projects were funded by the CDFW. A photograph of two of the LWD structures is shown in Figure 2-12.
SPAWN has successfully acquired funding from CDFW to install four LWD structures, a willow wall, and to install native riparian plantings along Larsen Creek near Hole #11. Construction is planned to occur during the summer of 2014.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-20 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Fish rescue effort at Roy’s Pools (undated) Volunteers planting native plants following blackberry removal (2012)
Large woody debris installation, San Geronimo Creek (2011) Large woody debris installation, San Geronimo Creek (2011)
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: SPAWN Figure 2-12 Recent SGGC Restoration & Enhancement Projects
2. Background
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 2-22 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 3 Habitat Restoration & Management
3.1 Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Assessment
California’s riparian habitats harbor more than 225 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, 2004). The National Research Council (2002) concluded that riparian areas perform a disproportionate number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis and that the restoration of riparian function along America’s water bodies should be a national goal.
Despite its importance, riparian habitat has been decimated over the past 150 years. Riparian habitat covers 2% to 15% of its historic range in California (Katibah 1984, Dawdy 1989). For landbird species in California, riparian habitat may be the most important habitat (Manley and Davidson 1993). California’s riparian habitat provides important breeding and over wintering grounds, migration stopover areas, and corridors for dispersal (Cogswell 1962, Gaines 1977, Ralph 1998, Humple and Geupel 2002, Flannery et al. 2004).
The narrowing of riparian corridors and channel entrenchment has resulted in increased flow velocities and fewer areas of refuge for fish during high flow events. Loss of this habitat also reduces the potential biological productivity necessary to sustain the inhabitants of the riparian ecosystem, specifically including salmonids.
Historic USGS topographic maps, dating from 1914 to 1978, were reviewed to identify changes to the alignments and locations of San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek within the SGGC as well as their associated floodplains and riparian extents. The USGS topographic maps pre-date the golf course and show the level of development within the project vicinity. The historic maps were compared to recent aerial photographs as well as field assessments to evaluate and define approaches for improvements to riparian and floodplain habitat within the project site.
San Geronimo Creek is generally located along the southern edge of the valley with the majority of the floodplain area to the north of the creek. Based on the historic topography, this alignment and floodplain condition has not changed significantly since the early 1900’s aside from land use developments. However, the 1914 USGS topographic map suggests that the lower portion of San Geronimo Creek originally occupied a slightly more sinuous channel further to the south of its current position within the project reach (Figure 3-1). This may explain, in part, the distinct change to a wider channel upstream of the Hole #6 bridge. The cause of this apparent shift, whether man-made or natural (e.g., induced by a landslide or debris flow), is unclear.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: USGS Figure 3-1 Historic Alignments of San Geronimo Creek 1914 and 1978
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
San Geronimo Creek has incised such that the channel has the capacity to convey large floods and thus is disconnected from the floodplain (Stillwater, 2009). There currently exists very little potential floodplain area, outside of the riparian corridor, that is not either 1) golf course or; 2) residential property.
Figure 3-2 Flooding at San Geronimo Creek Near Hole #6 (left) and upstream of Roy’s Pools (right) (SPAWN)
San Geronimo Creek is bounded by the golf course on both banks downstream of the Hole #6 bridge and is bounded by the golf course to the north and residential development to the south upstream of the bridge. This constraint, in addition to the entrenched channel, significantly limits the potential to enhance or improve the floodplain connectivity without major modifications (i.e. widening) to the golf course layout. The riparian corridor has a relatively continuous canopy and sufficient width to support riparian enhancements through inset floodplain enhancements and some limited channel corridor widening. Specific locations with sufficient canopy width include the northern bank in Reaches SG1 and SG2 and select locations of the south bank near the upstream of Reach SG2 as well as immediately downstream of the maintenance bridge.
Both Larsen Creek and North Fork Larsen Creek show slight changes in plan form when compared to their historic alignments (i.e., as depicted on the USGS map from 1914) (Figure 3- 3). Upon issuing from the steeper uplands, historically North Fork Larsen Creek appeared to flow in a more westerly direction, following the toe of the hillsides before turning south through the small valley. The existing alignment through the valley appears to be straighter and further east of the historic alignment. Historically, the lowermost reach of the mainstem Larsen Creek more closely followed the toe of the small ridge along its southern (left) bank, wrapping around the western nose of the ridge just prior to the confluence with North Fork Larsen Creek. Again, it appears that this lowermost reach was straightened at some point and now flows almost due west.
3.1.1 Restoration & Enhancement Opportunities Relatively significant opportunities to enhance the riparian corridor along San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek exist throughout the study area. Within the limits of SGGC there are a few notable locations that could provide opportunities to widen the riparian corridor without
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-3 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: USGS Figure 3-3 Historic Alignments of Larsen Creek 1914 and 1978
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
significantly impacting the play of the course. However, opportunities to widen the functional floodplain would require significant grading resulting in adverse impacts to the current play of the course along both creeks. The SEP identified the need for improvements to riparian vegetation and channel complexity for rearing and high flow refugia as key recommendations for this reach of San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek (PCI, 2010).
The restoration enhancement opportunities identified within the SGGC for San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek focus on improvements to the existing riparian corridor. Floodplain enhancements are assumed to impact the golf course too significantly and are not consistent with the objective of this study to minimize impacts to the play of the course. Current areas of active play (fairways, greens, and tee boxes) that are parallel and adjacent to the creeks could be considered for enhancement actions (e.g. channel widening or terracing) if present landuse were to change in the future.
The following creek restoration opportunities were identified within SGGC:
Maintain and enhance native riparian species, including invasive species removal Increase riparian buffer widths Increase complexity and diversity of off-channel habitat, within the creek corridors Riparian vegetation management can be applied throughout the entire project reach for both creeks. Removal of invasive species (e.g. English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, French broom) will improve the opportunity for native plants to thrive and regenerate with the riparian zone. Selective vegetation clearing and ongoing management will allow trees to grow to maturity, regenerate, and ultimately contribute to large woody debris within the channel corridor.
The riparian buffer is measured from the edge of the active channel to the limits of the riparian vegetation. The SEP recommends a minimum riparian buffer width of 35 feet, and indicates that a buffer of 100 feet will support a naturally regenerating riparian forest (PCI, 2010). The riparian buffer area provides critical habitat elements for many species including salmonids. These areas also provide opportunity for filtering runoff prior to entering the channel. A continuous and mature riparian canopy provides shade to the channel which helps maintain the cool water conditions most suitable for coho and steelhead. There are opportunities for riparian buffer widening along both San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks.
The need for improved channel complexity to support summer rearing, over-wintering, and winter high-flow refugia were identified by in the SEP and ECR as key elements to improving coho habitat. Recommendations include installation of large woody debris (LWD); selective grading to create inset floodplain benches and overbank areas; and promoting and sustaining existing wood structures (PCI, 2010). Potential channel complexity improvements at San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek include installation of LWD and boulder features, bank grading, creation and enhancement of alcoves and side channels. Instream and channel edge structures create local habitat complexity, force or direct flows, trap sediment and recruit accumulation of woody debris. Grading and bank widening will increase the opportunities for off-
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-5 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
channel rearing and high-flow refuge habitat. In combination with revegetation and installation of biotechnical features such as LWD, these off-channel features will provide a much needed habitat component to the creeks at SGGC. Additionally, tributary connections and storm drain outfalls can be improved to provide better connection to the main channel through bank grading and biotechnical stabilization measures. The opportunities for LWD are discussed in detail in Section 3.2, though they should be directly integrated with the suggested riparian improvements.
Specific restoration actions were developed for each creek based on the identified restoration opportunities and are discussed in the context of the geomorphic reaches identified in Section 2.1 above. Schematic cross sections showing opportunities for riparian habitat enhancements were developed for in-channel and off-channel areas and are shown in Figure 3-4 and 3-5, respectively.
San Geronimo Creek Opportunities for riparian and floodplain habitat enhancements for the reaches of San Geronimo Creek, within the SGGC, are shown in Figure 3-6.
Reach SG1 –There is potential to widen the riparian buffer on the north side of the creek on the order of 50 feet. This would require relocation and/or narrowing of the existing maintenance access road. There is limited opportunity to widen the riparian buffer to the south due to the proximity of golf course holes and tees as well as a mature oak tree. However, widening the riparian area by even small amounts can have significant benefit to the stream. Because the buffer is so narrow in places, widening by 5 feet could increase the width by 50% to 100%, providing significant habitat value. Widening of the corridor would be coupled with improvements to the channel complexity by grading inset floodplain areas and/or alcoves along the northern side of the channel. A schematic plan view for a portion of this reach showing a created alcove and associated in-channel LWD and boulder cluster features is presented in Figure 3-7. This reach includes Roy’s Pools but improvements in the immediate vicinity of Roy’s Pools were not developed for this study as they are being considered under a separate investigation led by SPAWN.
Reach SG2 –There is significant potential to improve the riparian habitat in this reach of the creek, especially given its confined limits, as described above. Infrastructure improvements including relocation of the storage buildings immediately adjacent to the top of the north bank and realigning the maintenance road will provide benefit to increasing the riparian buffer. This will also improve water quality by relocating vehicles and storage of potential contaminants away from the channel. The concrete abutments of the existing bridge near the maintenance buildings confines the channel and racked debris was observed on the upstream side of the bridge during the site reconnaissance. It is desirable to maintain this crossing for maintenance needs - replacement of the bridge with a wider, free-span structure would allow for more natural flow and debris transport through this reach. Potential bank stabilization actions exist on both banks immediately upstream of the maintenance bridge.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-6 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Figure 3-4 In-Channel Enhancement Opportunities Schematic Cross Section
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Figure 3-5 Off-Channel Enhancement Opportunities Schematic Cross Section
Sir Francis Drake Blvd
3T
8 2T
2
Nicasio Rd Valley Relocate Relocate Access Structures Road 4
8T
5T
Outfall Stabilization 3 6 Reach SG1 4T 7 Reach SG2 Reach SG3
7T 5 6T
Sylvestris Dr Sa n Geronimo Cree k
San Geronimo Valley Dr
R
e
d M w
eado o
o
r d
D C w
p a
V n m i y ew a 0 o 100 200 C n r L D Feet e n e r Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community D Sources: ESRI (Basemap), County of Marin (Parcels). Legend
Free-Span Bridge Outfall Stabilization Roys Pools Channel Complexity Native Riparian Riparain Buffer Zone Expansion
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan. D121008.00 Figure 3-6 Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Enhancements - San Geronimo Creek
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Figure 3-7 Channel Complexity Enhancements - Alcove Schematic Plan View
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
The portion of this reach located between the maintenance bridge and the Hole #6 bridge has the most potential for riparian habitat improvement along San Geronimo Creek within the SGGC. Just downstream of the Hole #6 bridge, the banks are steep and flows are being forced to the outside bend resulting in bank erosion. Installation of flow forcing LWD combined with laying back the channel banks could improve flow conditions downstream of the bridge. A high flow secondary channel is present in this reach that could be enhanced through selective grading and revegetation to engage during flow events above the base flow conditions to provide winter high flow refugia. Placement of boulder clusters, LWD would provide sediment sorting and could be configured to facilitate backing flow up in the main channel to spread out onto graded floodplain terraces or benches. An existing storm drain outfall is present near the downstream portion of this section of the channel that shows signs of erosion and has been reinforced with armoring. This outfall could be stabilized via constructed steps and in combination with a graded alcove feature create an off-channel habitat area that would receive flows during winter months. A schematic plan view of potential riparian improvements within this reach is shown in Figure 3-8.
Reach SG3 –This reach is wider than downstream of the Hole #6 bridge and also adjacent to private residential property to the south, effectively limiting both the need and opportunity for certain riparian enhancements. Riparian buffer widening would result in impacts to the play of the course and there are limited opportunities for bank and inset floodplain or terrace grading. There are several recent LWD installations near the upstream end of this reach. Enhancements in this reach would focus on riparian vegetation management, improvements to existing storm drain outfalls and connections to the main channel through bank stabilization and selective installation of LWD.
Larsen Creek Opportunities for riparian and floodplain habitat enhancements for the reaches of Larsen Creek, within the SGGC, are shown in Figure 3-9.
Reach L1 – There is potential to widen the riparian buffer along the north bank of Larsen Creek within this reach with limited impacts to the play of the course. The riparian buffer could be increased on the order of 20 to 30 feet. There are two (2) locations of existing bank erosion between the North Fork confluence and the Hole #11 bridge that should are being addressed. SPAWN is currently working to stabilize these locations through the installation of a willow wall and LWD elements, with construction anticipated for 2014. This portion of the reach is the primary area of focus for channel bank and instream habitat enhancements. Enhancements along the remainder of the reach would primarily focus on riparian vegetation management and native riparian revegetation within the widened buffer zone.
Reach L2 – The primary focus of riparian enhancements in this reach would be riparian buffer widening, riparian vegetation management and native riparian revegetation. There is an opportunity to increase the riparian corridor upstream of the cart path at the Hole #10 by daylighting the existing culvert to create a natural channel through an area of limited use by the golf course. However, channel daylighting would not provide a significant benefit to coho habitat because of the complete passage barrier at the bedrock expression at the downstream end of this
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-12 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Figure 3-8 Channel Complexity Enhancements Schematic Plan View
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-14 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 320
15T
N 16
o
r t h
F
o
r k L 17T a r s W e Nic n 11T as io R C d
r e e 18T k 16T 17 10 Reach L1 30 FT 15 Reach L2 40 FT
11 L a rs e n C choolR r Lagunitas S d e e d R k y e ll a V io s a ic N
290
280
10T 18
0200100 Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: ESRI (Basemap), County of Marin (Parcels). Legend
Parcel Boundary Free-Span Bridge Channel Complexity Native Riparian Riparian Buffer Zone Expansion Ephemeral Stream Stormwater Pipes Stormdrain Inlet
Coho-Friendly Habitat and operations Plan. D121008.00. Figure 3-9 Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Enhancements - Larsen Creek
This page intentionally left blank
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
reach. Daylighting would provide an extension of the Larsen Creek riparian canopy and could also serve to improve water quality in Larsen Creek. Daylighting this culvert would require construction of step pool features to accommodate the gradient between Hole #18 and the upstream limit of Larsen Creek.
Reach NFL – Because this reach is isolated from fish migration and passage, the potential benefit to improving riparian habitat for salmonids is limited. Any enhancements to this reach would focus on riparian vegetation management and native riparian revegetation. One specific action identified for this reach to install a bioswale feature to capture and filter runoff from the adjacent golf course areas prior to discharging to the creek. Actions to improve channel complexity would be appropriate only if the culvert at the cart path is replaced or improved to allow fish to access to the North Fork of Larsen Creek. 3.1.2 Recommendations It is anticipated that the most successful and feasible enhancement actions to the riparian habitat at the SGGC will include limited widening of channel banks with more focus on improvements to habitat complexity to support rearing and high flow refugia needs. It may be possible to construct isolated restoration elements (LWD, boulder clusters, etc.). However, to the extent possible, restoration approaches should be developed for the geomorphic reaches as described herein. While likely more costly and impacting to the channel and golf course, this approach will result in a more holistic design and installation of resilient riparian enhancements that will provide lasting benefits to the creeks, and specifically, to coho and steelhead that utilize these habitat areas.
Future efforts to improve riparian habitat and function within the SGGC should be focused initially on Reach SG2 of San Geronimo Creek and Reach L1 of Larsen Creek. These reaches will likely provide the most direct and immediate benefit to coho habitat in locations that fish are known to utilize throughout the year. Actions within Reach SG1 of San Geronimo Creek will also likely provide significant benefit to coho, but it is recommended that any actions in this area be incorporated into or coordinated with the future reconfiguration of Roy’s Pools. Table 3-1 below provides a ranking of the project reaches described above along with a qualitative assessment of costs for design and implementation. The cost categories included in the table below should be considered as ranges: low = $50,000 to $100,000; medium = $100,000 to $250,000; high = $250,000 to $500,000.
TABLE 3-1 RECOMMENDED PRIORITIZATION OF RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENTS
Rank Project Reach Cost
1 San Geronimo Creek - Reach SG2 High 2 Larsen Creek - Reach L1 Medium 3 San Geronimo Creek - Reach SG1* High 4 San Geronimo Creek - Reach SG3 Low 5 Larsen Creek - Reach L2 High 6 North Fork Larsen Creek – Reach NFL Low
*Assumed to be coordinated with Roy's Pools
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-17 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
TABLE 3-2 RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENTS SUMMARY
Reach Opportunities Constraints Recommended Actions
SG1 Out-of play areas Infrastructure Widen riparian buffer to the north Construction accessibility Roy's pools Realign access road Wide riparian corridor Golf course impacts Create off-channel habitat Mature vegetation Enhance riparian vegetation SG2 Out-of play areas Infrastructure Relocate maintenance structures Construction accessibility Bank instability Enhance in-channel habitat Wide riparian corridor Golf course impacts Selective channel and bank grading Mature vegetation Improve storm drain connections Enhance riparian vegetation Replace bridge SG2 Vegetation management Infrastructure Enhance in-channel habitat In-channel habitat Residential property Enhance riparian vegetation Golf course impacts Improve storm drain connections L1 Low play areas Golf course impacts Widen riparian buffer to the north Recent improvements Construction access Enhance in-channel habitat Enhance riparian vegetation L2 Vegetation management Golf course impacts Enhance riparian vegetation Low play areas Habitat benefit Daylight culvert Flooding issues NFL Golf course impacts Golf course impacts Enhance riparian vegetation Connection to headwaters No fish access Bioswale Ephemeral channel
3.2 Large Woody Debris Assessment
An assessment of large woody debris (LWD) was conducted for San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks within the SGGC project area. The goal of the LWD assessment was to evaluate existing LWD density and function within the project reaches, as well as identify needs and prioritize potential installation sites with regards to LWD. This assessment consisted of reviewing project site maps and available information, research on existing and historic conditions within San Geronimo Creek, and a reconnaissance-level field survey of accessible portions of San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks within the project area.
3.2.1 LWD Function Specific habitat needs related to channel complexity have been identified for upper San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks (PCI, 2010). For San Geronimo Creek these include improving channel complexity for summer rearing and over-wintering (e.g., high flow refugia), and promoting development of inset floodplains. For Larsen Creek, the specific needs include improving channel complexity for over-wintering and spawning.
LWD provides habitat complexity within stream and river channels, which is critically important for salmonids because complex habitats are typically highly productive, offer velocity refuges and cover, and maintain lower temperatures (NMFS, 2012). Instream large wood has been linked to overall salmonid production in streams with positive correlations between large wood and salmonid abundance, distribution, and survival (Sharma and Hilborn, 2001, as cited by NMFS, 2012). The geomorphic effects of wood on fluvial systems range in scale from controlling bed
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-18 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
forms and influencing channel patterns to floodplain development (Abbe et al., 2003). Snags and logjams can be the principal mechanism creating habitat complexity not only within an active channel, but also by inducing localized flooding and creating and sustaining secondary channels and wetlands (Abbe et al., 2003). In a recent study of the Lagunitas Creek watershed, including San Geronimo Creek, Lawrence et al. (2013) noted that large wood was the primary pool forming factor in their study reaches.
Large wood influences the physical form of the channel, channel processes, addition and retention of organic matter and biological community composition (Saldi-Caromile, 2004). Existing LWD structures within the project reaches generally serve to create or enhance important functions, including (but not limited to) the following:
Retention and sorting of spawning gravels; Retention of organic material (e.g., wood, detritus); Creation and maintenance of pool habitat through flow concentration and scour; Provide channel stability (absorb force of high flows), thereby reducing bank erosion and promoting riparian vegetation development; Maintain and promote connectivity between the channel and floodplain benches or secondary channels; Provide cover and food for salmonids and other aquatic species. 3.2.2 LWD and Habitat Indicators Not all pieces of in-channel wood provide the same functions or degree of habitat complexity. Generally, the larger the piece of wood the more benefit it provides with respect to sustaining habitat complexity and beneficial attributes. NMFS (2012) developed indicators of properly functioning conditions, and the LWD indicator was defined as the number of key pieces of large wood per 100 meters of stream. Key pieces are logs or rootwads that are independently stable within the bankfull width and not functionally held by another factor, and can retain other pieces of organic debris (WFPB, 1997, as cited by NMFS, 2012). Key pieces also meet the following size criteria: 1) for bankfull channels 10 meters wide or less, a minimum diameter 0.55 meters and length of 10 meters, or a volume 2.5 cubic meter or greater, and 2) for channels between 10 and 100 meters, a minimum diameter of 0.65 meters and length of 19 meters, or a volume six cubic meters or greater (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999, as cited by NMFS, 2012).
The frequency of key pieces of large wood is important to the creation and maintenance of pool habitat which is critical for multiple salmonid life stages (NMFS, 2012). The California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board developed indices with rating thresholds for LWD associated with freshwater salmonid habitat conditions. These ratings were based on observed wood distribution, sizes and structure type in several central California creeks and provide a linkage between the number of key pieces and a qualitative assessment of salmonid habitat quality rivers (NMFS, 2012). With respect to LWD density, in small channels (i.e., bankfull width between 0 and 10 meters), 6 to 11 key pieces per 100 meters of channel would be considered good, whereas 4 to 6 pieces would be considered fair. For larger channels (i.e.,
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-19 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
bankfull width between 10 and 100 meters), good key LWD density would range from 1.3 to 4 pieces per 100 meters of channel, while 1-1.3 pieces would be considered fair (NMFS, 2012). Though these criteria are not formally adopted here, they are used as guidance and for semi- quantitatively identifying the presence and density of existing key pieces of LWD as well as qualitatively linking LWD to salmonid habitat conditions.
As listed above, creation of pool habitat is one of the primary beneficial functions of LWD with respect to salmonid habitat. Criteria and indicators for residual pool depths also exist. The SEP (PCI, 2010) recommends a target residual pool depth of at least two feet for summer rearing and over-wintering habitat. 3.2.3 LWD Presence and Location in the Project Area During our field investigation and reconnaissance we documented the presence and characteristics of LWD in the study reaches of San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek. Pieces of in-channel wood (e.g., large single trees, multiple smaller trees/debris jams, etc.) that are exerting some kind of forcing effect on channel hydraulics were cataloged and their positions were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble GPS unit. At each location we measured the residual pool depth, described the wood structure, and visually estimated the diameter(s) and size and whether or not it would qualify as a key piece. The results of our reconnaissance survey are presented in Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11 and Table 3-3. Photographs of existing large woody debris observed during the field investigation are presented in Figure 3-12.
Pool depths associated with LWD ranged from 0.3 to 4 feet, with an average of 2.3 feet on San Geronimo Creek and 1.2 feet on Larsen Creek. The average maximum depth associated with existing LWD features in San Geronimo Creek is greater than the target minimum of 2 feet (PCI, 2010). However, the range of existing depths (1 foot to greater than 4 feet) indicates that some pools are still shallower than what would be considered good salmonid habitat.
On average, the density of LWD within the San Geronimo Creek was approximately 2.1 pieces per 100 meters of channel, and within Larsen Creek it was approximately 1.4 pieces per 100 meters of channel. However, not all of observed LWD would be considered key pieces, i.e., they are likely not independently stable within the active channel width and may be subject to removal and relocation during flood flows. With respect to key pieces of LWD, the density per 100 meters was 1.2 and 0.4 for San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek, respectively. Although Larsen Creek has a lower LWD density than San Geronimo, other features of this smaller channel add to habitat complexity, such as exposed tree roots and undercut banks. The density of key LWD pieces is well below the values put forward by NMFS (2012) as indicative of good to excellent salmonid habitat complexity. However, it does appear that the key pieces of LWD are generally forcing deeper pools as compared to smaller and less permanent woody debris (at least for San Geronimo Creek) (Figure 3-13). Currently, the existing LWD is functioning to promote and provide pool habitat and temporarily store available gravel. In general much of the existing LWD is not large enough to be considered a key piece and the pool depths and gravel volumes are somewhat limited. LWD often creates side-channels and/or enhances the connectivity with floodplain (Saldi-Caromile, 2004). However, even with decent key LWD density, this important function is largely absent because of the highly confined nature of the channel.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-20 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 Source: CalFish (2013) Figure 3-10 Large Woody Debris Assessment San Geronimo Creek
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 Source: CalFish (2013) Figure 3-11 Large Woody Debris Assessment Larsen Creek
Existing large woody debris – San Geronimo Creek Existing large woody debris – San Geronimo Creek
Existing large woody debris – San Geronimo Creek Existing large woody debris – Larsen Creek
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Figure 3-12 Existing Large Woody Debris Photographs
Residual Pool Depths Associated with Existing LWD, San Geronimo Cr Project Reach 6.0 Observed LWD (key pieces) Observed LWD
5.0
4.0 (ft)
Depth
Pool 3.0 Max.
Estimated 2.0
1.0
0.0 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 Channel Distance from Sir Francis Drake Blvd (ft)
Residual Pool Depths Associated with Existing LWD, Larsen Cr Project Reach 6.0 Observed LWD (key pieces) Observed LWD
5.0
4.0 (ft)
Depth
Pool 3.0 Max.
Estimated 2.0
1.0
0.0 0 300 600 900 Channel Distance from NF Larsen Cr confluence(ft)
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 Figure 3-13 Residual Pool Depths Associated with LWD
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
TABLE 3-3 SUMMARY OF LWD RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
Estimated Max. Pool Log Diameter Spanning Reach Depth (feet) No. Pieces Type (in) Structure? “Key” Piece? Northing (feet) (1) Easting (feet) (1)
Larsen Creek Reach L1 1.2 5 Log Jam 3-18 no yes 5935611.2 2200896.4 Reach L1 0.3 1 Sloped Log Sill 12 no no 5935627.5 2200881.5 Reach L1 1.4 1 Rootwad n/a no no 5935659 2200875.3 Reach L2 2 2 Sloped Log Sill 6 no no 5936148.8 2200900.2 San Geronimo Creek Reach SG1 4.0+ 1 Log Jam 12 no no 5938874.3 2198461.3 Reach SG1 1.5 6 Log Jam 6-18 no no 5939067.8 2198523.7 Reach SG1 2.5 7 Log Jam 6-12 no yes 5939106.8 2198513.2 Reach SG2 3 1 Rootwad Jam 24 no yes 5939253.5 2198509.3 Reach SG2 2.5 1 Sloped Log Sill 18 no yes 5939333.2 2198501 Reach SG2 1.5 8 Log Jam 8-24 no no 5939494.4 2198490 Reach SG2 1 1 Live Log 12 yes yes 5939505.9 2198477.5 Reach SG2 3.5 1 Sloped Log Sill 36 no yes 5939539.8 2198406.2 Exposed Root Reach SG2 4.0+ 3 6-30 no no 5939692.3 2198381.4 Log Jam Constructed LWD - Reach SG3 1.5 5 12-24 no no 5939833.4 2198164.6 Rootwads Constructed LWD - Reach SG3 2 6 12-24 yes no 5940032.9 2198117.4 Rootwads Constructed LWD - Bank Reach SG3 2.5 3 12-24 no yes 5940082 2198090.2 Logs Reach SG3 3 1 Live Log n/a no yes 5940288.4 2198149.9 Reach SG3 2.5 2 Log Weir 18 yes yes 5940482.2 2198152.9 Reach SG3 1 1 Fallen & Perched Multi-trunk 12 no yes 5940910.7 2198155.6 Reach SG3 1.5 4 Log Jam 6-24 no yes 5940959.9 2198170.3 Reach SG3 3.5 1 Sloped Log Sill 12 no no 5940938.8 2198213.8 Overhanging Live Multi-trunk Reach SG3 1 1 24 no no 5941023.9 2198285.4 & Rootmass
NOTES: (1) Coordinate System: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD 83.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-25 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
Spanning structures tended to capture more gravel upstream, yet depending on their angle the effect on downstream pool depth varied. For example, flat, sill-like orientation usually did not produce a deep pool downstream, whereas pieces that were at a high angle but did not span the channel were effective at inducing scour and deeper pools though sequestered little-to-no incoming gravel. Widening the active channel would increase utility by also improving conditions for high-flow refugia and likely promote more efficient fluvial sorting (i.e., allow for more distinct and variable flow fields).
3.2.4 Recommended Actions For San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek, the existing densities of key LWD pieces are below values indicative of good to excellent stream habitat complexity. Existing pieces of LWD are serving adequately with respect to retaining spawning gravels and providing pool habitat, however there is little-to-no high flow refugia associated with existing LWD primarily because of the confined nature of the channels.
We recommend the following primary actions with respect to LWD enhancement projects:
LWD placement where existing density of key pieces is low; LWD placement/enhancement at small tributary junctions, coupled with widening and lowering of the tributary mouth. LWD placement to create or enhance high-flow refugia habitat coupled with additional channel complexity modifications (e.g. floodplain terrace or alcove grading) Based on our reconnaissance-level survey and assessment, Table 3-4 summarizes some specific opportunities and constraints with respect to LWD installation and enhancement within the project reaches. We qualitatively prioritize suggested projects at the conceptual level based on consideration of the opportunities and constraints. Figures 3-14 and 3-15 show two (2) examples of LWD installations that could be applied within the project reaches at the recommended locations (see Table 3-4). These LWD installations include a LWD deflector structure installed at the channel margin and a channel spanning LWD weir structure. These structures are similar to the log and rootwad structures described in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (CDFW, 2010). Specifically, the structures presented herein are similar to the structures identified in the CDFW manual based on materials, function, and size or scale:
Single and multiple log structures are similar to the digger log Log deflectors are similar to spider logs Log weirs are similar between this study and the CDFW manual Primary differences between the structures presented herein and the CDFW manual are the configuration of the logs and rootwads and the methods used for anchoring the structures.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-26 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Log Weir (with sediment accumulation)– Redwood Creek
Log Weirs – Redwoood Creek
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 SOURCE: Figure 3-14 Large Woody Debris – Log Weir
Log Deflector – Napa River
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Figure 3-15 Large Woody Debris – Log Deflector
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
The deflector structure can be used to force flow, create localized scour, and provide refuge habitat. The weir structure can be used to create pool habitat, trap sediment, and raise water levels to inundate off-channel areas. Design for channel-spanning weir structures would incorporate criteria for California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica). It is noted that installation of channel-spanning weir structures could be limited or ultimately not recommended, based on species life cycle criteria and needs, if California freshwater shrimp and or habitat are present. Pre-project surveys should be conducted to evaluate habitat and presence of California freshwater shrimp and to inform design and construction methods.
Potential installation locations for each of the proposed structure types are also shown on Figures 3-10 and 3-11. Planning level cost estimates are provided (Table 3-5) for these type of LWD structures and other potential structure types appropriate for the scale and habitat needs of the creeks at SGGC. Costs are provided for individual structures, though it is most likely that multiple structures would be implemented within a larger project. Design and permitting single structure projects is not recommended due to cost benefit values. We recommend aggregating multiple actions under a more comprehensive project to optimize cost efficiencies for design and permitting.
This assessment and recommendations are based on the guidance and habitat metrics found in the SEP and the Coho Recovery Plan. However, from a relative perspective, it is not clear what factor (or factors) may actually be limiting salmonid productivity and viability within the project area. Given the confined nature of the channel and lack of floodplain or secondary channel connectivity, it appears that lack of high flow refugia may be the most limiting factor within the project reaches.
The installation of LWD as an isolated enhancement measure will provide site-scale complexity and habitat value and can create pockets of high flow refugia. Specifically, given uncertainties related to climate change, drought conditions, limited and degraded summer rearing habitat, the installation of large wood and other in-channel structures or features could prove to be beneficial within the existing system. Incorporation of other channel enhancement actions with large wood structures will optimize function and value in terms of habitat and cost benefits.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-29 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
TABLE 3-4 LWD OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Reach Opportunities Constraints Priority
San Geronimo Creek Reach SG1 Increase density of key LWD Roy's Pools exerts hydraulic control LOW – Roy’s Pools and flat (install up to 3 pieces); over this reach and may limit gradient reduce bank angle and benefits of LWD installation (e.g., widen channel (right bank) scour, gravel recruitment); flat channel gradient Reach SG2 Increase density of key LWD potential lateral constraints: 6th hole HIGH – this reach is the most (upper) in upper half of reach (install fairway, 5th hole tee boxes; 6th hole constrained and exhibits some of 3 to 5 pieces); create bench bridge the most severe bank or side channel habitat; erosion/failures; upper part of reduce bank angle and reach is lacking any key LWD widen channel Reach SG2 Install key LWD (spanning) potential lateral constraints: 6th hole HIGH – this reach is the most (lower) just downstream of golf fairway, 5th hole tee boxes; bedrock constrained, lacks any high flow course tributary (between 5th control just downstream of tributary refugia tee and maintenance yard); may limit effectiveness of LWD widen and lower tributary mouth, including stabilizing bank failure area Reach SG3 Install or improve key LWD potential lateral constraints: 6th hole LOW – existing spawning (spanning) just downstream tee boxes; this reach is actively activity/success should be further of golf course tributary utilized by salmonids for spawning assessed (between 6th hole tee (this project should only be boxes); widen and lower implemented if it could be shown to tributary mouth improve spawning habitat) Larsen Creek Reach L1 Increase density of key LWD potential lateral constraints: cart MEDIUM – most pools associated (install up to 3 to 4 pieces), path (right bank), 12th hole green, with existing LWD are less than 2 target bank failure areas; 11th hole green; sight-line feet deep reduce bank angle and maintenance for 11th hole green widen channel (both banks) approach Reach L2 No recommendations bedrock barrier currently makes this LOW – cost/benefit of providing reach inaccessible; lack of gravel access to this reach is too high; supply from upstream; existing bed hydrology capable of promoting surface appears to have high fine scour/complexity associated with content; reach terminates at culvert LWD is likely inadequate in this draining pond reach (upstream storage/pond) Reach NFL No recommendations potential lateral constraints: cart LOW – hydrology capable of path, 12th hole green; hydrology promoting scour/complexity capable of promoting associated with LWD is likely scour/complexity associated with inadequate in this reach (drainage LWD is likely inadequate in this area is too small) reach (drainage area is too small)
TABLE 3-5 LWD PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Structure Type Design & Permitting Implementation Total
Single Log $10,000 $3,500 $13,500 Multiple Log (3) $15,000 $5,000 $20,000 Weir $15,000 $10,000 $25,000 Deflector $15,000 $5,000 $20,000 Off-channel $15,000 $3,000 $18,000
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-30 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 3. Habitat Restoration & Management
3.3 Salmonid Barrier Assessment
An assessment of salmonid passage barriers was conducted for San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks within the SGGC project area. The goal of the passage barrier assessment was to identify and categorize existing barriers and prioritize their removal (if feasible and appropriate).
Potential salmonid passage barriers within the project areas were documented during our field reconnaissance and assessed generally following the passage requirements and barrier definitions described by Flosi et al (2010). This guidance document describes three general barrier types (and combinations thereof):
jump (or drop height) barrier flow depth barrier velocity barrier Two partial passage barriers exist on San Geronimo Creek, outside the project area and just beyond the downstream extent of the study area. One is at the crossing of San Geronimo Valley Drive and the other just upstream at Roy’s Pools (CalFish, 2013) (Figure 3-16). Under certain moderate flow conditions these barriers may be passable for adult salmonids as evidenced by spawning upstream of the barriers. Otherwise they are generally an impediment to upstream movement of juveniles and downstream movement of outmigrating smolts.
Roy’s Pools was constructed in 1999 to replace a dam at the same location and can generally be described as three sheet pile pools. However, shortly after construction, two of the pools failed to hold water and currently allow flow under the structure effectively drying the pools. This condition creates a downstream migration barrier for outmigrating smolts. The pools also do not meet jump height requirements for upstream juvenile migration. Additionally, water that does pond in the pools is of poor quality that can threaten salmonids. This can result in stranding of salmonids between the weirs in potentially lethal water quality conditions (Steiner, 1999) Funding for design of a restoration approach for this barrier was recently secured through CDFW, with design schedule to begin during summer 2014. The design will also address the sill located immediately downstream of Roy’s Pools, which a partial passage barrier.
Two complete barriers within the project area, both on Larsen Creek, were identified and confirmed in the field. Both area also identified in the CDFW passage assessment database (PAD), (CalFish, 2013) (Figure 3-17) and were documented by SPAWN as part of their migration barrier inventory (SPAWN, 2002). The barrier on the main stem Larsen Creek, located to the south of the Hole #11 fairway, is a natural bedrock barrier that has a drop height in excess of 10 feet.2
2 Drop height refers to the difference between the water surface elevations upstream and downstream of the barrier.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-31 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: CalFiah (2013), USGS NHD (2013) Figure 3-16 Salmonid Barrier Assessment San Geronimo Creek
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: CalFiah (2013), USGS NHD (2013) Figure 3-17 Salmonid Barrier Assessment Larsen Creek
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
The barrier at the mouth of North Fork Larsen Creek is a perched 36-inch corrugated pipe culvert at the cart path crossing. The drop height at this location is approximately 3.4 feet, as surveyed with a hand-level and stadia rod during field reconnaissance. Based on the observed scour line and active channel depth, even during a moderate flood event (e.g., 2-year event or ~45 cfs; determined using USGS, 2013, and Gotvald et al., 2012) the drop height would exceed the maximum recommended value of 1.0 feet (Flosi et al., 2010). In other words, during a moderate flood event the flow depth increase on Larsen Creek would likely not exceed 2.4 feet, based on observed channel geometry.
Therefore, both of these locations would qualify as complete barriers to adult and juvenile salmonid passage based on an excessive drop height. No potential passage barriers in addition to those previously identified in the PAD (CalFish, 2013) were noted during our field reconnaissance and subsequent assessment.
At very low flows (e.g., base flow conditions) existing bedrock exposures in both San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks could present temporary barriers to adult and juvenile passage due to extremely shallow flow depths. However, these are natural features of the system and the constraints they present under existing conditions are more attributable to the seasonality of flow. Areas of notable bedrock exposures within the San Geronimo and Larsen Creek reaches were field located and are depicted in Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17.
To assess potential reach-scale velocity constraints, we extracted cross sections from the LiDAR, (USGS, 2010) data at a number of locations and assessed the hydraulics resulting from the approximated 2-year flood event (determined using USGS, 2013, and Gotvald et al., 2012). Estimated velocities for the San Geronimo Creek project reaches ranged from 3.8 to 4.5 feet per second, and on Larsen Creek velocities ranged from 3.8 to 4.5 feet per second. The sustained swimming speed for adult salmonids is approximately 6 feet per second, and for juveniles and resident trout is it estimated to be 4 feet per second (Flosi et al., 2010). Therefore, though confined, there are generally no velocity barriers within the project reaches based upon our reach- scale assessment of channel hydraulics.
3.3.1 Recommended Actions Barrier #1, Larsen Creek (bedrock) This appears to be a natural barrier (Figure 3-18) at the downstream end of a historic wet-meadow or other type of depositional feature. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of channel exist upstream of the bedrock barrier prior to the channel dissipating. Upstream of this point the drainage is captured by an irrigation pond and drained through a culvert. The lack of channel complexity, shallow depth, uncertain hydrology, and the potential high fine sediment content of the bed precludes this reach from providing enough potential benefit to justify a project that would open this reach up for salmonid access. Modification or removal of this barrier is not recommended at this time.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-34 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Larsen Creek North Fork Larsen Creek Barrier #1 – Bedrock Barrier #2 – Culvert at Cart Path (view from top of bedrock barrier)
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC. D121008.00 Source: ESA PWA (2013) Figure 3-18 Salmonid Barrier Assessment Photographs of Complete Barriers
3. Habitat Restoration & Management
TABLE 3-6 SUMMARY OF SALMONID BARRIER ASSESSMENT
Reach Barrier Comment Recommendation
San Geronimo Creek SG1 Roy's Pools Not included in this study n/a SG2 none n/a n/a SG3 none n/a n/a Larsen Creek L1 none n/a n/a L2 Bedrock Natural barrier No Action Limited valuable habitat upstream NFL Cart path culvert Limited valuable habitat upstream No Action
Barrier #2, North Fork Larsen Creek (culvert) The culvert at the cart path (Figure 3-18) crossing represents a complete barrier to salmonid passage at all life stages. Upstream of the culvert there remains approximately 1,000 feet of creek before the channel becomes what is essentially a steep gully. As described above, the channel is generally very shallow. There were no real pools observed within the majority of this reach, and though the riparian canopy appears good, channel complexity and variation in bed topography appears minimal (no LWD, bedrock pools, riffle-pool formations, etc.). The factors limiting spawning and over-wintering habitat potential appear to be gravel supply and hydrology, and not the lack of LWD. Providing access to this approximately 1,000 foot reach would provide little-to- no benefit with respect to spawning or over-wintering habitat. Modification or removal of this barrier is not recommended at this time.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 3-36 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 4 Stormwater Management Plan
4.1 Background
A stormwater management plan was developed for the SGGC. The primary goals of the stormwater management plan are to identify and evaluate opportunities to:
Benefit both golf course operations and salmonid habitat Address peak flow mitigation for added impervious areas Improve water quality Rainfall and runoff impact both golf course management and the physical processes and available habitat within San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks. Golf course operations including watering, fertilizing, and grounds maintenance are generally planned around the seasons and individual precipitation events in particular. Rainfall and golf course overwatering can move sediment, nutrients and other pollutants off the grounds and into waterways. Increased runoff caused by impervious surfaces (roads, buildings, paths) within the watershed also impacts the creek structure and function. To the extent practical, the objective of a stormwater management plan is to make the golf courses activities become transparent in the landscape, meaning that the golf course itself is not impacting receiving waters in a measureable or visible way.
The analysis presented in this stormwater management plan is largely qualitative, describing the toolkit and recommended approaches for addressing each identified area of concern.
The 9.4 square mile San Geronimo Creek watershed, with its western terminus at the confluence with Lagunitas Creek, is comprised primarily of open space and single-family residential development, with agriculture, institutional, roads, and rural designations rounding out large percentages. The total amount of impervious area in the watershed was estimated to be 5% (Stillwater 2009). It is observed that structural changes to receiving waters, both physical and biological, occur when approximately 10% of a watershed is covered by impervious surfaces (Center for Watershed Protection 1998). Within the 100-foot Stream Conservation Area in the San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek watersheds, this value is typically higher than 10% (Stillwater, 2009).
However, land use changes, such as cattle grazing and leaching of septic tank effluent, can disproportionately affect creek water quality. Several deficiencies have been identified in previous studies including decreased dissolved oxygen, fine sediment concentrations of metals,
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
and water temperatures (Stillwater, 2007 and PCI, 2010). These conditions vary throughout the year and are influenced by ambient air temperatures, seasonal runoff, and in-stream flow conditions.
Table 4-1 and 4-2 list the areas and land use types within the San Geronimo Creek watershed generally and specifically for the golf course, respectively.
TABLE 4-1 SAN GERONIMO CREEK MAJOR LAND USES
Total Area Impervious Area
Land Use Acre Acre Percent
Agriculture 553 2 0.0% Commercial 190 34 0.6% Institutional 423 12 0.2% Residential 1960 114 1.9% Open Space 2252 8 0.1% Rural 328 3 0.0% Roads* 293 293 4.9% Total 5999 465 7.7%
* All data from Stillwater, except amount of road that is impervious. In Stillwater (2009) only 45% of the roads are impervious, without a clear rationale.
TABLE 4-2 EXISTING SAN GERONIMO GOLF COURSE LAND USES
Total Area Impervious Area
Land Use Acre Acre Percent
Open Space (including creeks) 32.9 0.0 0.0% Golf Course Landscape 116.7 0.0 0.0% Golf Course Ponds 3.8 0.0 0.0% Paths - Golf Cart 5.8 5.8 3.5% Roads - Golf Course 0.4 0.4 0.2% Building 0.4 0.4 0.3% Parking Lots 2.2 2.2 1.3% Subtotal 162.2 8.8 5.4%
Adjacent Roads 5.2 5.2 3.1% Total 167.4 14.0 8.4%
The watershed experiences a Mediterranean climate where summers are typically warm and dry, except for periodic foggy conditions that help to temporarily depress temperatures; winters are cool and wet. Approximately 44-inches of rainfall occurs annually in the watershed with the precipitation concentrated between November and March (CDWR gauge #E10 7787 21).
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
4.2 Creating a Stormwater BMP Toolkit
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used to protect the water quality of downstream receiving waters and span from community education and good housekeeping, such as educational signage, proper materials storage, and street sweeping, to Low Impact Design (LID) and constructed retrofits, such as green roofs and treatment wetlands. A key approach to stormwater management is to address stormwater runoff and pollution before treatment is needed, and to treat runoff at the source rather than downstream. Any palette of options in a stormwater BMP toolkit must be tailored to match the landscape, climate, hydrology, soils, potential pollutant source or concern, and the practical feasibility for each site and set of stakeholders. A range of possible components for the toolkit is presented below and may be refined with further input from the golf course staff and stakeholders. 4.2.1 Stormwater Assessment Water quality and peak flow management are two key aspects of stormwater runoff that are of concern for the San Geronimo Creek ecosystem. Stormwater runoff infrastructure and patterns were assessed to evaluate potential improvements to water quality and peak flow management within the context of the golf course.
Water quality is impacted by land use and runoff patterns. Impervious surfaces, such as roofs and pavement, tend to be a source of pollutants in the landscape because they do not hold onto deposited material, whether it is from atmospheric deposition or heavy metals or oils and grease that come from vehicles. Pervious surfaces tend to absorb pollutants because they are host to complex physical and biochemical processes that trap and at times degrade these substances. In the golf course setting, the pervious surfaces may also contribute to pollution heading to the creeks. Pesticides and fertilizers, if not applied at the correct application and irrigation rates, may runoff to the creeks impacting water quality. Over-saturating pervious surfaces beyond their ability to absorb pollutants can render the best of BMPs ineffective. Proper BMP selection and sizing is important for proper function.
Peak flow management is important for helping to regulate unintended impacts on a creek channel’s physical form. A creek channel’s form evolves over time in response to watershed- specific flow patterns. Increases in discharge, typically caused by the addition of impervious surfaces in a watershed, causes channel morphology to respond by channel down-cutting and/or lateral bank erosion. These disturbances to equilibrium conditions affect habitat for salmonids and other aquatic species. This process of increased stormwater discharge affecting channel morphology is known as hydromodification. 4.2.2 Regulatory Guidance Runoff from large population centers (population greater than 100,000) is regulated by the General Waste Discharge (stormwater) permit for the entire Bay Area, which include hydromodification management plans (HMPs). Marin County, however, with its smaller cities, is regulated under the Phase II MS4 General Permit (Order no.: 2013-0001-DWQ) that went into effect in July 2013. This new order incorporates site design and Low Impact Development (LID) for new and redevelopment
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-3 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
projects. The next permit cycle will include HMPs for specific watershed management zones. This approach is modeled on the HMP developed for the Central Coast Region.
Briefly, this plan looks at the hydrologic response of undisturbed land areas to rainfall. It prescribes stormwater BMPs that enable the post-development hydrologic response to mimic the pre-development conditions. There are several watershed management zones (WMZ) that were identified for the Central Coast HMP. The WMZs are separated based on their underlying geology, slope of the land, presence of underlying groundwater basin, capacity to generate overland flow, production of sediment for fluvial systems, and the type of receiving water (and if they are susceptible to hydromodification). Post construction requirements in the Central Coast Region, depending on the WMZ and size of impervious areas, include: Water Quality Treatment: sized for 0.2 inches/hour rainfall intensity, or two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity Runoff Retention: depending on the WMZ, either the 85th or 95th percentile 24-hr storm event volume Post-development peak flows shall not exceed pre-project peak flow for the 2- through 10- yr storm events. For planning purposes we suggest considering the Central Coast guidelines. However, it may be prudent to follow the developments of the next round of NPDES permits for Marin County prior to committing resources for the design and implementation of stormwater treatment and peak flow management approaches. 4.2.3 BMP Selection The golf course occupies over 150 acres in the 9.375 square mile watershed, accounting for approximately 2.5% of the land area. Of this 150 acres, 5.4% is impervious development that includes the clubhouse complex, parking lot, County roads, maintenance yard, and cart paths. Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 show the primary locations of impervious surfaces on the golf course, with total area estimates summarized in Table 4-2 above.
The impervious areas of the golf course areas typically are not directly connected to a creek outfall, which provides an opportunity for runoff to percolate into the ground to be filtered prior to its emergence as streamflow. We propose locating retention BMPs adjacent to areas that generate runoff to slow its flow, treat it, and promote infiltration. The three largest zones that concentrate runoff from impervious surfaces and accelerate flow (i.e. combination of pipes and open channels) towards San Geronimo Creek are:
1. The golf course clubhouse and the parking lot are piped to a discharge location near the practice tee just north of Sir Frances Drake Blvd and runoff is conveyed under the road and into a channel that meets San Geronimo Creek. 2. Runoff from the golf course driveway and Sir Francis Drake Blvd is concentrated in an open channel and conveyed across fairways for holes 2, 4, and 5 in a pipe. The storm drain pipe daylights near the Hole #6 tee box. 3. The maintenance yard and house to the west of the Hole #5 tee, account for 0.5 ac of imperviousness with runoff from this area flowing directly to San Geronimo Creek.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-4 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL Sir Francis Drake Blvd San Geronimo Creek Area Enhancements 9 9
3T 7 Biofiltration Area 8 2T
12 Golfcourse 12 Tunnel Future 2 Maintenance Recycled Water Pond Nicasio Valley Rd Valley Nicasio 11 Area 4 7 10 8T
12 7 5T
310 10 Vegetated Swale
809
11 10 3 6 4T 7 7 10
12 7T 5 6T Sir Francis Drake Area Enhancements Sylvestris Dr San Ge Note: Additional coordination and plannning ronimo Creek with Marin County is required for the enhancement. 9 Upland Native Buffer / Screen
R
e
d
w
o M
o
e d
a
d C r o a D w n p y V o m Sa n G i n er e a onim r o Va w C lley D 1 D r
L
0 200 400 1 n eer Feet D 1 1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: ESRI (Basemap), County of Marin (Parcels).
Legend Nicasio Valley Rd Area Enhancements Maintenance Area Enhancements
Concentrated Flow 10 Vegetated Swale 7 Biofiltration Area Overland Flow Path Parcel Boundary UplandRiparian Vegetated Floating Island Ephemeral Stream Future Recycled Water Pond 12 Vegetated Floating Island 11 Roofed Refuse Area, Concrete Pad, and Detached Stormdrain Stormdrain Inlet Stormwater Pipes Swale Pavement Rooftop
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan. D121008.00 Figure 4-1 Stormwater Enhancements San Geronimo Creek and Maintenance Areas Clubhouse Area Improvements
1 Vegetated Green Roof Club House
Golf Course 3 2 Parking 1 Community Garden 4 2 Covered Trash / Recycling 6 5 1T
Golf Cou Nicasio Valley Rd Nicasio Valley r se Dr 9 ive 3 Roof Runoff Cistern
1
9T 4 Pervious Parking
8 7 10 9
Sir Francis Drake Blvd 0200100 Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: ESRI (Basemap), County of Marin (Parcels). Sir Francis Drake Area Improvements Legend Note: Additional coordination and planning with Marin County is required for these enhancements. 5 Vegetated Parking Swale Upland Native Buffer / Screen Parcel Boundary Stormwater Pipes 7 Biofiltration Swale 9 Rooftop Ephemeral Stream Pavement Stormdrain Inlet
Landscaping Overland Flow Upland Riparian Buffer Concentrated Flow Wetland Swale Impervious Path 8 Constructed Treatment Wetlands 10 Vegetated Swale 6 Subsurface Detention / Retention
San Geronimo Golf Course Improvements.121008.00 Figure 4-2 Stormwater Enhancements Clubhouse and Sir Francis Drake Blvd Areas Larsen Creek Area Enhancements
12 Vegetated Floating Islands
16
17T 10 Vegetated Swale
W N 11T ica sio 10 Rd
16T 10 17 10 18T
13 Channel / Culvert Daylighting
L 10 a 13 rs 11 e n C re e k d R y e ll 14 a V io s a ic N 12 13 15 14 Overflow Infiltration Meadow Note: Inundation would be temporary only.
L a g u n i ta s 10T S ch 18 oo l R d 0400200 Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend 15 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements Parcel Boundary Daylight Culvert Swale Ephemeral Stream Stormwater Pipes Stormdrain Inlet Vegetated Floating Island Concentrated Flow Overland Flow
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan. D121008.00 Figure 4-3 Stormwater Enhancements Larsen Creek Area 4. Stormwater Management Plan
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-8 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
Typical pollutants shed from land uses at golf course were identified and categorized by pollutant delivery type and are summarized in Table 4-3. BMPs to address these pollutants were identified and cross-referenced by land use type present at SGGC. As presented in Table 4-4, several alternatives are suitable for each land use type. It is recommended that this summary be used in addition to considerations for physical site constraints, owner and player needs when designing BMPs at SGGC. Additionally, an understanding of other anticipated capital projects that can create synergy, both for funding and implementation would benefit the golf course and stormwater management plan.
Table 4-5 presents ten separate BMP treatments that are suitable for treating runoff from the golf course facilities. To improve resiliency and treatment effectiveness, typically two or more appropriate BMPs are linked together in series to form a treatment train. Depending on the land use, we recommend using 1 to 3 types of treatments per treatment train.
Typical stormwater management fact sheets were developed for the treatment BMPs most likely to be implemented at SGGC and are included as Appendix A.
The best way to prevent stormwater pollution is good housekeeping and maintenance of installed BMPs. Examples of good housekeeping include covering areas, such as trash areas, refueling and chemical storage, which would otherwise be susceptible to rainfall mobilizing pollutants into the storm drain system or creek channels. These routine practices are a critical component for successful implementation of any stormwater management plan and should be considering in addition to implementation of the physical treatment BMPS above. 4.3 Recommendations
There are three (3) areas of concentrated impervious surfaces, described above, that present the best opportunities for treatment and peak flow control within SGGC. The stormwater BMP toolkit presented above provides a menu of effective stormwater treatment and retention alternatives. The development of a conceptual plan, as part of future efforts, will weigh the costs and benefits of various configurations to optimize stormwater management and treatment facilities. These configurations can be varied based on treatment approaches, aesthetics, cost considerations, maintenance needs and impacts to the play of the golf course. Potential treatment BMPs are presented for each focus area in Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.
For the purposes of this study we have developed an example treatment train for each of the three focus areas. These treatment trains include a portion of the BMPs identified at each focus area and are intended to initiate conversation with the golf course owners, project stakeholders and community members. Planning level cost estimate ranges are presented as well and include anticipated planning, design, and implementation costs.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-9 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
TABLE 4-3 TYPICAL POLLUTANTS PRESENT IN RUNOFF FROM VARIOUS LAND USES
Sediment-Bound Soluble Complex
Dissolved Coarse Suspended Nutrients - Heavy Organic Nutrients - Heavy Oil & Temperature Land Use Type Sediment Sediment Trash Phosphorus Bacteria Metals Matter Nitrogen Metals Grease PAH Pesticides Effects
Parking Lot x x x x x x x x Buildings x x x x x x Roads – County x x x x x x x x Roads - Golf Cart x x Residential Development x x x x x x Maintenance Yard x x x x x x x Golf Course x x x x x x x x
SOURCE: San Diego Stormwater Standards (2012), and CASQA BMP Handbook (2003)
TABLE 4-4 TYPICAL POLLUTANTS PRESENT IN RUNOFF PAIRED WITH TREATMENT BMPS
Land Use Pollutants Treatments
Parking Lot • Sediment • Organic Matter • Constructed Wetland • Permeable Pavement • Trash • Oil & Grease • Wet Pond • Subsurface Detention • Metals Buildings • Bacteria • Metals • Infiltration Trench • Subsurface Detention • Sediment • Organic Matter • Wet Pond • Vegetated Swale • Constructed Wetland • Bioretention • Covered Trash Area • Green Roof Roads - County • Metals • Oil & Grease • Infiltration Trench • Vegetated Buffer Strip • Sediment • Trash • Vegetated Swale • Bioretention • Organic Matter • Constructed Wetland Roads – Golf Cart • Metals • Oil & Grease • Vegetated Swale • Vegetated Buffer Strip Maintenance Yard • Sediment • Metals • Infiltration Trench • Vegetated Swale • Trash • Oil & Grease • Vegetated Buffer Strip • Covered Trash & Storage Golf Course • Nutrients • Bacteria • Infiltration Trench • Vegetated Swale • Sediment • Organic Matter • Vegetated Buffer Strip • Pesticides
SOURCE: San Diego Stormwater Standards (2012), and CASQA BMP Handbook (2003)
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-10 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
TABLE 4-5 TYPICAL BMPS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction Cost Treatments Description ($/100 square feet)
Bioretention Retention area with underground storage in gravel matrix (1-2ft), imported engineered fill for pollutant $700-$1400 treatment (1-2ft), above ground ponded storage (~1 ft), metered outlet. Groundwater recharge encouraged. Infiltration Trench Similar to Bioretention, except can be constructed with varied top treatment (i.e. no planting or surface $500-$1000 ponding) to match surroundings. Typically longitudinal feature. Vegetated Buffer Strip Vegetated strip of land (10-30 ft wide). All water is directed as sheet flow across the strip. Utilize dense $100 - $300 native plantings (grasses). Vegetated Swale Similar to Buffer Strip, but more of a depression and conveys water longitudinally. $300 - $600 Constructed Wetland Low permeability ground (compacted soil), shallow ponded water seasonally (~2 ft) filling up to 4 ft during storms, emergent vegetation. Wet Pond Similar to wetland, but typically deeper water (4-8 ft), and less dense vegetation. Floating Treatment Islands Similar to wetland, but typically deeper water (4-8 ft), and less dense vegetation. Green Roof Shallow layer (~6 inches) light weight media embedded in custom matrix, planted with native plants. Permeable Pavement Materials vary from permeable asphalt and porous concrete to hand-laid pervious pavers. Underlain $700 - $1400 with retention matrix (gravel) to store water for infiltration. Subsurface Detention Materials vary from gravel, to concrete or plastic pipes/ matrix that stores stormwater for infiltration, $2,000 - $4,000 (Cost per 100 cu.ft.) outlet can be metered. Efficient use of space.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-11 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
4.3.1 Club House and Parking Lot Runoff from the club house could be directed to flow through vegetated swales prior to being directed via the existing storm drain network to join the parking lot runoff in a bioretention area (Figure 4-1). Runoff from the parking lot could percolate through permeable paving and flow through vegetated swales prior to entering the storm drain system and directed to a bioretention area at the base of the practice tee.
Assumptions: Runoff from building is routed through vegetated swales down the hill (6,500 sq ft) to the parking lot. The bioretention area is 4,500 square feet and was sized according to the Central Coast guidelines for capturing 85% of annual runoff from the 2.5 acres of impervious area between the clubhouse and parking lot. The entire parking lot (53,000 sq ft) is repaved with permeable material with an underlying gravel layer that directs water to vegetated swales that are the same size of the current vegetated islands (17,000 sq ft).
Two methods were used to estimate the size of the bioretention area. First, guidance from the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP, 2009) suggests sizing bioretention facilities to be 4% of the contributing impervious area. The impervious area of the clubhouse and parking lot is 2.52ac (109,500 sq ft). Sizing the bioretention area with this method yields an area of 4,400sq.ft. The second method used is borrowed from the Central Coast HMP, which is likely to form the basis of Marin County’s future HMP. This method captures and retains 85% of runoff from a 24-hr storm. CASQA (2003) publishes graphs for cities around California that indicate the Unit Basin Storage Volume (Unit Volume) for a given percent capture. The rain gage with the most similar mean annual precipitation to Woodacre (44 inches) is Eureka (39 inches). The Unit Volume is 0.9 inches per acre. With 2.52 acres of impervious contributing area, the total volume to be retained per rain event is 8,200 cubic feet (61,000 gallons). Assuming the void space within 3ft of treatment media and one foot of storage above ground, the bioretention area is calculated to be 4,300sq.ft.
Scenario cost estimate: $450,000 to $950,000 4.3.2 Sir Francis Drake and Golf Course Driveway Sir Francis Drake (SFD) Blvd bisects the San Geronimo Golf Course (Figure 4-2). Approximately 1,000 feet of SFD drains to a culvert that crosses the fairways of holes 2, 4, and 5 and daylights adjacent to the Hole #6 tee. Another 2,000 feet of SFD and 900 feet of the SGGC driveway drain to a pipe that delivers runoff to an open channel just upstream of the maintenance yard.
There is a significant opportunity to divert the flows from the open channel to a bioretention area just east of the Hole #5 tee that could flow in a vegetated swale east towards the Hole #6 tee. The outfall of the other drainage at the Hole #6 tee can become a bioretention area that flows via vegetated swale to a common bioretention area with the other drainage before discharging into San Geronimo Creek.
Scenario cost estimate: $350,000 to $700,000
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-12 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
4.3.3 Maintenance Yard The maintenance yard is adjacent to San Geronimo Creek and is therefore a very important area to include in any stormwater improvement plan (Figure 4-3). The key considerations in this area are preventing contamination of stormwater by measures such as covering refueling areas, trash, and chemical storage. In addition, treatment of runoff is extremely important, and we suggest directing runoff to a bioswale to the northwest of the maintenance area.
Scenario cost estimate: $150,000 to $300,000
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-13 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 4. Stormwater Management Plan
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 4-14 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 5 Golf Course Operations & Management
5.1 Water Conservation Plan 5.1.1 Introduction This Water Conservation Plan for the SGGC has been prepared as the initial step in meeting their goal of reducing overall site water demand, improving the existing water use practices, and upgrading irrigation equipment to reduce potential impacts to existing water quantity and quality. The water used on the golf course for irrigation originates from two sources: 1) local runoff and capture in the ponds and 2) raw water purchased from MMWD. This includes the permitted capture of water within the pond at the 18th hole from the upper Larsen Creek watershed (up to 20 acre-feet per year under SWRCB Permit #020902) (personal comm. B. Mueller, 2014). No water is withdrawn from San Geronimo Creek nor is any groundwater pumped for use in irrigation practices. Water Conservation Plans can vary widely in complexity and can be developed to address a wide array of water conservation issues and situations. For the purpose of this plan Restoration Resources has focused on water conservation measures in regards to irrigation strategies, practices, and equipment, since irrigation is the primary water use demand for the site. The necessary components of the Water Conservation Plan for the SGGC are listed below and discussed in detail in subsequent sections. :
The site location and climatic conditions affecting water demand. The current irrigation program and practices including an identification of the irrigation water supply and the irrigation programs and practices for irrigated ornamental landscape areas (building and parking landscaped areas) and irrigated turf areas (golf course play areas). Current water regulations and potential future implications for the San Geronimo Golf Course’s irrigation program. The current irrigation system technologies and equipment utilized at SGGC and potential upgrades in equipment and technology that can help reduce water demand. Other water conservation measures and approaches including: o Reduction in irrigated turf areas by conversion to native plant buffer zones; o Modifications to irrigation system management in relation to new technologies; o Modifications to the ornamental landscape area irrigation system; o Increase alternative recycled/reclaimed water supply.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Cost benefit analysis for proposed water conservation measures including: o Modification of ornamental landscape areas from spray to drip irrigation; o Reduction in irrigated turf areas and conversion to temporarily (3 years) irrigated native vegetation buffers; o Irrigation system and equipment upgrades to utilize current irrigation water saving technologies; o Increased use of alternative reclaimed water sources.
As with all water conservation measures there is a certain amount of upfront cost associated with additional studies, plans, equipment purchases, and labor to implement the desired strategy. There is also an inherent impact of each strategy to the design of the course, overall aesthetic and course character, and management of the site. The golf course has already begun implementation of some of the components outlined in this section and should use this Water Conservation Plan as a guide for further water management practices. All of the strategies listed in this plan can have an overall positive impact on water conservation and the overall site experience if implemented correctly. The goal of this plan is to enhance surface water and local hydrologic conditions by reducing water demands and to better inform San Geronimo Golf Course in determining which water conservation strategy fits best with the current site program.
5.1.2 Site Location, Climate, and Water Demand The San Geronimo Golf Course is located at the corner of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Nicasio Valley Road in San Geronimo, California roughly 8.5 miles northwest of San Rafael. The overall property is over 150 acres with approximately 60 acres of managed turf play area. The course is situated in San Geronimo valley in the northern California coast range thermal belt climate region (Sunset, 2007). The average annual rainfall is approximately 44 inches with the rainfall typically occurring from November to March (Stillwater, 2009). The highest average monthly rainfall is in December (7.59 inches) and the lowest in July (0.00 inches). The average summer high temperature is 79°F (low 54°F) and the average winter high temperature is 57°F (low 43°F). The warmest months on average are July and August (80°F) while the coolest months are December and January (42°F) (The Weather Channel, 2012).
The SGGC does not currently have or utilize an onsite weather station or weather based irrigation controllers; therefore, general regional evapotranspiration rates along with daily rainfall and wind information can be collected from California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) near-by weather stations operated by the Department of Water Resources Office of Water Use Efficiency
Although it is recommended that SGGC establish their own weather station and weather based controllers on the course to collect more accurate weather data including daily and hourly ETo
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
rates (discussed later in the report), average or current/daily ETo rates from CIMIS station #157 can be used to help estimate the water demand of the cool-season turf grasses currently irrigated and managed on the course. To calculate the irrigation needs (in inches of precipitation) on a daily or monthly basis for cool-season turf grass currently maintained at SGGC one must first calculate the crop evapotranspiration (ETc). The ETc can be calculated by multiplying the reference evapotranspiration rate (ETo) by the crop coefficient (Kc). The daily or monthly evapotranspiration rates can be found using the CIMIS reference weather stations or by collecting ETo using an onsite weather station. Standard crop coefficients can be found through a variety of internet and published sources including the “Water Use Classification of Landscape Plants” (WUCOLS) (Costello and Jones, 1999) and “A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Needs of Landscape Plants” (University of California Cooperative Extension, 2000). Although these publications deal mainly with landscape plants and not turf grasses, there is information regarding cool-season crop coefficients. Once one determines their ETc by multiplying the Kc and ETo they must take into consideration the distribution uniformity (DU) of the irrigation system. In order to calculate an accurate ETc one should take into account the potential for an uneven irrigation application due to equipment limitations, slopes, wind, and other factors. These factors determine the DU for the site. The DU can be determined by performing an irrigation audit (discussed later). The average DU value of a well operating, highly efficient irrigation system is 0.7. There are many publications that help further explain and guide one through the process of determining irrigation needs and runtimes including the publications mentioned above as well as the “Landscape Irrigation System Evaluation and Management” (Shaw and Pittenger, 2009).
Using current and accurate ETo data, accurate Kc, and performing an irrigation audit to determine DU one can calculate the minimum irrigation precipitation requirements for all turf areas on a monthly or daily basis. For example, using the information sources listed above the average ETo at Station #157 for July is 6.64 inches. The Kc for cool-season turf grasses in July is 0.94 and the typical DU for a well-maintained irrigation system is 0.7. Using this information the water demand is easy to calculate.
ETc = (ETo X Kc) / DU
ETc = (6.64 X 0.94) / 0.7 = 8.92 inches of precipitation
Using these calculations the average monthly minimum irrigation precipitation required to maintain healthy turf grass conditions would be 8.92 inches of precipitation for the month of July. Using the same calculation method to estimate the monthly ETc rates and monthly estimates on the quantity of purchased water used for irrigation of the course, the following table was developed (Table 5-1) to show the water ETc rates, the current water use, and rainfall precipitation for each month of the 2012 year.
It should be reiterated that these calculations are based on average monthly ETo rates collected 10.5 miles away, the DU is assumed to be at the upper end of efficiency (one would need to make sure the irrigation area has matching precipitation rate heads and preform an irrigation audit to get an accurate DU value), and this calculation does not take into account the water lost due to runoff or deep percolation loss due to soil conditions and overwatering.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-3 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
TABLE 5-1 MONTHLY ETc RATES, IRRIGATION PRECIPITATION, AND RAINFALL FOR 2012
Irrigation Precipitation Rainfall Combined Eto Etc 2012 Precipitation Precipitation Etc % by SGGC 2012 Irrigation Month (inches) Kc DU (inches) (estimate inches) (inches) (inches) Month Water Use % by Month
January 1.09 0.61 0.70 0.95 0.00 7.92 7.92 2% 0% February 1.66 0.64 0.70 1.52 0.00 8.58 8.58 3% 0% March 2.95 0.75 0.70 3.16 0.00 5.72 5.72 6% 0% April 4.17 1.04 0.70 6.20 0.49 2.65 3.14 12% 2% May 5.17 0.95 0.70 7.02 1.74 1.48 3.22 13% 6% June 6.15 0.88 0.70 7.73 3.81 0.26 4.07 15% 13% July 6.64 0.94 0.70 8.92 6.67 0.02 6.69 17% 22% August 5.83 0.86 0.70 7.16 7.09 0.09 7.18 14% 23% September 4.34 0.74 0.70 4.59 6.65 0.24 6.89 9% 22% October 2.81 0.75 0.70 3.01 3.37 2.15 5.52 6% 11% November 1.26 0.69 0.70 1.24 0.46 5.35 5.81 2% 2% December 0.93 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.00 8.53 8.53 1% 0%
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-4 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Furthermore, the irrigation precipitation column on Table 5-1 above uses estimates for irrigation precipitation based on units of raw water purchased each month for year 2012. It also assumes that there is an even irrigation precipitation distribution over all 60 acres of irrigated turf; therefore, the irrigation precipitation rates are likely low as they do not match the actual irrigation precipitation amount as would be determined by the nozzles used (gpm), the area covered per head, and head runtime. Additionally, the gallons of water purchased each month used to calculate the amount of irrigation precipitation for each corresponding month may be inaccurate as the water purchased is stored in irrigation ponds and it is likely that the course does not use the same amount that was purchased each month for irrigation that same month. The golf course draws its irrigation water from storage ponds rather than straight from the District POC. Table 5- 1 is presented for general informative purposes and should illustrate the benefit of careful documentation of water use for irrigation application and the benefit of using ETc rates for determining irrigation amount and projecting water purchase amounts.
To accurately calculate the water demand it is recommended that an onsite weather station be installed, daily ETo rates are used or weather based controllers are used for determining daily irrigation needs, matching precipitation rate heads are used on all irrigation valve zones, precipitation for each zone is calculated and analyzed meticulously, and an irrigation audit is performed to determine the DU value and help with identifying irrigation distribution issues.
5.1.3 Current Irrigation Program and Practices The current irrigation program and practices at SGGC are based on onsite observations and analysis of turf watering needs and signs of stress as well as analysis and interpretation of wind, temperature, length of daylight, and soil moisture levels determined by soil probe. Each program for each area is adjusted to fit the needs of the specific site and each station within each program is different. The irrigation timing and amount varies widely based on temperature, wind, and late season rains to name a few.
SGGC currently gets all their turf irrigation water from the Marin Municipal Water District MMWD minus a minimal amount (1% - 2%) from rainfall. The golf course is permitted to capture up to 20 acre-feet of flow from Larsen Creek within the pond at the 18th hole (personal comm. B. Mueller, 2014). The club house and surrounding landscaping uses potable water while all turf areas associated with the gulf course use raw water. SGGC currently uses 65,000 units (49,331,348 gallons) of raw water on average each year. Last year (2012) SGGC spent $232,562.00 on raw water alone.
The raw water can be directly delivered to three different ponds from MMWD and then transferred between the three ponds plus one additional pond. SGGC utilizes three separate MMWD raw water points of connection (POC) manual valve locations which supply water to three separate irrigation ponds. Ponds 1, 2, and 3 are filled directly from the MMWD mainline via three separate manual valves. Pond 2 overflows to Pond 1 and water from Pond 1 is pumped to Pond 4, the primary irrigation pond. Refer to Figure 5-1 for pond and pipe layout. The approximate usable water capacity for each pond is as follows: Pond 1 - 250,000 to 300,000 cubic
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-5 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
feet; Pond 2 - 75,000 to 100,000 cubic feet; Pond 3 – 50,000 to 85,000 cubic feet; and, Pond 4 – 400,000 to 485,000 cubic feet.
SGGC has already implemented management practices and changes to the irrigation system to help reduce water use. One such practice is the use of surfactants or wetting agents to help with even distribution of irrigation water by reducing the surface tension of water to help with reducing localized dry spots due to hydrophobic soils that often lead to over watering of larger areas. Over watering can also have detrimental ecological impacts due to potential increased runoff, some of which may carry traces of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides. Currently SGGC applies a wetting agent twice, three weeks apart, in early spring on all greens, approaches, and collars and once in the spring on all tees. Wetting agents, if used improperly, can have toxic and ecologically damaging affects to fish and waterways. The potential effects of the current wetting agent SGGC employs is unknown; however, SGGC currently follows all manufacturer recommendations for application methods and rates and it is unlikely that the current practice poses a threat to the adjacent waterways. It is recommended that a soil analysis be done to verify that any slow infiltration is indeed due to hydrophobic soils. It is also recommended that SGGC review the toxicity of the current wetting agent used and possibly discontinue use if soils are not considered hydrophobic or switch to a more ecologically sensitive product if one is available.
Along with the use of wetting agents, SGGC also regularly aerates and dethatches (verticutting) the course as described in the IPM Plan. Verticutting and aerating allows for better water infiltration and percolation into the soil while minimizing runoff and water waste. SGGC currently monitors runoff water waste and manages the irrigation system to keep waste amounts to a minimum.
SGGC has been in the process of removing irrigation heads to reduce the area of irrigated turf for some time. By removing irrigation heads, SGGC reduces overall water use and creates the opportunity for converting managed turf areas into temporary irrigated native plant/habitat buffers. So far, SGGC has removed 65 heads across the entire course taking approximately 4 acres out of routine turf irrigation. These 4 acres provide significant savings in water use and cost and standard turf management practices and costs. It is recommended that SGGC continue this strategy in select locations where the opportunity to remove additional heads may be appropriate. Reduction in irrigated turf area is discussed later in the Water Conservation Plan.
5.1.4 SGGC and Current Water Use Regulations As part of developing a Water Conservation Plan, management personnel should familiarize themselves with current water use regulations at state, county, and local levels. Most water use regulations are enforced on new construction or rehabilitated landscapes, but some provisions allow for a local agency to enforce certain regulations on existing landscapes if they meet specific criteria. It is recommended that management personnel research and review the water regulations and codes cited below prior to any site rehabilitation or change in water use or source.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-6 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 SOURCE: Restoration Resources (2014), SGGC (2013) Figure 5-1 Irrigation Pond and Piping Schematic Layout
5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Specific regulations include:
California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance – California Codes and Regulations: Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 State regulations related to recycled water use (the regulations should be reviewed and consulted prior the construction of a recycled water pond between Holes 2, 3, and 4 that can be used for increasing alternative reclaimed water supplies) o California Codes and Regulations: Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 5, Group 4, Articles 1 & 2 Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 1, Article 1 Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 2, Article 1 Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Articles 1 – 9 Specific County ordinances enforced through the Marin Municipal Water District Code: Titles 1 – 13 (specifically Title 13) 5.1.5 Existing Irrigation Equipment and Potential Upgrades SGGC’s current irrigation system is roughly 20 years old. The system is well maintained, given that some of the equipment is difficult to find and some replacement parts are no longer available for retail sale. Even though SGGC keeps equipment reserves of no longer available equipment and parts on site for future repairs, these reserves are anticipated to only last for roughly 5 more years. SGGC currently spends approximately $700 a month on parts and repairs including sprinkler parts, pipe, and pump maintenance. Below is a list of the current irrigation equipment and parts utilized on the course and known specifications.
Equipment and parts includes: Transite and PVC mainline pipe (max. 6” diameter) PVC lateral pipe (2” – 1” diameter) Toro 800 field satellite controllers - 18 controllers mounted in pedestal boxes with 28 to 32 stations per controller Controllers are operated using Toro Site Pro, Version 1.1, Central Control software Individual field wiring to each valve Valve in head for all greens Valves on surrounding turf areas are wired as a block system with 2 – 4 heads tied together at the controller Assorted sprinkler heads on all turf areas. Sprinkler heads in use are as follows: o Hunter I-20 (52 total heads at 6.9 gpm each) o Toro 650 (282 total heads at 18.7 gpm each) o Toro 664 (83 total heads at 27.0 gpm each)
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-8 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
o Toro 720 (9 total heads at 9.7 gpm each) o Toro 730 (822 total heads at 27.4 gpm each) o Toro 750 (2 total heads) o Toro 760 (21 Total heads at 26.6 gpm each) A total of 1,271 heads for the entire course
Hole Total Heads Hole Total Heads Hole 1 84 Hole 10 92 Hole 2 96 Hole 11 60 Hole 3 41 Hole 12 75 Hole 4 100 Hole 13 26 Hole 5 98 Hole 14 78 Hole 6 63 Hole 15 35 Hole 7 30 Hole 16 56 Hole 8 68 Hole 17 91 Hole 9 63 Hole 18 84
o Approximate spacing of heads: Greens: 55’ – 75’ triangularly spaced Tees: 65’ triangularly spaced All other turf areas: 60’ – 70’ triangularly spaced Underhill nozzles on all greens, approaches, and tees. Currently replacing all other Toro factory equipped nozzles with Underhill on the remaining heads
Due to the age of the system and the potential for dramatic cost savings associated with reduced water use, specific equipment and part upgrades are recommended for implementation on the course. To this end, Restoration Resources met with Rick Zinn, a division specialist of construction and water management for Horizon – a full service landscape and irrigation distributor specializing in every major area of products and services including irrigation controllers, valves, PVC fittings, and water management - to discuss potential equipment upgrades (R. Zinn, personal communication, Sept. 16, 2013). According to Mr. Zinn, the most beneficial equipment upgrade for water and cost savings would be the installation of an onsite weather station to monitor evapotranspiration, wind speed, rainfall, temperature and other key climatic influences on irrigation timing and watering amount along with weather based controllers. This would require upgrading all of the existing controller pads and mounting boxes and the installation of an onsite weather station. Not only are the weather based controllers connected to real-time weather data conditions, but they can be controlled virtually anywhere where internet or phone service is accessible via the “Cloud”. Changes to irrigation schedules can be made remotely without needing a central computer or office to work from.
The next step to take for preventing water loss and reducing water cost would be to install a hydrometer (flow meter and master valve in one unit) to monitor and shut down the system when unscheduled or unregulated flows are detected. This would help prevent against wasted water associated with broken pipes and leaks. The installation location and number of units needed
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-9 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
depends on the exact mainline layout, but it is assumed that SGGC would be able to install a single unit on the 6” mainline near pond 4. It is assumed that this is the mainline that supplies irrigation water to all the control valves and lateral lines. The installation of a hydrometer would allow for better tracking of irrigation leaks and limit waste associated with unwanted flows during emergency situations downstream of the installation location.
The final recommended equipment upgrade would be the installation of moisture sensors on all greens. This would allow for close soil moisture monitoring of greens and allow for irrigation modifications to maintain a lush and well watered green while reducing the cost associated with overwatering.
Below is a list of the weather based controller equipment recommendations with specific models and specs. A discussion on the cost and benefit of each equipment upgrade can be found further in this report. For equipment costs and cut sheets refer to Appendix B. Recommended weather based controller equipment upgrades are as follows:
Horizon Rainsafe Cabinet o (RST-1A-2B-3K) – 32 Station Horizon Rainsafe Top Entry Pedestal with Tucor RKS controller and cellular modem. **System comes with preconstruction meeting, sign off meeting and (2) 4 hour trainings from Horizon Technical Services. Davis Weather Station o (ET-300-W-X-WIN) – Solar powered, wireless weather station with ET and rain pulse for either direct connect or server based ET. Includes enclosure for the wireless logger receiver and WIN-100. Optional Handheld Remote o (RKD-RFA-200-A) – Radio Field Access transceiver, VHF Fixed Radio Base Unit assembly. No enclosure or HH radio. Transceiver components mounted on metal plate. Antenna connected directly to transceiver. o (RFA-HH-UHF) – Hand held radio with DTMF keypad, UHF. Realnet Service o (NET1-RK) – Yearly service fee per controller for cellular connection and Realnet service o (NET1-WS) – Yearly service fee for weather station cellular connection o (NET-ACT ) – One time activation fee for each modem connection 5.1.6 Other Water Conservation Measures and Approaches The following is a list of additional measure that are recommended for further study and development to help in reducing the overall water demand and use for the irrigation system at SGGC. This list not intended to summarize all water conservation measures that could be taken to reduce water use, but, rather, it is a summary of the strategies discussed with Barry Mueller, Certified Golf Course Superintendent, during our initial site meetings that will provide the best
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-10 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
cost benefit for the course at this time. Components of the stormwater management plan can supplement the overall water conservation plan and provide potential benefits to coho habitat. For example, capturing, storing and redirecting stormwater runoff throughout the golf course facilities could reduce overall water usage. Additionally, these actions will benefit coho habitat by reducing demand for water purchased from MMWD that could be discharged into San Geronimo Creek (at the discretion of MMWD operations) upstream of the golf course. Each additional conservation measure discussed below will also be reviewed and analyzed later in this section to determine the overall cost versus benefit for each approach. Each recommended conservation measure discussed will also potentially require additional studies and consultation prior to implementation.
Reduction in irrigated turf areas As discussed above, SGGC is currently in the process of removing irrigation heads in strategic locations to convert irrigated turf areas to non-irrigated areas. This strategy has already resulted in the elimination of 4 acres of previously irrigated turf. This included removal of sprinklers from common areas at several holes (No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15) to create large un-mowed areas. Additionally, individual sprinklers heads were removed from several holes (No.3, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 18) as part of triangulating sprinkler head spacing for better coverage (personal comm. B. Mueller, 2014). It is the recommendation of this report that not only does SGGC continue this practice in specific and vetted locations, but to also revegetate the converted areas with native perennial grasses, flowering forbs, and native trees and shrubs where appropriate. In order to do so, SGGC would need to provide temporary (3 years) irrigation to the areas to establish a native vegetation buffer that will eventually develop into sustainable native vegetation buffers that will not require continued irrigation or regular maintenance. The benefit of revegetation of the converted areas would depend on the location, but a few examples of benefits to SGGC and the natural environment would include:
Potential to provide a biofiltration buffer for filtering on site runoff prior to entering into streams and other water sources. This would only be in areas adjacent to existing water features and would provide additional protection against nutrient overloads and help enhance onsite and offsite surface water quality. Potential for providing an aesthetic benefit to the course by creating a common theme throughout the course. It is recommended that SGGC consult with a golf course architect to develop a long term plan and suitable plant palette for on-going replacement and well planned individual site conversions. Potential to provide screening and privacy to the course through the use of native trees and shrubs along fence lines and roadways. Use of native drought tolerant species would reduce the need for permanent irrigation and therefore reduce the overall water use and cost. Use of native vegetation would provide ecological benefits for native animal species. By attracting native birds and other species there may be benefits to pest management (insects) by increasing biological control resources. Use of native species would not require ongoing fertilization or pesticide use. This would reduce the management costs associated with turf management as well as providing an ecological benefit.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-11 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Additional head removal and managed turf conversion is encouraged. It is recommended that SGGC perform additional studies and consult additional resources (discussed below) prior to further turf conversion. During the initial site reconnaissance visit Restoration Resources performed a drive-by field survey and analysis of each hole to determine the potential for additional head removal and turf conversion. For the most part it was found that additional turf reduction should be focused on the edges of fairways, along roadways and fence lines, at tee locations, around trees, and between connected holes. Across the entire course it was determined that an additional 5% - 10% of managed turf could be converted to temporary irrigated native vegetation buffers. It should be noted that reduction in managed turf particularly around tee boxes would result in a change in course play. Further reduction would likely convert the current course layout into a links course with native bunch grasses buffers between the tees and fairways. Due to the potential impact on play and course aesthetic, it is again recommended that SGGC consult golf course design professionals, course users, and golf course architects prior to any major course changes. A recommended native plant species list that can help guide the selection of specific native species for developing a native revegetation palette for revegetation of specific areas that have or will be removed from irrigated turf is presented in Figure 5-2 Additionally, Figure 5-3 shows a typical turf removal layout that conceptually shows areas relative to tees, fairways, greens and roughs that should be further studied and considered for turf conversion.
It is recommended that SGGC take additional steps prior to implementing a reduction in irrigated turf area approach. These steps include:
Preparation of a detailed cost/benefit analysis for each area proposed for conversion. Notifications to golf course users and conduct user consultation, workshops, and surveys Consultation with a golf course architect Areas where heads have been removed should be planted with native vegetation and irrigated temporarily (3 years) with a drip irrigation system. Conduct further studies and research to find potential grant funding for native habitat restoration. Conduct further studies and research to find potential grant funding for water conservation and water quality improvements.
Modification to ornamental landscape area irrigation system SGGC currently uses potable water to irrigate the ornamental landscaping around the club house. This landscaping irrigation is separate from the turf play areas and should be further studied to find ways to reduce water use while maintaining a desired aesthetic. Some general recommendations would include the removal of some lawn areas around the club house and on parking islands and conversion to drought tolerant ornamental landscape flowering herbaceous accents, groundcovers, shrub, and small tree plantings. By removing lawn areas the irrigation system can be fully converted to a permanent drip system. Drip systems use significantly less water than sprinkler, spray, or rotor systems and would cut costs associated with water use.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-12 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 SOURCE: Restoration Resources (2014) Figure 5-2 Recommended Native Plant Species List
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 SOURCE: Restoration Resources (2014) Figure 5-3 Typical Turf Removal Schematic Layout
5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Other steps SGGC could take to improve water conservation and reduce associated water use cost would be to conduct an inventory of the irrigation system components and replace outdated equipment with water efficient drip irrigation. By converting the entire ornamental landscaping over to drip, SGGC would not only conserve water by only irrigating what is needed where, but SGGC would also see cost savings.
Lastly, it is recommended that SGGC not use potable water for landscaping purposes. In doing so SGGC would be spending less money per unit of water, but there would be potentially extensive upfront costs associated with this option. These upfront costs would include the cost to re-pipe the current system to connect to the raw water POC and would require replacing all parts with purple identification designating non-potable water use. This course of action would only be feasible if or when SGGC decides to redesign or rehabilitate the ornamental landscaping layout and redesign the entire irrigation system.
It is recommended that SGGC consult with a golf course architect for design recommendations that will match ornamental landscaping with play areas to create transitional spaces that fit the desired course aesthetic and course experience.
Increase in alternative reclaimed water supplies During the time of Restoration Resources site visit it was mentioned that there is a potential for a large recycled water pond to be constructed between Holes 2, 3, and 4. If this plan was to go through it could provide an additional water resource for irrigation water needs. This would help not only reduce MMWD raw water use, but also reduce cost associated with water purchase. However, the use of reclaimed water requires specific code and regulation compliance (see SGGC and Current Water Use Regulations) and therefore would require installation of new irrigation equipment and/or modifications/replacement of existing parts and equipment. The use of additional reclaimed water supplies is encouraged and should be further studied during the initial planning phase if this project were to develop.
In addition to the construction of a new water storage facility, SGGC should also look into increasing the size and capacity of the existing ponds and rehabilitation of Pond 4’s overflow culvert. By dredging the existing ponds SGGC could increase the capacity of stored irrigation water resources. This would have a minimal impact on reducing water use, but would provide greater storage capacity and help with reducing non-native target pest species (aquatic weeds) numbers and extents that are currently managed in these locations.
Modifications to irrigation system management and system documentation Along with physical changes to the irrigation system layout, water source alternatives, and equipment upgrades, water management personnel can also take steps to improve the management and documentation of the current irrigation system and layout. These recommendations are meant to provide a list of additional topics to further investigate and implement if management personnel find them to be beneficial or needed considering the current management strategies. The site is currently under competent management and is based off a
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-15 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
systematic understanding of the course, irrigation layout, limitations and abilities of the equipment and system, and turf water needs. The following recommendations are meant to improve on the documentation of the site and give management personnel additional resources for making irrigation program decisions. The below list of additional recommendations will require further studies, consultation, surveys, and reports/plans to implement. Below is a summary of additional irrigation system management and system documentation recommendations.
Additional system management and documentation recommendations include: Creation and mapping of the current as-built irrigation plans using GPS equipment to map all pipe lines, controller locations, POCs, valves, ponds, and head locations to allow for easier irrigation redesign and modification. Establishing of a water budget. Preforming an irrigation audit. Documentation and organization (spreadsheet) of water use by zone or station and organized documentation of past irrigation programs and strategies as well as recommendations for future program modifications. Development and documentation of trigger mechanisms (or analysis and programming protocol for a weather based control system if implemented) for determining irrigation timing and watering amount to allow for additional personnel to manage system in the event that the golf course superintendent is unavailable. Continue development of the comprehensive Water Conservation Plan with refinements based on to management and operational decisions over time and considerations for habitat impacts and benefits. 5.1.7 Cost/Benefit Analysis The primary purpose of the proposed Water Conservation Plan for the San Geronimo Golf Course is to improve stream habitat and water quality conditions for San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks and to reduce operating cost to the SGGC. By reducing water demand and use, more water may be available for instream flows and thus more available to salmonids and other riparian species. This section presents some water conservation concepts suitable for SGGC that could over time allow some significant savings in annual water costs while potentially enhancing the aesthetics of the site without affecting the quality of the turf grass in the course’s play areas.
As with most aspects of development in California, water conservation is becoming a “hot button” issue that the public and numerous state, federal, and local regulatory bodies concern themselves with at the time of project approval. Golf courses are not immune to the controversy. SGGC should benefit in social stature at least locally if it becomes known that it is actively working to reduce water consumption while maintaining its high standards for quality of its tees, fairways, roughs, and greens.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-16 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
The following sections discuss the potential economic benefits resulting from potential water conservation measures. All costs are given in 2013 dollars and no adjustments have been made for increased costs or savings over time.
Modification to ornamental landscape area irrigation system Modification of the ornamental landscape areas around the main entrance, parking areas, and club house facilities could result in significant water cost reductions. Most of the plantings in these areas are mature with the exception of “annual color spots”. For the most part mature trees do not need supplemental irrigation to remain healthy and vigorous. Mature shrubs likewise need less irrigation than newly planted immature plants and at least one large area near the club house and parking lot between the tee box and fairway currently supports large, mature native shrub species which are noted for their drought tolerance. Irrigation in these particular areas, if any, could likely be halted without any loss in their aesthetic appeal.
Some smaller areas of lawn irrigated by typical pop-up spray heads exist today around the club house facilities and parking areas. It may be economically feasible to remove these small lawn areas and replace them with low growing, spreading shrubs watered by automatic drip irrigation systems. Careful selection of cultivars of native species can provide attractive, resilient, and drought tolerant planting beds that no longer need mowing, want little fertilization, and are not hosts for turf grass diseases or troublesome insects. The costs for this type of conversion including labor, equipment, and materials should range from $1,200 to $1,650 per 1,000 square feet and include sod removal, soil preparation, conversion of spray irrigation to hard piped drip irrigation, planting, and mulching. Water savings should be in the range of 80,000 gallons per year per 1,000 square feet. SGGC should be able to calculate the annual cost savings based on its actual cost per gallon for potable water currently used for the landscape features immediately around the club house facilities. However, for the purposes of this example, the water cost is estimated to be $0.01 per gallon resulting in a calculated savings of $800 per year. The life expectancy of such plantings ought to be in the range of 8 to 14 years yielding an average of 11 years without significant replacement expense. With water cost savings estimated at $800 per year the total savings over the life expectancy of the plantings is $8,800 per 1,000 square feet.
Water cost savings over the expected life of the planting should exceed $8,000 per 1,000 square feet of converted landscape area. Certainly additional significant cost savings should result from much reduced maintenance costs compared to those needed for lawn maintenance in these converted areas.
Reduction in irrigated turf areas In an earlier section of this report it was stated that Restoration Resources cursory survey of the golf course indicated that potentially between 5% and 10% of currently irrigated turf could be converted to other landscape uses such as native vegetation plantings. In attempting to calculate economic benefits from such a conversion the consideration is the annual cost savings due to a reduction in water use. Data presented in this report indicates that SGGC currently irrigates approximately 60 acres of turf at an annual cost for raw water of approximately $232,500.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-17 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Though not as easily done as said, a reduction of 7.5% of existing turf or 4.5 acres should result in a reduction of approximately 7.5% in water cost or approximately $17,400 annually.
To achieve this reduction in annual water use and resultant cost savings and maintain the high standards of course’s aesthetic appeal, it would be necessary to convert the former turf areas to a low maintenance, native grass, tree, and shrub cover. The cost to do this type of revegetation work typically ranges between $9,000 and $15,000 per acre. If a total of 4.5 acres were to be restored to native vegetation it should cost between $40,500 and $67,500 for initial site preparation, seeding native grasses, planting an appropriate number of native trees and clusters of native shrubs and installation of a temporary (3-year) drip irrigation system. Additionally, some maintenance would be required during the first three years post installation to control weeds and ensure that the drip system was operating appropriately. Costs for plant establishment maintenance typically range from $50 to $200 per acre for the first 3 years and then drop dramatically from years 3 to 5 when maintenance costs drop to only what the superintendent wishes.
The total cost for converting 4.5 acres of existing turf to a robust native vegetation buffer could cost roughly $55,000. The annual water cost savings for the conversion should be approximately $17,500 which when multiplied by 20 years (the minimum life expectancy of the native vegetation) totals $350,000. The upfront costs should be recouped in 3 years and a savings of $17,500 in water costs should be achieved annually over the next 17 years without any significant additional expense. The specific locations for additional turf removal will be determined by the SGGC. This will likely require study and review by a golf course designer to evaluate possible changes to the play of the course prior to implementation.
Irrigation equipment and system upgrades As discussed in earlier sections, SGGC could see potentially significant economic benefits from conversion of its turf irrigation control system to more modern weather based controllers linked with an onsite weather station. Potential cost savings would result from reduced annual raw water consumption. The proposed Tucor Smart Water system (see Appendix B) allows weather based runtime control on a daily regimen that is keyed to the daily ET requirements for the turf grasses onsite. With this type of control system tied to local weather conditions, water is supplied when needed to maintain healthy, vigorous turf and is withheld when not needed due to rainfall, temperature, humidity, or day length. This particular system allows wireless operation either onsite with special radio equipment, laptop computers, pad type computers, or even certain smart phones. These same devices can operate the system from remote locations if that scenario is beneficial to management staff. Additionally, the Tucor system can be upgraded over time to include moisture sensors in particularly difficult areas for even more site specific runtime control along with sensors and valves to shut down pressure lines in case of damage or warn if reservoir levels drop below safety levels for intakes.
Equipment costs for 1 weather station, 18 replacement controllers, and 1 optional hand held remote total approximately $126,750 including sales tax. Annual fees for wireless service to the weather station and the 18 controllers total $5,460. Some additional costs for SGGC staff labor
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-18 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
should be included in proposed installation costs and for the purpose of this example a total labor and miscellaneous material costs are estimated at $5,000. Therefore, total first year costs for the conversion would be approximately $137,210. This automatic weather based daily control of individual controllers is known to provide an average 30% reduction in water use annually. If current SGGC raw water costs total approximately $232,500 then the expected cost savings should be approximately $69,750 annually. The weather based irrigation control system would pay for itself in 2 years and thereafter SGGC would see annual water cost savings of nearly $70,000 per year. These calculations do not address the savings in labor costs annually and the added benefit for the course superintendent by allowing him or his associate’s total control of the irrigation system via remote connections.
Increase in alternative reclaimed water supplies At this time it is impossible to give a reasonable cost/benefit statement regarding conversion of all or part of the SGGC irrigation system from raw water to reclaimed water. However, the assumption is that reclaimed water would be delivered at no charge thus saving significant water costs, but to utilize this water source some changes in irrigation equipment should be anticipated.
5.1.8 Conclusion As stated in the introduction, this section is a summary of current irrigation practices at SGGC and water conservation measures and associated costs as discussed with golf course personnel during our initial planning meetings. This section has been presented in a manner to allow SGGC to use the recommendations and findings as a draft Water Conservation Plan. However, for further research in developing a more comprehensive Water Conservation Plan, Restoration Resources suggests that golf course management personnel utilize other resources such as the “Best Management Practices (BMPs) Water-use Efficiency/Conservation Plan for Golf Courses: Template and Guidelines” (Carrow, Duncan, and Waltz, 2007) and the “Oregon Chapter GCSAA Environmental Stewardship Guidelines” (EnviroLogic Resources, Inc., 2010) along with other resources cited Section 7 References of this report.
As the golf course continues to implement the recommended water conservation measures mentioned in this section, ecological benefits to salmonid habitat will be increased as a result of: additional native revegetation buffer zones that will provide an increase in biological production and presence of supporting species (food web); water quality improvements due to reduced chemical (herbicides and fertilizer) use; reduction of chemicals and water reaching the creeks as a result of overwatering; and enhanced bio-filtration of runoff through increased native vegetation buffer areas. Additional ecological benefits also include increased infiltration capacity and overall resilience of the riparian corridor.
SGGC has already taken steps to help with water conservation having a direct and indirect positive effect on salmonids and their habitat. Table 5-2 provides a summary of the Water Conservation Plan measure/components, the benefits to the course and salmonid habitat, the costs, the status of implementation, and the projected savings.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-19 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
TABLE 5-2 WCP MEASURES, COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS, AND STATUS SUMMARY
WCP Measure Benefits Cost Projected Savings Status of Implementation
Modify/update Ornamental Water Conservation Initial Conversion Cost - $8,000 per 1,000 square Currently establishing funds and Landscape Irrigation System $1,200 to $1,650 feet over an 8-14 year evaluating implementation Increased Habitat Value per 1,000 square feet lifespan options Reduced Fertilizer and Pesticide Use Operational Cost Savings
Reduce Irrigated Turf Area Water Conservation Initial Conversion Cost - $350,000 over a 20 year The golf course has already $40,500 to $67,500 lifespan removed 4 acres of previously Increased Habitat Value for 4.5 acres irrigated turf. Currently in the Reduced Fertilizer and Pesticide Use process of native revegetation Operational Cost Savings and temporary irrigation installation and analysis. Increased Biofiltration of Runoff Aesthetic Improvements Provides Screening and Course Privacy Increased Biological Control Resources
Upgrade Irrigation System & Water Conservation Weather Station Installation w/ 18 $69,750 per year Currently establishing funds and Equipment controllers - $37,000 evaluating implementation Operational Cost Savings Annual Fees for Wireless Service - options. Reduced Runoff of Fertilizers and Pesticides into Adjacent $5,500 per year Waterways
Increase Alternative Reclaimed Water Conservation Unknown Unknown Evaluating implementation Water Supplies options and feasibility. Increased Habitat Value Operational Cost Savings Aesthetic Improvements
Modify Irrigation System Water Conservation Varies Unknown Documentation review and Management & Documentation system mapping. In the process Documentation Simplification and Organization of establishing funds and Enhanced Management Protocols evaluating implementation Reduced Maintenance Time and Cost options. Operational Cost Savings
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-20 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course April 2014 FINAL DRAFT 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
It is recommended that SGGC continue implementing the conservation measures outlined in this Water Conservation Plan. In doing so the golf course should analyze each component for implementation feasibility, cost, and benefit. This should be done prior to implementation, during, and after using a decision tree or similar process to analyze the conservation action, benefits, outcomes, and adaptive management recommendations for continued practice or changes to the measures and/or components of the Water Conservation Plan. Figure 5-4 shows a typical decision tree that the course can follow when determining if a conservation measure should be pursued. Figure 5-5 shows a typical decision tree for evaluating the implemented component.
As previous stated, the golf course is in the process of turf irrigation head removal and converting managed turf area into native buffer zones. SGGC has already evaluated the reduced irrigated turf area measure and have proceeded with the implementation. Currently the course is implementing the measure and is in the process of evaluating the decision, the first step in the evaluation decision tree. It is at this point where the course is encouraged to thoroughly evaluate the implementation actions taken and continue with the implementation, adapt the measure, or stop implementation.
It is the hope that through the implementation of some of the water conservation strategies listed in this report and through further studies, consultation, and continued development of the comprehensive Water Conservation Plan, SGGC will be able to significantly reduce the costs associated with water use and provide ecological benefits to the adjacent creeks and coho habitat. 5.2 Integrated Pest Management Plan 5.2.1 Introduction A critical component of golf course management is pest control. The primary tool used for comprehensive pest management that uses a variety of control methods to produce an efficient, environmentally sound, and cost effective pest reduction strategy is an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM plan). As defined by the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources: “Integrated pest management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and non-target organisms, and the environment.” (UC IPM, 2011). The implementation of an IPM plan can provide golf course superintendents and management staff a working document that will allow for a comprehensive approach toward pest management.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-21 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 SOURCE: Restoration Resources (2014) Figure 5-4 Water Conservation Measure Implementation Decision Tree
Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC . D121008.00 SOURCE: Restoration Resources (2014) Figure 5-5 Water Conservation Measure Evaluation Decision Tree
5. Golf Course Operations & Management
IPM plans are considered working documents and should be developed on a site specific basis. Each IPM plan varies from one another based on the desired purpose the pest manager wants the IPM plan to serve. Regardless of the maintenance objectives, all IPM plans contain 5 major components that help guide IPM programs. These five major components are: pest identification; monitoring and assessing pest numbers and damage; establishing triggers and guidelines for management action; pest prevention (cultural practices); and, use of curative pest management controls (physical, cultural, biological, and chemical) (UC IPM, 2013). Recommendations for IPM plan development and plan layout are discussed in more detail later in this section.
The purpose of this section is to summarize the current target pest species and the management/control practices utilized at the San Geronimo Golf Course (SGGC) and to provide SGGC with strategies for continued IPM plan development and recommendations for future management actions. This section is not intended to be a line-by-line IPM template, but should provide sufficient information for management personnel to continue in their development of an IPM working document that can be used to guide future pest management activities and enhance efficacy while managing costs and environmental risks.
5.2.2 SGGC Current Pest Management Practices The SGGC currently employs a multiple control strategy for pest management. These management controls include an array of both preventative and curative practices to help limit and eradicate target pest species. The target species managed on a routine treatment basis are: aquatic invasive plants in the irrigation reservoirs and ponds; invasive and undesired grasses, forbs, and fungi in the active play areas; invasive thistles, hemlock, blackberry, and poison oak in the deep roughs and out-of-play areas; and, rodents that cause damage to the active play turf areas.
The SGGC pest management strategy targets specific pest species and manages these target species using a variety of control methods including physical, cultural, biological, and chemical. Of the four control methods SGGC utilizes chemical controls the most regularly employed, using a variety of chemical treatments on an as needed and routine basis. A comprehensive list of substances used for pest control is provided in Appendix C of this report. Each substance listed includes the chemical name, active ingredient, salmonid toxicity, and recommended alternative.
Currently SGGC does not follow an official IPM plan outlining specific steps for surveying target pests or defining pest damage thresholds and specific management triggers; however, as part of this report a draft IPM plan was developed and is included in Appendix D that could be used as a base plan for further development and implementation. Currently management strategies are either performed on a routine basis or are implemented as spot treatments on an as needed basis based on the historical analysis and management decisions of the golf course superintendent and his knowledge of what has worked in the past and what has not.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-24 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Current SGGC Target Pest Species The following is a list of current target pest species and locations as identified by Barry Mueller, Certified Golf Course Superintendent at San Geronimo Golf Course. This list outlines all the target species identified as of June 2013. This list is not intended to be all encompassing and only represents the current pest species targeted by the SGGC. It is vital for any IPM plan to routinely monitor and assess existing pest species and identify any new or eradicated species and update the target species list accordingly.
Plants The following is a list of target plant pest species and locations on the golf course where the target species is currently being managed. Target plant species are broken down into two categories: aquatic and terrestrial.
Aquatic: The following species are deemed detrimental to the golf course due to their negative impact to irrigation drafting systems, increase in ETo rates and water loss, negative aesthetic impact to water clarity and player experience. o Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) – Irrigation reservoirs and ponds o Azolla sp. (mosquito fern) - Irrigation reservoirs and ponds o Typha sp. (cattail) - Irrigation reservoirs and ponds o Potamogeton sp. (pondweed) - Irrigation reservoirs and ponds o Various species of Algae (filamentous species, planktonic species, and chara species) - Irrigation reservoirs and ponds Terrestrial: The following species are currently consider pest species and under management and control due to their negative impact to turf surface quality, aesthetic and player experience, invasive and outcompete desired turf species, and many are California state listed noxious weeds. o Pennisetum clandestinum (kikuyu grass) – turf areas o Digitaria sp. (crabgrass) – turf areas o Eleusine indica (goosegrass) – turf areas o Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye daisy) – turf and rough areas o Trifolium sp. (clover) - turf and rough areas o Matricaria discoidea (pineapple weed) – greens o Conium maculatum (poison hemlock) – deep rough o Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) – deep rough o Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak) – deep rough
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-25 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
o Various species of thistle – deep rough o Various other broadleaf species – turf and rough areas Animals The following is a list of target animal pest species and locations on the golf course where the target species is currently being managed. Target animal species are broken down into two categories: vertebrates and invertebrates.
Vertebrates: The following animal species are considered pests due to their impact to the aesthetic impact to the course and player experience. As well as having an impact to the course experience, they also damage turf (killing desired species) and leave open disturbed areas that are not only a safety hazard, but also encourage the growth of invasive noxious weeds and other target plant species. o Thomomys sp. (Pocket Gophers) – turf and rough areas o Scapanus sp. (Moles) – turf and rough areas Invertebrates (Insects): The following insect species have historically been targeted as pest species due to their potential damage to desired turf grass by eating and killing managed turf grass species leading to negative impacts to course aesthetics, play experience, and potential for invasive plant establishment in damaged areas. There has been no target treatment for insects in the last three years. Historic target species include the following: o Various species of grubs – turf and rough areas o Tipula sp. (crane flies) – turf and rough areas o Various species of cutworms – turf and rough areas Fungi The following is a list of target fungal pest species and locations on the golf course where the target species is currently being managed. The target species are detrimental to the course due to their impact to desired plant and grass species on both managed turf and surround landscaping. The following species also require management due to their potential to negatively impact play, course aesthetics, and experience.
o Various species of anthracnose fungi – trees and shrubs on the course and in ornamental planting beds around clubhouse. o Sclerotinia homeocarpa (dollar spot) – greens and collars o Rhizoctonia solani (brown patch) – greens and collars o Microdochium nivale (snow mold) – greens and collars
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-26 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Current SGGC Control Practices All pest control measures can be broken down into four different categories. These categories include physical, cultural, biological, and chemical pest control measures.
Physical controls are methods that include direct contact with the pest (animal or plant) using physical or mechanical equipment to remove a pest or create conditions that prevent the pest from occurring. Examples of physical control include methods such as animal trapping, manual pulling of weeds, erecting physical barriers (e.g., deer fence), or controlled burns.
Cultural controls are similar to physical controls, but deal with standard management practices that modify or manipulate the environment which the pest utilizes during part or all of its life cycle. This category is different than physical controls as the management techniques typically do not involve direct physical interaction with the target pest. Examples of cultural controls include irrigation timing and application volume, fertilization practices, mowing practices, and thatch management (i.e., verticutting, aerating, spiking, and removal/mulching) in turf areas. Verticutting is typically used for thatch (organic layer made up mostly of non-decomposed stems) management to reduce problems to turf during times of stress due to insects and fungi. Verticutting is the act of cutting vertically into the turf to break up thatch allowing for removal and to create cuts in the turf to help with root stimulation, aeration, water infiltration, and growth stimulation while improving the health of the managed turf and preventing against the establishment of unwanted pest species. It is recommended that managers overseed and fertilize after verticutting to encourage rapid regrowth of desired turf species.
Biological controls may include the introduction of species specific parasites or predators, or the establishment of ecological conditions that promote the colonization of the target pest species’ natural predators or competitors. This control method includes native habitat creation or restoration, construction and placement of bird, bat, or owl boxes, and physical introduction of predatory, parasitic, or highly competitive species.
Lastly, chemical control measures include all control methods that involve pesticides. This control method includes herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and any other poisonous materials used to target specific pests or groups of pest species.
The SGGC currently uses all four management practices for controlling pest species. It is important to note that a well-planned and effective IPM plan will use all four control methods for a balanced approach when managing each target species (UC IPM, 2013). The following is a summary of the current control practices utilized at the SGGC and the target species (group or individual) for each control method.
As mentioned previously, current pest management at SGGC is based on analysis of historic preventative and curative measures. The golf course superintendent makes management decision based on onsite observations and site specific management control methods that have been proven to work during past pest management operations. All pest management control methods are utilized on a routine or as needed basis as determined by the golf course superintendent.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-27 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Physical The current physical practices are as follows:
Gopher and mole trapping (accounts for roughly 10% control) Hand removal of various thistles (90% to 95% hand removed annually) Construction netting around newly planted trees to prevent deer damage
Cultural SGGC currently utilizes a variety of cultural practices to not only help with pest prevention and reduction, but also for management of play conditions on all turf areas. The following is a list of the current cultural practices utilized at the SGGC:
Early morning mowing of all turf areas to help remove dew and minimize opportunities for fungal infestations o Greens are mowed every morning (7 days a week) and occasionally rolled instead of mowed o Fairways, tees, collars, and approaches are mowed twice a week o Roughs are mowed once a week Verticutting and light top dressing every 3 – 4 weeks to help with thatch management Watering greens twice every night on most cycles to help with water penetration and disease control by limiting standing water on turf surface and leaves Applying regular, small quantity fertilizer applications on greens to maintain even growth patterns and prevent surges in growth that can leave turf more susceptible to disease Aerate tees, fairways, and roughs twice a year and 3 – 4 times a year on greens to help water penetration and thatch removal In-between aeration events greens are spiked once or twice to help with water penetration and thatch removal Watering is done at night and based on weather conditions to help prevent overwatering and disease/fungus growth
Biological SGGC currently employs the following biological control methods for managing target pest species:
Installation of 12 bluebird boxes at various locations within the last five years have increased the number of insectivorous birds feeding on the grounds Conversion of approximately 6 acres of irrigated turf to infrequently irrigated “no mow” areas. These areas will act as vegetation buffers for surface water quality enhancement while reducing the need for typical turf management activities.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-28 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Chemical Applications of all pesticides are on an “as needed” practice based on years of site knowledge and the extensive golf course management expertise of Superintendent Barry Mueller. Manufacturer recommendations are followed for all chemicals used. It is recommended that a licensed pest control advisor (PCA) be consulted for determining of what chemicals should be used for various applications. Both the manufacturer’s label and PCA recommendations should be followed when implementing a chemical application program. The chemical products currently used at the golf course could have potential negative effects on salmonids if incorrectly applied and managed. The current practices for chemical use do not result in any direct contact and exposure to fish and other aquatic species and thus effectively prevent potential impacts to salmonids. It is recommended that the golf course continue to review their current chemicals used and application practices as the IPM plan is refined and updated in order to remain current with manufacturer and industry standards. A current list of chemicals used, potential direct affects to salmonids, and recommended alternatives is included in Appendix C (Agrian, Inc., 2014) (Pesticide Action Network, 2010). In general, the current chemical pest control practices at SGGC are as follows:
Selective fungicide and growth regulator application once a month on greens Other fungicides as needed (generally 1 – 3 applications per year on greens) Non-selective herbicide spot spray as needed throughout the year on greens for broadleaf and grassy weed control Selective herbicide spot spray in spring (one application) on fairways and tees and occasional entire individual fairway spray for control of broadleaf weeds Occasional non-selective herbicide spot spray throughout the year in mulched areas and between cracks in asphalt for control of broadleaf weeds and grasses Spot spray herbicide treatment for blackberry and poison oak during the spring and early summer Irrigation reservoirs and ponds typically receive aquatic herbicide treatments once a month from early spring to fall targeting the various aquatic plant pests Occasional spot spray herbicide treatment of poison hemlock and thistles in the deep rough in the spring and summer; however, 90% - 95% is removed by hand each year reducing the need for herbicide treatments. One application per year of pre-emergent herbicide for crabgrass control with the hopes of reducing application to once every other year or once every three years Occasional chemical fumigation and bait poisoning of burrowing animals (gophers and moles) No insecticides have been used in the last 3 years as no insects have been determined to be a target pest species (pest damage thresholds have not been reached in the past 3 years) 5.2.3 IPM Recommendations The following are Restoration Resources’ recommendations for future pest management operations at the San Geronimo Golf Course. These recommendations are focused on the
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-29 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
development of an IPM plan and are intended to help outline management practices by creating clearly documented management protocols for future pest management operations.
Establish an IPM Plan It is important for pest management operations to be clearly defined, carefully implemented, fully documented, and routinely reviewed. The best way to manage pests and ensure management practices are cost efficient and environmentally sensitive is to develop an IPM plan. IPM plan development will help guide management decisions and aid in creating effective and efficient pest management practices that use holistic management techniques that specifically target unwanted pests. Pest managers can develop their own IPM plans that best fit their facility’s needs and desires, but most plans should address the five major components listed in the introduction: pest identification; monitoring and assessing pest numbers and damage levels; establishing triggers and guidelines for management action; pest prevention (cultural practices); and, use of curative pest management controls (physical, cultural, biological, and chemical).
As part of this section a Draft IPM plan was developed (with the input of Barry Mueller) using an online service that helps guide course managers through the process. The draft plan is provided in Appendix D. This service is provided by GreenGolfUSA, but there are also multiple websites and other services that help guide golf course superintendents and managers through the process of developing an IPM plan.
Examples include:
The Golf Course Superintendents Association of America’s IPM planning guide at
Recommended Plan Outline Although it is recommended that SGGC management personnel conduct further research into typical IPM plan outlines and refine their own plan based on site-specific pest management goals and objectives, the following outline can serve as a general guideline for a standard golf course IPM plan. The outline below identifies key IPM plan components and describes a standard IPM outline (table of contents) as modified from the Oregon Chapter GCSAA Environmental Stewardship Guidelines (EnviroLogic Resources Inc., 2010). This outline may help guide the future development of the current golf course IPM plan.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-30 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
The typical IPM table of contents includes the following:
1. Introduction a. This section should describe the location and setting of the golf course as well as the local yearly climatic conditions b. Include course layout, size, level of public use and other pertinent background information in this section c. Describe ownership information and management structure 2. IPM Definitions, Objectives, Structure a. This section should clearly outline the goals and objectives of the IPM plan as well as outline the structure of the plan to help future readers and other management personnel understand the structure and purpose of the plan b. Definitions of terms and components of the plan should be included in this section 3. Area Definition a. This section should describe the course conditions (grass type, amount of shade, soil type, area, current cultural practices, etc…) broken down into management zones with different management requirements (e.g., hole 17- fairway) b. This section should also define non-turf ornamental landscape and natural areas 4. Target Pest Definitions a. Identify the target pest species by type, specific species, and locations (similar to the list presented above). b. Outline each pest’s life cycle and identify which life stage to target for management actions to maximize efficacy and cost efficiencies 5. Pest Action Threshold Levels a. Outline acceptable levels of pest presence or impacts and establish trigger mechanisms for various degrees of management controls and levels of management intensity b. Identify longer term management actions (cultural and biological) that may be implemented to aid in holding pest populations below threshold levels 6. Pest Monitoring a. Develop a monitoring protocol for identifying target pests and impact threshold levels (e.g., daily site walk through and monitoring check lists to identify potential or existing pest problems areas) b. Develop monitoring strategies for identification of pest life cycles, population levels (e.g., high, medium, low), and reporting procedures 7. Pest Control Methods and Management Steps a. Outline a decision flow chart for implementing specific control methods for each target species at predefined threshold levels for particular life stages b. Determine, define, and outline each management control method including preventative methods (cultural) and curative methods (biological, physical, and chemical) for each target pest species
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-31 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
c. Create an outline of management steps for each target species with chemical methods as a last resort d. Pesticide Specifications e. Identify all pesticides used and identify what target species each chemical should be used to treat f. Identify quantities, trigger mechanisms, and timing for all pesticides used g. Include state licensed Pesticide Control Advisor (PCA) recommendations for each chemical used h. Include pesticide manufacturer’s label for each chemical used or on-site i. Identify treatment strategies to reduce risk of resistance developing in target pests 8. Tree management a. This section should include a tree inventory, health assessment, and general planting, maintenance, and removal guidelines b. This section could include a description of the values of specific tree species for bird nesting and roosting and abilities to host beneficial insects 9. Composting and Organic Materials Management a. Identify the steps and procedures for composting of organic waste materials produced during golf course management b. Include definitions of locations, composting plan, monitoring, management, and end product material re-use 10. Facilities Description a. This section should include a map of the facility including all turf/play areas, natural areas, ponds, drainages, natural creeks, buffer zones, clubhouse and maintenance facilities b. Maintenance facility descriptions should include offices, shops, material storage areas, fueling stations, pesticide mixing areas, clean out areas, composting areas, and buffer zones 11. References a. This section should include specific references (literature cited or source of personal communications) to all materials collected and used in the development of the plan SGGC IPM Recommendations for Future Management Actions: IPM plans are intended to not only be comprehensive documents for the management of target pest species, but should also be working documents that can be edited and updated. IPM plans take time to develop and change as the needs of the facility and target species change. In order to develop a comprehensive plan it is recommended that SGGC focus on the following future management actions when updating the full IPM plan. These future management actions are intended to give management personnel recommendations on the next steps to take that will help guide the IPM plan development and give management personnel additional resources and information that can be used for enhancing current management practices.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-32 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
These future management actions include:
Outline lifecycle of current managed pest species and list step-by-step management techniques starting with preventative measures. Establishment of damage thresholds that use standard sampling techniques to determine when control methods should be used, specifically chemical methods. Acquiring and filing PCA recommendations for all chemicals used for pest treatment Collection and bio-filtration of runoff prior to release to natural waterways Conduct additional studies and consult with IPM specialist to help determine site specific goals and objectives
IPM plans have been successfully implemented for many different pest management situations and the feasibility of successful implementation is based on the development of obtainable goals and objectives as well as complete initial pest surveys, additional studies, and comprehensive control methods and triggers for management. SGGC’s current management protocols and control methods are well thought-out and have been developed over years of management experience and periodic review of what has and has not worked in the past. Due to the current management strategies and expert knowledge of the course and management control methods, it is anticipated that development of a successful and comprehensive IPM plan is not only feasible, but would also benefit management personnel and aid target pest species management decisions.
5.2.4 Conclusion The primary goal of the San Geronimo Golf Course Integrated Pest Management Plan is to protect the environment while maximizing the health and appearance of the turf areas, ornamental landscape areas, buffer areas, and natural areas within the property. Also, the IPM plan will provide management protocols that should result in beneficial effects to water quality in San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks and their tributaries at least within the golf course reaches. Social benefits of IPM plans have been noted in the Oregon Chapter of the GCSAA Environmental Stewardship Guidelines 2nd edition as follows: “Documented IPM plans have become important golf course assets, and provide a cornerstone for environmental stewardship programs” (EnviroLogic Resources Inc., pg. 38). Additionally, a well written plan that can be understood by management and maintenance staff alike and be used to inform concerned patrons of the golf course, members of the general public, and agency staff of golf course pest management operations and the science based decision making process leading up to specific pest management activities.
In order to determine a set cost range to develop and implement an IPM Plan and Program further studies and knowledge of specific goals and objectives need to be evaluated and addressed. This is due to the variability in existing site conditions, target species and levels of infestation, site specific needs, desired plan complexity, IPM goals and objectives, and plan development strategy. However, it has been proven on many golf courses around the country that the economic benefits of preparing and implementing a comprehensive IPM Plan typically occur over time and initial upfront costs associated with establishing an IPM Plan can be reduced by developing the plan in-house with consultation of IPM professionals as needed for development of specific
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-33 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
sections or field expertise (particularly life histories of target species and alternative control methods). Typically the initial upfront cost is recuperated through annual savings due to reduced pest management costs associated with routine chemical applications.
The plan should stress the adoption and use of cultural practices to increase plant health and vigor thereby reducing the opportunity for pest populations to rise to infestation or damage causing levels. Other physical control methods and biological control methods will put pressure on pest populations further reducing the need for costly chemical applications. Not only will the use of alternative control methods reduce the cost associated with routine chemical applications, but reducing chemical applications will provide ecological benefits that will help reduce negative impacts to the water quality of adjacent waterways and the surrounding environment. While no IPM plan will eliminate pesticides as a viable and valuable control method, reducing the number of applications needed to control a pest species and minimizing the area treated will result in significant pest management cost reductions. In general preventative measures typically cost less to implement and maintain and are more beneficial than curative measures – Jim Ferrin, golf course superintendent for Sun City Timber Creek Golf Club (J. Ferrin, personal communication, June 6, 2013).
The key to cost savings from an IPM plan is monitoring individual pest species before and after treatments and avoiding routine treatments over large areas without assessing pest/damage threshold levels. Fewer treatments spread out over various life stages will assist in the challenge of pesticide resistance developing in target pest species. Each chemical treatment not needed and not done reduces maintenance expenditures, offsets monitoring costs, provides ecological benefits to the environment and adjacent waterways, and adds to annual cost savings for pest management activities. 5.3 Invasive Species Management Plan
The San Geronimo creek and its Larsen creek tributary intersect the SGGC and run adjacent to ponds that contain known populations of invasive fish including black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), invasive American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and invasive parrot’s feather plant (Myriophyllum aquaticum). During a storm event, these ponds overflow into San Geronimo creek and Larsen creek, introducing these invasive species into the LCW. Bullfrogs, largemouth bass, and parrot’s feather have been found at the outlet of pond 3 outlet. Bullfrogs have been found in pond 2, which naturally dries up in late fall, indicating that bullfrogs living in this pond migrate to other water bodies during this time.
The focus of this assessment is to discuss options for the eradication, control, and containment of largemouth bass, bluegill black crappie, American bullfrog, and parrot’s feather in SGGC ponds; make management recommendations for their eradication based on relevant scientific findings; and determine estimated cost and potential success of the treatments.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-34 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
5.3.1 Biology and Natural History of Invasive Species Largemouth bass The largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is native to the eastern United States and has been introduced throughout the western United States including California. Largemouth bass mature and spawn as early as their first year in the southern extent of their range, but are slower to mature farther into their northern ranges. Largemouth bass fry feed primarily on small crustaceans and insects, juveniles mostly feed on small fishes and insects, and adults feed on fishes, insects, and crayfish. (Stomach contents of largemouth bass indicate that during times of water level drawdowns, largemouth bass prey heavily on juvenile fishes (Heman et al. 1969). Largemouth bass typically spawn during mid-to late spring when water temperatures reach 12.00C -15.50C. Incubation time is short and generally ranges between 2 and 7 days. Largemouth bass will nest on a variety of substrates including gravel, mud, roots, vegetation, and sand. Nests are constructed by adult males and are found at water depths ranging from 0.15 to 7.5 meters. Lakes and ponds with extensive shallow areas and emergent vegetation, but deep enough to support winter survival and refuge from summer temperatures are preferred habitats for Largemouth bass. Largemouth bass generally do not inhabit headwater streams with gradients (> 4 m/km) but are found in rivers with slow moving waters where a high percentage (>60%) of deep pool and backwater habitats are available. Largemouth bass are found to be intolerant of turbidity where suspended solids reduce growth and reproductive success (Stuber et al. 1982).
Bluegill Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) are native to a large section of eastern North America, extending from Quebec and southern Ontario, west to the Great Lakes region, and south to Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico. Bluegill area a popular sport fish and are ubiquitously stocked in ponds outside of their native range throughout the western United States including California. The typical life expectancy of bluegill is from 3 to five years. They spawn throughout the summer and fall in shallow lake beds with water temperatures generally ranging from 170C and 310C. Nesting substrates include sand, mud, rock, gravel, and vegetation. Bluegills are opportunistic hunters and scavengers and feed on a variety of insects, zooplankton, invertebrates and small vertebrates. They usually inhabit shallow shoreline areas in lakes or ponds with a large amount of vegetative cover, but usually seek out deeper areas to overwinter or retreat from summer heat. Bluegill are generally not found in headwater streams but can inhabit pools and backwater habitats of slow moving streams and rivers. Adults have been understood to occupy rivers with a high percentage (>60%) of deep pool and backwater habitats and low gradients (< 0.5 m/km). Bluegill can tolerate moderately turbid waters but reproduce most successfully in clear waters (Edwards et al. 1982).
Black crappie The native range of black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) extends from the southern Ontario, through the Great Lake states and Minnesota, south to northeastern Mexico and the Gulf States, and east to the Carolinas. The black crappie has been widely distributed outside of its native range including California. Black crappies typically mature and spawn at ages one to two and generally live up to four years. They spawn once a year, generally spring through summer when
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-35 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
water temperatures are between 170 and 310C. Incubation lasts between one to five days depending on the water temperature. Nests can be found in shallow areas between one and three meters and generally occur on substrates including mud, sand, gravel, and vegetation. Black crappies are opportunistic feeders and can change their diet according to the type of food available. Black crappie fry generally feed on zooplankton and small insects, while juveniles and adults primarily feed on insects, small fishes, and plant material. They usually inhabit shallow shoreline areas in lakes or ponds with a large amount of vegetative cover, but usually seek out deeper areas to overwinter or retreat from summer heat. Black crappies are generally not found in headwater streams but can inhabit pools and backwater habitats of slow moving streams and rivers. Adults have been understood to occupy rivers with a high percentage (>60%) of deep pool and backwater habitats but not occupy rivers with gradients (>0.5 m/km). Black crappie can tolerate moderately turbid waters but reproduce most successfully in clear waters (Edwards et al. 1982).
American bullfrog The American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) has a native range that extents from Nova Scotia to Florida, west across the Great Plains, and up to the Rocky Mountains. They have been introduced however, across the world including Puerto Rico, eastern Asia, southern Europe, the Caribbean, and throughout the western United States including California. Bullfrogs generally inhabit shallow, permanent water bodies such and ponds and lakes, but can also be found in slow moving backwater sections of streams and rivers. Individual frogs generally emerge from hibernation in early spring when air temperatures range between 190 C and 240C, and when water temperatures are at least 130C. Young frogs usually emerge from hibernation before older, larger frogs. Bullfrogs are generally found near the shoreline during the spring but move farther into the water as air temperatures rise during summer and fall. Male choruses attract females to mate and generally occur in the spring and early summer. Individual females may produce up to 20,000 eggs generally once, but sometimes twice a year. With such prolific clutch sizes, ponds can be repopulated if only a few frogs breed. Egg development occurs when water temperatures are between 150C and 320C. Bullfrogs occur as larvae (tadpoles) anywhere between 79 days and 3 years depending on the temperature and the amount of food available. Competition and cannibalism can occur when water levels drop and habitat decreases. Bullfrogs are opportunistic feeders that will eat anything they can catch and swallow. Bullfrog diets largely consist of insects, snails, fish, frogs, tadpoles, reptiles, and even small mammals and birds. Bullfrog tadpoles are non-selective filter feeders whose diets consist of algae and diatoms. Eutrophic water bodies with large amounts of food and plant cover for adults and juveniles seem favorable for bullfrog development. Permanent water must be present for all life stages of the bullfrog to survive, but adults can migrate to other water bodies if water levels drop below habitable levels (Graves and Anderson 1987).
Parrot’s Feather Native to South America, parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) was first brought to the United States for use in aquariums and water gardens. It is widespread throughout the country including the western United States and California. It is also found throughout the world with
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-36 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
populations reported in South Africa, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and England. Parrot’s feather is a perennial, submerged aquatic plant that can tolerate large fluctuations in water levels. Reproduction is believed to be asexual, spreading by vegetative means only, either from stem fragments or rhizome spreading. Only female plants are understood to be present in the United States with male plants only found in South America. Growth of parrot’s feather is most rapid from early spring through mid-fall. During this time a canopy can form up to 2 feet above the water surface (Wersal and Madison2010). Its emergent shoots form thick mats of woody stems that can grow in water as deep as six feet. Once fragmented, these emergent shoots can become rooted in moist soil and form new plants. Due to the vigor of the plant and the rapid colonization of fragments, removal is difficult and solutions for control are limited (Bossard et al. 2000).
5.3.2 Effects of Invasive Species on Native Salmonids Each of the non-native species described above occur in the SGGC ponds. During storm events, five of the ponds overflow through outflow culverts and drainages that empty directly into Larsen creek or San Geronimo creek, allowing the exotic species direct transport into critical habitat for coho and steelhead. When given the opportunity, introduced largemouth bass and black crappie can become resident in salmonid streams and prey heavily upon fry and juvenile coho salmon, particularly in degraded streams with poor quality coho habitat (Stuber et al. 2982; Edwards et al. 1982).Non-native bullfrogs also prey on juvenile salmonids which however, only make up a small percentage of bullfrog diets (Jancowski 2013), but still pose an unnecessary threat to native salmonids. If established in pools and backwater habitats, parrot’s feather can slow down stream flow and reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen content in the water (Cillers 1999). These invasive species have been seen in stream bodies within the Lagunitas Creek Watershed and have the potential to cause severe damage to salmonid populations and habitats.
5.3.3 Status of Invasive Species at Golf Course Ponds Largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, American bullfrog, and parrot’s feather have occupied the golf course ponds for nearly a decade and their source is unknown to the SGGC staff. The golf course has not before attempted to control largemouth bass, black crappie, or American bullfrog, but has attempted to control parrot’s feather using Renovate® aquatic herbicide. The golf course treated parrot’s feather once a year for two consecutive years in 2010 and 2011 at a cost of approximately $200 dollars per year. The herbicide treatments reduced the parrot’s feather to “desirable” levels but were discontinued because of the costs of the CAG990005 permit (Muller 2013). Herbicide applications occurred in pond 4 during the fall when the water levels were low. Herbicide applications have not occurred since 2011.
In order to assess the magnitude of species infestations, and estimate the abundances of the invasive species present at the SGGC, comprehensive species surveys were done at each pond throughout May 2013. Survey methodologies and data results are summarized in subsequent sections.
American Bullfrog Each golf course pond was surveyed three times within a two week period in order to determine the presence and relative abundance of bullfrogs and other amphibians in each pond. We
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-37 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
expected that bullfrogs would not be distributed evenly across all eight ponds due to variations in water levels, either natural or artificial, different patterns of emergent vegetation, and the presence or absence of other wildlife. The surveys began approximately half an hour after sunset when frogs became most active. Before the surveys began, air temperature, water temperature, general weather, and time of night were recorded at each pond. Audio calls were recorded first by listening to each pond for at least three minutes and individual calls were recorded. In addition to documenting individual calls, an audio call index value was also recorded for each pond. Index values ranging from one to three were used to represent varying levels of calling. For example, an audio call index value of one was recorded when individual calls could be distinguished and there was no overlap between them; an audio index value of two was recorded when individual calls could be distinguished but some overlap existed; and an audio index value of three recorded used when calls were constant and continuously overlapping in chorus. This method was used to determine the relative number of sexually mature male bullfrogs as well the presence and abundance of native Pacific tree frogs- which are very difficult to spot so audio calls are the most reliable method of survey. Following the audio survey, a visual survey was done by walking the perimeter of the shoreline using bright flashlights to spot and count individual frogs in the water. This allowed for the identification of adults, tadpoles, fish, snakes, and other animals that would not be witnessed by audio surveys alone.
TABLE 5-3 GREATEST BULLFROG AND PACIFIC TREE FROG AUDIO INDICES OF EACH POND
Pond Number Pacific Tree Frog Call Index Bullfrog Call Index
1 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 2 1 7 1 1 8 0 2
See Table 5-4 for index descriptions
TABLE 5-4 FROG AUDIO CALL INDEX VALUES
Index Value Description
1 Individual calls can be counted, there is space between calls 2 Calls of individuals can be distinguished, but some calls overlap 3 Chorus: calls are constant, continuous, and overlapping
Each pond had bullfrogs present but the variation among ponds was great. The pond with the greatest number of bullfrog adults was pond 1 with a total of 102 individuals. Pond 5 had the next greatest number of adult bullfrogs with 64, followed by pond 8 with 54 adults, then pond 6 with 53 adults, pond 3 with 20 adults, pond 2 with 7 adults, pond 4 with 5 adults, and lastly, pond 7
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-38 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
with 3 adults. Bullfrog tadpoles were abundant in every pond and in such large numbers that it was unrealistic to count. The pond with the greatest number of Pacific tree frog audio counts was pond 5 with 8 individuals, followed by pond 1 with 7 individuals, then pond 6 with 6 individuals, then pond 7 with 3 individuals, ponds 3 and 4 both had 2 individuals, pond 2 had 1 individual, and pond 8 had no calling Pacific tree frogs. These numbers are small and certainly underestimate the actual amount of Pacific tree frogs in each pond but do serve as indicators of presence or absence. These estimates of visual and audio counts represent the greatest number of frogs observed during a single night of surveying.
These bullfrog visual surveys did include a bias towards recording individuals only visible at the shoreline and near the surface. Therefore, individuals that were submerged in thick vegetation, or occupied the deepest sections of the ponds were less likely to be counted. To mitigate this bias, we surveyed the ponds in early spring when air temperatures ranged between 190C to 240C and male choruses would be most active. Between theses temperatures, bullfrogs are generally found near the shoreline and only move farther into the water as air temperatures rise during summer and fall (Graves and Anderson 1987). These numbers represent our best attempts at estimating the relative abundance of bullfrogs in each pond. The graph in Figures 5-6 and 5-7 shows the total audio and visual counts taken after three nights of surveying with the quantities representing the greatest amount of bullfrogs and tree frogs observed in a single night.
Figure 5-6 Bullfrog Audio and Visual Counts
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-39 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Figure 5-7 Pacific Tree Frog Audio Counts
Parrot’s Feather Ponds 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have parrot’s feather present but pond 4 has the heaviest infestation. Recent photographs of parrot’s feather in the ponds are shown in Figure 5-8. Since the latest Renovate® application in fall 2011, parrot’s feather in pond 4, has rebounded to 100% absolute cover along the perimeter of the shoreline. As mentioned previously, the overflow culvert from pond 4 into Larsen creek has a small patch of parrot’s feather in the wetland upstream of the creek. Pond 3 has parrot’s feather occurring along the southern and western shoreline and only occupying roughly 25% absolute cover of the pond shoreline. Smaller, more isolated populations of parrot’s feather occurring in ponds 5, 6, and 7 are clustered in small patches and represent <5% of the absolute cover of along shoreline. Unfortunately, parrot’s feather is easily transferred among these water bodies due to water exchange from pumping operations, overflow during storm events, and waterfowl excrement. In order to completely eradicate parrot’s feather from these ponds altogether, stringent removal measures must occur congruently.
Figure 5-8 Parrot’s Feather Infestations in Golf Course Ponds (from left to right: Pond 3, Pond 4, Pond 5)
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-40 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Largemouth bass, bluegill and black crappie Single census angling surveys using a half-inch fly lure were conducted at each pond for one to two hours on May 23, 2013. Each pond was fished around the perimeter and in the center with numerous casts at each location. Fish caught were identified, measured, tagged by a scissor clip in the upper caudal fin, and released. The only ponds with fish in them were ponds 4 and 8. This was surprising given that ponds 3, 5, 6, and 7 are perennial ponds with suitable shoreline and deep pool habitats. It was not surprising that ponds 1 and 2 did not have fish given that they are intermittent and dry up somewhat or completely during the late fall.
No bluegill were found in golf course ponds during the population surveys for the purpose of this study however, in June of 2000, SPAWN Executive Director Todd Steiner caught seven bluegill on a pool 3-4 meters deep at the mouth of Larsen Creek, downstream from the Golf Course ponds. The length of each fish was recorded and the average length per fish was 116 mm. Four of these seven fish were taken to Tony Yomomoto, Curator of Fish, California Academy of Sciences, where he positively identified them as bluegill. In 2000, SPAWN conducted a fishing derby in Pond 4 to control the population of exotic fish and to educate the public about the negative impacts of releasing exotic fish. Approximately 200 people caught 200 bluegill and largemouth bass and the issue was covered by the local press (Point Reyes Light, October 26, 2000. Environmental fishing derby hooks 200 exotics).
Six black crappies were caught at pond 8- four were caught along the western shoreline and two were caught along the eastern shoreline. No tagged fish were re-captured. The largest black crappie caught in this pond totaled 150 mm, and the smallest was 98 mm. The average length of black crappies caught in this pond was 126 mm. The R statistics program and protocols for single census closed mark-recapture abundance estimates were used to calculate the relative abundance of black crappie in pond 8. Estimates of single census closed mark-recapture abundance estimates for black crappie in pond 8 are between 18 and 175 individuals (CI 95%) (Ogle 2012).
Largemouth bass caught in pond 4 were identified, measured, and tagged in the upper caudal fin the same way as was done in pond 8. A total of 29 largemouth bass were caught in pond 8, and only one was recaptured. Thirteen fish were caught along the northern and eastern shorelines and sixteen fish were caught along the southern and western shorelines. The biggest largemouth bass caught in pond 4 totaled 463 mm long, and the smallest was 86 mm. The average length of largemouth bass in pond 4 was 302 mm. The same R statistics protocols for singe census closed mark-recapture abundance estimates used in pond 8 were used to estimate relative abundance of largemouth bass in pond 4. Estimates of single census closed mark-recapture abundance estimates for largemouth bass in pond 4 are between 65 and 310 individuals (CI 95%) (Ogle 2012).
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-41 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
TABLE 5-5 SUMMARY OF ANGLING SURVEY STATISTICS AT GOLF COURSE PONDS
No. Black No. crappies Largemouth Relative Pond Caught and No. Bass Caught No. Avg. Length Abundance Number Tagged Recaptured and Tagged Recaptured (mm) (CI 95%)
4 0 0 29 1 310 65 to 310 individuals* 8 6 0 0 0 126 18 to 175 individuals*
*These relative abundance estimates do not reflect a robust and precise assessment of fish stock. For legal reasons, angling surveys were the most accessible method of conducting fish surveys, but do represent our best attempts at estimating the relative abundance of fishes in the golf course ponds.
Additional Wildlife Each pond contained wildlife other than the species discussed in the sections above. Ponds 1, 3, 5, and 6 had mating pairs of mallards with 3 to 4 ducklings per pair. One western pond turtle and one muskrat were observed in pond 5. Lastly, ponds 1 and 6 contained a pair of American coots (Fulica americana).
5.3.4 Literature Review The management scenarios and pest control recommendations described in this assessment were developed using analyses of scientific literature, references to best management practices (BMPs), and conversations with state Fish and Wildlife officials. The following sections describe the processes of literature review and the results of the subsequent analyses.
A comprehensive framework was developed to determine the most efficient and effective treatment methods used to eradicate, reduce, and contain invasive largemouth bass, black crappie, American bullfrog, and parrot’s feather. The framework consisted of searching through scientific publications and analyzing the data.
Types of Literature Searched Scientific studies that were designed to test the efficacy of reduction and elimination of fish, frog, and aquatic plant species were searched using environmental periodical databases, such as Web of Science, JSOTR, EBSCO, Wiley, Bioline, Proquest, and Taylor & Francis Journals. These databases were searched using keywords such as: invasive fish, fish elimination, pond reclamation, fyke netting, trawl netting, electrofishing, seine netting, fish barrier, angling, water level drawdown, rotenone, American bullfrog control, parrot’s feather control, aquatic plant control, and nuisance fish. The results yielded papers in numerous ecological and environmental journals including, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Progressive Fish-Culturist, Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Journal of Great Lakes Research, Lake and Reservoir Management, Ecological Applications, Biological Conservation, Neobiota, Ecological Research, and Restoration Ecology. Publications from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-42 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and State Fish and Wildlife departments of Missouri, Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, and California were also searched for relevant information. Existing best management practices (BMPs) from the Western Washington Water Quality Control Board, and interviews with California Fish and Wildlife officials were used as resources that helped shape the parameters and feasibility of this project.
Literature Selection Criterion Scientific publications were first identified as being relevant based on their titles and authors. Relevant studies were screened first based on their abstracts, then again based on their study design. To determine if a publication were to be included in the literature review and subsequent analysis, it had to fit into each of these study parameters listed below.
Study design was experimental opposed to observational There was a control or benchmark Identification of cohort was prospective (known ahead of time) Outcome was prospective (as a result of intervention)
The scientific publications included in the literature review consisted of controlled before and after studies, comparison studies, and non-randomized controlled studies.
The types of interventions that were analyzed in the literature included intensive angling, fyke netting, seine netting, trawl netting, gill netting, drop netting, pop netting, benthic sleds, electric barrier, backpack electrofishing, boat electrofishing, live traps, shooting, explosives, water level drawdown, physical barrier, and pesticides. Interventions specific to parrot’s feather included biological control, increased water levels, shading, cutting, herbicide, and water level drawdown. Some literature evaluated combinations of multiple interventions.
The publications included in the analysis focused Largemouth bass, black crappie, American bullfrog, and parrot’s feather but also included bluegill, common carp, walleye, ruffe, northern pike, bigmouth buffalo, gizzard shard, smallmouth bass, Columbia spotted frog, black carp, and submersed macrophytes related to parrot’s feather.
Data Collection and Analysis Seventy-four scientific publications were first identified as relevant based on their titles and authors. Fifty were screened by their abstracts, and forty-four met the study parameters and were included in the literature analysis. Data from each chosen publication were extracted, recorded, and analyzed independently. For each outcome, a detailed data collection form was used to record study details (start and end dates, location, study design), intervention details (methods of catch, unit of effort input, duration of catch), and outcome details (number of individual specimens caught, and the number of species caught). For each of these outcome details, statistical figures (arithmetic mean, p-values, standard deviation, confidence intervals, etc.) were also recorded.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-43 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Assessment of Quality of Evidence The quality of evidence across studies was assessed with the GRADE approach (Guyatt 2008), defining the quality of evidence for each outcome as "the extent to which one can be confident that an estimate of effect or association is close to the quantity of specific interest" (Higgins 2008). The quality rating across studies had four levels: high, moderate, low, or very low. Factors that decrease the quality of evidence include limitations in design, unexplained or inconsistent results, imprecision of results, or high probability of publication bias. Factors that can increase the quality level of a body of evidence include a large magnitude of effect and low probability of publication bias. Studies included in the literature review were ranked from high to low based on their outcomes and study design. Data from each study were analyzed in narrative form and are summarized in the following section. Literature Included in the results summary can be referenced in the literature cited section at the end of this report.
5.3.5 Literature Results Summary Largemouth bass, bluegill and black crappie Trap netting is a commonly used method by which fisheries managers try to reduce or eliminate populations of invasive or undesired fishes. Of the literature analyzed, minnow traps consistently yielded the lowest catch rates when compared to other trap methods of pop netting, drop netting, and fyke netting. The latter generally yielded the greatest catch rates of the trap netting methods, capturing on average 30% to 40% of the fish population (Basler et al. 2006; Bayle et al. 2011; Beall and Wahl 1959; Betross and Willis 1988; Czypinski 2011; Dembkowsk et al. 2012; Dewey 1992; Fago 1998; Grice 1958; Ruetz III et al. 2007; Threinen 1956; Vaux et al. 2000). Fyke netting catches also yielded greater species diversity than pop netting, drop netting, and minnow trapping (Dewey 1992; Fago 1998). Other netting methods including bottom trawling, beach seining, and gill nets were also analyzed in the review. Compared to bottom trawling and gill netting, beach seining yielded the highest catch rates and species diversity rates, capturing on average 50 to 60% of the fish population (Bayley and Herendeen 2000; Beall and Wahl 1959; Betross and Willis 1988; Czypinski 2011; Dewey 1992; Vaux et al. 2000). (Gill netting and bottom trawling generally captured between 15% and 24% of the fish population (Beall and Wahl 1959; Betross and Willis 1988; Czypinski 2011; Dewey 1992). When compared to fyke nets, beach seine netting on average yielded the greater catch rates with the least amount of sampling effort (Basler et al 2006; Beall and Wahl 1959; Dembkowski et al. 2012; Catalano and Allen 2010; Czypinski 2011; Fago 1998).
Boat electrofishing is another method used by fisheries managers to control fish populations. This method showed that average catch rates- with minimum 5,000-W AC EF unit- yielded on average, 80% of the fish population. This method yielded greater catch rates and species diversity than seine netting (Basler et al. 2006; Bayley and Herendeen 2000; Czypinski 2011; Dembkowsk et al. 2012). Backpack electrofishing (350-W AC) yielded on average 59% of the fish population in small lakes (Dembkowski et al. 2012; Dewey 1992; Czypinski 2011; Fago 1998; Vaux et al. 2000). Two drawbacks to electrofishing methods are that they are more labor intensive than non- electrofishing gears, and generally more expensive (Dembkowski et al. 2012).
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-44 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Intensive angling showed consistently lower catch rates with lower species diversity than seine netting, trap netting, electrofishing, and pesticides (Brown and Ball 1943; Dembkowsk et al. 2012; Clemens 1953; Coble 1988, Goedde et al. 2001; Vaux et al 2000). On average, 20-30 hours of angling captured between 13% and 21% of the game fish population, but was selective towards capturing larger (>350 mm) game fish (Coble 1988; Goedde et al. 2001; Fago 1998).
Pond draining is a common and easy form of fish eradication. Maezono et al. 2005 found that ponds drained did not have any fish present when drained again two years later. Water level manipulation has also been shown to affect game fish populations. Stomach surveys of largemouth bass indicated that a 58% reduction in water body volume for two months caused largemouth bass to increase predation on juvenile fishes. Body size of largemouth bass increased by an average of 6.7 grams/lb and shoreline seine surveys showed great reductions in juvenile fish populations (Heman et al 1969).
Rotenone is a common piscicide used by fisheries managers and is understood to be very effective at killing up to 95% of adult game fish and pan fish (Bayley et al. 2000) but, has not caused the same mortality of fry and juveniles, which allows populations to rebound (Clemens 1953). The resistance of fry and juvenile fish to rotenone likely has to do with the inability of rotenone to mix throughout the water column, creating areas of low concentrations where small fishes can survive (Clemens 1953). Combinations of chemical and physical removal treatments have proven to be more effective at eradicating fishes than simply chemical treatments alone (Meronek et al. 1996). According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the rate at which rotenone breaks down depends on factors including water temperature, depth, UV exposure, oxygen, and alkalinity. In a lake depth of 4 meters and a consistent temperature of 450 F, rotenone was still toxic to fish after 33 days. It is likely that rotenone will break down faster with more exposure to UV light, higher water temperature, more dissolved oxygen, and a neutral pH. The Department also states that trout and salmon are most sensitive to rotenone exposure when compared to sunfish, bass, and catfish; the latter two being the least sensitive. Since rotenone impairs a fish’s ability to regulate and expel oxygen, fish eggs are more resistant to rotenone than juvenile and adult fish. For example, salmon eggs are 10 times more resistant to rotenone when compared to their adult counterparts (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011).
Unconventional forms of nuisance fish control that appeared relevant in the literature were the use of dynamite, electrical barriers, and graters (Goedde et al. 1981, Malone et al. 1962, Kevin, 1997; Berry 1995, Rischbieter 2002). Dynamite blasts of (40-70 lbs per square inch) are understood to be very effective at killing 100% of adult and juvenile fishes from at least 30 meters away, but can be extremely detrimental to other desired wildlife (Keevin 1997). Electrical barriers have been shown to prevent up to 85% of nuisance fishes from escaping across the barrier (Verril and Berry. 1995) and graters (sharp metal cages at the exits of culverts) have been shown to keep nearly 100% of fish out of desired waters. Those that do pass through receive fatal injuries and usually do not survive (Rischbieter 2000).
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-45 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Interventions that attempt to fully eradicate nuisance fish have been proven to be more effective at reducing their long-term populations than thinning or partial elimination treatments (Meronek et al. 1996; Weidel et al. 2007).
American bullfrog Attempts at eradicating American bullfrogs are mixed and can depend largely on the metamorphic survival rate, adult cannibalism, and the proximity to adjacent wetlands where colonization can occur (Louette et al. 2012; Govindarajulu et al. 2005). A common method of amphibian eradication involves using live traps baited with lights, fishing lures, or audio calls. Experiments using traps baited with lights and fishing lures caught 19 bullfrogs during 10 trap nights, and traps baited with audio traps caught 87 toads over 54 nights (Schwarzkopf and Alford 2007; Snow and Whitmer 2012). These non-lethal methods require little effort and can be set overnight. They can however be detrimental to desired wildlife that may be captured in the traps (Snow and Whitmer 2012). Double fyke nets set for 24 hours caught roughly 6% of the tadpole population (Louette et al. 2012), which has a lot of influence on the population growth rate (Doubledee et al. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005). Other methods of bullfrog management include shooting, hand capture, and netting. These methods are very labor-intensive and have only been seen to reduce bullfrog populations to desired levels when done under extreme efforts when water levels are low (Doubledee et at. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005; Snow and Whitmer 2012).
Pesticides including rotenone and permethrine have shown high (95%) mortality of tadpoles, but low (10%) mortality in juveniles and adults. Calcium hypochlorite, chlorine, caffeine, and chloroxylenol showed high mortality (>80%) of adults, but low mortality (<10%) of tadpoles (Snow et al. 2012; Billman et al 2012). Also, the use of trifluoromethyl and nitrophenol has been shown to cause high mortality (100%) of frog tadpoles and moderate mortality (30%) of adults (Kane and Johnson 1989). These pesticides do pose a threat to native salmonids if they entered a freshwater stream before fully breaking down. According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, trout and salmon are most susceptible to rotenone when compared to panfish and gamefish (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011).
Model-based approaches have also been used by managers to predict outcomes to treatments before they are applied. For instance, models show that simply draining ponds every year (without trapping, culling, or catching adults) can drive the population extinct within ten years. These predictions assume that bullfrog populations are not isolated and adults can colonize new areas (Doubledee et al. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005).
Parrot’s feather Options for controlling parrot’s feather are limited but the most common treatment for large-scale infestations is herbicide. In field trials, triclopyr, dichlobenil, endothall and glyphosate were applied to parrot’s feather to in order to reduce its cover (%) and biomass (g). Ten weeks after herbicide application, triclopyr, dichlobenil, and endothall all reduced the cover of parrot’s feather by 95%, but glyphosate reduced the cover by only 65%. Fifty five weeks after the treatments, triclopyr reduced the parrot’s feather cover by 70% and glyphosate by only 10% (Hofsrta et al. 2006). In trials where a second application of herbicide occurred eight weeks after
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-46 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
the first, triclopyr, dichlobenil, endothall and glyphosate all reduced the cover of parrot’s feather by roughly 90% following the second application. Forty-six weeks following the second application however, dichlobenil, endothall, and glyphosate had reduced percent cover of parrot’s feather by only <10%, but triclopyr had reduced parrot’s feather cover by 40% (Hofsrta et al. 2006). Other herbicide trials done by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1988 show that 2-4 D and Diquat maintained “excellent” control of parrot’s feather (Westerdahl and Gestinger 1988). Since quantitative results were not included in this report, management recommendations cannot be based on these findings.
Another method commonly used to control parrot’s feather is mechanical cutting and harvest. A relative of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum spicatum was used in mechanical cutting trials and showed that 123 days after mechanical harvest of stems, biomass of M. spicatum was reduced 90%, but long term results showed that biomass of cut stems was greater than controlled trials after several months (Abernethy et al. 1996). The authors mentioned that M. spicatum did not respond positively to cutting and resulted in a worse infestation than before (Abernethy et al. 1996). If mechanical removal is a selected method of control, it must be done using highly intensive efforts that can be cost prohibitive. The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board relies on a truck-mounted crane to dig plants out from irrigation canals annually from August to December. This method costs an estimated $25,000 per year to dredge 10 miles of irrigation channels (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board 1994).
Because of its origin in the amazon basin, parrot’s feather can tolerate large fluctuations in water levels; its rhizome can even stay viable and sprout after six weeks of drought (Doyle and Smart 2001; Hofstra et al. 2006; State of Washington 1998; Systma and Anderson 1989; White and Jurgans 1964). When compared to controlled trials, above-ground biomass (mg) and relative growth rates (mg per day) of parrot’s feather decreased with water levels ≥ 137cm, which may limit the amount of sunlight available for photosynthesis (Wersal and Madson 2010). Shading experiments have been applied to Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) a relative of parrot’s feather. These shading trials concluded that M. spicatum covered by 100% shade for two months increased average length per shoot (mm), but decreased in overall plant biomass by 60% (mg), and decreased shoot numbers by 40% when compared to controls (Barko and Smart 1990; Abernethy et al. 1996). Nutrient content in the water column has also been understood to affect the growth of parrot’s feather. Under mesocosm trials, a 1.80:0.01 N:P ratio resulted in greater plant biomass of parrot’s feather than controlled trials (Wersal and Madson 2010). These results suggest that parrot’s feather requires high levels of nitrogen to achieve invasive growth, so limiting nitrogen content in the water column should be considered when controlling parrot’s feather.
A pathogen (Pythium carolinianum) of parrot’s feather was found in an irrigation ditch in the Sacramento Valley, CA that was causing stem and root rot in the plants. Cultured in a laboratory and grown under incubation, an isolate of Pythium carolinianum was injected into the shoots of parrot’s feather and broadcasted manually over the plant in field trials. The stems inoculated with the pathogen were girdled and died, and parrot’s feather infected by broadcast in the field trials produced significantly less biomass than the controls (Burnhardt and Duniway 1984). Even though these results are promising, the pathogen Pythium carolinianumor and its isolates are currently not approved for use by the USDA.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-47 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
An unconventional bio-control method has been used in South Africa to control parrot’s feather. A beetle, Lysathia sp. (Chrysomelidae), was released in South Africa in 1994, making it the first biological control agent in the world to be used against parrot’s feather. The beetle has had mixed effects on populations of parrot’s feather. For instance, during winter flooding, the beetle population declines and parrot’s feather is usually submerged and cannot be defoliated. During summer however, when the beetle populations are high, the defoliation can cause prolonged damage to the plant. In some areas, the beetles have reduced the relative cover (%) of parrot’s feather from 50% to 20% over the course of three years (Cilliers 1999). This method of control however, is unlikely in North America.
5.3.6 Invasive Species Management Recommendations Given the biological and ecological complexity of each invasive species found at the golf course ponds, numerous treatment scenarios must be considered. Treatment options for each species have been selected based on their effectiveness, feasibility of success, and effort of implementation as discussed in the literature analysis. These treatment options are described in subsequent sections under the recommended management scenario. This management scenario serves as a blueprint but can be altered if necessary. Management Recommendations for Golf Course Ponds
Management Recommendations for Golf Course Ponds This section contains options for management of each species and options for their control and eradication. Given the constraint to golf course operations and the potential ecological consequences of fish and bullfrog eradication measures, as discussed latter in this chapter, the following alternative methods of control can serve as possible species management scenarios if eradication is not feasible.
Largemouth bass, bluegill, and black crappie Largemouth bass, bluegill, and black crappie can be removed annually, semi-annually, or quarterly from each pond with the use of seine nets. As discussed in the preceding chapter, game fish populations showed evidence of a 13 to 21 percent reduction in population for every 20-30 hours of seining (Coble 1988; Goedde et al. 2001; Fago 1998). The golf course ponds vary in size considerably so the frequency and duration of seining required for fish control and density reduction in pond 8 would likely be less than what is needed in pond 4, for example. Annual angling surveys and culls could accompany this management action that would likely select for larger predatory fishes that have greater ability to escape the seining (Brown and Ball 1943; Dembkowsk et al. 2012; Clemens 1953; Coble 1988, Goedde et al. 2001; Vaux et al 2000). If these control measure are employed consistently (semi to quarter-annually) in the spring and fall following spawning activity, then reduction in stock biomass and fish densities is feasible.
Bullfrogs Control options for bullfrogs can also include seining, netting, and trapping. Trapping with baits and lures is the most effective method of trapping and requires little effort. Trapping however,
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-48 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
may result in harmful consequences for native wildlife (Schwarzkopf and Alford 2007; Snow and Whitmer 2012). Results indicate that control over the tadpole population can yield significant reductions in adult densities, so regular seining or netting in the spring when tadpoles emerge could reduce population density (Doubledee et al. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005). These methods are very labor-intensive and have only been seen to reduce bullfrog populations to desired levels when done under extreme efforts when water levels are low (Doubledee et at. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005; Snow and Whitmer 2012).
Another option for management is swift and thorough eradication. Beginning in late fall when golf course ponds are at their lowest volumes, water will be pumped out of each pond using an 8 horse power gasoline-powered water pump (trash pump)with a pumping capacity of 425 gallons per minute. The ponds will be pumped consecutively and independently starting with Ponds 3, 4, 6, 5, 7, 8, 2, and 1. (This order was developed with input from the superintendent of the SGGC to in order to continue golf course irrigation while pumping occurs). Before each pond is pumped, three foot high nylon drift fencing will be placed around the shoreline of each pond with the bottom fit flush to the ground. This will be done to securely contain all the bullfrogs in each pond and prevent them from escaping to other water bodies during the draining process. As each pond is drained and the water levels get lower, bullfrogs will concentrate heavily in the diminishing water. People will also walk the perimeter of the drift fencing to capture frogs that may be trying to escape. During this time, people with dip nets will catch individual frogs and place them in coolers (or buckets with lids) with dry ice. The high levels of CO2 and the extremely low temperatures will cause the frogs to freeze or suffocate. Euthanized frogs may be donated to schools for dissection, or be disposed of in the garbage. Any other species including pacific tree frogs, western pond turtles, muskrats, or coast range newts that are found in the ponds during this time will be collected and transported outside of the fenced area into another water body. (It is worth noting that pacific tree frogs and coast range newts are adapted to late fall drying regimes and might not be found in the ponds but instead may be buried underground until winter rains return). Bullfrog eradication is best achieved by thorough and intensive actions and periodic control or management that does not achieve eradication will not result in lower bullfrog populations over time (Doubledee et at. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005; Snow and Whitmer 2012). Bullfrog control and management could be done on an annual basis but only as a way to temporarily reduce bullfrog numbers and should not be looked at as a solution to long-term population eradication or control.
Water from Ponds 1 and 2 will be pumped and distributed across land (the course “rough”) areas to infiltrate as much water as possible. Water will be pumped onto land and allowed to infiltrate to the capacity of the rough areas. Any excess water will have to be left in the ponds unless it can be pumped to other ponds temporarily. Water from Pond 3 will be pumped into Pond 4, which will then be pumped and distributed over land to encourage infiltration. Excess water can be pumped to surrounding ponds. Before Pond 4 is pumped, the small group of bullfrogs in the pools at the wetland above Larsen creek needs to be captured. Since the pools are small, it is feasible to catch the few bullfrog adults using dip nets. After this small group of bullfrogs has been captured, Pond 4 can be pumped. Water from Pond 6 will be pumped into Pond 5, which- along with water from Pond 7- will be emptied onto land designated as the course “rough”,
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-49 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
allowing as much water as possible to be absorbed into the ground. Water from Pond 8 will also be pumped into the rough area along San Geronimo creek after being carried through a hose across the fairway. The ponds will be pumped and left dry overnight in order to completely kill the largemouth bass, black crappie, and bullfrog tadpoles. If ponds cannot be emptied by pumping, an intensive seining approach using many people would need to occur in order to assure that frogs and fish will be controlled. Hoses from the pumps will be supported by a ladder or stool that will set them above the drift fence. The intake and outflow valves of the pump will have small mesh covers over them with pores no larger than 5 mm to prevent red-legged frogs, fishes, tadpoles, and bits of parrot’s feather from being unintentionally pumped out of the ponds and transported into Larsen Creek or San Geronimo Creek. All preventative measures will be taken to prevent the spread of invasive species between and away from the ponds. The pumping capacity of 425 gallons per minute should drain Ponds 1, 2, and 7 within a two-hour period. Ponds 3, 6, and 8 will likely be drained over the course of a four- hour period, and Ponds 4 and 5 will likely take up to twelve hours to drain completely. During each pumping day, people will be catching bullfrogs while pumps are running. With only one pump, the entire process will likely take between seven and ten days.
Parrot’s feather A comprehensive and adaptive approach to parrot’s feather control is encouraged. Before treatment options are undertaken, parrot’s feather needs to be determined as a significant threat to salmonid habitat. During this study, parrot’s feather was found in a small wetland area at the downstream end of the overflow culvert from hole 4 but was not been seen in locations further downstream in Larsen or San Geronimo Creeks. Therefore, annual monitoring of parrot’s feather should occur within Larsen Creek and San Geronimo Creeks in order to determine the rate of spread and its effects on salmonid habitat. If the threat of parrot’s feather in Larsen and San Geronimo Creeks is found to be ecologically significant, then the following treatment options should be considered.
In ponds with isolated infestations, parrots feather can be dug out by hand once ponds are drained. In Ponds 5, 6, and 7- with minimal parrot’s feather- isolated infestations can be dug out by hand once ponds are drained. These plants can be placed in plastic trash bags and disposed of properly into garbage containers. For larger infestations of parrot’s feather in Ponds 3 and 4, herbicide applications of triclopyr could be applied twice a year, with a second application of herbicide will be applied six weeks after the first. It is important during application of herbicide that Ponds 3 and 4 do not overflow into Larsen creek before triclopyr has broken down. Close attention to weather forecasts must be made to be sure rains heavy enough to overflow the ponds do not occur at least four days after application. In order to apply herbicide to parrot’s feather in Ponds 3 and 4, the general permit-number CAG990005 for the discharge of pesticide for aquatic weed control will be required along with a notice of intent, and annual fee of $1,389. (The permit must be completed a year in advance before it can be issued).Three consecutive years of dual herbicide applications are recommended for parrot’s feather infestations in Ponds 3 and 4. Over the course of three years, the CAG990005 permit with notice of intent only needs to be completed once, but the annual fee must be paid each year. A decision tree provided below (Figure 5-9) can be used to determine management options for parrot’s feather control using herbicide. After three
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-50 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
years of subsequent monitoring, a decision will need to be made whether to continue additional herbicide treatments, or expand on other options including shading.
Return monthly to Monitor absolute cover remove any new (%) of parrot’s feather infestations monthly for three years
Expand 100% shade fabric to remaining parrot’s feather Is it practical to remove infestations remaining parrot’s Return monthly to feather manually? remove any new infestations in adjacent waters Yes
Keep parrot’s feather Does 100% shade contained with culvert fabric reduce absolute Yes No guard and prevent new cover (%) of parrot’s No infestations from feather to desired establishing in adjacent levels? waters
Drain pond and dig Continue with out remaining Herbicide No parrot’s feather applications?
Continue herbicide applications twice a Return monthly to Return monthly to Yes year until parrot’s remove any new remove any new feather is not present infestations infestations in the ponds
Figure 5-9 Decision Tree of Parrot’s Feather Management Options
Another possible treatment could be a shading trail. A piece of 100% shade fabric (35ft x 50ft) could be placed tightly over a section of parrot’s feather and secured down using rebar stakes. This shade fabric will be fastened down when Pond 4 is drained in the fall. This method is designed to test the efficacy of shade treatment in reducing the biomass, and cover (%) of parrot’s feather on a large scale, as proven effective by small scale studies described in the literature analysis. The advantage of this approach is that it is a permanent treatment that does not require regular applications. The drawback however, is the high cost of the fabric. (To cover the entirety of Pond 4 with shade cloth, costs are estimated at $18,500, which includes manufacturing and delivery. An alternative to the shade fabric could be black plastic however, since plastic is less durable it could get ripped or torn, allowing parrot’s feather to grow through it). Monitoring stations will be set up along the shorelines of Ponds 3 and 4 to evaluate the cover (%) of parrot’s feather for both the shade and herbicide treatments. Pictures and quantitative evaluations of absolute cover (%) will be collected monthly at each monitoring station.
A third option for controlling parrots feather is to dig it out, including the complex root system, with a large hydraulic excavator. The parrots feather, roots, and soil will need to be hauled away
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-51 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
using a truck, which my impact the play of golf on hole 18 significantly. This option would also require rigorous follow-up to dig up any remaining root structures or shoots after the initial removal. For areas of Pond 4 that cannot be accessed with the excavator, herbicide application and/or shading trail can be used to control the remaining sections. The management recommendations for parrots feather should be integrated and include all the possible treatments and control of parrots feather. A decision tree provided below can be used to determine management options for parrot’s feather.
A preventative measure for containing parrot’s feather, American bullfrog, largemouth bass, and black crappie (should these species return to the ponds) is by placing a cage guard over overflow culverts (Figure 5-10). These cages-in the shape of a cylinder -can be placed over the opening of a culvert. This design allows for water to pass through the cage should any debris get caught on it. This design will catch fragments of parrot’s feather and prevent the spread of fishes and bullfrogs into the creeks that could otherwise be swept in during a storm event. These culvert guards will need to be maintained regularly. Only ponds that overflow directly into creeks will need these cages; which are Ponds 1, 4, and 5.
In addition to monitoring the absolute cover (%) of parrot’s feather monthly, nighttime surveys for bullfrogs, and angling surveys for fishes should occur annually in the spring to be sure that treatments were effective and determine if additional treatment measures are needed.
Figure 5-10 Culvert Cage Schematic TABLE 5-6 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
Species Management Option
Largemouth Drain ponds consecutively and independently in late fall starting with Ponds 3, 4, 6, 5, 7, 8, 2, and 1. bass Fish mortality caused by drying. Install culvert cage guard Black crappie Drain ponds consecutively and independently in late fall starting with Ponds 3, 4, 6, 5, 7, 8, 2, and 1. Fish mortality caused by drying. Install culvert cage guard American Install 3ft high drift fencing around each pond while being pumped. Manually catch frogs while water Bullfrog level drops and frogs become highly concentrated. Euthanize frogs using dry ice. Install culvert cage guard Parrot’s Dig out plants, roots, and soil using a large excavator. Rigorous follow-up must occur to be sure no feather plant material is left behind and no plants establish soon after. Herbicide application of triclopyr in Pond 4 of remaining plants inaccessible by excavator. Second application six weeks later. Perform dual treatments for three consecutive years. Evaluate absolute cover (%) monthly. Install 100% shade tarp to remaining section of infestation following herbicide treatment. Evaluate absolute cover (%) monthly. Install culvert cage guard
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-52 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
Equipment and Cost of Implementation The estimates of equipment costs are based on quotes given by retailers, manufactures, and sales representatives. Costs could differ between retailers or manufactures but these estimates are based on the average prices found. The table below itemizes the equipment needed to carry out this project and the corresponding average retail cost of each item. (SPAWN does have access to a water pump internally so the estimated cost of renting the water pump could be waived).
TABLE 5-7 ITEMIZED LIST OF EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT WITH CORRESPONDING COSTS
Equipment Estimated Cost
8 Horse Power Water Pump (Trash pump) (Sunbelt Rentals) $270/week; needed up to ten days. Total= $540 Gasoline for the Water Pump $60.00 4-5 Buckets (with lids), Coolers, Dip, Nets, Waders SPAWN has. No Cost 20lbs of dry ice Total =$30.00 1 Quart of Renovate 3® Aquatic Herbicide (triclopyr) Total= $49.99 1 Backpack Herbicide Applicator San Geronimo Golf Course has. No cost Aquatic Herbicide Permit CAG990005 Annual Fee $1389/yr. for three years. Total= $4167 Excavator – CAT 36” Excavator Bucket $260/day for 2 days Total= $520 Dump Truck Rental $330/day for 2 days Total= $660 ¼ inch Wire Mesh for Culvert Cage Material for three culverts $13.98/role; need two roles. Total= $28.00 3ft x 100ft Silt (Drift) Fence Material $33.00/role; need twelve roles. Total=$385 35ft x 50ft 100% Shade Fabric (Shade Tree Fabrics 800-972- One 35ft x 50ft section. If entire pond is covered, costs 8057 ) are estimated at ($18,500). Total= $650 Public Signage around ponds $300 *Crew of 5 people for 10 days N/A Subtotal = $7,390
* Cost of human labor not included in total cost estimate because of unknown hourly wages, and possible aid from volunteers.
Feasibility of Success Since this plan calls for the golf course ponds to be quickly pumped dry, there is little possibility that any largemouth bass or black crappie will survive. As mentioned previously, it is important that the intake valve of the water pump have a screen grater placed over it to be sure that no tadpoles, fry, or bits of plant material be unintentionally introduced into the creeks. If operations function as planned, it is completely feasible that 100% of the invasive largemouth bass, black crappie, and American bullfrog tadpoles will be killed.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-53 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
The same feasibility of success with bullfrog adults will take more diligence and thoroughness. For the complete eradication of adult bullfrogs, several operations must be maintained. First, while the drift fence is being installed along the shoreline, all adult bullfrogs must be ushered into the ponds within the boundaries of the fence. This should be easy considering that bullfrogs are frightened of humans and when approached will flee into the water. Once the drift fence is installed, it must be staked down tightly against the ground so that no spaces exist for rouge bullfrogs to escape. Second, while the ponds are being drained, and the hose it hoisted up and over the fence, it is important that no bullfrogs be able to climb along the hose and over the fence. Also, installation of the water pump could alter the position of the drift fence so after the pump is assembled, one final walk around the drift fence is necessary to ensure its security. While the pumps are operating and the ponds are being drained, bullfrogs could seek refuge outside of the water so handlers must be diligent and check for adult bullfrogs that may be hiding among thick vegetation. (Since bullfrogs are easily frightened, handlers should make loud noises, shake vegetation vigorously, and stir up water in order to flush bullfrogs into the water). It is very likely that bullfrogs will follow the receding water, so as the water level gets very low, the bullfrogs should be highly concentrated in the remaining water and be fairly easy to catch. Once each pond is dry and all known bullfrogs are believed to be captured, a final walk around of the drift fence is necessary to be sure that it remained secure during the entirety of the pumping operations and no bullfrogs escaped. If these directions are followed, it is feasible that 100% of the adult bullfrogs in these ponds will be captured and killed.
It is possible that bullfrogs living outside of the ponds in adjacent creeks could colonize the ponds once the eradication has been completed. It is for this reason that monthly monitoring should occur in order to prevent new infestations of bullfrogs at the golf course ponds.
In order for parrot’s feather to be successfully controlled in these ponds, an adaptive approach must be employed. The excavator can successfully remove all the plant and soil material from the north, west, and south sides of Pond 4 but cannot access the east side. For the remaining infestation, a combined approach of herbicide and shading should occur. Herbicide applications of parrot’s feather should use a biodegradable dye to be sure that the applicator covered all exposed parts of the infestation. Also, it is critical that mixing the herbicide be done in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendations printed on the label. The 100% shade tarp should be applied after herbicide treatment. The fabric must be secured firmly into the pond bottom, covering the plants tightly to prevent anything from wedging the tarp off the plants. For the small infestations at Ponds 5 and 7, the entire plants (including the root structures) must be carefully removed and disposed of properly, leaving no fragments behind that could colonize new areas. These recommendations are based on the best available science that can be put into practice in this setting. It is feasible that 100% of the parrot’s feather can be eradicated from the ponds in five to ten years if these stringent recommendations are followed.
In addition to these management practices, for success to be achieved across all these projects, routine and thorough monitoring must be conducted to ensure that if a species were to re-appear, mangers would be aware to prevent a large-scale re-infestation. An additional preventative
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-54 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
measure of public signage at each pond that describes the ecological sensitivity of the ponds, and the desire to keep them free of invasive species, should be established.
A crucial element of the project that will determine its long-term success is public outreach and support. These invasive species were presumably brought to the ponds by accident or by intention, so a major goal of this restoration is to insure strong public knowledge of the dangers of exotic species and their impacts on native wildlife. In addition to public signs installed around all the ponds that describe the restoration, the San Geronimo Golf Course should make it aware to all golfers and residents of the San Geronimo Valley, through pamphlets and education materials, that invasive species pose a serious threat to native salmonids and other wildlife. The signs and educational materials should be abundant and visible at each accessible location and thoroughly describe that stocking ponds with fish, bullfrogs, and other aquatic life is illegal and will hurt native species. This measure will increase public awareness of the ecological sensitivity of each pond at the golf course.
The treatment recommendations for the ponds can occur as early as fall 2013, expect in the case of herbicide application of parrot’s feather-which can occur in fall 2014 at the earliest due to the permitting process. SPAWN can adjust the treatment schedule as needed.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-55 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 5-56 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 6 Summary and Recommendations
The Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan developed for the San Geronimo Golf Course provides multiple and mutual benefits for salmonid habitat and golf course operations. This plan outlines actions to support the ongoing collaborative community effort to protect and improve salmonid habitat within the San Geronimo Valley. The actions described herein can have an immediate positive impact on the quantity and quality of habitat for coho and steelhead that actively use the creeks near the golf course for rearing and spawning. The plan provides recommendations for improvements and enhancements through:
Direct restoration actions in and adjacent to the riparian corridors of San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks Implementation of stormwater BMPs and operations actions to improve stormwater quality and manage runoff Management strategies for water conservation, integrated pest management, and invasive species management.
The recommendations provided herein provide a toolkit or palette from which to begin to evaluate opportunities and define future projects to seek funding and advance these approaches toward implementation. It is the intent of this document to provide a wide, yet focused, range of restoration and management options that is larger than would likely be implemented as a single project.
Implementation of the recommended actions individually would benefit the golf course and adjacent riparian habitat. However, an integrated approach to combine the recommendations from each of the key study areas will result in a robust and resilient project that can have farther reaching benefits. The potential to improve conditions on a larger scale within the San Geronimo Valley is great and includes cumulative benefits to: peak flow reduction; erosion and sediment control; instream enhancements; water quality; habitat complexity and continuity; and water quantity available to coho.
The next steps toward implementation of the actions and strategies recommended in this plan is to work with golf course staff, stakeholders, and community members to develop a mutually agreeable approach for prioritizing implementation actions. It is further recommended that appropriate agencies be consulted regarding permitting and feasibility of any implementation actions. This would allow for the development of conceptual comprehensive project approaches to solicit to agencies and organizations that can provide full or partial funding for design and
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 6-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 5. Golf Course Operations & Management
implementation. It is recommended that a phased approach be considered for project implementation to limit impacts to the golf course playing areas, creek corridors, and local community. The following table provides three suggested projects to initiate discussions and thinking toward implementation. These projects were developed based on the findings discussed in this plan jointly with temporal, financial considerations as well as potential overall benefits relative to the goals defined in this study.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 6-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 6. Summary and Recommendations
TABLE 6-1 POTENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PROJECTS
Project Category
Project Habitat Restoration & Management Stormwater Management Golf Course Operations & Management
Project 1: San Geronimo Creek Enhancements Riparian vegetation management Relocate shed at maintenance yard Implement IPM Plan. Revise and refine IPM plan to Install LWD downstream of Hole #6 bridge Construct covered storage areas adapt to changing conditions Enhance secondary channel Construct vegetated swale and bioretention areas along Remove irrigated areas with native herbaceous cover Selective bank layback and stabilization Hole #5 and #6 near Hole #6 tee Install boulder clusters Improve storm drain outfall at #5 tee Initiate development of irrigation system improvements Construct alcove feature near storm drain outfall at #5 (weather station) tee Project 2: Golf Course Clubhouse Improvements Not directly applicable Construct roof cistern Implement IPM Plan. Revise and refine IPM plan to Construct vegetated parking swale adapt to changing conditions Construct covered trash and recycling enclosure Native buffer screen planting along Sir Francis Drake Install pervious paving over portion of parking lot Initiate development of irrigation system improvements Construct vegetated swale along Sir Francis Drake (weather station) Install low irrigation demand landscaping Project 3: Larsen Creek Enhancements Riparian vegetation management Construct vegetated swale at Hole #10 Invasive species management at Pond 4 Riparian buffer widening at Hole #10 Implement IPM Plan. Revise and refine IPM plan to Install LWD in downstream reach adapt to changing conditions Initiate development of irrigation system improvements (weather station)
Note: All project types and potential project actions are assumed to be a collaborative effort based on San Geronimo Golf Course initiative and identified funding sources.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 6-3 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 6. Summary and Recommendations
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 6-4 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 7 References
Abbe, T.B., A.P. Brooks, and D.R. Montgomery, 2003. Wood in River Rehabilitation and Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 25 p. Abernethy, V. j., M. R. Sabbatini, and K. J. Murphy. "Response of Elodea Canadensis Michx. and Myriophyllum Spicatum L. to Shade, Cutting and Competition in Experimental Culture." Hydrobiologia 340 (1996): 219-24. Agrian, Inc. Label Lookup, 2014. Web. http://www.agrian.com/home/label-lookup/overview. Barko, John W., and Micheal R. Smart. "Comparative Influences of Light and Temperature on the Growth and Metabolism of Selected Submersed Freshwater Macrophytes1.” Ecological Monographs 51.2 (1981): 219-35. Basler, Matthew C. & Schramm, Harold L. Jr. (2006): Evaluation of Electrofishing and Fyke Netting for Collecting Black Carp in Small Ponds, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135:2, 277-280. Bayley, Peter B. & Austen, Douglas J. (1990): Modeling the Sampling Efficiency of Rotenone in Impoundments and Ponds, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 10:2, 202- 208. Bayley, Peter B. & Herendeen, Robert A. (2000): The Efficiency of a Seine Net, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 129:4, 901-923. Beall, Harvey B. & Wahl, Richard W. (1959): Trapping Bluegill Sunfish in West Virginia Ponds, The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 21:3, 138-141. Bernhardt, E. A. & Duniway, J, M. (1984). Root and Stem Rot of Parrot’s Feather(Myriophyllum brasilience) Caused by Pythium carolinium. Plant Diseases, 68: 999-10003. Bettross, E. A. & Willis, D. W. (1988): Seasonal Patterns in Sampling Data for Largemouth Bass and Bluegills in a Northern Great Plains Impoundment, Prairie Naturalist, 20:4, 193-202. Billman, Hilary G., Carter G. Kruse , Sophie St-Hilaire , Todd M. Koel , Jeffrey L. Arnold & Charles R. Peterson (2012): Effects of Rotenone on Columbia Spotted Frogs Rana luteiventris during Field Applications in Lentic Habitats of Southwestern Montana, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32:4, 781-789. Booth, D.B, D. Hartley, and C.R. Jackson. 2002. Forest cover, impervious-surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38: 835-845. Bossard, Carla C., John M. Randall, and Marc C. Hoshovsky. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley: University of California, 2000. Print.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
Boyd , M.J., M. C. Bufill & R. M. Knee.1993. Pervious and Impervious Runoff in Urban Catchments, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 38:6, 463-478. Brown, C. J. D. & Ball, Robert C. (1943): A Fish Population Study of Third Sister Lake, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 72:1, 177-186. CalFish, 2013. Map Viewer, California Fish Passage Assessment Database (PAD), website: http://www.calfish.org/Home/tabid/37/Default.aspx. California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), 2009. Web. Accessed: 6 June 2013. http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/. Carrow, Robert N, Ronny Duncan, and Clint Waltz. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Water- Catalano M. J. • Allen M. S. • Schaus M. H.,. Buck, D. G •. Beaver, J. R. (2012): Evaluating short-term effects of omnivorous fish removal on water quality and zooplankton at a subtropical lake, Hydrobiologia (2010) 655:159–169. Center for Watershed Protection. 1997. Rapid Watershed Planning Manual. Ellicott City, Maryland. Cillers, C. J. (1999): Biological control of parrot’s feather, Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. (Haloragaceae), in South Africa, African Entomology Memoir No. 1 (1999): 113– 118. Clemens, Howard P. & Martin, Mayo (1953): Effectiveness of Rotenone in Pond Reclamation, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 82:1,166-177. Cogswell, H. L. 1962. Operation recovery begun in California’s Central Valley. Western Bird Bander 37:5254. Cole, D. (1988): Effects of Angling on Bluegill Populations Management Implications, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 8:277-283. Cook, S. (1976) The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Costello, LR, and KS Jones. Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS III). Sacramento, CA: University of California Cooperative Extension, 1999. Print. Czypinski, Gary D. & Ogle, Derek H. (2011): Evaluating the physical removal of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) with bottom trawling, Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 26:3, 441- 443. Dawdy, D. R. 1989. Feasibility of mapping riparian forests under natural conditions in California. Pp. 63-68 in Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference. GTR PSW-110, Davis, CA.Dembkowski , Daniel J. Wuellner, Melissa R. & Willis, David W. (2012): Sampling Glacial Lake Littoral Fish Assemblages with Four Gears, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32:6, 1160-1166. DeSante, D. F. and T. L. George. 1994. Population trends in the landbirds of western North America. Pp. 173-190 in J. R. Jehl, Jr. and N. K. Johnson (eds.). A century of avifaunal change in western North America. Studies in Avian Biology No. 15. The Cooper Ornithological Society, Lawrence, KS. Dewey, Michael R. (1992): Effectiveness of a Drop Net, a Pop Net, and an Electrofishing Frame for Collecting Quantitative Samples of Juvenile Fishes in Vegetation, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 12:4, 808-813.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
Doubledee, Rebecca. A, Erik B. MULLER, D, Rogerm. D Nisbet (2003): Bullfrogs, Disturbance Regimes, and the Persistence of California Red-Legged Frogs, The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 67, 2. 424-438. Doyle, Robert D. and Smart, R. Michael (2001): Effects of Drawdown and Dessication on Tubers of Hydrilla, an Exotic Aquatic Weed, Weed Science, 49: 1, 135-140. Edwards, E. A., D. A. Krieger, M. Bacteller, and O. E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Black crappie. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.6. 25 pp. EnviroLogic Resources Inc. IPM Plan Creation Tool, 2009. Web. 6 June 2013.http://www.greengolfusa.com/IPMHP. EnviroLogic Resources Inc. Oregon Chapter GCSAA Environmental Stewardship Guidelines. 2nd ed. Vancouver, WA: Oregon Chapter GCSAA; 2010. Print. Ettlinger, et al. 2005. Lagunitas Creek Salmon Spawner Survey Report 2004-2005. Ettlinger, et al. 2012. Lagunitas Creek Salmon Spawner Survey Report 2011-2012Fago, Don (1998): Comparison of Littoral Fish Assemblages Sampled with a Mini-Fyke Net or with a Combination of Electrofishing and Small-Mesh Seine in Wisconsin Lakes, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18:3, 731-738. Ferrin, Jim. Personal communication. 6 June 2013. Flannery, M. E., S. L. Guers, T. Gardali, N. Nur, and G. R. Geupel. 2004. Landbird migration at the Salton Sea: the importance of desert riparian habitat. Studies in Avian Biology: 27:106- 115. Flosi, G., S. Downie, J. Hopelain, M. Bird, R. Coey, and B. Collins, 2010. California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, Fourth Edition, Volume II, Part IX, Fish Passage Evaluation at Stream Crossings. Gaines, D. F. 1977. The valley riparian forests of California: their importance to bird populations. In A. Sands (ed.). Riparian forests in California: their ecology and conservation. Institute of Ecology Publication 15. University of California. Davis, CA. GCSAA. IPM Planning Guide, 2013. Web. Accessed: 6 June 2013. http://www.gcsaa.org/environment/ipm-guide/. Goedde, Larry E. & Coble, Daniel W. (1981): Effects of Angling on a Previously Fished and an Unfished Warmwater Fish Community in Two Wisconsin Lakes, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 110:5, 594-603. Gotvald, A.J., Barth, N.A., Veilleux, A.G., and Parrett, Charles, 2012. Methods for determining magnitude and frequency of floods in California, based on data through water year 2006. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5113, 38 p., 1 pl. Available online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5113/. Govindarajulu. Punima & Anhold, Bradley R. (2005): Matrix Model Investigation of Invasive Species Control: Bullfrogs on Vancouver Island, Ecological Applications, 15:6, 2161–2170 Graves, B.M., and S.H. Anderson. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: bullfrog. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 82(10.138). 22 pp. Grice, Frank (1958): Effect of Removal of Panfish and Trashfish by Fyke Nets upon Fish Populations of Some Massachusetts' Ponds, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 87:1, 108-115.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-3 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2008;336(7650):924-6. Heman, M. LeRoy, Robert S. Campbell & Lee C. Redmond (1969): Manipulation of Fish Populations Through Reservoir Drawdown, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 98:2, 293-304. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: JohnWiley & Sons Ltd, 2008. Humple, D. L. and G. R. Geupel. 2002. Autumn populations of birds in riparian habitat of California’s central valley. Western Birds 33:34-50. Hofstra, Deborah E., Champion, P. D. and T. M. Dugdale (2006): Herbicide Trials for the Control of Parrots feather, J. Aquatic. Plant Management 44. Kane, Andrew S. & Johnson, David L. (1989): Use of TFM (3-Trifluoromethyl-4-Nitrophenol) to Selectively Control Frog Larvae in Fish Production Ponds, The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 51:4, 207-213. Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. In R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds). California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press Ltd. London, England. Keevin, T., Hempen, G.L.. (1997): The Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions with Methods to Mitigate Impacts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Kegley, S.E., Hill, B.R., Orme S., Choi A.H., PAN Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network, North America (San Francisco, CA, 2010) http://www.pesticideinfo.org. Kroeber, A.L. (1907) The Religion of the Indians of California, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 4:#6. Lawrence, J.E., V.H. Resh, and M.R. Cover, 2013. Large-wood loading from natural and engineered processes at the watershed scale. River Research and Applications, 29: 1030- 1041. Louette, Gerald, (2012): Use of a native predator for the control of an invasive amphibian, Wildlife Research, 39: 271–278. Louette, Gerald, Devisscher, Sander, Adriaens, Tim (2013): Control of invasive American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus in small shallow water bodies, Eur J Wildl Res, 59:105–114. Marin County Community Development Agency (1997) San Geronimo Valley Community Plan. Marin County Department of Public Works. San Geronimo Valley Salmon Enhancement Plan Program Area. Available online at http://www.marinwatersheds.org/san_geronimo_valley.html. Maezono, Yasunori, Kobayashi, Raita, Kusahara, Miki and Miyashita, Tadashi (2005): Direct andIndirect Effects of Exotic Bass and Bluegill on Exotic and Native Organisms in Farm Ponds, Ecological Applications, 15:2, 638–650. Maloney J. E., Schupp, D. R. & Scidmore, W. J. (1962): Largemouth Bass Population and Harvest, Gladstone Lake, Crow Wing County, Minnesota, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 91:1, 42-52.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-4 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
Maret, T., Snider, J.D., Collins, J.P (2006): Altered drying regime controls distribution of endangered salamanders and introduced predators, Biological Conservation, 1:27, 129-138. Meronek, Thomas G., Bouchard, Patrick M., Buckner, Edmund R., M. Burri , Thomas, Demmerly, Karen K., Daniel C. Hatleli , Robert A. Klumb , Stephen H. Schmidt & Daniel W. Coble (1996): A Review of Fish Control Projects, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:1, 63-74. Moyle, Peter B., Joshua A. Israel, Sabra E. Purdy. 2008. Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout in California: Status of an Emblematic Fauna. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis. Mueller, Berry. 2013. "Golf Course Ponds: Past and Present Management." Interview. Apr.-May. Mueller, Berry. 2014. Personal Communication. February-May National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2012. Final Recovery Plan for Central California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Volume III: Appendices. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Santa Rosa, California. NOAA Fisheries. 2008. Southwest Regional Office, Habitat Conservation District. Watershed Characterization, Lagunitas Creek Watershed. NOAA Fisheries. 2013. Office of Protected Resources. Coho Salmon. NOAA Fisheries. 2013. Office of Protected Resources. Steelhead Trout. NOAA. 2011. NOAA Atlas 14: Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 6 Version 2.1: California. Website accessed September 18, 2013: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas : functions and strategies for management. Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for Management, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. Washington, D.C., 428 pp. Ogle, Derek (2012): FishR Vignette - Closed Mark-Recapture Abundance Estimates, Single Census Mark-Recapture Methods. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Fisheries Division. Rotenone FAQ’s. PACE Turf. IPM Planning Tools, 2013. Web. Accessed: 6 June 2013. http://www.paceturf.org/index.php/public/ipm_planning_tools. Pincetich, C. Bouley, P. Steiner, T. (2008): Evaluation of the San Geronimo Valley Coho and Steelhead Outmigrant Smolt Monitoring, 2006-2008, Salmon Protection and Watershed Network. Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI), 2010. San Geronimo Valley Salmon Enhancement Plan, A Guidance Document. Prepared for Marin County Department of Public Works, February 9, 2010. Ralph, C. J. 1998. A comparison of timing, content, and monitoring methods of landbird migration in the Pacific States. Paper presented at the North American Ornithological Conference, April 1998. St. Louis, MO. RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian.v-2.pdf.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-5 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
Rischbieter, Douglas B. C. (2000): Structures to Prevent the Spread of Nuisance Fish from Lake Davis, California, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20:3, 784-790. Ruetz III , Carl R. Uzarski, Donald G., Krueger, Damon M. & Rutherford, Edward S. (2007): Sampling a Littoral Fish Assemblage: Comparison of Small-Mesh Fyke Netting and Boat Electrofishing, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 27:3, 825-831. Saldi-Caromile, K., K. Bates, P. Skidmore, J. Barenti, D. Pineo, 2004. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington. Schwarzkopf, L. & Alford, R.A (2007): Acoustic attractants enhance trapping success for cane toads, Wildlife Research, 34, 366–370. Shaw, David A, and Dennis R Pittenger. Landscape Irrigation System Evaluation and Management. San Marcos, CA: University of California Cooperative Extension, 2009. Print. Snow, N.P & Witmer, G.(2010): American Bullfrogs as Invasive Species: A Review of the Introduction, Subsequent Problems, Management Options, and Future Directions, University of California, Davis, 86-89. SPAWN. 2002. Inventory of Select Migration Barriers in the San Geronimo sub-Watershed (Spring 2002). http://www.spawnusa.org/reports/. Stillwater Sciences. 2009. San Geronimo Valley Existing Conditions. Prepared for Marin County Department of Public Works, San Rafael, CA. Steiner, Todd. 1999. For the Fish Roy’s Dam to Roy’s Pools. Opinion-editorial in Marin Independent Journal, October 3, 1999. Striplen, C., R. Grossinger, and J. Collins (2004) Wetland Habitat Changes in the Rodeo Lagoon Watershed, Marin County, CA. A Technical Report of the Historical Ecology and Wetlands Programs, SFEI. Stuber, R. J., G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Largemouth bass. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.16. 32 pp. Sunset. Western Garden Book. Menlo Park, CA: Sunset Publishing Corporation, 2007. Print. The Weather Channel, 2012. San Geronimo Weather. Web. Accessed: 6 June 2013. http://www.weather.com/. Threinen C. W. (1956): The Success of a Seine in the Sampling of a Largemouth Bass Population, The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 18:2, 81-87. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1953. Aerial Photograph, Marin County, Flight DRH-1952, Tile 2K-144. Available online: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/ap_indexes/county.php?county_id=205&state_id=5. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2010. National Map Viewer. Available online: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed May 27, 2013. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2013. StreamStats Program, State Applications, California. Available online: http://streamstats.usgs.gov/california.html. UC IPM. Definition of Integrated Pest Management, 2011. Web. Accessed: 6 June 2013. http://www.ipm.ucdeavis.edu/GENERAL/ipmdefinition.hmtl.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-6 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
UC IPM. What is Integrated Pest Management, 2013. Web. Accessed: 6 June 2013. http://www.ipm.ucdeavis.edu/GENERAL/whatisipm.hmtl. University of California Cooperative Extension. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscaping Plantings in California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Water Resources, 2000. Print. Use Efficiency/Conservation Plan For Golf Courses. Griffin, GA: University of Georgia, Crop and Soil Science, 2007. Print. Van Den Avyle. M. J. 1993. Dynamics of exploited fish populations. Pages 105-134 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda. Maryland. Vaux , Peter D. Whittier, Thomas R., DeCesare, Gregory & Kurtenbach, James P. (2000): Evaluation of a Backpack Electrofishing Unit for Multiple Lake Surveys of Fish Assemblage Structure, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20:1, 168-179. Verrill, Donovan D. & Berry, Charles R. JR. (1995): Effectiveness of an Electrical Barrier and Lake Drawdown for Reducing Common Carp and Bigmouth Buffalo Abundances, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15:1, 137-141. Washington State Water Quality Control Board (1994): Parrot’s feather control and management options manual. Weidel, Brian C., Josephson, Daniel C &. Kraft, Clifford E (2007): Littoral Fish Community Response to Smallmouth Bass Removal from an Adirondack Lake, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136:3, 778-789. Wersal, R.M. & Madson, J.D. (2011): Comparative effects of water level variations on growth characteristics of Myriophyllum aquaticum, Weed Research, 51, 386–393. Westerdahl, H.E. & Getsinger, K.D (1988): Aquatic Plant Identification and Herbicide Use Guide Volume II: Aquatic Plants and Susceptibility to Herbicides, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program, Technical Report A-88-9. White, Billy L. & Jurgens, Kenneth C. (1964): Vegetation Control with Black Plastic Sheeting, The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 26:2, 96-96. Zinn, Rick. Personal communication. 16 Sept. 2013.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-7 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 7. References
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 7-8 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
CHAPTER 8 Acknowledgments
This project was funded by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP). The grant is being implemented by the Salmon Protection And Watershed Network (SPAWN). This study was led by ESA PWA with support from Restoration Resources and SPAWN. The project leads for each technical section of this report were as follows:
ESA PWA: Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Large Woody Debris Assessment Salmonid Barrier Assessment Stormwater Management Plan Restoration Resources: Water Conservation Plan Integrated Pest Management Plan SPAWN: Invasive Species Management Plan
Significant information relating to the golf course management and operations were provided by the staff of the San Geronimo Golf Course for use in this study.
Comments and input obtained from stakeholders and community members was obtained at the initial kickoff meeting and were incorporated into the thinking and initial development of this study. A draft version of this plan was presented to SGGC in December 2013. This document was then distributed by SGGC to community members and stakeholders. The draft plan was presented at a stakeholder meeting held at the golf course on December 2, 2013. Comments and questions from attendees were documented during the meeting. Attendees and interested parties were invited to provide written comments to be addressed as part of the final document. Comments documented during the stakeholder meeting as well as written comments were compiled. The final Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan includes revisions based on many of these comments. The comments and responses are presented in Appendix F.
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 8-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL 8. Acknowledgements
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan 8-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
APPENDIX A Stormwater Management BMPs
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan A-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL A. Stormwater Management BMPs
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan A-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL Coho-FriendlyCoho-Friendly Habitat & OperationsOperations Plan forfor SGGC VegetatedVegetated SwalSwalee
RunoffRunooff fromfrom projectproject site
NativeNaNatitiveve soilsoioil
SSandand and gravelgravel mix OptionalOptional impermeable barrier Underdrain - connects to storm drain systemsystem
DescriptionDescription AdvantagesAdvantages
VegetatedVegetated swales are open, shallow swales that are usuallyusually lined ReducesReduces hydromodificationhydromodification impacts byby slowingslowing with grass,grass, but can be designeddesigned with other landscape treatments. down runorunoffff and allowingallowing stormwater to infiltrateinfiltrate TheTheyy work byby slowingslowing the flowflow ofof water and byby partiallypartially storingstoring and CCanan provide water qualityquality benefitsbenefits ininfiltratingfiltrating excess runoff.runoff. TheyThey can be natural or manmade, and RRelativelyelatively easyeasy to constructconstruct ccanan be inteintegratedgrated into the storm water collection system.system. MMaintenanceaintenance eeffortsfforts are comparablecomparable to routine llandscapingandscaping CCanan work be integratedintegrated into surroundingsurrounding landscape
DisadvantagesDisadvantages DetailDetail Take up a largelarge area CChannelizationhannelization maymay ensure ifif not properlyproperly maintained Not recommended on fill sites
Design Considerations Vegetated swales located in type C and D soils should be underdrained Longitudinal slopes should be 2 to 6% Thick vegetated cover is needed Should be designed so that water level does not exceed 2/3rds of the height of the vegetation, or four to six inches, whichever is less Check dams can be considered for steeper slopes
Stormwater Management Options
A-1 Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC Bioretention Area
Runoff
Maximum ponding depth
Perforated pipe
Top soil layer with mulch Filter fabric Gravel layer Optional impermeable barrier Underdrain connected to the storm draingage system
Description Advantages
Bioretention areas are similar to flow-through planters in Can be incorporated into the landscape design of an area that they capture, temporarily store, and infiltrate Can provide water quality benefits stormwater runoff. Runoff is conveyed usually through sheet-flow and is distributed across the top ponding area where it begins to infiltrate through a layer of soil to an Disadvantages underdrain below. Bioretention can be used in median Requires a large, relatively flat area strips and parking lot islands.
Design Considerations Detail Not recommended for areas with high sediment loads Planting soils should be sandy loam, loamy sand or loam texture with a clay content ranging from 10 to 25 percent.
ENGINEERED SOIL
Stormwater Management Options
A-2 Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC Green Roofs
Vegetation
Growing medium
Drainage and aeration layer
Insulation
Root resistant underproofing
Structural support
Description Advantages
Green roofs help reduce hydromodification impacts by Reduces hydromodification impacts by allowing stormwater to allowing stormwater to flow through a vegetated material infiltrate through a vegetated material before discharging through roof downspouts. Green Can provide water quality benefits roofs have active, growing vegetation that helps retain Reduce noise transfer from outdoors stormwater much in the same way as vegetation in a Insulate a building by keeping the interior cool in the summer natural land use setting. They can be designed as either Applicable to most new building uses extensive, with a light substrate and low-maintenance Can be designed as a roof garden plant species, or as intensive with a thicker substrate and more varied plants. Roof-top gardens can easily be Disadvantages incorporated into green roof design. Retrofitting existing buildings with green roofs may require Alternative Configuration structural upgrades
Design Considerations
Design should include several layers of protective materials to convey water away from roof deck. Design layers generally include waterproof membranes, root barriers, insulation and filter fabric Native plants species are recommended to reduce irrigation requirements and to minimize the potential for attracting unwanted insects Maintenance similar to that of traditional roofs Modular green roof system
Stormwater Management Options
A-3 Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC Flow Through Planter
Roof downspout
Impermeable planter wall
Top soil
Filter fabric Gravel layer Perforated pipe Underdrain connected to the storm draingage system
Description Advantages
Flow-through planters typically receive runoff from roof downspouts, but Reduces hydromodification impacts by allowing they can also be designed at grade to receive flow from parking lots, stormwater to infiltrate through soil and sidewalks and streets. Stormwater enters the planter above ground, and vegetation is stored and infiltrates though a layer of topsoil and gravel. Also allows Can provide water quality benefits ponding on the surface for storage above the infiltration capacity of the Space-efficient soils underneath the plantings. A high-stage outlet is usually incorporated Can be used next to structures into the planter to prevent overflow. Where soils are appropriate, Maintenance similar to other landscaped areas discharge water can be allowed to infiltrate to the native soil by leaving the bottom of the planter in contact with the soil. This is typically referred to as an infiltration planter. Unlike flow-through planters, infiltration Disadvantages planters are not recommended next to building foundations. Requires under drain Typically required irrigation Detail
Design Considerations Sandy loam under drain material is required, recommended minimum infiltration rate of five-inches/hour Irrigation is usually required Waterproofing required from some applications
Stormwater Management Options
A-4 Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC Cistern
Downspout
Cistern Landscape area
Energy Dissipation
Description Advantages
Cisterns collect roof runoff and temporarily store water before Reduces hydromodification impacts by discharging to landscaped areas or to a stormwater collection temporarily detaining water before discharge system. They are directly connected to roof downspouts and can Relatively low-cost be utilized for irrigation or infiltration. Discharge from cisterns can Low-maintenance be regulated by a manually-controlled valve, or a low-flow orifice. Can be used to supplement irrigation Cisterns that are placed underground are known as dry wells. Disadvantages
Detail Manual control valves may require frequent monitoring May provide vector habitat if not properly designed
Design Considerations Cisterns should be sealed against mosquito entry Cisterns should be designed for easy maintenance access to remove accumulated sediment Discharge should be directed away from building foundations
Stormwater Management Options
A-5 Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan for SGGC Pervious Pavements
UnitU pavers
SandS setting bed Filter fabric CrushedC aggregate
NativeNa Soil
UnderdrainUn
DescriptionDe Advantages
Pervious pavements include permeable asphalt and concrete or Reduces hydromodification impacts by smaller unit pavers. They help mitigate hydromodification by allowing promoting infiltration storm water to infiltrate to the underlying soil. They can be Can provide water quality benefits incorporated into parking lots, streets, and sidewalks, and can Can be an attractive component in landscape provide an attractive landscaping option. A substrate of underdrained design crushed gravel or aggregate underlying pervious pavements increases its stormwater storage ability. Disadvantages
Potential for ponding if not designed properly Alternative Configurations Not recommended for areas where a heavy load would need to be supported such as fire lanes or Cobbles heavily trafficked areas
Natural stone Permeable joint Design Considerations material(sand) Pervious pavements that are underlain by clays or less permeable soils, should contain an underdrained gravel substrate.
Stormwater Management Options
A-6
APPENDIX B Irrigation Equipment Cut Sheets
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan B-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL B. Irrigation Equipment Cut Sheets
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan B-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
Appendix B
Tucor Smart Water System Specifications
September 18, 2013
Mr. Lucas Piper Restoration Resource 3888 Cincinnati Avenue Rocklin, California 95765
RE: San Geronimo Site Controller Upgrades
Dear Lucas,
Thank you for the opportunity for letting me provide a cost estimate proposal to upgrade your existing irrigation system to a Tucor Smart Water system for your property, San Geronimo. With rising water costs and new technology, I’m pleased to provide a cost efficient water management solution to help save money on water, while maintaining the health of your landscape.
Our discussion led me to recommend the Tucor system based on the focus on weather based runtime control. The average water savings on these systems is 30% based on the controllers ability to change runtimes daily using a solar, wireless onsite weather station. This system also offers remote access to the controllers, including offsite. We have 18 controllers, ranging from 28-32 stations each, in pedestal mount cabinets spread through the property. This is a preliminary hardware configuration that would need to be confirmed via an onsite tour.
The base of our system would use a Tucor RKS controller mounted in a flip top stainless steel Nema rated cabinet. We would utilize the Realnet cloud based service in conjunction with a Davis Vantage Pro weather station to send the weather data to servers, which would in turn send the runtime instructions to each clock based on the evapotranspiration (ET) values for that day. Communication would be via an Ethernet (LAN) connection to the internet or via a cellular modem in the controller.
One of the top features of the Tucor clock is the expandability of the controller. We can incorporate moisture sensors, handheld remote controls, and/or flow meters and master valves. We could also use a float switch at the reservoir to send an alarm notification. Any of these features can be added during installation or at a later time as budget allows. There is also an Android or Iphone based app that allows you to use your smart phone as a remote control and to perform basic controls on the controller.
The second page of this letter gives the basic pricing for the hardware needed. The site visit will confirm that we can use the existing field wiring as well as the existing concrete pads for installation of the new cabinets. Please review the cut sheets that I included with this letter and let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to helping this site manage their water efficiently.
Rick Zinn, CLIA Horizon- Business Development Specialist [email protected] C 925.864.1088
Horizon Rainsafe Cabinet- $6300 RST-1A-2B-3K 32 station Horizon Rainsafe Top Entry Pedestal with Tucor RKS controller and cellular modem. **System comes with preconstruction meeting, sign off meeting and (2) 4 hour trainings from Horizon Technical Services.
Davis Weather Station - $2610 ET-300-W-X-WIN Solar powered , wireless weather station with ET and rain pulse for either direct connect or server based ET. Includes enclosure for the wireless logger receiver and WIN-100.
Optional Handheld Remote- $1890 (includes both pieces listed below) RKD-RFA-200-A Radio Field Access transceiver, VHF Fixed Radio Base Unit assembly. No enclosure or HH radio. Transceiver components mounted on metal plate. Antenna connected directly to transceiver. RFA-HH-UHF Hand held radio with DTMF keypad, UHF.
Realnet Service NET1-RK $290/year per controller Yearly service fee for cellular connection and Realnet service NET1-WS $240/year Yearly service fee for weather station cellular connection NET-ACT $120 per modem One time activation fee for each modem (connection) Controller Installation Simplified Product Guide
Installation Simplified
1 Water, one of our world’s that is easy to specify and easy to most precious resources. install. Service. A word that can mean No where is this better many things, but with known than here in the Horizon Technical Service
West. it means everything. Flow Sensors From System Pre-construction For over 40 years Weather Stations advisement through project Horizon has supported Wireless Modems completion, we’re available where the western United Remote Controls you need us, when you need us. States with innovative Rain & Evapotranspiration To train, consult and provide irrigation products and Measurement Devices timely advise to assist you in superior technical achieving the maximum potential support. from your investment.
This support is taken to a All of these tools are essential new level with Horizon in today’s battle to design Our infield service technicians are Water Management. water saving landscapes. dedicated to assuring your satisfaction. They are available From project planning They are brought together with just one phone call. and design, to quoting with and timely delivery, our Horizon’s RainSafe is only the team of experienced beginning. representatives stands In many of our markets, ready to support all your Horizon Water Management also irrigation needs. represents:
Together with Pump and Well stations Horizon Technical Beyond a security enclosure, Fertilizer Injection Systems Services, there is now a Horizon Rainsafe is a Water Filtration Products single resource to customized selection of assist you with the components assembled to As with all our product selection, installation, operation, exacting standards, to these components are custom inspection, and service of manage the most demanding designed and tailored to fit your the most sophisticated of sites in the most needs. and cutting edge demanding of environments. For further information and irrigation and water Available in a broad range of consultation please contact us at conserving systems choices, to suit every level of 1-800 PVC-TURF available anywhere. control, Horizon RainSafe or visit us at our website:
offers the ultimate in flexibility horizononline.com
2
Standard Features
A. All Enclosures and Equipment Mounting Boards are constructed of 304 / 316 Grade Stainless Steel or Marine Grade F. Aluminum NEMA and UL Certified Components
B.110 Volt Power Supply with Surge Protection and / or Battery Back Up D. C. Field Isolating Surge Protection G.
D. Loom Protected, Channelized Wire Routing B.
Ambient Air Circulation Fan Kit (not pictured)
E. Labeled Din Rails and Electrical Points of Connection
F. Customized to Your Custom Options Choice of over 40 C. E. Controller Options G. Remote Communications (ie. Cellular Modems; Land Line Modems)
Sensors (ie. Flow, Rain, Wind, Weather Stations) A. Horizon On-Site Service Plans
OEM Manufacturer's Extended Enclosure Work Light Warranties Pedestal Mounting Powder Coating in a Variety of Colors
Dual Access Doors (Side Entry Enclosures Only)
Bench Test and Field Grounding Test Certifications
5-Year Assembly Warranty*
3
FRONT ENTRY ENCLOSURES
Our Most Popular Enclosure
• Available in Standard 18" or 24" Widths and Custom Cabinets to 36" • Can Accommodate Up to 4 Controllers when double entry option is specified
Specifications:
• The enclosure shall be scheduling information. of a vandal and For further information and weather resistant consultation please contact us at 1- nature, manufactured 800 PVC-TURF entirely of 304 or 316 grade stainless steel. • • The enclosure shall have a The main housing continuos stainless steel shall be louvered "piano" hinge, carriage upper and lower body bolted on one side, and a to allow for cross flow three point locking ventilation. mechanism on the opposite • Filter screens shall side. cover all louvers to • The edge of the door shall defend against water be hemmed to eliminate spray, insects and any sharp edges. dust. • • A stainless steel cam style A stainless steel lock shall be mounted in the backboard shall be door and a provision for a provided for the pad lock shall be included. purpose of mounting • The enclosure shall be electronic and various manufactured with a other types of continuous drainage equipment. • channel that mates with a The backboard shall teardrop shaped, hollow be mounted on four center, water tight, stainless steel bolts thermoplastic door seal. that will allow for the • The above, described removal of the product shall be a backboard. • NEMA TYPE 3R The inside door area Rainproof Enclosure as shall provide adequate listed by Underwriter storage space for Laboratories, Inc. plans, operating or visit us at our website: instructions, and horizononline.com
4
TOP ENTRY ENCLOSURES
• Controller is Tilted for More Comfortable Operation • 22" Model Accommodates Flow Sensing and Wireless Communications • Recommended for Use in Single Unit Locations
Specifications:
• The enclosure shall be of a vandal and weather resistant • The top entry lid shall have nature, manufactured a continuos stainless steel entirely of 304-grade "piano" hinge, carriage stainless steel. bolted on the rear, and a • The main housing door three point locking shall be louvered at mechanism on the front. the bottom and • A stainless steel cam style equipped with a tear lock shall be mounted in the dropped shaped, lid and a provision for a hollow center, padlock shall be included. thermoplastic door • A removable stainless steel seal. • tray shall be provided for The entry lid shall be the purpose of mounting louvered on the back electronic and various other to allow for cross flow types of equipment. ventilation. • • A removable stainless steel Filter screens shall backboard shall be cover all louvers to provided in the lower body defend against water and mounted on four For further information and spray, insects and stainless steel bolts. consultation please contact us at dust. • 1-800 PVC-TURF • The inside door area shall The top entry lid shall provide adequate storage or visit us at our website: be assisted by two gas space for plans, operating horizononline.com springs for easy instructions, and scheduling access. information. • The edge of the lid • The above-described shall be hemmed to product shall be a NEMA eliminate sharp edges. TYPE 3R Rainproof Enclosure as listed by Underwriter Laboratories, Inc.
5
WALL MOUNTED ENCLOSURES
• Value Option for Use When A Separate Mounting Pad is Not Desired
• Available in a 16”, 18” & 24” Widths
Specifications:
• The enclosure shall be of a vandal and weather resistant nature, manufactured entirely of 304 or 316 grade stainless steel. • The main housing shall be louvered upper and lower body to allow for cross flow • The enclosure shall have a ventilation. continuos stainless steel • Filter screens shall "piano" hinge, carriage cover all louvers to bolted on one side, and a defend against water three point locking spray, insects and mechanism on the opposite dust. side. • A stainless steel • The edge of the door shall backboard shall be be hemmed to eliminate provided for the any sharp edges. purpose of mounting • A stainless steel cam style electronic and various lock shall be mounted in the other types of door and a provision for a equipment. pad lock shall be included. For further information and • The backboard shall • The enclosure shall be consultation please contact us at 1- be mounted on four manufactured with a 800 PVC-TURF stainless steel bolts continuous drainage or visit us at our website: that will allow for the channel that mates with a horizononline.com removal of the teardrop shaped, hollow backboard. center, water tight, • The inside door area thermoplastic door seal. shall provide adequate • The above, described storage space for product shall be a plans, operating NEMA TYPE 3R instructions, and Rainproof Enclosure as scheduling listed by Underwriter information. Laboratories, Inc.
6
STAINLESS STEEL METER PEDESTAL
Specifications: • The meter pedestal shall be made entirely of 304 grade stainless steel, #4 brushed finish, utilizing all welded construction providing superior vandal and weather resistance. • The top shall be a side swing style that locks out for safety. • The side swing top shall fully expose the meter compartment for • Within the top meter ease of setting the compartment the meter • meter and access to socket test block assembly The door design and all stainless the test blocks. shall be installed. steel T handle latching system • The top shall be • The customer shall have shall ensure water tightness and supported by 3 large the option to have a utility vandal resistance. • all stainless steel approved main disconnect The interior portion of this hinges with 3/8” pins located in this compartment shall house up to a that are “lift off” style compartment. 30 circuit capable load center allowing the top to be • The top shall be completely with a removable protective completely removed. padlock able and accept a panel. • • A replaceable 5” x 10”, utility seal. The panel shall only expose the 3/16” thick Lexan • The utility compartment breaker switches and shall be viewing window shall shall be located on the right held in place by captive be provided. side and house the landing thumbscrews. • • The meter socket test lugs. A stainless steel electrical block compartment • A cover panel that can backboard shall be provided for shall be equipped with accommodate a padlock ease of wiring and grounding of a watershed drainage and utility seal shall be electrical channel and • provided. components. overlapping equipment • The left side of the pedestal The pedestal assembly shall be panels that ensures a shall house the 20” x 20” a single phase or three phase, watertight design. customer electrical 120V/240V or 480V rated unit. • compartment. The enclosure shall be rainproof • This compartment shall be NEMA TYPE 3R and the outfitted with a fully welded assembly shall be UL listed for and hemmed stainless steel service entrance equipment. gasketed door that closes against a watershed drainage channel.
7 RKS – Conventional Controller
THE RKS IS A STAND-ALONE, conventional Power and flexibility arise from:
controller, expressly designed for converting - Mist Manager – Configured as 100 Programs, one conventional systems to Tucor’s exceptional remote valve per Program, running in one second management system. The RKS can operate up to 12 increments Stations simultaneously and up to 100 valves*. Our - FloStack™ – Program stacking based on flow for up unique “Add-A-Zone” feature allows you to add Stations to 10 simultaneous Programs one at a time as your system grows. The RKS’s simple, - RealNet – Real-time, Internet-based water (800) 272-7472 intuitive programming comes with a wealth of controller capabilities. management via GPRS wireless or a LAN www.tucor.com - IntellisET – Smart irrigation using a host of ET-based Operations include up to 10 Programs running capabilities simultaneously; timing per valve in one-second - FloGuard – Alarm and control options based on flow increments; flow sensing; multiple alarm options; monitoring ET inputs; remote control via Internet either browser- based or locally; and many flow management methods.
An RKS with WIN-100 RealNet cellular connection, configured as a “Group” node. The RKS wirelessly controls three RKXT-25 extensions, controlling 1 - 100 valves.
Zigbee mesh radio network
The RKS stand-alone conventional controller supports from 1 – 100 valves
AT&T cellular network
Wireless line-of-sight ET-300-W
SMS-100 RKS with three direct-wired RKXT-25’s SMP-12 ET-300-W (solar wireless Weatherstation) SMS-100, and SMP-12 (soil moisture sensors)
RealNet Web-browser RealNet real-time remote control Monitoring Data
HARDWARE: REMOTE MANAGEMENT: ‡ ELECTRICAL: - Via the Internet and any web browser when Input: 115 VAC, 50 VA the RKS is equipped with Output: 24 VAC - Tucor's WIN-xxx module and GPRS service, STATIONS: or 1-100, priced in single station increments † - Tucor's LAN-100 with your own Local Area MAXIMUM SIMULTANEOUS ACTIVE VALVES: Network 6 max per cabinet, 12 max per system * - Remote line-of-sight radio operations MASTER VALVES: (RFA-200) to enable valves and Programs 1, 10 second stop delay ET:
BOOSTER PUMPS: ET Capable (requires ET weather station or 2, 10 second stop delay WR-7RKD)
CABINET: Local Weather Station: Pulses: Wall mounted NEMA 4 rated locking metal cabinet 50 ms minimum width with internal Class 2 transformer 2 pulses per second maximum
DIMENSIONS: Maximum ET (prevent short run time) 12" H x 12" W x 5" D (approx) Maximum ET (prevent run-off) LIGHTNING PROTECTION: Built-in Maximum hourly rain (soil absorption) VALVE OUTPUT: Soil holding (save rain for next day) 24 VAC, 1.0 A per station max., 1.5 A total max. ET period (definable start-of-day) Historic Data (interpolated) OPERATING FEATURES: PROGRAMS: MISCELLANEOUS: 10 + 1 test program - Rain Sensor terminals CONCURRENT PROGRAMS: - Flow sensor inputs at controller, with: 10 - Alarms: High, Unscheduled, Deviation, Main START TIMES: Pump Failure; adjustable delay 12 per program, 1 - 99 repeats per start (1 - 10 minutes) CALENDAR: Learn flow per Station 14 days or Odd/Even Maximum 250 pulses per second STATION RUN TIMES: 0-999 MINUTES: 1 second increments (< 4 minutes) ORDERING OPTIONS 10 second increments (4 - 999 minutes) RKS = Controller, conventional, 1-25 zones WATER BUDGET: RKSXT-25 = 1-25 zone extension assembly 0-250% @ 1% increments RKS-Z = Keycode, per individual zone PROGRAM MODES: ET-300-W = Wireless weather station Active & Passive SMS/SMP = Moisture sensors START METHODS: Auto, Manual by Program, Manual by Station *Each cabinet of 25 Stations can operate 6 Stations simultaneously, given industry standard 0.25A per station, up to 12 Stations max DISPLAY: for the system: 1 in each of 10 Programs and 2 in Manual mode. Monitors active programs, run times, and alarms † Stations from 26-50, 51-75, and 76-100 each require an additional NEMA enclosure. ‡ Requires yearly subscription for Tucor’s Server access
™ RealNet Real-time, Internet-based water management
Tucor RealNet Data Access
(800) 272-7472 You can remotely manage your Tucor RKD and RKS controllers from just about any www.tucor.com computer that has a web browser. Whether you’re at a friend’s house, in a library, or sitting in your truck with a laptop, monitoring the controllers you’re responsible for becomes a simple task. You can turn valves on, change programs, verify flow rates, view alarms… it’s like standing in front of the controller from a hundred miles away. All in real-time.
Access to your controller is through the internet. The RKD and RKS may be managed by accessing our server-based web application, “Cycle Manager”, using any existing java-based1 web browser, such as Internet Explorer or Firefox, on any computer platform, such as Windows, Mac, and Linux.
1 Java is a free, secure, widely-used scripting language supported by Sun Microsystems. Page 1, rev. 3
Connection Options Tucor’s server must connect to the RKD/RKS over the internet. That connection at the controller may be made in one of two ways: • Your own LAN (wired or WIFI) [Local Service Provider] • AT&T’s existing national cellular GPRS network [Global Service Provider] The actual hardware used consists of any combination of four possibilities:
Using Your Local Service Provider 1. LAN Use the Tucor LAN-100 serial-to-Ethernet device server. The input connects to your network with a CAT-5 cable, the output connects to the controller.
2. Wireless LAN Use the Tucor WLAN-100 wireless 802.11b/g serial-to-Ethernet device server. This plugs into the controller and connects wirelessly to your network (like your laptop at Starbucks).
3. Wireless Network Mesh Radio Access multiple Tucor RKD/RKS controllers wirelessly by creating your own wireless Ethernet or RF infrastructure with a WNR, using the Tucor WNR-100 wireless mesh radios. Then connect the WNR to your Internet portal (like an ISP) to access the devices from Cycle Manager.
Note that LAN, WIFI, and WNR require accessing and configuring your own network and router. A static external IP address is also required. If this is not suitable due to ISP or IT security restrictions, the WIN-100 is an alternative.
Using Tucor’s Global Service Provider (AT&T) 4. WIN The WIN-100 uses a wireless cellular network connection to AT&T’s internet backbone. No local area network is necessary. It is easily installed, configuration is minimal, and AT&T’s cell coverage is widespread.
General plan pricing Connecting with your existing LAN network (LAN, WLAN, WNR) uses your current broadband internet connection, so usually you won’t have additional internet access costs. The GPRS (WIN-100) relies on cellular network data, so there will be access costs. With both the LAN and GPRS there will be a one-time account activation fee, along with a yearly server access fee. Fees are determined by your local Tucor distributor.
Page 2, rev. 3
Software The Tucor Cycle Manager is a web application designed to support Tucor’s “Total Cycle Management” concept of irrigation scheduling. Total Cycle Management integrates Tucor controllers with ET devices and Soil Moisture Sensors, all accessible with our RealNet service, ensuring timely access to accurate irrigation.
With Cycle Manager you’ll have remote access to • Programs (10 available) • Individual Stations (up to 100) • Sensor setup (Rain, etc.) • Flow rates and alarms (when using a flow sensor) • ET data (when using a suitable ET input) • Monitoring data
Most importantly, the controller’s data is stored on the server (“web”), so should some catastrophe or unwanted changes occur, you can easily return to the controller’s original system state. Printouts of the system can provide you with hard-copy data. Extensive monitoring information confirms water savings and usage to the pertinent authorities. Alarms can be sent by email, notifying you of undesirable situations, which can be verified on-line and often resolved through RealNet, without anyone even having to visit the site.
The following screen shots give a brief overview of the power and flexibility of RealNet and Total Cycle Manager.
Going to Tucor’s Cycle Manager web page prompts you for a logon and password.
After logon, a list is shown of the controllers registered to your logon name.
Page 3, rev. 3
Choosing one of those devices brings you to the Dashboard, the top-level menu for managing your controller. At this point you can see 1. The connection and synchronization status. You’ll immediately be aware if any changes have been made on either the controller or web. You can revert or accept them. 2. The current system Mode. Clicking on the Mode allows you to change it.2 3. List of any running Programs and Stations, with the option to pause or turn them off. 4. Option to manually start Programs and Stations. 5. Status of Alarms. 6. Status of flow, ET, Line condition, etc. 7. Sync button, time of day, Print button, Revert and Save data options.
RealNet Dashboard (Main Screen)
2 Supported in current “round knob” style of controllers. Page 4, rev. 3
Programs shows you 1. Tabs for up to ten individual Programs. Program 4 shown here. 2. Select status of Program. 3. Set water budget percent, or adjust run length via ET input. 4. Water days, 14 day or Odd/Even scheduling. 5. Start times, up to 12 unique, with cycling. 6. Booster pump assignment. 7. Stations running within the Program and duration of each in hh:mm:ss. Note that the Stations can run in durations of seconds.
RealNet Connection Overview
Program Display
Stations shows you 1. Station name and sequence. Stations can be sequenced in any order. 2. Expected flows. 3. Status pass/fail. 4. Description field for helpful information.
Stations Display
Page 5, rev. 3
Sensors allows you to set up 1. Rain. 2. ET. 3. Alarm. 4. Flow.
Sensors Display
Flows allows you set FlowGuard limits and actions.
Flow Guard Display
Intelliset allows you to see and adjust: 1. Historic ET (by month). 2. Various ET parameters. 3. Source of ET (local, remote, historic). 4. ET input settings. 5. Current ET balance per Program.
Page 6, rev. 3
Intelliset Display
Monitoring shows you more data than we have room to show you here. The screen shot is the Raw information tab, All data. But data is available for 1. Water: hourly, daily, monthly. 2. Intelliset (ET): hourly, daily, monthly. 3. Programs: Overview, Details. 4. Errors. 5. Raw: Operation, Misting, Water Usage, Alarms, Intelliset (ET), and All.
Monitoring Display
Information and Miscellaneous display incidental system information.
Directory returns you to the web page showing all of your controllers so that you may conveniently switch to a different controller. Page 7, rev. 3
Synchronization: If the web data does not match the controller data a “Not synchronized” message is displayed. This will occur when you make changes via the web, or if someone has previously made changes to the controller.
Boxes are checked for those areas that have the newer data. You may either use that data or check the other side to revert to the old data. Clicking Sync will send the data to the selected side, web or controller.
Sync Overview
This is a brief overview showing the power and flexibility of Tucor’s Cycle Manager RealNet service. Contact your Tucor distributor or Tucor for further information and pricing.
Page 8, rev. 3
APPENDIX C Pesticide Use Tables
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan C-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL C. Pesticide Use Tables
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan C-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL The pesticide active ingredients and salmonid toxicity was developed using the following resources: Agrian, Inc. Label Lookup, 2014. Web
AQUATIC PESTICIDES
Chemical Name Active Ingredient(s) Salmonid Toxicity Recommended Alternative No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Green CleanPro Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate used according to Manufacturer label - Toxic with licensed PCA to Bees and Birds SHAC Ponder Water No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Liquefied Lignite Coal Treatement used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA
Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Alternative Recommended - Consult with Nautique Copper Triethanolamine Complex to aquatic invertebrates, aquatic organisms, licensed PCA for alternatives and/or and fish application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Reward Diquat Dibromide licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to aquatic invertebrates, birds, and fish application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Renovate Triclopyr licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change
VERTEBRATE CONTROL
Chemical Name Active Ingredient(s) Salmonid Toxicity Recommended Alternative
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Talpirid Bromethalin licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to birds, fish, and wildlife application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Fumitoxin Aluminum Phosphide licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish and wildlife application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Hort Oil Mineral Oil licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish and wildlife application practice change
No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Deer Off Putrescent Egg, Capsaicin, and Garlic Oil used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA
No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Liquid Fence Putrescent Egg, Capsaicin, Garlic Oil, etc… used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA
FUNGICIDES
Chemical Name Active Ingredient(s) Salmonid Toxicity Recommended Alternative
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Zero-Tol Hydrogen Dioxide licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to bees, beneficial insects, birds, and fish application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Kestrel Mex Propiconazole licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change
No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Companion Bacillus subtilis used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Phoenix Raven Iprodione licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to birds, invertebrates, and fish application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Phoenix Wingman Mancozeb licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to aquatic organisms and fish application practice change
Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Turfcide 400 Pentachloronitrobenzene licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to aquatic organisms and fish application practice change The pesticide active ingredients and salmonid toxicity was developed using the following resources: Agrian, Inc. Label Lookup, 2014. Web.
HERBICIDES
Chemical Name Active Ingredient(s) Salmonid Toxicity Recommended Alternative Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Roundup QuikPRO Glyphosate and Diquat Dibromide licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to aquatic invertebrates and fish application practice change Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Surflan Oryzalin licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Drive Dimethylamine Salt of Quinclorac used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Turflon Ester Triclopyr licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Confront Triclopyr and clopyralid licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Vanquish Diglycolamine salt of 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Lontrel clopyralid used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Garlon 4 Triclopyr licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change Triisopropanolammonium salt of 2-pyridine carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro and No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Milestone VM Plus Triethylamine salt of [(3,5,6-trichloro-2- used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acid Triisopropanolammonium salt of 2-pyridine No known negative affect on Salmonids if No Alternative Recommended - Consult Milestone VM carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro used according to Manufacturer label with licensed PCA Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Tupersan Siduron licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Dimension Dithiopyr licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to aquatic organisms, fish, oyster, and shrimp application practice change Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Alternative Recommended - Consult with Mecoprop-p acid, 2,4-D and 2-ethylhexyl ester SpeedZone Southern to aquatic invertebrates, aquatic organisms, licensed PCA for alternatives and/or and Dicamba acid and Carfentrazone-ethyl fish, and non-target plants application practice change
GROWTH REGULATORS
Chemical Name Active Ingredient(s) Salmonid Toxicity Recommended Alternative Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Proxy Ethephon licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Primo Maxx Trinexapac-ethyl licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change Alternative Recommended - Consult with Potential negative affects on Salmonids - Toxic Lesco Regimax PGR Trinexapac-ethyl licensed PCA for alternatives and/or to fish application practice change
APPENDIX D Integrated Pest Management Plan
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan D-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL D. Integrated Pest Management Plan
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan D-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN
San Geronimo Golf Course
San Geronimo, CA USA
April 18, 2014
This IPM Plan was prepared using tools provided at www.greengolfusa.com, version 1.1. This plan is coded 20140418T171026-1613022125.
Copyright 2014 GreenGolfUSA, LLC
The tools at www.greengolfusa.com were created with the support of our sponsors. We appreciate the support they have provided in developing these tools.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Integrated Pest Management Definition ...... 2 3. IPM Objectives ...... 4 4. IPM Structure ...... 5 5. Area Definition ...... 6 5.1. Management Areas ...... 6 5.2. Other Non-Turfgrass Areas ...... 9 6. Turfgrass Cultural Practice ...... 11 6.1. Cultural Practice ...... 11 6.2. Plant Nutrition ...... 12 6.3. Irrigation ...... 16 7. Tree Management ...... 18 7.1. Tree Selection ...... 18 7.2. Planting Locations ...... 18 8. Composting and Organic Materials Management ...... 20 8.1. Grass Clippings and Aerification Cores ...... 20 8.2. Leaves ...... 20 8.3. Woody Brush ...... 20 8.4. Logs, Stumps, and Large Woody Debris ...... 20 9. Pest Population Definition ...... 21 10. Pest Action Threshold Levels ...... 24 11. Pest Monitoring and Pest Control ...... 27 11.1. Pest Scouting ...... 27 11.2. Pest Control ...... 27 11.3. Fungal Disease ...... 28 11.4. Broadleaf Weeds ...... 29 11.5. Insects ...... 31 11.6. Aquatic ...... 31 11.7. Algae ...... 31 11.8. Moss ...... 32 11.9. Noxious and Invasive Weeds ...... 32 12. Pesticides Specifications ...... 34 12.1. Pesticide Use Determination ...... 34 12.2. Current Practice ...... 34 12.3. Formulation ...... 36 12.4. Application ...... 36 12.5. Clean Up and Disposal ...... 36 12.6. Pesticide Documentation ...... 36 13. Facilities Description ...... 37 13.1. Maintenance Building ...... 37 13.2. Mechanical Shop ...... 37
i 13.3. Equipment Storage ...... 37. 13.4. Fertilizer Storage ...... 37. 13.5. Pesticide Storage ...... 37. 13.6. Petroleum Fluid Storage and Disposal ...... 37. 13.7. Fuel Depot ...... 37. 13.8. Equipment Wash Area ...... 37. 13.9. Pesticide Mixing Area ...... 38. 14. References ...... 39.
ii 1. Introduction
San Geronimo Golf Course recognizes the importance of sound environmental stewardship and is committed to optimizing its golf course management practice to protect the environment within, and surrounding the golf course. The OGCSA Environmental Stewardship Guidelines have been used to develop an Environmental Stewardship Plan, which directs the management practices at San Geronimo Golf Course.
The cornerstone of environmental stewardship at San Geronimo Golf Course is the philosophy of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM is a management system that utilizes systematic, disciplined, and documented cultural practices as a first line of defense for pest control. Many pest management practices do not involve the use of pesticides. Mechanical strategies, such as proper mowing and aerification, also contribute to turfgrass health and will be implemented. Biological control options will be considered and utilized whenever feasible. On occasion, when cultural practices are not fully effective at controlling pests, the use of pesticides to manage pest damage will be necessary. The staff at San Geronimo Golf Course will routinely scout the golf course and monitor for evidence of pest infestation.
San Geronimo Golf Course will consider all IPM strategies that will protect the environment and maximize the quality of turfgrass by using a combination of tactics to control pests, including cultural, biological, genetic, and chemical controls. The San Geronimo Golf Course IPM Plan provides a sound working framework for selection and implementation of the most environmentally sound solutions to golf course pest problems.
This IPM Plan describes detailed and specific practices at San Geronimo Golf Course, and serves as an operational reference that directs golf course management practice. San Geronimo Golf Course is dedicated to the philosophy and the practicality of Integrated Pest Management, and remains vigilant to incorporate emerging and useful golf course management practices into the IPM Plan. Accordingly, this document is viewed to be a functional document that will evolve over time, and one that will be revised to incorporate industry developments that will bolster and optimize the effectiveness of the plan.
1 2. Integrated Pest Management Definition
Integrated pest management is "a coordinated decision-making and action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategy in an environmentally and economically sound manner to meet pest management objectives" (Washington State, Interagency Integrated Pest Management Coordinating Committee, 2002 and ORS 634.650). Integrated pest management includes optimizing turfgrass health through cultural practices to enhance natural plant resistance to pest infestation, optimizing habitats for beneficial species, and minimizing plant damage resulting from routine golf course operations.
In certain instances the use of pesticides to control some pests and diseases may be necessary. An essential component of the IPM Plan is the coordination of the ongoing use of cultural methods with the selective use of pesticides as a means of minimizing pesticide application. The elements of integrated pest management include:
Preventing pest problems. Scouting and monitoring for the presence of pests and pest damage. Establishing the density of the pest population, which may be set as low as zero, that can be tolerated or correlated with a damage level sufficient to warrant treatment of the problem based on health, public safety, economic, or aesthetic thresholds. This density is the action threshold for a specific pest. Treating pest problems to reduce populations below those levels established by action thresholds using strategies that may include biological, cultural, mechanical and chemical control methods and that shall consider human health, ecological impact, feasibility and cost effectiveness. Evaluating the effects and efficacy of pest treatments.
The broad objective of the San Geronimo Golf Course IPM Plan is to maximize the use of natural methods to control pests through optimized, disciplined, and documented golf course management practice. To meet this objective, the San Geronimo Golf Course IPM Plan defines turfgrass, non-turfgrass, natural and aquatic management areas; pests of concern within these areas; methods to monitor pest populations; pest action threshold levels that when exceeded require action; and the actions to be taken once threshold levels have been reached.
Several examples of natural methods to control pests include optimizing turfgrass health through cultural practice to optimize natural plant resistance to pest infestation, optimizing habitats for beneficial species, and minimizing turfgrass damage resulting from routine golf course operations. However, in spite of the use of natural methods, in certain instances the use of chemicals such as pesticides to control some pests is
2 unavoidable. An essential component of the IPM Plan is the coordination of the ongoing use of natural methods with the selective use of these agents to wisely make pesticide applications.
3 3. IPM Objectives
The most important part of a successful program is monitoring. The turfgrass conditions need to be observed regularly. Results of the monitoring will be documented including patterns of pest activity and the successes and failures. The following are the basic objectives for the San Geronimo Golf Course IPM Plan.
Minimize potential hazards and reduce risk of exposure to people, animals, and the environment Optimize playing conditions of the golf course Utilize effective monitoring to enable selective and targeted control of pest populations Minimize pesticide use through tactical and targeted application while optimizing pesticide efficacy Optimize turfgrass quality Reduce pest management expenses Maintain health of landscape elements such as trees, shrubs, flower beds, and natural areas Conserve energy
4 4. IPM Structure
The structure of the IPM Plan is based on the selective targeting of plant pathogens, weeds, and insects that threaten the agronomic health of the golf course. In addition, the IPM Plan includes provisions to optimize the quality of aquatic areas of the golf course. The strategy of the IPM Plan is as follows:
Define areas requiring management and the relative maintenance intensity associated with each area. Identify pests likely to be encountered. Determine the pest’s life cycle, and know which life stage to target. Establish action threshold levels for each pest that when exceeded, trigger corrective action. Scout and monitor for the presence of pests. Maintain vigorous turfgrass health through maintenance practices to optimize pest tolerance. Implement sequential corrective action when threshold levels have been exceeded. Adjust cultural practice. Utilize mechanical and biological controls when appropriate. Determine if pesticide intervention is necessary or appropriate and apply minimum amounts of selective chemical agents in a highly targeted fashion. Chemical agents will be selected based on minimal toxicity and optimal efficacy. Document all scouting and monitoring observations, treatments, and treatment results. Determine if the "corrective actions" actually reduced or prevented pest populations, were economical, and minimized risks.
5 5. Area Definition
San Geronimo Golf Course, which was built in 1967, is located on 76.8 acres with 18 holes in San Geronimo, CA (Marin County), USA.
San Geronimo Golf Course is located just 35 minutes north of the Golden Gate Bridge with panaramic views of giant redwoods, untouched mountains, and cascading creeks.
Roaming over 150-acres of stunning terrain, the San Geronimo Golf Course presents golfers with unique elements of challenge and beauty. Each hole presents a new and varied challenge, and golfers will find that they have used every club in their bag after tackling San Geronimo. Water hazards await misdirected approaches on more than half the greens. Ponds come into play on seven holes, creeks on nine. There are over 40 strategically placed bunkers to contend with.
5.1. Management Areas
The managed areas of the golf course include turfgrass areas, non-turfgrass areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and/or aquatic areas. A description of each specific area is provided below.
The turfgrass, ornamental areas, and their respective management requirements are defined in Table 1.
Table 1.
Area Definition and Maintenance Requirements
Typical *Cultural Acres Irrigation Mowing Turfgrass Fertilizer Area Practice Maintained Requirement Frequency Height Requirement Frequency (inches) Greens 2.5 Med-High Med-High .13 Med-High High Tees 2.6 Medium Medium .5 Medium Med-High Fairways 33 Medium Medium .625 Medium Med-High Rough 24.5 Low-Med Low-Med 2 Low-Med Medium Ornamentals 1.5 Med-High N/A N/A Medium Med-High Natural Areas 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Low-Med
6 Ponds & Streams 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium
For this table, ornamentals are defined as shrubs and plants * Aerification, verticutting, and topdressing
5.1.1. Turfgrass The grass types currently established at San Geronimo Golf Course include:
Grass Types Greens Tees Fairway Rough Bermudagrass - √ √ √ Kentucky Bluegrass - √ √ √ Perennial Ryegrass - √ √ √ Poa Annua √ √ √ -
5.1.2. Lake and Aquatic Plant Management A comprehensive lake (pond) management plan exists at San Geronimo Golf Course. Some of the challenges in maintaining the water quality include:
Low dissolved oxygen Sedimentation Excess nutrients Changes in plant population Nuisance vegetation Aquatic life Erosion control Depth
5.1.2.1. Aquatic Plant Control In order to control the aquatic plants appropriately, the intended use of the water body must be known, as well as whether there are any invasive or weedy species present, the aesthetic purposes of the lake/pond, and any other environmental conditions. The comprehensive lake/pond management plan should include strategies to control the growth of nuisance vegetation that can negatively impact the water quality and treatment
7 capacity of the ponds.
The general IPM principles applied as part of the aquatic plant control at San Geronimo Golf Course include:
Proper turfgrass fertilization practices Unfertilized buffer strips Good pond design Hand removal of plants or mechanical harvesting Littoral shelf plantings of desirable plants Use of lake dyes, aerification, and biological controls Aerification Aquatic herbicides
If herbicide applications are to be used, they are used according to the label and aquatic herbicides are chosen according to: target plant, water body type and uses; wind; temperature; water depth; efficiency; and cost effectiveness. If water from the pond is used for irrigation, waiting periods for using the water for irrigation required by the herbicide label are followed.
Streams and Creeks San Geronimo Golf Course has three main creeks that traverse the area of play: Larsen Creek, North Fork Larsen Creek, and San Geronimo Creek. The headwaters of Larsen Creek are located in Roy’s Redwoods, immediately to the north and east of the golf course. Larsen Creek cuts through the Course on the Northeast portion of the property running East to West. North Fork Larsen Creek is a small relatively wide channel with an active width of approximately 5 to 10 feet. The Creek is highly seasonal and ephemeral in nature. North Fork Larsen Creek runs from North to South and connects to Larsen Creek at the Northeast area of the course boundary. San Geronimo Creek is a confined, gravel-bed stream. The channel is generally alluvial, but in some areas it is characterized and controlled by bedrock. San Geronimo Creek bisects the property on the southern portion of the golf course.
Lakes and Ponds There are 8 ponds located on the property. The total area of pond surface is approximately 6.73 acres, with an average depth of approximately 5 feet. There are 3 main ponds used for irrigation purposes that filled by raw water from Marin Municipal Water District. The water level in these ponds fluctuate
8 as water is transferred between the ponds for irrigation purposes. The main pond used for irrigation is approximately 1.83 acres in surface and 7.61 feet deep.
Buffer Zones Buffer zones are defined as a corridor of land that is a fixed width on the sides of a stream or other body of water. In specific areas, buffer zones may be adjusted based on playablity requirements. Minimum buffer widths will vary with the intended buffer function and the specific site conditions including hydrogeology, slope, vegetation, soil type, presence of wetlands, and the type of nutrient or pollutant to be removed.
The width of the buffer zones at our facility is typically 40 feet. Generally, the buffer zones around the ponds are narrow, approximately 2 - 5 feet. The creeks have larger buffer zones that support a variety of riparian habitat vegetation species. The buffers around the creeks are roughly 40 feet on average, but do vary greatly.
5.1.2.2. Permitting Issues San Geronimo Golf Course is aware of the rules governing the application of pesticides to aquatic environments and plans to stay current with all related rules. At this time, permits are required for applications of aquatic herbicides in all states. Pesticide residues and biological pesticides constitute pollutants under Federal law, and therefore are regulated under the Clean Water Act.
5.2. Other Non-Turfgrass Areas
Non-turfgrass areas consist of bunkers, aquatic areas, ornamental plantings, and natural and/or environmentally sensitive areas. Aquatic areas were discussed in the previous section.
5.2.1. Bunkers
5.2.2. Ornamental Plantings The ornamental landscapes are primarily located around the Clubhouse and parking lot. The landscaping consists of ornamental trees, shrubs, herbaceous flowering ornamentals, and turf grass.
9 5.2.3. Natural and Environmentally Sensitive Areas The San Geronimo Golf Course is situated in the headwaters of the Lagunitas Creek Watershed. San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek flow through the golf course. These two creeks are part of a larger riparian assemblage extending to Tomales Bay that support coho and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. The golf course is one of the largest parcels of land adjacent to San Geronimo Creek within the San Geronimo Valley and salmonids actively use the creeks for spawning and rearing throughout the year.
10 6. Turfgrass Cultural Practice
Turfgrass area maintenance is the most labor-intensive element of the Integrated Pest Management program, requiring greater than 95% of resource allocation. As stated repeatedly throughout this document, the primary intent of the Integrated Pest Management program is to optimize turfgrass vigor utilizing sound cultural practices as a means of preventing and/or minimizing pest infestation. The primary practices of turfgrass maintenance at San Geronimo Golf Course include mowing, fertilization, and irrigation. Cultural practices also include aerification, topdressing, thatch removal, and overseeding to promote a healthy turfgrass environment.
Pesticide applications may be used as part of IPM strategies.
6.1. Cultural Practice
Cultural practice also includes the aerification, topdressing, thatch removal, and overseeding to promote a healthy turfgrass environment.
6.1.1. Mowing Early morning mowing of all turf areas to help remove dew and minimize opportunities for fungal infestations. Greens are mowed every morning (7 days a week) and occasionally rolled instead of mowed. Fairways, tees, collars, and approaches are mowed twice a week. Roughs are mowed once a week.
Mowing heights include .13 inch(es) for greens, .5 inch(es) for tees, .625 inch(es) for fairways, and 2 or more inch(es) for rough.
6.1.2. Aerification Aerification is the practice of removing soil cores from turfgrass and is performed to minimize turfgrass compaction. This practice enhances the movement of air, water, and nutrients in the soil and is a useful technique to manage thatch layers.
The aerification frequency will be adjusted as appropriate for turfgrass location and conditions. Aerification frequency is greatest for greens and tees and to a lesser extent for fairways. Aerification is typically performed during periods of active turfgrass growth in the early spring, early summer, and fall; although selective aerification may occur at the discretion of the superintendent. In the case of greens, topdressing sand is
11 applied to fill the cores resulting from the aerification treatment.
6.1.3. Thatch Management Thatch is a layer of organic debris and the roots, crowns, and stems of grass that exists between the soil and the turfgrass canopy. In the absence of cultural management, this layer becomes thicker over time, resulting in sub-optimal turfgrass growth. Management of thatch is particularly important on greens and consists primarily of aerification and topdressing practices. The thatch layer on greens will be maintained at a depth of 0.25 inch or less.
6.1.4. Topdressing The practice of topdressing consists of the application of a layer of sand to greens and is used to assist in thatch layer management and to provide a smooth and firm playing surface. Topdressing applications typically follow the aerification or verticutting of greens, and are also made in the absence of aerification (light topdressing). Following the application of sand, the sand is lightly brushed into the turfgrass surface.
6.1.5. Overseeding Overseeding is the selective application of turfgrass seed to improve areas of turfgrass depletion and to bolster turfgrass density. Overseeding is performed in the late fall, early spring, or early summer.
6.2. Plant Nutrition
The goal of the nutrient management program is to improve turfgrass quality, protect water resources, and reduce fertilizer costs. The application of fertilizers is essential for development of turfgrass vigor. Management of turfgrass fertility involves the understanding of soil composition, fertility management history, and the use of soil test information. The objective of the fertilizer program is to provide maximum nutrient availability to turfgrass while simultaneously avoiding the application of excess nutrients to avoid weed infestation, disease development, and nutrient runoff. The nutrient management program described below is a guide for managing the amount, sources, placement, form, and timing of the application of nutrients and other soil amendments. It is a guide for adjusting management practices to address variability throughout the golf course. Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to nutrient management are presented elsewhere in the San Geronimo Golf Course Environmental Stewardship Plan.
12 6.2.1. Soil Nutrient Testing Soil testing for nutrient composition provides valuable information that allows for the development of strategic fertilizer plan development and also provides insight into the effects of preceding management practices. Soil testing will be performed on areas of the golf course selected by the superintendent to generate information that will provide technical support during the development of the fertilizer program.
Because nutrient management has a significant impact on plant health, soils, and the environment over time; the nutrient application rate, nutrient form, nutrient application method, and nutrient application timing will be closely monitored.
6.2.2. Turfgrass Nutrient Requirements The major nutrients required for turfgrass health are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). Calcium, magnesium, and sulfur also contribute significantly to turfgrass health. Micronutrients include iron, boron, copper, manganese, and zinc. The availability of nutrients to turfgrass is influenced markedly by the pH of the soil. Consequently, management of the appropriate pH is an important component of the fertilizer program. Controlled release fertilizers will be used whenever possible, with adjustments being made for special needs and conditions.
Nitrogen The management of nitrogen levels is critical owing to the high turfgrass demand for this nutrient and the potential for excess nitrogen to enter into surface water and groundwater. As a result, the amount of nitrogen delivered to turfgrass will be the minimum amount necessary to promote turfgrass vigor. In general, nitrogen will be applied based on known rates to be effective for this area. In certain instances when turfgrass and/or climate conditions dictate, rates of application will be adjusted (either higher or lower) at the discretion of the superintendent. The contribution of nitrogen from other nitrogen sources, such as clipping, recycling, or microorganism release, besides fertilizer will be considered. Soil factors, weather, and climate are also important considerations. Nitrogen formulations consist of water insoluble (slow release) and water soluble (quick release) types. Slow release nitrogen sources include methylene urea, sulfur-coated urea, IBDU, polymer coated fertilizers, and organic preparations such as activated sewage sludge. Examples of quick release nitrogen sources include ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, and urea. To maximize plant uptake and minimize nitrogen runoff (e.g., nitrate), slow release nitrogen sources and/or light applications of soluble nitrogen ("spoonfeeding") will be used whenever possible.
13 Determination of the appropriate nitrogen source will be at the discretion of the superintendent and will be based on the season and relative growth rate of the turfgrass at the time of application. Phosphorus Turfgrass requirements for phosphorus are relatively low and phosphorus does not generally leach from soil quickly. As a result, application rates tend to be correspondingly low, which minimizes the possibility of storm water runoff carrying residual phosphorus into water systems. However, phosphorous is persistent and excess phosphorous in aquatic systems can promote algae growth and subsequent consumption of oxygen upon degradation. Therefore, phosphorus should be managed efficiently. San Geronimo Golf Course will only apply phosphorous when soil tests show the need. Potassium Potassium is an essential component needed in plant growth. Turfgrass requirements for potassium are intermediate in relation to nitrogen and phosphorus levels. Although applied to maximize efficiency of uptake, potassium does not pose the extent of environmental risk that excess nitrogen and phosphorus levels represent. Proper levels of potassium are an important component of plant disease resistance and contribute to the ability of turfgrass to withstand wear and traffic. Additional Nutrients In general, turfgrass requirements for sulfur, calcium, iron, and micronutrients are lower than for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. These nutrients are available in a variety of formulations, and application of these nutrients will be at the discretion of the superintendent. pH Maintenance of the proper soil pH is essential in optimizing the availability of nutrients, and also is important in minimizing overall turfgrass stress. When the soil pH requires adjustment to a more alkaline pH, lime will be added until the targeted pH is obtained. When soil requires adjustment to a more acidic pH, ammonium sulfate will be added until the targeted pH is obtained. Ferrous sulfate may also be used to adjust pH and provide iron to turfgrass.
6.2.3. Fertilizer Treatment Areas The rate and frequency of fertilizer application is area and situation dependent. A typical fertilizer application frequency is shown in Table 2. Fertilizer application is most frequent on the greens with less frequent applications being made to tees and fairways, and the least frequent application being made to the rough.
14 Table 2.
Fertilizer Application Areas and Typical Yearly Applications
Fertilizer Acres Total Nitrogen per Area Treatments per Maintained Year (lbs per 1,000 ft^2 Year Greens 2.5 15-20 6-8 Tees 2.6 6-8 8-10 Fairways 33 2-4 2-4 Rough 24.5 0-1 0-1 Ornamentals 1.5 4-6 6-8 Ponds & Streams 8 N/A N/A
6.2.4. Fertilizer Storage All fertilizers will be maintained in a dedicated moisture free, well-ventilated storage area and stored on a pallet, not directly on the floor or ground.
6.2.5. Fertilizer Documentation Records of all fertilizer purchases will be maintained in a fertilizer logbook. All fertilizer applications will be documented on a fertilizer application form. Information recorded will include date of application, location of application, type of fertilizer(s) applied, rate of application, irrigation following application, and the identity of the applicator(s).
6.2.6. Buffer Zones Application of fertilizer to turfgrass located in designated buffer zones will be limited to the extent practical.
15 6.3. Irrigation
Turfgrass is irrigated to maintain plant health and optimize playing conditions. Our water sources, irrigation system, irrigation water quality, and water conservation measures are described in this section.
6.3.1. Water Source SGGC currently gets all their turf irrigation water from the Marin Municipal Water District MMWD minus a minimal amount (1% - 2%) from rainfall. The club house and surrounding landscaping uses potable water while all turf areas associated with the gulf course use raw water. The raw water can be directly delivered to three different ponds from MMWD and then transferred between the three ponds plus one additional pond. SGGC utilizes three separate MMWD raw water points of connection (POC) manual valve locations which supply water to three separate irrigation ponds. Ponds 1, 2, and 3 are filled directly from the MMWD mainline via three separate manual valves. Pond 2 overflows to Pond 1 and water from Pond 1 is pumped to Pond 4, the primary irrigation pond.
6.3.2. Irrigation System SGGC’s current irrigation system is roughly 20 - 30 years old with some mainlines close to 50 years old. The system is well maintained, given that some of the equipment is difficult to find and some replacement parts are no longer available for retail sale. Even though SGGC keeps equipment reserves of no longer available equipment and parts on site for future repairs, these reserves are anticipated to only last for roughly 5 more years.
6.3.3. Irrigation Water Quality The water used for irrigation is provided by the Marin Municipal Water District. Water used for irrigation is either pure potable water or raw water that is stored in ponds and pumped from the irrigation ponds for irrigation use. Potable water is only used in and around the Club House ornamental plantings.
6.3.4. Water Conservation Irrigation is limited to prevent over-application of water as a means of optimizing turfgrass vigor and conserving water. The areas requiring the most frequent irrigation are tees, fairways, and greens. Because it represents a substantial percentage of the overall turfgrass area, the rough is irrigated as sparingly as possible to conserve water.
16 In addition to other methods, a means of determining turfgrass irrigation requirements is the daily observations of the superintendent and staff.
6.3.5. Hydrophobicity or Water Repellancy Hydrophobic soils are soils that repel water as opposed to wetting easily under irrigation or rainfall conditions. Soil hydrophobicity commonly referred to as soil water repellency, is generally caused by a coating of long-chained hydrophobic organic molecules that accumulates on individual soil particles. Nonionic soil water repellency can lead to run off, non-uniform wetting of soils, poor delivery of fertilizers and pesticides, plant stress and reduced quality, increased need for irrigation and water use, and increased risk of environmental contamination. To counteract hydrophobicity in soil, soil surfactants, A.K.A. soil wetting agents can be used. Wetting agents are substances that reduce the surface tension of water and in many cases restore the wettability of the soil. When applied to water-repellent (hydrophobic) soils at rates recommended by manufactures, surfactants can improve the ability of the water and solutes to penetrate the soil surface and more uniformly wet the entire root zone. Before using a wetting agent, be sure that slow infiltration is being caused by water repellency, not some other factor. Soil wetting agents will improve infiltration rates and water distribution only in soils that have some level of water-repellency present, regardless of their texture, tilth, and aggregation (North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service).
6.3.6. Plant Growth Regulators Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are chemicals that regulate plant growth. The objective of plant growth regulators is to increase turfgrass quality and reduce maintenance costs. Plant growth regulators provide economical growth regulation of turfgrass. Because the vertical growth of the turfgrass is reduced, the frequency of mowing may also be reduced. The use of plant growth regulators may also limit seedhead development.
17 7. Tree Management
General tree planting, management, and removal practices are described below.
7.1. Tree Selection
Trees considered for planting are selected based on ultimate size and type of growth appropriate for the planting location, compatibility with soil conditions and climate, and pest resistance properties. Native species are selected as appropriate. If non-native tree species are selected they are trees that are not invasive in nature.
7.2. Planting Locations
Tree planting locations are carefully evaluated prior to planting to anticipate the effect of mature trees on surrounding turfgrass and ornamental areas. Architectural features, engineering, aesthetics, and influence on playing characteristics of the golf course are important landscape functional considerations. Water requirements, shading, and influence on air circulation are the primary determinants of planting locations.
7.2.1. Tree Planting Trees are planted in planting holes appropriate for the root ball/root mass, and planting holes are backfilled with native material, except in certain situations where the existing soil is contaminated or filled with rubble. The planting area is mulched and receives irrigation as required through the first three growing seasons. Whenever possible, planting occurs during the fall.
7.2.2. Tree Maintenance Trees are routinely monitored for overall health, influence on playing characteristics, the presence of insects and diseases, influence on surrounding turfgrass and ornamentals, and hazard potential. In general, insect and disease pests are tolerated. High-value specimen trees may require more consideration for IPM strategies. Established trees do not require supplemental watering except in situations of extreme drought. Trees will be pruned to optimize health, allow passage of light and wind, minimize hazard, and manage pests. A professional tree service will be consulted regarding trees that have disease and/or pest problems beyond the normal scope of golf course management practices.
18 7.2.3. Tree Removal Tree removal may be required because of disease, age, wind or lightning damage, and hazard potential. At other times, trees may be removed to increase sunlight and air circulation to specific turfgrass areas to create better growing conditions for healthy turfgrass. Impacts to wildlife habitat and shading properties are considered before trees are removed. The superintendent will be responsible for determining if tree removal is necessary, and will consult with a professional tree service regarding tree removal that is beyond the scope of routine golf course management practices.
Trees considered for removal will be evaluated for their potential to provide wildlife habitat or forage. Snags may be left in place if they are compatible with the playability objective and are not a hazard to golfers or golf course maintenance staff.
19 8. Composting and Organic Materials Management
Sustainability practices conducted at San Geronimo Golf Course include composting and recycling of organic materials from the golf course.
8.1. Grass Clippings and Aerification Cores
Whenever possible, grass clippings from greens are scattered on the golf course. When clippings cannot be scattered, they are deposited on one of several compost piles located on the golf course. The compost is used for soil building in landscape areas. Excess material is sent to an organics recycler. Aerification cores are used to fill depressions in outlying areas of turf or composted for reuse by mixing with leaf compost. The resulting soil is used in landscape planting areas.
8.2. Leaves
Leaf blowers and sweepers are used to remove leaves from turfgrass areas. The collected leaves are deposited in one of several composting piles. During heavy leaf drop in the fall, rotary mowers are used to mulch leaves in the deep rough areas.
8.3. Woody Brush
When practical, brush chippers are used to process tree limbs and other woody material. The wood chips are used as mulch for application to out-of-play areas like planting beds, steep slopes, or naturalized areas under trees. Tree stumps are removed with a stump grinder and the chips are deposited in out-of-play areas on the golf course. Small debris from trees and landscape maintenance is collected and composted appropriately. Excess material is sent to an organics recycler.
8.4. Logs, Stumps, and Large Woody Debris
Logs, stumps, and woody debris will be stockpiled in suitable storage locations and periodically processed with a wood grinder to generate wood fiber landscape mulch or used as enhancements to natural areas. Excess material is sent to an organics recycler. This material functions as excellent mulch for ornamental plant beds, tree wells, and natural areas.
20 9. Pest Population Definition
A summary of the total pest population at San Geronimo Golf Course is shown in the table below.
Table 3.
Pest Definition and Distribution
Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Fungal Diseases: Anthracnose - √ √ - Brown √ - - - Patch Dollar Spot √ - - - Fusarium √ - - - Patch Pink Snow √ - - - Mold Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Broadleaf Weeds: Trifolium Field Clover √ - √ - campestre Oxeye Leucanthemum √ - √ - Daisy vulgare Pineapple Matricaria √ - - - Weed discoidea
21 Poison Conium L. - - √ - Hemlock Toxicodendron Poison Oak - - √ - diversilobum Rabbitfoot Trifolium √ - √ - Clover arvense Thistle Thistle - - √ - White Trifolium √ - √ - Clover repens Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Grassy Weeds: Eleusine Goosegrass √ - - - indica Pennisetum Kikuyugrass √ - - - clandestinum Large Digitaria √ - - - Crabgrass sanguinalis Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Noxious & Invasive Weeds: Incorrect param: fieldId Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Aquatic Pests: Algae - - - √ Azolae - - - √ Cattail - - - √
22 Pondweed - - - √ Water - - - √ Milfoil Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Algae: Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Moss: Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Insects: Aphid - √ - - Cutworm √ √ √ - European √ - √ - Crane Fly Slug - √ - - Ponds, Common Natural Lakes Latin Name Turfgrass Ornamentals Name Areas & Streams Vertebrate Pests: Rodent √ - √ -
Note: Table includes the most common pests, however, there may be additional pests that will be treated.
23 10. Pest Action Threshold Levels
The action threshold levels for specific pest types are shown in Table 4. Action threshold level is defined as the number of pests detected within a specified area that leads to corrective action to reduce the density of the specific pest below the threshold level.
Table 4.
Action Threshold Limits for Specific Pest Categories
Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Fungal Diseases: Anthracnose 1% - - - - Brown 1% - - - - Patch Dollar Spot 1% - - - - Fusarium 1% - - - - Patch Pink Snow 1% - - - - Mold Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Broadleaf Weeds: Trifolium 1-5/M 15-20/M 20-30/M 30-50/M Field Clover 1/M ft2 10-20/M ft2 - campestre ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 Oxeye Leucanthemum 1-5/M 15-20/M 20-30/M 30-50/M 1/M ft2 10-20/M ft2 - Daisy vulgare ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 Pineapple Matricaria 1-5/M 15-20/M 20-30/M 30-50/M 1/M ft2 10-20/M ft2 - Weed discoidea ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 Poison 20-30/M 30-50/M Conium L. 10-20/M ft2 - Hemlock ft2 ft2 Toxicodendron 20-30/M 30-50/M Poison Oak 10-20/M ft2 - diversilobum ft2 ft2 Rabbitfoot Trifolium 1-5/M 15-20/M 20-30/M 30-50/M 10-20/M ft2 - Clover arvense ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 20-30/M 30-50/M Thistle 10-20/M ft2 - ft2 ft2 White Trifolium 1-5/M 15-20/M 20-30/M 30-50/M 1/M ft2 10-20/M ft2 - Clover repens ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Grassy Weeds:
24 Eleusine Goosegrass - - 30/M ft2 - indica Pennisetum Kikuyugrass - - 30/M ft2 - clandestinum Large Digitaria - - 30/M ft2 - Crabgrass sanguinalis Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Noxious & Invasive Weeds: Incorrect param: fieldId Ponds, Common Buffer Natural Lakes Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Name Zones Areas & Streams Aquatic Pests: As Algae ------needed As Azolae ------needed As Cattail ------needed As Pondweed ------needed Water As ------Milfoil needed Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Algae: Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Moss: Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Insects: Aphid - - - - - 10% - 5-10/M 10-15/M Cutworm - - - - - ft2 ft2 European 5-15/ft2 25-40/ft2 25-40/ft2 - - - - Crane Fly Slug - - - - - 5% - Common Buffer Latin Name Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Natural Areas Name Zones Vertebrate Pests: When When When When When When Rodent When damaged damaged damaged damaged damaged damaged damaged
Notes:
25 Treatment based on detection in high traffic areas and when conditions dictate, additional preventative measures may be considered. /M ft2 = per 1000 ft 2
26 11. Pest Monitoring and Pest Control
The pest control strategy is sequential and consists of using cultural practices as the first line of defense, followed by biological/chemical control where appropriate. The decision to implement chemical pest control measures beyond cultural, biological, or mechanical practices is based on the review of relevant safety, scientific, economic, and environmental information. All products used for pest control are those approved for use by the Environmental Production Agency for the specific indication.
11.1. Pest Scouting
All golf course maintenance staff will be trained to routinely scout the golf course and monitor for evidence of pest infestation appropriate for their individual job descriptions. The intensity and frequency of monitoring will be adjusted based on the likelihood of pest infestation (i.e., seasonal) or in situation/site-specific instances. All monitoring observations of potential pest infestation will be reported directly to the superintendent on the same day of the observation, and will be documented in a scouting form. Recorded observations will include the area observed and a description of the pest(s). No action will be taken until the threshold for a specific pest has been exceeded. If the threshold for a given pest is exceeded, the resulting corrective action and the corresponding results will also be recorded.
11.2. Pest Control
The pest control strategy will be developed on a case-by-case basis with all potential control options given consideration.
The following are means by which pests can be controlled:
Cultural Control: The use of sound horticultural practices to optimize plant health and to suppress insects, disease, and weed growth. Other cultural controls include site-appropriate design and the use of disease or drought-resistant plants.
Mechanical Control: The use of a variety of tools and equipment for the purpose of eliminating pests.
27 Biological Control: The use of biological control agents that act as predators or parasites of pest species. The use of other beneficial organisms that improve plant health by enhancing soil quality.
Chemical Control: The application of various agricultural products such as herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides or other chemical compounds to a target pest as a means of control.
The decision to implement appropriate pest control measures beyond maintenance practices will be based on the review of relevant safety, scientific, economic, environmental, and feasibility information. The products listed in this section are examples of pesticide controls that could be used, but may not be the only products used to control a particular pest.
11.3. Fungal Disease
Within the overall spectrum of pest management, fungal disease represents the most serious and consistent threat to turfgrass health and is of concern primarily on greens and tees. Greens and tees are inspected regularly for symptoms of fungal disease. The primary means of identifying fungal disease is diagnosis by the superintendent. However, in some instances symptoms consistent with fungal disease may have alternative causes (nutrient deficiency, insects, etc.). When uncertainty regarding potential fungal disease is encountered, samples are sent to a plant pathology lab for confirmation of the presence of fungal pathogens. Heightened monitoring of greens and tees will occur when conditions known to favor the development of these pathogens occur.
An essential aspect of preventing the development of fungal disease is the optimization of turfgrass vigor through routine cultural practice. In addition, fungal disease control is dependent on the correct identification of the disease, understanding the disease cycle, symptoms and conditions that promote disease development, and the selective use of the appropriate fungicide agents. Specific cultural practices can be employed to minimize the potential for fungal disease, which are described below. In general, if conditions favoring disease development are present, or if cultural measures fail to suppress fungal infestation below damage thresholds, fungicide applications may be necessary to control the disease. The superintendent considers numerous factors including season, weather, and turfgrass health/vigor before determining whether fungicide treatment may or may not be necessary. When the superintendent does determine that the use of a fungicide is necessary for disease control, the product applied is that specifically labeled for the
28 disease, and is applied according to label. Annual review of improved products and rotational application strategies are implemented to reduce resistance of fungal pathogens to specific products.
11.3.1. Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) Pesticides can be applied as preventative maintenance or as curative maintenance. Whether the pesticide application should occur prior to the pest becoming apparent or after the pest has began to establish itself may depend on the type of pest/disease and its characteristics, the action threshold set for the pest at the golf course, time of year, and the schedule of maintenance include aerification. Further guidance is available from sources such as FRAC, the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee, and IRAC, the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee which are specialist training groups of Croplife International.
The purpose of FRAC is "to provide Fungicide resistance management guidelines to prolong the effectiveness of "at risk" fungicides and to limit crop losses should resistance occur." This could include turfgrass grasses. As stated on the FRAC & IRAC websites, the main aims of both FRAC and IRAC are to:
Identify existing and potential resistance problems. Collect information and distribute it to those involved with fungicide and insecticide research, distribution, registration and use. Provide strategies, guidelines, and advice on the use of pesticides to reduce the risk of resistance developing, and to manage it should it occur. Recommend procedures for use in pesticide resistance studies. Facilitate communication and education on pesticide resistance. Stimulate open discussions and collaboration with universities, government agencies, advisors, extension workers, distributors, and farmers.
11.3.2. Diseases and Control Measures A description of conditions favoring disease development, symptoms of disease, and specific control measures for each specific type of fungal disease are as follows:
11.4. Broadleaf Weeds
The broadleaf weeds that are potential turfgrass pests and that require monitoring and control by golf course personnel are listed in Table 3. In addition to managing turfgrass weeds, weed management is required for ornamental shrubs and plants. All areas are monitored weekly for the presence of weeds problematic for the respective areas.
29 Other miscellaneous broadleaf weeds that are found mostly in the rough can be treated with applications of triclopyr + clorpyralid.
A description of the individual areas and measures used to control weeds located in these areas follows:
11.4.1. Turfgrass The standard means of controlling broadleaf infestation will be to optimize turfgrass health through standard maintenance practices. Selection of well-adapted turfgrass cultivars in combination with proper cultural practice, fertilization, irrigation, insect and disease control produces a dense vigorous turfgrass that optimizes resistance to colonization by broadleaf weeds. If maintenance practices are not completely effective, the first approach to broadleaf control will be mechanical removal (i.e., hand pulling).
11.4.2. Ornamentals Broadleaf and grass weeds in ornamental areas will be controlled primarily by mechanical means (hand pulling). In addition, mulches such as bark dust will be used to control weed populations. Herbicides that can be used are pre-emergents or glyphosate, which is a non-selective post-emergent that could also be used for weed control.
11.4.3. Trees Weed and grass control around the trunks of trees in turfgrass areas is essential to protect trees from damage resulting from mowing, trimming equipment, and rodents.
Cultural Control: Weeds around the bases of trees are controlled primarily by a combination of mechanical means (hand pulling and string trimmers). Caution is used when using string trimmers to prevent damage to the bark of trees. Mulch material is used around newly planted trees. Herbicide Control: Periodic spot-treatments with herbicides during the spring and fall are occasionally necessary to control growth of weeds around the bases of trees. Typical treatment options include oxadiazon and glyphosate.
30 11.5. Insects
Turfgrass areas are most vulnerable to damage from insect infestation, and the two insects most likely to cause turfgrass damage include cutworms and the European crane fly. Monitoring for insects will consist of routine visual inspection of susceptible areas on a weekly basis. General turfgrass cultural practices leading to optimal turfgrass vigor are the primary means of minimizing the potential for insect infestation. If cultural practices are ineffective at preventing damage thresholds for a specific pest from being exceeded, the selective use of biological agents and/or insecticides will be employed. Rotational strategies will be employed as necessary to reduce insect resistance to specific products.
A description of specific insect pests, symptoms of infestation, and corresponding control measures follows:
11.6. Aquatic
Monitoring of the streams and ponds on the golf course will consist of visual inspection of these areas on a daily basis. The optimal condition is to have zero aquatic pests. As a result, early detection of aquatic pests is very important, and corrective action will be engaged as soon as evidence of these pests is recognized. Application of aquatic pesticides should be done only after review of currently applicable regulations.
11.7. Algae
Algae growth (black algae) is of concern primarily for turfgrass located on greens and tees and is caused by ’Symploca spp. or Oscillatoria spp.. A description of conditions favoring algae growth, symptoms of the presence of algae, and specific control measures follows:
Growth Conditions and Symptoms: Conditions favoring algae growth include shaded areas with poor drainage, reduced air movement, and compacted soil. Symptoms of "black algae" include the appearance of dark brown-black growth over the soil surface and plant crowns that may look like oil spots. Cultural Control: Preventative cultural and fertility practices are the primary means of controlling algae on turfgrass. Techniques include improvement of soil drainage, maintenance of balanced turfgrass fertility, the loosening of compacted soil, and providing more light to turfgrass via pruning of trees and shrubs.
31 Chemical Control: Temporary chemical control can be realized by the application of wettable sulfur or mancozeb.
11.8. Moss
Maintenance practices on greens can create an environment that can be favorable for the infestation of various moss species, including silvery thread moss (Bryum argenteum), which is the species most commonly detected. Moss species in greens may require different control methods than species commonly found in other turfgrass areas.
Growth Conditions and Symptoms: Conditions favoring moss growth include low mowing heights, frequent irrigation, and low nitrogen fertility. Cultural Control: Control measures include raising mowing heights when possible, improvement of turfgrass fertility, and adjusting irrigation to optimize drainage and prevent over-watering. Chemical Control: Products showing varying levels of moss control include ferrous sulfate, copper hydroxide, and salts of fatty acids.
11.9. Noxious and Invasive Weeds
Noxious weeds represent a serious environmental problem, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) has assigned considerable resources devoted to noxious weed control. While typically not a management problem for turfgrass, a wide variety of noxious weeds have the potential to colonize peripheral and out-of-play areas. As a result, scouting and monitoring for the presence of noxious weeds does occur as a matter of routine management activity. A complete listing of noxious weeds identified by the ODA is located at the on-line address listed below: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/weed_listcommon.shtml and information regarding King County Noxious Weed Control can be found on the King County website at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/weeds.
In the event that a noxious weed is identified, the following control measures are engaged.
32 Cultural/Mechanical Control: Weeds and roots are removed by hand pulling, plant material is placed in bags, and bags are placed in dumpsters. Removed plant material for noxious weeds is not composted, and frequent mowing prior to seed production is used when practicable. Herbicide Control: Chemical spot-treatment may be required to eradicate noxious weeds. Treatment options include 2,4-D + triclopyr or glyphosate.
33 12. Pesticides Specifications
After cultural, mechanical and biological options have been exhausted or when thresholds have been exceeded, pesticides will be used as described in this section.
A pesticide is any substance that is used to control pests including insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), and fungi (fungicides). The mechanism of action of most pesticides is to eliminate the pest by suppressing, weakening, or eradicating the target pest.
12.1. Pesticide Use Determination
The ideal pesticide is highly potent (requires minimal application), is target-specific (is safe for non-targeted species), and is compatible with the environment. While these properties are ideal and pursued by pesticide manufacturers, the degree of cross-toxicity and environmental compatibility in pesticides approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency can vary considerably. As a result, if avoidable, pesticides will not be used. In the event that pesticide application is necessary, pesticides will be applied according to the label.
The primary strategy for pest management as defined in this IPM Plan is to optimize turfgrass vigor through maintenance practices to optimize turfgrass resistance to, or tolerance of pests. In the event that maintenance practices do not maintain pest populations below damage thresholds, biological/chemical controls will be considered when necessary. Pesticides applied to control pests will be selected by the superintendent based on their safety, efficacy, economic impact, toxicology, and environmental compatibility. In addition, the superintendent will monitor developments in pesticide research and development; and incorporate the use of newly developed, tested, and improved pesticides approved by EPA where appropriate.
12.2. Current Practice
In certain instances the use of pesticides for pest management is unavoidable.
The pesticides that have potential for use at San Geronimo Golf Course are shown in Table 5. To minimize the development of disease resistance, pesticides with different mechanisms of action will be rotated as frequently as practical and necessary. In addition, if pest resistance to these agents does develop, or if unanticipated circumstances arise, the superintendent may use alternative EPA approved pesticides as required.
34 Table 5.
Pesticide Selection for Potential Application
Buffer Natural Spot Active Ingredient Product Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Ponds Zones Areas Treatments Fungicide: Iprodione √ ------√ Mancozeb √ ------√ PCNB √ ------√ Propiconazole √ ------√ peroxyacetic Acid √ ------√ Bacillus Subtilis √ ------√ Buffer Natural Spot Active Ingredient Product Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Ponds Zones Areas Treatments Plant Growth Regulator: Ethephon √ ------Trinexapac-ethyl √ ------Buffer Natural Spot Active Ingredient Product Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Ponds Zones Areas Treatments Herbicide: 2,4-D - √ √ √ - - - - √ Carfentrazone-ethyl - √ √ √ - - - - √ Clopyralid √ √ √ √ - - - - √ Clopyralid + - √ √ √ - - - - √ Triclopyr Dicamba - √ √ √ - - - - √ Dithiopyr - √ √ √ - - - - √ Glufosinate - √ √ √ - - - - √ Oryzalin - √ √ √ - - - - √ Quinclorac - √ √ √ - - - - √ Triclopyr - √ √ √ - - - - √ siduron ------Buffer Natural Spot Active Ingredient Product Greens Tees Fairways Rough Ornamentals Ponds Zones Areas Treatments Insecticide:
Table includes pesticides currently being used. Other registered pesticides may be rotated into the program as well as newly developed products.
35 12.3. Formulation
Multiple pesticides are used for specific purposes based on the Superintendents first hand knowledge and practice. A total of 8 aquatic pesticides formulations, 7 fungicide formulations, 14 herbicide formulations, and 3 growth regulators.
12.4. Application
All pesticides will be applied by personnel properly trained in the safe application of these agents. Applicators will wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate for the pesticide being applied. All pesticide application equipment will be properly calibrated prior to the addition of the pesticide formulation to the equipment and application to the golf course. Mobile spill response equipment and safety equipment will accompany applicators during the application process.
The areas of the golf course requiring pesticide application will be specifically defined by the superintendent. Whenever possible, applications will be selective and limited to localized, targeted areas to minimize the amount of pesticide being applied.
If necessary, pesticide delivery in buffer zones will be carried out by hand with directed, low volume, single wand sprayers, or drop spreaders. No pesticide spray applications will occur if wind speed is above 5 miles per hour or if wind direction or activity will carry pesticides toward, or deposit them upon open water.
12.5. Clean Up and Disposal
Pesticides are cleaned up and disposed of based off of manufacturer recommendations.
12.6. Pesticide Documentation
All pesticide purchases and usage will be documented in a pesticide logbook as a means of monitoring inventory control. Pesticide application information recorded will include date of application, location of application, type of pesticide applied, rate of application, weather conditions, and the identity of the applicator(s). In addition, current pesticide labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will be compiled and maintained in a location accessible to all employees. All pesticide documentation will be in accordance with federal and state regulations.
36 13. Facilities Description Descriptions of the building, storage areas, and other pertinent areas at the San Geronimo Golf Course are described below.
13.1. Maintenance Building The maintenance building is located near holes 4, 5, and 6. This building is where the irrigation control station is located as well as where most equipment is stored. It is also where fertilizer and fuel is located. The area also acts as the mechanical shop.
13.2. Mechanical Shop Refer to Section 13.1 13.3. Equipment Storage Refer to Section 13.1 13.4. Fertilizer Storage Refer to Section 13.1 13.5. Pesticide Storage Pesticides are stored legally based on manufacturer recommendations.
13.6. Petroleum Fluid Storage and Disposal
All oils, solvents, lubricants, and antifreeze are stored in dedicated storage. Used fluids are stored in separate containers appropriate for the fluid type. Used fluid containers are labeled with the identity of the used fluid. Used fluids are disposed of according to state and federal regulations.
13.7. Fuel Depot Refer to Section 13.1 13.8. Equipment Wash Area Equipment is washed and cleaned according to manufacturer recommendations near the maintenance building and yard.
37 13.9. Pesticide Mixing Area Refer to Section 13.1
38 14. References
1. A Guide to Integrated Control of Turfgrass Diseases. Volume I. Cool Season Turfgrasses. 1993. L.L. Burpee (ed.). GCSAA Press. Lawrence, KS. 2. Best Management Practices. City of Seattle, Department of Parks and Recreation. 3. Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation. 1993. King County Environmental Division. Seattle, WA. 4. Color Atlas of Turfgrass Diseases. 1997. J. Beard (ed.). Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Chelsea, MI. 5. Compendium of Turfgrass Diseases, Third Edition. 2005. R. Smiley, et. al. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 6. Controlling Moss on Putting Greens. 2002. T. Cook and B. McDonald. Turfgrass Management in the Pacific Northwest, Vol V, No. 1. 7. Environmental Stewardship Guidelines. 2000. Oregon Golf Course Superintendents Association. Sisters, OR. 8. Environmental Stewardship Guidelines. 2nd Edition (Draft). 2008. OGCSA, EnviroLogic Resources, Inc., Portland, OR. 9. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Management. 1998. N. Christians (ed.). Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Chelsea, MI. 10. Golf Course Maintenance Standards for Seattle Municipal Golf Courses. 11. Habitats on Seattle Public Lands, Seattle Urban Nature Project, 1st Edition, September 30, 2000. 12. IPM Handbook for Golf Courses. 1998. G. Schumann, P. Vittum, M. Elliott, and P. Cobb (eds.). Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Chelsea, MI. 13. Oregon Pesticide Applicator Manual. A Guide to the Safe Use and Handling of Pesticides. 1998. Oregon State University Extension Service. Corvallis, Oregon. 14. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Control Handbook. 1998. J. Psheidt and C. Ocamb (eds.). Extension Services of Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University of Idaho. 15. Pacific Northwest Insect Control Handbook. 1998. G Fisher, J. DeAngelis, C. Baird, R. Stoltz, L. Sandvol, A. Antonelli, and E. Beers (eds.). Extension Services of Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University of Idaho. 16. Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook. 1998. R. William, D. Ball, T. Miller, R. Parker, J. Yensih, T. Miller, C. Eberlein, G. Lee, and D. Morishita (eds.). Extension Services of Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University of Idaho. 17. Pest Management Policy. 2001. Portland Parks and Recreation. Portland, Oregon. 18. Pesticide Use Policy. 1999. City of Seattle. 19. Pesticide Use Reduction Strategy. 2002. City of Seattle. 20. The Standard Pesticide User’s Guide. 1997. B. Bohmont (ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
39 Upper Saddle River, NJ. 21. Tree Management, Maintenance, Pruning and/or Removal Policy, City of Seattle, Department of Parks and Recreation. 22. Tri-County Integrated Pest and Vegetation Management Guidelines. King County, August 12, 1999. 23. Turfgrass Culture in the Pacific Northwest. 2000. T. Cook. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 24. Turf Management for Golf Courses. 1982. J. Beard (ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
40
APPENDIX E CDFW FRGP Grant Requirements
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan E-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL E. CDFW FRGP Grand Requirements
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan E-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL
FRGP Grant No.P1130411
Maximizing Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations at the San Geronimo Golf
GRANT REQUIREMENTS
(SCOPE OF WORK)
TASK 1: Develop a Plan (with chapters for each lettered sub-task, except as noted), working directly with golf course owners and/or their representatives that provide detailed strategies, feasibility and prioritization to:
A. Identify locations for restoring and re-creating floodplain habitat consistent with golf operations; B. Identify locations and develop conceptual plans for restoring and re-creating riparian forest, consistent with golf operations; C. Identify and develop conceptual plans for all locations for installation of large instream woody debris; D. Identify and develop conceptual plans and evaluate all salmon barriers and obstacles to migration not yet evaluated and prioritize their removal E. Develop a storm management plan and develop conceptual plans for the 2.5 million gallons of annual storm run-off from buildings and parking lots located in two adjacent areas; F. Develop a water conservation program and develop conceptual plans incorporating information from E and F (above); G. Prepare a plan for eradication of invasive species (bullfrogs, bass, bluegill, and the aquatic plant parrot-feather in golf course ponds); H. Develop an integrated pest management plan to minimize pesticide, chemical, and fertilizer use.
Subtask (2A & B): Identify locations for restoring and re-creating floodplain and riparian habitat consistent with golf course operations. Working with golf course owners, the contractor, golf course landscape architect, grounds superintendent, maintenance staff, and SPAWN biologists, DFG Sr. Environmental Scientist and/or Biologists, and NOAA Fisheries Biologist, will:
• Prepare maps of current and historical floodplain areas on the property; • Conduct field site inventory to determine what areas are currently out of play and could be restored to riparian and floodplain habitat; • Conduct meeting to review maps and conditions to discuss possible golf course design changes to current play areas that would allow additional give-backs; • Determine conceptual designs and estimates of costs for floodplain give-backs; • Write chapter draft report for consideration of owners listing agreed upon recommendations; • Conduct second meeting with landowners to discuss results; • Meet with FRGP Grant Manager, DFW Biologist, NOAA Fisheries Biologist
Subtask (2C): Identify needs, prioritize sites, and develop conceptual plans for installation of large instream woody debris;
• Survey streams with Contractor and SPAWN biologist to identify number of instream large woody debris on SGCC; • Determine need of instream large woody debris on SGCC; • Determine prioritization of instream large woody debris sites; • Develop conceptual designs of instream large woody debris on SGGC; • Develop preliminary costs of instream large woody debris on SGCC.
Subtask (2D): Identify and develop conceptual plans and evaluate all salmonid barriers and obstacles to migration not yet evaluated and prioritize their removal.
Subtask (2E): Develop a storm management plan and develop conceptual plans for the >2.5 million gallons of annual storm run-off from buildings and parking lots located in two adjacent areas.
• Map current impermeable surfaces; • Determine precise estimate of stormwater runoff; • Determine current flow patterns from stormwater runoff; • Develop conceptual plans for managing runoff; • Write draft chapter report; • Conduct meeting with landowners to discuss results of 2E.
Subtask (2F): Develop a water conservation program and develop conceptual plans incorporating information from E and F.
• Review water use at the golf course; • Develop recommendations for golf watering operations to minimize water use; • Develop recommendations for water conservation at non-irrigation operations (at the golf course, club house, etc.) • Determine and if feasible, develop strategies for capturing stormwater run-off for use in golf operations non-potable water uses through roof and parking lot water capture and storage.
Subtask (G): Prepare a plan for eradication of invasive species (bullfrogs, bass, bluegill, and the aquatic plant parrot-feather in golf course ponds).
Conduct pond surveys for invasive species; determine if ponds are seasonally connected to the creek. Conduct literature review and interviews to determine best methods for eradication and/or control; Determine feasibility of success; Estimate cost of implementation; Write draft report; Conduct meeting with golf course owners/representatives to discuss results.
Subtask (H): Develop an integrated pest management plan to minimize pesticide and fertilizer use;
• Determine current usage and policies of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers at SGGC; • Conduct literature review and interviews of golf course in the region using IPM, no- pesticide and fertilizer policies of other golf courses; • Estimate costs to implement an IPM; • Write draft IPM policy for golf course; • Meet with SGGC owners to discuss results; • Determine feasibility of success; • Estimate costs of implementation; • Write draft plan for control; • Meet with SGGC owners to discuss draft before finalization for report chapter.
APPENDIX F Comments and Responses to Draft Report
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan F-1 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL F. Comments and Responses to Draft Report
This page intentionally left blank
Coho-Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan F-2 D121008.00 San Geronimo Golf Course June 2014 FINAL Comment and Response Matrix for the Draft Coho-Friendly Habitat And Operations Plan for the San Geronimo Golf Course (November 7, 20013) Comments and Responses Compiled by: ESA PWA, Restoration Resources & SPAWN Comments provided by: Robert Lee, Jennifer Kim, Barry Mueller, San Geronimo Golf Course, (SGGC); Gail Seymour, CDFW; Todd Steiner, Preston Brown, Alex Hearn, Salmon Protection And Watershed Network (SPAWN); Gregory Andrew, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD); Jean Berensmeier, San Geronimo Valley Planning Group (SGVPG); Participants in the December 2013 Stakeholder Meeting
Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed
1 Page 2-14, 2.5.2, paragraph Current revegetation actions are located near the 5th tee rather than the 6th tee as stated in the Draft SGGC ESA PWA Edit made X 4 Report 2 Page 2-7 The text describing the practice of pumping the irrigation ponds should be revised to better reflect actual SGGC ESA PWA/RR Text revised. X practices: Water is not pumped during the winter months. In early spring water can be pumped from Pond 4 to Pond 8 through the irrigation system. This provides an opportunity to save on purchased water and utilize what is already present onsite in the ponds. 3 Figure 3-9 The riparian buffer zone expansion should be revised as follows: No widening near the narrowest part of SGGC ESA PWA Edits made X the fairway (at the 150 yard marker); Revise such that the bunker at the 10th hole is not modified; The limit should be shown closer to the existing vegetation in most locations. Provide a dimension for the width to be widened. 4 Figure 3-9 Widen the vegetation maintenance area limits SGGC ESA PWA The vegetation maintenance area limits were widened. X 5 Figure 3-9 Don’t show the riparian buffer expansion extending over the cart path at Hole 15. Don’t show any SGGC ESA PWA The figure was revised to exlude the cart parth near Hole 15 X expansion downstream of the Hole 15 bridge. 6 Figure 3-9 Move riparian expansion line to edge of native riparian SGGC ESA PWA The riparaian expansion zone was reduced and is shown only in two locations. X
7 Figure 3-6 Strike Remove from the callout shown as "Remove/Relocate Structures" SGGC ESA PWA Edit made X 8 Table 4-2 The table should be revised to reduce the total impervious area shown to include only the golf course SGGC ESA PWA The table was revised as well as the text in Section 4.2.3 to reflect a % of X property. If the county roads and Sir Francis Drake Blvd are to be presented, they should be separate imperviou area for the golf course that is 5.4% rather than 8.4%. This lower from the golf course total. The total impervious area for the golf course should not be higher than that for estimate does not include any of the adjacent county roads or Sir Francis Drake the overall watershed Blvd. The area estimates were based on areas digitized using GIS and are summarized in Table 4-2. 9 Figure 4-1 The upland buffer is in the County right of way. Add a statement that coordination and planning with the SGGC ESA PWA The following was added to the figure for the Sir Francis Drake Area X County would be required to implement this component Improvements: "Note: Additional coordination and planning with Marin County is required for these enhancements." 10 Figure 4-2 The cistern should be relocated from the lawn area. Is it possible to use the water captured in the cistern SGGC ESA PWA The cistern was relocated to the north side of the clubhouse. Additional X for the community garden project located near the east end of the parking lot? The lawn areas adjacent planning(to determine head, piping, etc) is required to determine if and how the to the club house are used for special events and will need to be maintained in their current water collected in the cistern could be used for the community gardeg project. configuration (maintained grass). The #1 green is labeled as #9 tee, edit to be correct. The lawn areas were removed from the figure and the #1 green label was corrected. 11 Figure 4-3 The overflow infiltration meadow is currently used for golf practice and will need to be maintained as SGGC ESA PWA The following was added to the figure for the : "Note: Inundation would be X such, requiring it to be mowed. This could be a recycled water pond location in the future but would need temorary only." to be moved closer to the existing tree line. 12 5.1.6.2 Change remove all or most lawn areas to remove [some] lawn areas SGGC ESA PWA Edit made X 13 5.1.7.1 The sidewalk and driveway areas are ok, but other landscaped areas are needed for special events SGGC ESA PWA Comment Noted. No Action X
14 Table 6-1 Clarify the table such that the Golf Course is not responsible for implementing the actions included in the SGGC ESA PWA Added row on top "Project Category", to be consistent with the sections of the X table, specifically the Golf Course operations heading. As it reads, the table seems to imply that the report. Added "Note: All project types and potential project actions are assumed potential actions related to operations and management will fully be the responsibility of the golf course. to be a collaborative effort based on San Geronimo Golf Course initiative and identified funding sources." 15 General Provide a statement that clearly states that costs are recommendations only and that outside funding will SGGC ESA PWA Text added to last paragraph of section 1.1 to indicate that "costs are provided for X likely be used. reference and planning only and additional outside funding sources will likley be used for implementation of recommended actions." 16 On page preceding table of Acknowledge the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries Restoration Gail Seymour ESA PWA The following text was added to the page preceeding Table of Contents: " X contents Grant Program. Funded by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries Restoration Grant Program" to the page preceding the Table of Contents.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-1 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 17 Page 3-3; paragraph 1; last Where is there riparian canopy with sufficient width … ? Gail Seymour ESA PWA Additional text was added to Section 3.1 to specify locations that could support X sentence riparian enhancements. These are primarily located on the north bank of Reaches SG1 And SG2 as well as some locations on the south bank near the upstream end of SG2 and just downstream of the maintenance bridge.
18 Page 3-25 Regarding channel spanning LWD weir structure; might not be permitted if CA Fresh Water Shrimp Gail Seymour ESA PWA The following text was added to Section 3.2.4: "Design for channel-spanning weir X (FWS)and/or habitat are present. structures would incorporate criteria for California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica). It is noted that installation of channel-spanning weir structures could be limited or ultimately not recommended, based on species life cycle criteria and needs, if California freshwater shrimp and or habitat are present. Pre-project surveys should be conducted to evaluate habitat and presence of California freshwater shrimp and to inform design and construction methods."
19 Page 3-25; last paragraph “… ultimate benefit of LWD addition by itself, without subsequent widening of the channel, is Gail Seymour ESA PWA Section 3.2.4 was revised to include the following: "The installation of LWD as an X questionable.” Considering drought conditions/climate change, lack of summer rearing habitat and isolated enhancement measure will provide site-scale complexity and habitat enhancement of overall habitat complexity will become keystone limiting factors along with lack of high value and can create pockets of high flow refugia. Specifically, given flow refugia. Consider that LWD addition without subsequent widening of the channel is essential. uncertainties related to climate change, drought conditions, limited and degraded summer rearing habitat installation of large wood and other in-channel structures or features could prove to be beneficial within the existing system. Incorporation of other channel enhancement actions with large wood structures will optimize function and value in terms of habitat and cost benefits."
20 Page 3-28; Table 3-4 Explain why only a max of 8 pieces of LWD and two spanning structures (depending on presence of Gail Seymour ESA PWA The number of structures are recommended in order to increasethe density X FWS) are recommended in total for reaches SG1 , SG2 and SG3. Explain why only a max of 4 pieces based on guidance from NMFS. However, the densities cited by NMFS were not are recommended for reaches L1 and L2. Per NMFS criteria, “6 – 11 key pieces per 100 meters of necesarily used as a firm criteria for this project. The location and type of LWD channel would be considered good.” structures were based on observed LWD in the two channel systems with intent to maintain, enhance and increase the overall number of LWD within the project study reaches. Physical and operational constraints as well as impacts to the golf course were also considered in estimating the number and location of the new LWD structures. Based on the operation of the golf course and physical setting of the course and streams, it is not considered feasible to install the number of LWD structures to meet the NMFS criteria.
21 Page 3-29; Salmonid Barrier Include summary of the barrier at Roy’s Pools. Although this may be addressed if a grant is awarded to Gail Seymour ESA PWA A brief description of Roy's Pools was added to Section 3.3. Text is included in X Assessment develop a design to remediate this barrier, a description of the barrier condition should be included in the report to identify bedrock expressions that could pose temporary barriers this feasibility study. during low flows. These locations are also shown on Figures 3-16 and 3-17.
Include any dry reaches during summer rearing that prevent juvenile migration ??? 22 Page 5-4; paragraph 1; Does SGGC divert any water from Larsen Creek for golf course operations? Does it draw from any Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR The sources of water are onsite runoff and purchased water from MMWD. The X sentence 1 wells? golf course does not draw water from any wells. The golf course has a permit to capture up to 20 acre-feet of flow from Larsen Creek within the pond at the 18th hole.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-2 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 23 Page 5-4; paragraph 3 Are surfactants toxic to fish and wildlife? Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR The following text was added to Section 5.1.3 to address the potential impact of X surfactants to fish and wildlife: "SGGC has already implemented management practices and changes to the irrigation system to help reduce water use. One such practice is the use of surfactants or wetting agents to help with even distribution of irrigation water by reducing the surface tension of water to help with reducing localized dry spots due to hydrophobic soils that often lead to over watering of larger areas. Over watering can also have detrimental ecological impacts due to potential increased runoff, some of which may carry traces of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides. Currently SGGC applies a wetting agent twice, three weeks apart, in early spring on all greens, approaches, and collars and once in the spring on all tees. Wetting agents, if used improperly, can have toxic and ecologically damaging affects to fish and waterways. The potential effects of the current wetting agent SGGC employs is unknown; however, SGGC currently follows all manufacturer recommendations for application methods and rates and it is unlikely that the current practice poses a threat to the adjacent waterways. It is recommended that a soil analysis be done to verify that any slow infiltration is indeed due to hydrophobic soils. It is also recommended that SGGC review the toxicity of the current wetting agent used and possibly discontinue use if soils are not considered hydrophobic or switch to a more ecologically sensitive product if one is available."
24 Page 5-9; paragraph 1 Water conservation strategies only include those discussed with the SGGC superintendent and those Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR Water conservation strategies presented in the report represent comprehensive X that will provide the best cost benefit for the course at this time. This is a feasibility study to look at the alternative actions. These alternatives were passed through the golf course benefits to both coho salmon and SGGC. This report should include all options that would be beneficial superintendent in order to test for feasibility within the confines of the golf as this to coho salmon as well as the SGGC. A comprehensive assessment should include all feasible options. study is specifically defined by the limits of the golf. The conservation strategies presented are intended to reduce water usage and provide ancillary benefit to coho habitat. In addition, the previous studies (SEP) provide broad recommendations for water conservation within the watershed. Addtional text was added to SEction 5.1.6 to indicate potential benefits to coho by reducing demand for water purchased from MMWD that could be discharged into San Geronimo Creek (at the discretion of MMWD operations). These benefits are potential basin-wide benefits rather than specific to the golf course based on flow augmentation opportunities by others.
25 Page 5-14; paragraph one This report should explain how the water conservation plan will result in increased flow in San Geronimo Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR The following was added to Paragraph 5.1.1 "TThe water used on the golf course X and Larsen creeks. This should be quantified. for irrigation originates from two sources: 1) local runoff and capture in the ponds What are all the sources of “raw water” ? The creeks? wells? and 2) raw water purchased from MMWD. This includes the permitted capture of water within the pond at the 18th hole from the upper Larsen Creek watershed (up to 20 acre-feet per year). (personal comm. B. Mueller). No water is withdrawn from San Geronimo Creek nor is any groundwater pumped for use in irrigation practices."
Quantification of potential increases to flow in San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks would require additional analysis and planning beyond the scope of this study. It can only be assumed that any reduction in water used by the golf course represents potential increases in water supply to the creeks. The golf course does not utilize water from wells onsite or directly from the creeks. The raw water is sourced solely from MMWD.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-3 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 26 Page 5-17; 5.1.8 Conclusion “For further research in developing a more comprehensive Water Conservation Plan, Restoration Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR X This section of the report was developed for the SGGC to use the information Resources suggests that golf course management personnel utilize other resources such as the “best and recommendations as a Water Conservation Plan. The golf course has Management Practices (BMPs) Water-use Efficiency/Conservation Plan for Golf Courses..." already begun to evaluate and implement some of the recommended water conservation measures. This study provides several options for continued This feasibility study should include a comprehensive Water Conservation Plan. evaluation and implementation but these decisions will need to be made by the SGGC based on their operations, management, and planning as well as stated Explain how the recommendations will directly benefit coho salmon. This report states that the reduction potential impacts and benefits to the riparian habitat and specifically anadromous of water usage will “benefit the surrounding natural environment by increasing the native landscaping salmonids. This will also require addtional research and refinement to the Water footprint…” Is current water usage not affecting coho salmon and other aquatic species? Conservation Plan and select resources are provided for the SGGC to use over time. This feasibility study is being funded by FRGP which is exclusive to habitat restoration for anadromous salmonids. Essential but secondary, per FRGP is benefit to the landowner/stakeholders. The following text was added to SEction 5.1.8 to address the benefits of the Water Conservation Plan to habitat restoration for anadromous salmonids "As the golf course continues to implement the recommended water conservation measures mentioned in this section, ecological benefits to salmonid habitat will be increased as a result of: additional native revegetation buffer zones that will provide an increase in biological production and presence of supporting species (food web); water quality improvements due to reduced chemical (herbicides and fertilizer) use, reduction of chemicals and water reaching the creeks as a result of overwatering, and enhanced bio-filtration of runoff through increased native vegetation buffer areas. Additional ecological benefits also include increased infiltration capacity and overall resilience of the riparian corridor."
Addtionally, Table 5-2 summarizes the water conservation measures, associated benefits to habitat and operations, cost and benefits, and current status of implementation. A decision tree for determining when a conservatoin measure is needed and how to evaluate a measure follwing implementation is included as Figures 5-4 and 5-5. 27 Page 5-17, 5.2 Integrated Should include list of currently used pesticides and herbicides and their effects on coho salmon and Gail Seymour RR A list of substances used at SGGC for pest control was added to the report as X Pest Management Plan other native aquatic species. Alternative products that are less toxic/harmful/lethal should be Appendix C. The appendix categorizes the chemicals into Aquatic Pesticides, recommended. Vertebrate Control, Fungicides, Herbicides, and Growth Regulators. Each chemical listed includes the following information: chemical name, active ingredient, salmonid toxicity, and recommended alternative.
28 Page 5-41, 5.3.6.1 Recommendation to eradicate bullfrogs should occur every year? Gail Seymour SPAWN The following text was added to Section 5.3.6.1 to specify the recommended X Management frequency of bullfrog erradication: "Bullfrog eradication is best achieved by Recommendations for Golf thorough and intensive actions and periodic control or management that does not Course Ponds achieve eradication will not result in lower bullfrog populations over time (Doubledee et at. 2003; Govindarajulu et al. 2005; Snow and Whitmer 2012). Bullfrog control and management could be done on an annual basis but only as a way to temporarily reduce bullfrog numbers and should not be looked at as a solution to long-term population eradication or control. " Monitoring will be conducted annually with eradications occuring based on an established threshhold limit, determined by the monitoring.
29 Page 6-1; paragraph four; …cumulative benefits to: peak flow reduction; erosion and sediment control; water quality; habitat Gail Seymour ESA PWA Water quantity and instream enhancements were added to the last sentence of X Summary and complexity and continuity. the paragraph in Section 6.1. Recommendations Why isn’t water quantity/instreamflow enhancement included? The following are grant agreement tasks that were not addressed in this draft report: Gail Seymour
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-4 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 30 1.(Subtask 2E) Identify and develop conceptual plan alternatives to permitted diversion of water from the stream Gail Seymour ESA PWA It was confirmed by SPAWN with CDFW that this requirement was not included X and wells that may be impacting stream flows; Review current permitted Stream and Well in the Statement of Work for the Final grant agreement and thus was not included Withdrawals contracts; analyze potential impacts to stream flows and functions; develop as part of this study. See also response to Comment #22 above. conceptual plan alternatives; write chapter draft report for consideration of owners listing agreed upon recommendations; conduct meeting with landowners to discuss results of 2E, F & G (see below).
31 2.(Subtask 2F) Develop a storm management plan and develop conceptual plans for the >2.5 million gallons of annual Gail Seymour ESA PWA Flow patterns were mapped based on LiDAR topography data for the Stormwater X storm run-off from buildings and parking lots located in two adjacent areas. Map current impermeable Management analysis and are presented on Figures 4-1 to 4-3. surfaces; Determine precise estimate of stormwater runoff; Determine current flow patterns from stormwater runoff; Develop conceptual plans for managing runoff; Write draft chapter report
32 3.(Subtask 2G) Develop a water conservation program and develop conceptual plans incorporating information Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR See response to comment #26. X from E and F (above); review water use at the golf course; develop recommendations for golf watering operations to minimize water use; develop recommendations for water conservation at non-irrigation operations (at the golf course, club house, etc.); determine and if feasible, develop strategies for capturing stormwater run-off for use in golf operations non-potable water uses through roof and parking lot water capture and storage.
33 4.(Subtask H) Prepare a plan for eradication of invasive species (bullfrogs, bass, bluegill, and the aquatic plant parrot- Gail Seymour ESA PWA/ Comment noted, no action. X feather in golf course ponds); conduct pond surveys for invasive species; determine if ponds are SPAWN seasonally connected to the creek; conduct literature review and interviews to determine best methods for eradication and/or control; determine feasibility of success; estimate cost of implementation; write draft report; conduct meeting with golf course owners/representatives to discuss results.
34 5. (Subtask I) Develop an integrated pest management plan to minimize pesticide and fertilizer use; determine Gail Seymour ESA PWA/RR An IPM Plan was developed using a readily available online tool from X current usage and policies of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers at SGGC; conduct literature www.greengolfusa.com with review and input from the SGGC course review and interviews of golf course in the region using IPM, no-pesticide and fertilizer policies superintendent. The IPM Plan is based on current managemetn practices and is of other golf courses; estimate costs to implement an IPM; w draft IPM policy for golf course; initially developed to provide a maximum environmental benefit, to the extent meet with SGGC owners to discuss results; determine feasibility of success; estimate costs of practicable. The IPM is included as Appendix D of this report. implementation; write draft plan for control; meet with SGGC owners to discuss draft before finalization for report chapter.
35 General In addition to comments below, we would like all of the work products for our records, which could be SPAWN ESA PWA The requested information will be provided to SPAWN upon completion of the X included in a version just for us or could be included in appendices for the report for public consumption. Final Report. This would include historical maps you have located, GIS layers you have prepared, records and photos of LWD you have identified, etc. Compiling this document for us might preclude some comments below abut bigger maps and images, etc. 36 General Please provide All references in one section, that are organized alphabetically, and not by chapter. SPAWN ESA PWA The reference section was revised to be a single section organized X alphabetically. 37 Page 1-1. Introduction Sentence, “SPAWN and the SGGC have worked together on previous habitat improvement projects SPAWN ESA PWA The suggested text was added X Paragraph 3 including invasive plant removal, enhanced fish passage, floodplain restoration, and bank stabilization”. Please include “in-stream habitat enhancements” (LWD) into this passage. 38 Page 2-1. Background Not written yet. Please provide a history of the land before the golf course was built. SPAWN ESA PWA This section was completed and renamed "Physical Setting and Land use History X Section 2.1 Historical of the San Geronimo Valley" Setting 39 Page 2-1. Background Please provide a map that shows the San Geronimo Valley, highlighting the tributaries to the San SPAWN ESA PWA An additional figure was added showing the San Geronimo Valley Watershed X Section 2.2 Geomorphic Geronimo Creek. Also, in the last sentence, please say, “ coho [salmon] and steelhead [trout].” with primary Tributaries. The map was obtained online at Setting www.marinwatersheds.org. 40 Page 2-2. Section 2.2.1 San Please include a map of the historic floodplain for the SG creek. This can be added at the appendix. SPAWN ESA PWA An historic (1952) aerial photogrpah that predates the golf course was added as X Geronimo Creek, Paragraph Figure 2-3 1 41 Page 2-2. Reach SG1, and Are there man-made, easy to identify structures that separate the reaches? If not, provide GPS SPAWN ESA PWA Table added to end of Section 2.2 that defines reaches by physical locations and X Reach SG2 coordinates that separate the reaches. Also include the length of the reaches. includes lengths.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-5 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 42 Page 2-5. Reach SG3 Please include some spawning data from MMWD that justifies that this reach has “a number of SPAWN ESA PWA/ The following text was added "MMWD spawning data indicated that in 2004- X spawning redds”. We need to quantify it. Also include length of this reach and GPS coordinates that SPAWN 2005, a total of 57 coho redds were observed in San Geronimo Creek between define this reach. Roy’s Pools and the confluence with Woodacre Creek. This accounted for over 65% of all the coho redds in the San Geronimo Creek, and over 11% of all the coho redds in the entire Laguniats Creek Watershed (Ettlinger et al. 2005). This has been the most ever observed in the watershed since population monitoring began in 1983." The reach lengths were added in Table 2-2 at the end of Section 2.2.3. 43 Page 2-5. Section 2.2.2 Are there historic maps that show the creek to compare historic setting vs. current setting with erosion SPAWN ESA PWA Historic USGS maps are included in the report dating back to 1914. How does X Larsen Creek, Paragraph 1 and bank failure? this information support this study. Suggest reference to the SEP or ECR? An historical aerail from 1952 was located that predates the golf course and the current alignment of SFD. THis image was added as Figre 2-3
44 Page 2-7 Section 2.3 TYPO “…from several Ponds on the golf course (Figure 2-5) (need period here). San Geronimo…” SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Hydrologic Setting, First Sentence 45 Page 2-8 Figure 2-5 Can we make these images bigger? SPAWN ESA PWA The figure was split into two separate figures to improve clarity of the images. X
46 Page 2-10. Section 2.4.1 Last sentence, “After approximately one year and six months in the ocean, adults migrate upstream to SPAWN ESA PWA Text was added "This reproductive strategy is referred to as semilparity." X Lagunitas Coho and their birth locations to spawn and die”. This describes Semelparity, please include this term. Steelhead, Paragraph 2 47 Page 2-10. Section 2.4.1 Last sentence, “One distinct difference…from the ocean”. This describes iteroparity, please include this SPAWN ESA PWA Text was added "This reproductive strategy is referred to as iteroparity." X Lagunitas Coho and term. Also misspelled Steiner in reference, and cannot find (Pincetich, Bouley, Steiner 2008) in Reference edited and added. Steelhead, Paragraph 3 reference section. 48 Page 2-10. Section 2.4.1 Cannot find (Catham 2009) in reference section. Sentence 3, “Given the complexity…factors such as SPAWN ESA PWA This was a typo and should be referencing Chatham Prunuske, 2010 Salmon X Lagunitas Coho and habitat loss [water diversions], stream channel alteration. Please add “water diversions”. Last sentence, Enhancement Plan. Steelhead, Paragraph 4 “These two reservoirs have reduced the available salmonid spawning habitat in the LCW by approximately 24%...total miles of coho spawning habitat from 85 miles to 35 miles ”. Is this correct? Thought it was more like 40-50%. PLEASE CHECK ALL REFERENCES
49 Page 2-11. Figure 2-6 Can we make the resolution on this map sharper to improve the graphics? SPAWN ESA PWA Native images in finer resolution were not available. X 50 Page 2-11. Last Paragraph TYPO, “In addition, the large amount [of] impervious surfaces…” SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X
51 Page 2-12. Last Sentence Please change “…between 10% and 50% of redds surveys were located on the mainstem San SPAWN ESA PWA Comment noted, Added text: "Spawning on the tributaries to SGC is highly X Geronimo Creek and typically less than 10% of the total coho redds were located on tributaries to San variable and based on spawning numbers and water year conditions. The data Geronimo”. This has been true for recent years with amazingly low numbers of spawning adults. But, in presented in Figure 2-8 represents a snapshot of recent spawning redd data. It is years with lots of spawning (with numbers that we need exceed regularly to have for a stable population important to note that the tributaries have historically provided critical spawning and to recover the species) 50% of all spawning in the LCW happens in the SG Valley and 50% of those habitat for the population." spawning adults spawn in the SG tributaries (i.e. 25% of total). Recovery will not occur w/o protection of these tributaries, so we do not want to downplay their importance.
52 Page 2-14 2.5.2 Past and Please site the information on the Roy’s Pools’ fish ladder in 1999 to Todd Steiner’s op-ed. Steiner, SPAWN ESA PWA Citation added. X Current Restoration Todd. 1999. For the Fish Roy’s Dam to Roy’s Pools. Opinion-editorial in Marin Independent Journal, Projects, Paragraph 2, first October 3, 1999. sentence 53 Page 3-1. Riparian and Please provide SPAWN with the historic USGS topo maps dating from 1914 to 1978. These don’t have SPAWN ESA PWA The requested information will be provided to SPAWN upon completion of the X Floodplain Habitat to be included in the report; we would just like copies of them. Final Report. Assessment 54 Page 3-6 Section 3.1.1.1 Third Sentence; “There is limited opportunity to widen the riparian buffer…” Please include here that SPAWN ESA PWA Text added: "However, widening the riparian area by even small amounts can X San Geronimo Creek Reach widening the riparian area by even a little can have significant benefit to the stream. Because it is so have significant benefit to the stream. Because the buffer is so narrow in places, SG1 thin currently , in places widening by just 5 feet may double or increase width by 50% providing widening by 5 feet could increase the width by 50% to 100%, providing significant significant habitat value. habitat value." 55 Page 3-19 Section 3.2.3 TYPO; “Currently, the existing LWD is functioning…store available gravel [,] though in general…” SPAWN ESA PWA Edited as follows "store available gravel. In general…" X LWD Presence and Location in Project Area, third paragraph
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-6 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 56 Page 3-24 TYPO; First paragraph, “For example, flat, still-like…deep pool downstream [, whereas] pieces that SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X were…” 57 Page 3-24 Section 3.2.4 Please provide a quantitative value indicating the stream habitat complexity as a result of the key LWD SPAWN ESA PWA Table 3-3 was updated to include additional information obtained during the LWD X Recommended Actions pieces. Also, please provide GPS coordinates of all Key LWD structures in Larsen and San Geronimo reconnaisance survey. Additional information includes: Structure type, number of Creeks. Also, please provide pictures of the existing LWD Structures in SG and Larsen Creeks. pieces, and log diameter(s)
58 Page 3-28 Table 3-4 LWD Please include the GPS coordinates for all reaches of Larsen and SG creeks where you’re suggesting SPAWN ESA PWA Request noted. The proposed LWD features were not field located with GPS. X Opportunities and LWD structures be placed. Constraints 59 Page 3-25; last paragraph “… ultimate benefit of LWD addition by itself, without subsequent widening of the channel, is SPAWN ESA PWA/ Refer to response to Commets #19 and #57 X questionable.” SPAWN The level of detail being requested is beyond the scope of this analysis and We disagree with this statement and in fact believe that LWD structures are even more important report. The report provides conceptual level designs that have been implemented because of so few opportunities to widen the channel in SGV. While widening channel is probably the in Marin and Napa Counties with typical design drawings and corresponding best way to create low velocity refuge for juvenile salmonids, the current “limiting factor” hypothesis for photographs of installed structures. coho recovery in the watershed, LWD creates at least some refuge for juvenile coho. It is my understanding that CA F&W will be placing a high emphasis on this type of instream enhancement in The location, number, and type of LWD structures will be refined as part of an their funding program. advanced design analysis. The key pieces recommened in this report are intended to increase density, (without adding so many structures that the Thus in addition to modifying this statement, we would like better analysis of the amount of wood in each conveyance capacity of the channel is adversely impacted), and to be consistent reach and how this compares with recommendations found in the literature, etc. We would also with golf course activites and operations. welcome very specific recommendations about each structure you are recommending (from those found in CA F&G Habitat Restoration manual), and the function for each. Ideally, we will get specific drawings that could be used to apply for implementation funding (these do not need to be completely engineered drawings to meet F&W needs, but they need some level of detail.
60 Page 4-1. 4 Stormwater Third paragraph, “This analysis presented in this stormwater management plan is largely qualitative,” SPAWN ESA PWA Quantification of total runoff from the site would require analysis more advanced X Management Plan. Section –Why can’t this be quantitative? Providing some idea of current vs. projected runoff totals and overall than the feasibility analysis presented in this report. While estimation of existing 4.1 Background impact would be useful here. site runoff from specific areas would provide current conditions, the opportunity to reduce this flow rate or volume is largely dependent upon goals and criteria that have not been identified or established by the golf course. This study presents methods for the golf course to evaluate in developing a stormwater management plan without attempting to quantify specific flow or volume modifications. Quantitative runoff estimates should be utilized to inform the design of stormwater feature be implemented during future design phases.
61 Page 4-1. 4 Stormwater Fourth Paragraph, “…approximately 10% of the watershed is covered by impervious surfaces…” Please SPAWN ESA PWA The following text was added "Within the 100ft Stream Conservation Area in the X Management Plan. Section indicate that within the 100ft Stream Conservation Area, this value is much higher than 10% (see info in San Geronimo Creek and Larsen Creek watersheds, this value is typically higher 4.1 Background ECR by Stillwater). Please include that value here if GIS data is accessible. than 10% (Stillwater, 2009). GIS information was not obtained as part of this study. 62 Page 4-1. 4 Stormwater Fifth Paragraph. NOT TRUE Please delete, “Though habitat quality for salmonids and water quality is SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Management Plan. Section relatively good in San Geronimo and Larsen Creeks”. Just begin with, “Several deficiencies have been 4.1 Background identified in previous studies…” LAG Creek is Impaired for pathogens, nutrients and sediment and SGV is major source of these. High fecal coliform (way above allowed levels for safe swimming) is regularly found in SG Creek 63 Page 4-2 Creating a fix grammar; “Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used…and street [s]weeping to Low Impact SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Stormwater BMP Toolkit, Design…” First paragraph 64 Page 4-2 Section 4.2.3 BMP Second sentence; Please fix the % of impervious surfaces to not include County roads. 8.4% is too high. SPAWN ESA PWA See response to Comment #8 above X Selection, First Paragraph
65 Page 5-2 Section 5.1.2 Site, Typo; “The SGGC does not currently have or utilize [an] onsite…” SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Location, Climate, and Water Demand, Paragraph two
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-7 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 66 Page 5-2 Section 5.1.2 Site, “ The average rainfall is approximately 35.5 inches…” This is not consistent with other references of SPAWN ESA PWA The average annual rainfall was revised to be 44 inches as stated in the ECR. X Location, Climate, and rainfall totals. Please check this fact. Water Demand, Paragraph one 67 Page 5-3 Section 5.1.2 Site For the estimated Etc., please give an estimate for the whole year, and estimate the monthly surplus/ SPAWN ESA PWA/RR Table 5-1 was added to Section 5.1.2 to present the monthly Etc, precipitation, X Location, Climate, and deficit based on the best available data. and irrigation at the golf course as monthly estimates based on data from 2012. Water Demand, Paragraph Additional text was included to describe the tabulated estimates and how they five may be used and interpreted. 68 Page 5-4 Section 5.1.3 Paragraph two and three; Please state explicitly how exactly SGGC gets its raw water from MMWD, and SPAWN ESA PWA The average annual amount of waer purchased from MMWD is included in the X Current Irrigation Program how much they purchase throughout the year. second paragraph. Figure 5-1 was revised to clarify how water is received from and Practices, Paragraph MMWD and how it is moved within the golf course irrigation system, whiic is also two and three described in paragraph 3 of Section 5.1.3. See also Section 2.3 for revisions to the discussion of how water is moved throught the site.
69 Page 5-5 Figure 5-1 Please provide a paragraph thoroughly explaining this schematic. SPAWN ESA PWA/ RR Figure 5-1 was revised to clarify how water is received from MMWD and how it is X Irrigation pond and Piping moved within the golf course irrigation system, whiic is also described in Schematic Layout paragraph 3 of Section 5.1.3. See also Section 2.3 for revisions to the discussion of how water is moved throught the site. 70 Page 5-7 Section 5.1.5 TYPO; “Due to the age of the system and the potential…upgrades are recommend[ed] for SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Existing Irrigation Equipment implementation…” and Potential Upgrades, Paragraph two 71 Page 5-9 Section 5.1.6.1 Capitalize These Headings. Also, Bullet point no. 2, TYPO “It is recommended that…plant palette for on SPAWN ESA PWA Edits made X Reduction in irrigated turf go[i]ng replacement…” areas 72 Page 5-19 Section 5.2.2.1 Please provide more information regarding seasonality and abundance/ level of problem on course for SPAWN ESA PWA/ RR Currently the golf course addresses pest control actions on a case by case X Current SGGC Target Pest all plant, animal, and insect pest species. occurrence which is identified by frequent inspection of course conditions. The Species golf course does not currently record and track this information and thus it is not available to include in this report. However, one key component of the IPM Plan (Appendix D) is a detailed monitoring protocol for all identified target pests, including tracking and reporting both occurrences and actions taken.
73 Page 5-23 Section 5.2.2.2.4 Please provide a list of specific chemical pesticides being used, the quantities they are being applied, SPAWN ESA PWA/RR See response to comment #27 X Chemical and for what pests they are used to control. Provide any information of how these chemicals are known to affect native salmonids. Are these levels lower, avg or higher than recommended doses? Are their “better” alternatives? Please provide some analysis of specific alternatives that could be used.
74 Page 5-21 Section 5.2.2.2 TYPO, “…All pest management control…course superintend[ent].” SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Current SGGC Control Practices, Paragraph seven
75 Page 5-24 Section 5.2.3.2 The current IPM Plan does not meet the requirements of the grant. Please develop and IPM plan SPAWN ESA PWA/ An IPM Plan was developed using a readily available online tool from X Recommended Plan Outline specific to the SGGC instead of a Recommended Plan Outline. All the contents that are included in the SPAWN/RR www.greengolfusa.com with review and input from the SGGC course subsequent sections under the Recommended Plan Outline should be developed and included in this superintendent. The IPM is included as Appendix D of this report. IPM Plan specific for the SGGC. 76 Page 5-26 Section 5.2.3.3 “…Outline lifecycle…preventative measures.” Should this section not be included here and instead be SPAWN ESA PWA The actions listed in this section are future management actions to be taken X SGGC IPM put into the previous IPM plan? when updating the IPM Plan rather than actions needed to develop an IPM Plan. Recommendations for See also response to comment #34. Future Management Actions First bullet point 77 Page 5-26 Section 5.2.3.3 “Establishment of damage thresholds…” Again, this seems more appropriate to include in the IPM plan SPAWN ESA PWA See response to comment #76 X SGGC IPM and not the considerations for future treatments. Recommendations for Future Management Actions Second bullet point
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-8 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 78 Page 5-30 Section 5.3.3 TYPO, “…The golf course has not…but have attempted..” Be constant, change “have” to “has”. SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X Status of Invasive Species at Golf Course Ponds; Paragraph one 79 Section 5-3 Invasive SPAWN Will Provide Revisions and Changes to the Invasive Species Management Plan, so please SPAWN SPAWN SPAWN provided revised text edits which were incorporated into the document. X Species Management Plan funnel all comments on this plan to Preston Brown
80 Page 7-1 Section 7 Please include references from sections 1 & 2 on this page. SPAWN ESA PWA Edit made X REFERENCES 81 Additional Requests and Please provide GIS shapefiles for all field data collected for the development of this draft plan. SPAWN ESA PWA The requested information will be provided to SPAWN upon completion of the X Comments Final Report. 82 Additional Requests and Please provide large copies of all maps and figures to SPAWN. SPAWN ESA PWA The requested information will be provided to SPAWN upon completion of the X Comments Final Report. 83 Additional Requests and For the LWD analysis and recommendations Please indicate which LWD pieces or elements you SPAWN ESA PWA This study did not specifically rely on the CDFW Manual for definition of structure X Comments recommend for each reach of stream, and provide a brief analysis of their function in regard to the types and function. Specific structure type and function requires additional CDFW LWD Installation Guide. analysis that is not part of this scope. Suggest adding table to text or Figures 3-14 and 3-15 that includes structure type, function and potential location (by reach). It is recommended that any efforts to obtain funding for advanced design or implementation through FRGP should include specific reference to the the CDFW structure types. Section 3.2.4 was revised to relate the structures described in this report to those in the CDFW manual as well as identify primary differences. 84 Additional Requests and If possible, Please provide some semi-engineered, quantitative plans for recommended LWD elements, SPAWN ESA PWA See response to Comment #59 X Comments grading, or riparian enhancement. 85 Section 2.4.1 – Lagunitas Some of the text does not seem to match up with the % of coho redds shown in Figure 2-8: there Gregory ESA PWA The text of this section was revised to clarify statements related to the number of X Coho and Steelhead appears to have been about 10% to 28% of coho redds in the San Geronimo tributaries, not typically Andrew coho redds observed in San Geronimo Creek and its tributaries. The previous less than 10%; and there appears to have been about 25% to 35% in the San Geronimo main stem, not graph was replaced by a more current grapsh from the the MMWD 2011-2012 10% to 50%. Spawner Report.
You may prefer to use the more current and longer spawning data set as presented in our 2011/2012 spawner report, available online: http://www.marinwater.org/documents/MMWD_Spawner_Report_2011_2012.pdf
This and other reports, including our 2011 Lagunitas Creek Review and Evaluation Report 1997 – 2009, are available on the Lagunitas Creek page of our web site: http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=691 86 Section 2.5.2 – Past and Roy’s Pools should really be characterized as a partial fish barrier so as not to give the impression it Gregory ESA PWA Text added: " This structure is currently identified as a partial passage barrier." X Current Restoration Efforts blocks fish migration (spawning salmonids were observed upstream of the old dam prior to the Andrew construction of Roy’s Pools); this would be consistent with Section 3.3 and Figure 3-16,which identifies Roy’s Pools as a partial barrier. 87 5.3.6.1 Management The suggestion here is to pump the ponds and the plan describes placing grates over the intakes of the Gregory ESA PWA/ The text was revised to inlude" small mesh covers over the intake and outflow X Recommendations for Golf pumps to prevent fishes, tadpoles, and plant material from being transported into Larsen Creek or San Andrew SGGC/ SPAWN valves of the pumps with pores no larger than 5mm to prevent red-legged frogs, Course Ponds Geronimo Creek. I strongly suggest careful consideration to this, if it is implemented, as there could be fishes, tadpoles, and bits of parrot’s feather from being unintentionally pumped problems arising from pumping and grates alone may not be sufficient to prevent spreading and out of the ponds and transported into Larsen Creek or San Geronimo Creek. introducing invasive species into the creeks. While pumping may be an effective way to remove invasive Every effort will be made to ensure that no invasive species are allowed to species, it would be prudent to consider additional safeguards for this operation. escape the ponds during this process."
88 General The San Geronimo Valley Planning Group continues to support this study pursued by SPAWN in Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X partnership with the SGV Golf Course. We envision a planning document – a guidance document – that Berensmeier will improve salmonid habitat and the Golf Course thru direct enhancement action and management strategies. The PG has observed and is grateful for past SPAWN/Golf Course projects that included invasive plant removal, enhanced fish passage, flood plain restoration and bank stabilization. In addition, the PG appreciated the invitation to participate in the kickoff meeting and site walk. It allowed us to discuss and get a hands on view of the key elements (habitat and management strategies) of the proposed study.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-9 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 89 General We note and are pleased that ESA PWA used the 2009 science based Existing Conditions Report Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X prepared by Stillwater Sciences and the 2010 Salmon Enhancement Plan (SEP) prepared by Prunuske Berensmeier Chatham, Inc. as key information for their Habitat and Operations Plan. The SEP was supported by the PG and accepted by the Board of Supervisors as a Guidance Document. It is also noteworthy that the SEP is written and organized in a manner that makes it highly readable for the general public. These two documents have been invaluable as a basis for seeking grants that resulted in projects completed by Marin Dept. of Public Works, Marin Parks Dept, SPAWN, and the partnership of Marin DPW, the PG and Univ. of Cal Extension for the Landowner’s Assistance Program (LAP).
90 Section 3.1 Riparian and Historical maps, aerial photos and the Stillwater Science report on Existing Conditions show that there is Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X Floodplain Habitat very little flood plain area that is not golf course or private property. The PG would not support Berensmeier Assessment recommendations that would require grading that would widen the channel and negatively impact the play of the golf course. That said, we agree and support the Plan’s recommendation to remove invasive species, maintain and enhance native riparian species that will improve riparian buffer widths and install LWD. These improvements would support rearing and high flow refugia needs. It is clear that improving the riparian habitat in SG 2 and Larsen Creek 1 would be of significant benefit to the fish but any recommendations must be placed on hold until we learn of the outcome of the DF&W grant application to return Roys Pools to a natural channel. In addition, while these would be significant improvements for the fish we find the cost very high.
91 Section 3.2 Large Woody ESA PWA studies of LWD indicate that existing LWD densities are less than “good.” Although they are Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X Debris Assessment retaining spawning gravel and provide pool habitat there is little to no high flow refugia because of Berensmeier channel confinement. Although the consultants list three possible LWD enhancement projects we agree with their observation that without widening the channel (not recommended) the benefit of adding LWD is questionable. It appears that for the time being we need to rely on nature’s provision of LWD but mindful of its possible flood impacts on the golf course and on private property. Clearly, more study is needed on the factor(s) that may be actually “limiting salmonid productivity and viability” within the Plan reaches. 92 Section 3.3 Salmonid Barrier It was interesting to learn that despite the confinement of narrow channels by existing bedrock, culverts Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X Assessment as well as other factors - that studies show that there are generally no velocity barriers within the project Berensmeier reaches. Consequently, the consultants are not recommending modification or removal of bedrock at Larsen Creek or the culvert at North Fork Larsen Creek and we agree. We also believe that future hydraulic studies of the channel are needed to better determine future actions.
93 Section 4 Stormwater We have all learned that concentrated impervious surfaces carried forward from an age of uncaring and Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X Management Plan lack of knowledge has created major problems. BMP (Best Management Practices) tool kits are now Berensmeier common. We are appreciative of the Plans approach to introduce this as a “conversation.” Ten treatments and costs are discussed. Three areas, the Club House and parking lot, SF Drake and Golf Course driveway and the Maintenance Yard are presented as the best opportunities for treatment and peak flow control. The down side is the prohibitive costs. We were pleased to observe confirmation that the Golf Course owners are not only interested in what is good for their business but what is good for their business AND the environment in both the short and long term.
Table 4-5 and pages 4-11 and 4-12 are invaluable. This information allows the golf course superintendent to consider tweaking the current maintenance schedule and slowly include small budget items to address run-off problems created by impervious surfaces.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-10 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 94 Section 5.1 Water Water wars are already a part of our global history and how to conserve and manage it is critical. The Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X Conservation Plan Plan’s commendable approach is to first describe/study the Golf Course’s ornamental landscape areas; Berensmeier irrigated turf areas, irrigation equipment and system upgrades and alternative reclaim water supplies. It includes examples of restoration, revegetation and conversion in both small and large areas as well as the costs. Clearly, the issue will require a major study that this Plan’s budget doesn’t allow for. The Plan’s conclusion is to urge the Golf Course personnel to utilize other resources that they list. They feel that further studies and consultation could lead to a Water Conservation Plan for the Golf Course that would reduce costs associated with water use.
95 Section 5.2 Integrated Pest The consultants studied the Golf Course’s pest management practices noting that they include multiple Jean ESA PWA See response to Comment # 27 above. X Management Plan control strategies to help limit and eradicate target pest species that includes invasive and undesirable Berensmeier plants in the irrigation reservoirs and ponds. The Steering Committee would like to know what fungicides and pesticides are currently being used? Current management practices are on a “routine” basis or implemented on an “as needed” basis by the superintendent. The Golf Course does not have an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Plan. The objective of this section of the study is to “provide enough information for management personnel to develop an IPM working document that can be used to guide future pest management activities and enhance efficiency while managing costs and environmental risks.” The PG agrees and notes that it took several years for the county to gradually change from a similar scenario to a long term bona fide IPM plan that eventually saved time and money and managed, or eliminated, environmental risks.
96 Section 5.3 Invasive The biological and ecological complexity of invasive species at the Golf Course ponds require Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X Species Management Plan consideration of numerous scenarios for treatment that deals with bullfrogs, bullfrog tadpoles Pacific Berensmeier tree frogs, western pond turtles, musk rats, newts, large mouth bass, black crappie and parrot’s feather. And treatment must also take into consideration the time of year and weather including rain or heat. Clearly, managing invasive species is not only complicated but demands a real time commitment and ongoing monitoring to resolve. 97 General The PG is impressed with the Draft Plan and supports it. The consultants were wise to build their study Jean ESA PWA Comment noted. X on a strong foundation of already completed studies that have proven their worth. They studied each Berensmeier issue in its setting and made a variety of recommendations or described scenarios to address simple as well as complex problems. Assessments were candid and costs were included. The Plan is not intended to be viewed as requirements but as suggestions or scenarios or a starting point for consideration of future projects.
Importantly, much of the information provided is applicable to many stretches of San Geronimo Creek and its tributaries. The PG looks forward to this Plan joining the 2009 Existing Study and 2010 Salmon Enhancement Plan creating a packet of science based documents that will help agencies and organizations seek grants to improve fish habitat conditions for our native coho and steelhead trout while respecting businesses and residences that share the fish’s home. 98 General I was somewhat disappointed by the section in the plan relating to avifauna. Not only was the section Phil Nott Jennifer Kim Contrary to what is written in the last sentence, Barry Mueller, our Superintendent X vague and incorrect, it failed to identify the benefits of the plan to both migratory and resident bird has been given different information by those who clean, renovate and/or populations. Please consider the following comments and let me know that you have received and read reposition the boxes. I believe it's still The Hungry Owl Project that continues to them: maintain the 10 blue bird boxes on our property. To my understanding, they've noted activity every year in the blue bird boxes on our golf course and Barry Restoration and subsequent management activities of the SGGC riparian corridor described in the reports their findings to the managers every year. SGGC_Coho-Friendly Habitat & Operations Plan (henceforth referred to as “the plan”) are likely to benefit bird populations, especially Neotropical migrants which are protected by Federal regulations under the Neotropical Migrant Bird Treaty Act (NMBTA). Dr. Phil Nott (author) and Jonathon Appelbaum
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-11 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment pg y() () pp Comment By: Response By: Response Closed (SPAWN) conducted an early morning survey (26 July, 2012) of riparian corridor adjacent to the sixth Barry Mueller About the boxes, Mari Litsky, does our monitoring for us. I believe I got her X and seventh holes. They recorded 22 species including seven Neotropical migrant species breeding name from HOP, but I do not believe she is representing HOP. I have sent her locally; the results of that survey are available as a report. Spring and summer time surveys in Roy’s an email to get the name of the group she belongs to as I do not remember it. If Redwoods (adjacent and North of the SGGC) conducted by eBird participants between 2011 and 2013 Mr. Nott examined only the boxes along San Geronimo Creek, then those are recorded 42 species, combining to a total of 47 species, excluding winter residents such as Ferruginous the boxes that SPAWN, in conjunction with a school, placed on the Course. Mari Hawk. does not monitor those boxes. She only monitors the boxes that we have put in under her guidance of where they should be. SPAWN has never talked to me At least six species, including Neotropical migrant species (e.g. Swainson’s Thrush, Black Pheobe) about monitoring, cleaning, or maintaining those boxes. I was actually thinking of breed in the riparian habitat and have specific nesting and foraging habitat needs. Attempts to restore removing those boxes as I know they are not being used. Out of the 15 boxes the natural vegetation structure with careful consideration of the canopy, sub canopy, shrub layer and Mari monitors, we had 55 bluebirds, swallows, and flycatchers that fledged this ground cover should benefit these species. Reduction of pesticide use may also benefit local breeding year. bird populations, especially top predators such as owls and hawks that hunt throughout the golf course. In contradiction to the draft plan Nott and Appelbaum’s report notes that the bluebird boxes examined ESA PWA Comment noted. Section 3.1 of the report was revised to include reference to the X were not inhabited and recommends cleaning, renovation and/or re-positioning of the boxes. importance of ripaian habitat to birdss species as well as other species.
99 General I believe it's important to accurately depict the existing conditions in reports generated for the San Steve Tognini ESA PWA Comment noted. X Geronimo valley. These reports will be used by other entities when considering restoration work. Those future projects need to rely on reports that carefully reflect the rational for the various actions considered base on existing condition's in the project areas. I had hoped the input would be taken during the community meeting. 100 Page 2-10 States that the Lagunitas watershed had 125,00 coho and now there are 5000 coho. These numbers Steve Tognini ESA PWA Comment noted. X reference the Environmental Significant Unit (ESU) for the Central California coast (CCC) not the Lagunitas watershed. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has implemented a recovery plan that requires 866 adult coho return to the Lagunitas watershed each year. No one know the historic numbers for Lagunitas. We do know that half the watershed and 62% of Lagunitas creeks are behind dams so it could be surmised that two to three times as many fish could have existed in Lagunitas, but that is up for debate. 101 Page 4-4 Page 4-4 states that the golf course TIA is 8.4%. 8.4 TIA indicates that the golf course has significantly Steve Tognini ESA PWA See response to Comment #8 above X built out of the impervious surface which is not the case. The TIA for the San Geronimo Valley is listed at 5% in the Existing conditions report. An error in that report listed roads at 251 miles when there are roughly 36 miles. The DPW stated that this mistake would reduce the impervious area (300 acres) by 50 acres. That reduction in TIA did not consider that road width was calculated at 36 feet with sidewalks when the actual average road width is 18 feet without any sidewalks. That would add up to an additional 50 acres reduction in TIA It appears that County and State roads were added into the golf course TIA when these roads are not under the control or jurisdiction of the golf course. The roads will contribute to run off. The road TIA must be calculated separately from the golf curse TIA and then totaled in order to accurately reflect existing conditions at he golf course.
Please provide the data that was used to calculate TIA.
102 General In two locations the report indicates that Chinook spawn in the watershed and does not indicate that the Steve Tognini ESA PWA The text was revised to indicate that coho and steelhead are primarily present X watershed does not support a viable Chinook population. The report needs to indicate that Chinook are and to a lesser extent Chinook. infrequently seen in the watershed and not indicate that they exist in a similar fashion to coho or steelhead. 103 Page 2-7 Page 2-7 states that the San Geronimo creek flows year round. While technically true, the total flow of Steve Tognini ESA PWA Text added:"... flows year round, but is seasonally variable with the lowest flow X water at the confluence of Lagunitas creek can be as low as one tenth of a gallon of water per second during summer months." but is typically around one half a gallon per second at that spot during the Summer. The flow of water at the golf course would be much lower than that flow at the confluence and it is generally understood that the San Geronimo creek is a fill and spill creek in the Summer. The report must accurately describe Summer time flows. 104 Page 2-15 Page 2-15 seems to indicate that data exists regarding vehicle fluids, fecal bacteria and pesticides Steve Tognini ESA PWA This section of the report is describing the conditions of the larger Lagunitas and X produced by the golf course. While it might be true there is no data to support that conclusion. Please San Geronimo watersheds rather than just the golf course. This information was provide that data used to draw conclusions about golf course vehicle fluids, fecal bacteria and reported in the ECR and is cited here. pesticides.
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-12 June 2014 Comment No. Location in Draft Report Comment Comment By: Response By: Response Closed 105 Page 4-1 Page 4-1 indicates water temperature as a deficiency. The Existing Conditions Report states that in is Steve Tognini ESA PWA Comment noted. The report used published information contained in the ECR, X "unrealistic" to expect water temperature to be idea all year round, (I'm Paraphrasing here.) MMWD at a which is referenced. The additional information provided at the TAC meeting has TAC meeting indicated that Summer time water temperature conditions in the SGV were a function of not been found such that it can be referenced here. The statement about ambient air. If you are going to note high water temperature in the creek during the Summer then "unrealistic" or similar text was not found in the ECR as stated in the comment. reference the existing conditions report opinion regarding water temperature. The following text was added "These conditions vary throughout the year and are influenced by ambient air temperatures, seasonal runoff, and in-stream flow conditions." 106 12/2/2013 meeting "What is coho-friendly habitat" Stakeholder ESA PWA Response provided during community meeting. X discussion notes Meeting Q&A
107 12/2/2013 meeting Does the impervious surface calculation include Sir Francis Drake Blvd? If yes, this should be displayed Stakeholder ESA PWA See response to Comment #8 above. X discussion notes separately in Table 4-2 Meeting Q&A 108 12/2/2013 meeting There is an error in the published version of the ECR regarding the total impervious area for roads which Stakeholder ESA PWA Comment noted. Published final reports, including the SEP and ECR were used X discussion notes exaggerated the Total Impervious Area (TIA) by approximately 50 acres. The total impervious area for Meeting Q&A for this analysis. Updates to the previous calculations were not available or the San Geronimo Valley should be 5%. Suggest reviewing the previous studies and calculations used reviewed as part of this study. in this report to revise the impervious area presented in the Draft Report. 109 12/2/2013 meeting Chinook are present only occasionally in San Geronimo Creek. The text should reflect this condition and Stakeholder ESA PWA See response to Comment #102. X discussion notes that restoration and rehabilitation efforts are not focused on Chinook salmon. Meeting Q&A 110 12/2/2013 meeting What happens next at Roy's Pools? Stakeholder ESA PWA Currently awaiting FRGP funding decision for design and permitting of this X discussion notes Meeting Q&A restoration project. 111 12/2/2013 meeting What are the next steps following the completion of this study? Stakeholder ESA PWA Continue to work with SGGC to define potential projects and funding sources. X discussion notes Meeting Q&A 112 12/2/2013 meeting It was commented that more local game wardens are needed in California, which has the lowest Stakeholder ESA PWA Comment noted. X discussion notes percentage in the country. Meeting Q&A 113 12/2/2013 meeting Recommend bringing groups (Stewards, SPAWN, SGVPG, others) together in a round table format to Stakeholder SPAWN Comment noted. X discussion notes discuss opportunities for improving salmonid and riparian habitats in San Geronimo Valley on a more Meeting Q&A regular basis. This could result in a less costly approach using open meeting in lieu of litigation to resolve problems and identify shared goals. 114 12/2/2013 meeting Is it possible to see the analysis used to evaluate the FRGP grants and selection process Stakeholder Gail Seymour (at Yes, the information contained in the applications and criteria used to evaluate X discussion notes Meeting Q&A meeting) the applications are available for public review. Interested persons can contact Gail Seymour directly at CDFW to request the information.
115 12/2/2013 meeting Is this study assuming by inclusion of the recycled water pond as a component that this study is Stakeholder SPAWN Response provided during community meeting. The comment is not directly X discussion notes supporting that facility? Meeting Q&A related to this study. 116 12/2/2013 meeting What are the peak flow discharges from building, parking lot, impervious services within the golf course Stakeholder ESA PWA Peak flow estimates were not determined for individual impervious areas within X discussion notes property. Meeting Q&A the golf course. This analysis would be conducted as part of the conceptual design phase when more specfic project goals have been defined in relation to peak flow management. This study did evaluate the opportunity for treating runoff from the clubhouse area based on standard bioretention sizing methods. See section 4.3.1 for this discussion. 117 12/2/2013 meeting Landowner Assistance Program - what happened to this program? Stakeholder Gail Seymour (at The program is still in effect and CDFW has recently been working with two X discussion notes Meeting Q&A meeting) landowners under this program. However, it was determined that this is not a topic directly related to this study and Draft Report. 118 12/2/2013 meeting Did the study consider the use of artificial playing surfaces at the golf course in order to reduce water Stakeholder ESA PWA This study did not include consideration of artificial surfaces. Additionally, SGGC X discussion notes demands, fertilizer use, etc. Meeting Q&A does not intended to utilize artificial surfaces on the property. 119 12/2/2013 meeting Did the study include analysis and impacts of the constituents of surface water runoff from different Stakeholder ESA PWA This study was not intended to analyze stormwater constituents to this level of X discussion notes sources. Also did the study include analysis of the number of vehicle trips on the adjacent roadways and Meeting Q&A detail. golf course roads to quantify pollutant loads?
Coho‐Friendly Habitat and Operations Plan San Geronimo Golf Course F-13 June 2014