RDG
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING ON THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA
Introduction The North Richmond Shoreline stretches from Point San Pablo in the southwest to Point Pinole in the northeast. For the sake of this document, the shoreline is roughly bounded by the Richmond Parkway and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east and the deepwater shipping channel to the west. Between these points are approximately 550 acres of tidal marsh wetlands, 900 acres of inter‐tidal mudflats, the mouths of Rheem, San Pablo, and Wildcat Creeks, and 1,500 acres of eelgrass – approximately half of all the eelgrass in the San Francisco Bay.
The Shoreline is a major winter layover on the Pacific Flyway and provides habitat for endangered species and several species at risk. A year‐long bird census at three locations along the Shoreline identified 93 distinct species including the endangered California clapper rail, three recently delisted species, and six species on the Audubon Watchlist.1 The Shoreline also provides juvenile rearing habitat for Chinook salmon and Pacific herring.
Restoration Design Group, LLC
2612b Eighth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710 1 Golden Gate Audubon Society. 2010. A Census of the Birdlife at the North Richmond Shoreline. Survey does not T 510.644.2798 include passerine species. F 510.644.2799
As the City of Richmond and unincorporated county areas evolve ‐ building new roads, trails, infrastructure, and parks – there exist enormous opportunities to restore and protect key habitats along the shoreline. An early step in the restoration of the Shoreline is a coordinated plan that compiles data, documents the will of the community, prioritizes management actions, facilitates coordination between interested parties, and identifies next steps.
The Coastal Conservancy expressed an initial interest in funding such a plan and asked Restoration Design Group to estimate the likely scope and cost, identify key stakeholders, and generate interest in the local community. When the project was conceived and contracted in mid‐2008, it was imagined that a conservation plan would be funded soon after the scoping exercise was complete. Since then, State funding for conservation‐related projects has reduced significantly. Consequently, the scope of this project shifted away from generating community interest for an imminent conservation plan and toward identifying restoration opportunities, sources of information, and documenting the existing visions for the Shoreline. This document will serve as a reference for parties interested in restoring or funding restoration on the North Richmond Shoreline such as the Coastal Conservancy or trustee agencies involved in the Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program.
Existing Shoreline Visions A necessary step in any conservation planning is identifying the will of the community. Communities can be defined as communities of place (local communities) or communities of interest (stakeholders located elsewhere but with a substantive interest in the Shoreline). In the case of the North Richmond Shoreline, no official vision exists, but several independent efforts have documented the will of various communities.
Richmond General Plan Update The northern and southern ends of the North Richmond Shoreline are within the City of Richmond. The middle of the Shoreline is unincorporated Contra Costa County. The areas within the City of Richmond are subject to the land use planning of the City.
The Richmond General Plan Update process began in February 2006. In December 2009, the City released a revised draft of the General Plan for review. The draft includes goals, policies, and actions consistent with shoreline conservation and often qualified with the need to accommodate development.
Those relevant to the North Richmond Shoreline include:
GOAL CN1: Preserve and Restore Natural Habitat and Biodiversity Richmond should preserve and restore its abundance of natural habitat and associated range of plants and wildlife including wetlands, baylands, riparian areas, oak woodlands and other sensitive biological resources....The City should carefully balance
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 2
protection of natural lands, habitat and protection of multiple species with the need to accommodate development.
Policy CN1.1 Habitat and Biological Resources Protection and Restoration Work with public and private landowners to protect natural habitat and biodiversity and preserve biological resources. Identify areas for special protection and establish appropriate protection measures for these areas. Protect resources to the greatest feasible extent while encouraging sustainable development practices and conservation measures. Wetlands should be protected from direct and indirect impacts of new and existing development and infrastructure.
Marshes and baylands should continue to be protected to ensure they are not polluted or damaged from bay filling and dredging.
Action CN1.A Habitat Conservation Plans Consider working closely with other local and regional agencies to develop habitat conservation plans. Ensure that these plans identify locations and protect sensitive habitat including wetlands, marshes, baylands, creeks and open space.
Action CN1.B Priority Conservation Areas The City will identify areas of the City with significant natural habitat, open space and recreation resources and consider efforts to promote conservation, preservation and environmental rehabilitation.
Action CN1.E Habitat Restoration Plan Consider creating a work plan for restoring sensitive habitat that has been degraded and has potential for rehabilitation. This includes brownfield and contaminated sites. Seek funding opportunities from state and federal agencies and from nonprofit foundations for restoration and remediation work.
GOAL CN2: Conserve Open Space Conserving open space will ensure that Richmond’s expansive shoreline, vast network of parklands, trails, hillsides and undeveloped natural areas will remain viable in supporting biological communities and providing sanctuary for future generations. The City aims to conserve open space, expand public access to open space, where appropriate, and acquire additional lands where feasible.
Policy CN2.2 Richmond Shoreline Work with property owners, community representatives, and regulatory agencies to craft strategies that will conserve, protect and enhance natural and cultural resources along the Richmond shoreline.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 3
Promote a balance of uses along the shoreline that supports multiple community needs such as economic development, recreation, historic preservation and natural resource protection.
Protect and restore wetlands, native habitats and open space; develop shoreline parks and trails to increase public access; encourage recreation and tourism activities; and enhance and showcase historic and cultural resources. The City should also prepare to protect natural and built environments from adverse potential impacts of sea level rise due to climate change.
Action CN2.D Open Space Plan Consider developing an open space plan to enhance public open space in the City. Include strategies to preserve open space in the hills, along creeks and the shoreline and in the urban core. Collaborate with the East Bay Regional Park District and the National Park Service to manage and maintain facilities and programs at regional and national parks.
Applying these goals, actions, and policies to the North Richmond Shoreline will not be simple. Planning and zoning of the upland parcels near Breuner Marsh (referred to as South of Parchester in the General Plan Update) has generated conflict. As of the December 2009 draft, these parcels are identified as a “change area” or “planned area district” and some areas within them are identified as priority conservation areas. The planned area district designation essentially defers to the existing zoning for that area.
Recognizing that the General Plan Update may not resolve land use conflict in the area near Breuner Marsh, Richmond City Councilmember Jim Rogers convened a series of meetings with landowners, developers, local community members, and conservation groups in an attempt to generate a consensus vision for the area. Approximately twenty people met three or four times in the spring of 2009 but failed to agree on a vision for the area.
Given that neither the Richmond General Plan Update2 nor an outside process were able to resolve conflict over land uses on the North Richmond Shoreline, the opportunity exists for a Specific Plan or other similar planning process once the General Plan Update is complete. This is described in greater detail in the recommendation section.
2 The Richmond General Plan Update is not yet complete. On March 9 (after the date of this draft), the City will convene a special study session for the North Richmond Shoreline. This may modify the policies and recommended actions of the draft General Plan Update. This report will be updated to reflect any changes resulting from the March 9 meeting. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 4
Shoreline Academy’s North Richmond Shoreline Community Vision The North Richmond Shoreline Academy3 recently completed a community visioning exercise in Parchester Village and North Richmond. Through a series of design charrettes and community meetings, the Shoreline Academy posed the following questions: • What are the current features and assets that make the North Richmond Shoreline a great community resource? • Looking 20 years into the future ‐ what features and qualities would you like to see the Shoreline have? • What issues and concerns must be addressed for the Shoreline to maintain its positive qualities now and into the future?
Generally speaking, the vision of the community members who participated in the exercise was that the shoreline should be restored and protected to provide jobs, educational opportunities, a safe place to recreate, and a source of clean, healthy food.
The community envisioned the long‐term acquisition of shoreline properties from willing landowners and the conversion of that property to parks and open space. Many of these properties, particularly those near the mouth of San Pablo Creek are former baylands. Some, such as those near the mouth of Rheem Creek are primarily upland open space (parcel details are included in the Inventory of Restoration Opportunities below). Lands east of the Richmond Parkway should be improved to encourage economic revitalization of those neighborhoods.
There was a demand from the community members for higher quality park amenities than what is currently available in publicly accessible open spaces (specifically at the Landfill Loop Trail). The community specified that they would like to see the planned nature center at Point Pinole sited to overlook the North Richmond Shoreline.
The design charrette resulted in the following schematic.
3 The North Richmond Shoreline Academy is a project of the Natural Heritage Institute, Community Health Initiative, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Urban Creeks Council, and West County Toxics Coalition. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 5
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 6
Subtidal Habitat Goals Project Much of the North Richmond Shoreline is underwater (subtidal). Planning efforts on the North Richmond Shoreline should be consistent with the vision of the ongoing Subtidal Habitat Goals Project.
The Subtidal Habitat Goals Project is a collaborative effort to plan for the restoration and management of subtidal habitats in the San Francisco Bay. The project’s website describes its vision:
Over a 50‐year horizon, achieve a net improvement of San Francisco Bay subtidal ecosystem function through restoration, science and management. Net improvement includes: • Optimize the mix of subtidal habitats; • Increase native species richness and abundance; • Increase understanding of the physical and biological processes that affect subtidal habitats and species.4
Many practitioners designing tidal wetland restoration projects struggle to find adequate information to incorporate meaningful enhancements to the subtidal areas of their projects, and the issue of shoreline‐tidal‐subtidal connectivity is becoming increasingly pertinent in light of predicted climate change impacts, sea level rise, and the potential for increased scouring of wetland and shoreline edges. To date, habitat restoration projects have been implemented for single habitat types in San Francisco Bay, despite the fact that many species migrate between a suite of important habitats in the watershed and the bay. There is a need to better integrate subtidal restoration activities with adjacent tidal and seasonal wetlands, creek restoration projects, and upland parcels in order to build upon and expand critical wildlife linkages and successful habitat protection and restoration efforts in the bay area.
Central to the Subtidal Habitat Goals Project’s vision is the concept of a living shoreline. A living shoreline is one free of rip‐rap or other hard, unnatural edges. Rather, living shorelines are a gradual transition through several habitat types from upland, through marsh, mudflat, and subtidal zones.
Living Shorelines utilize a suite of bank stabilization and habitat restoration techniques to reinforce the shoreline, minimize coastal erosion, and maintain coastal processes while protecting, restoring, enhancing, and creating natural habitat for fish and aquatic plants and wildlife. This technique was coined with the term “Living Shorelines” because it provides “living space” for riverine, estuarine, and coastal organisms, which
4 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Subtidal Habitat Goals Project. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/shg/subtidal_habitat.shtml Accessed February 17, 2010. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 7
is accomplished via the strategic placement of native vegetation such as eelgrass, sand fill, organic materials, and reinforcing rock or shell for native oyster settlement.
The North Richmond Shoreline, particularly the area around Breuner Marsh, is one of the few areas in the East Bay with the potential to restore transitional habitats between subtidal, tidal marsh and uplands. Of equal importance is protecting the eelgrass beds on the North Richmond Shoreline. Nearly half of all the eelgrass habitat in the Bay is on the North Richmond Shoreline (as described in greater details later in this document).
The final report for the Subtidal Habitat Goals Project is due in November of 2010. The report will layout in greater detail the vision and restoration strategy for subtidal habitats in the San Francisco Bay including the North Richmond Shoreline. More information is available from Marilyn Latta, Project Manager, State Coastal Conservancy, 510‐286‐4157, [email protected] or online at http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/shg/subtidal_habitat.shtml.
Developer Visions Through various land use proposals, landowners and developers along the North Richmond Shoreline have presented their own Shoreline vision. Proposals have included residential, mixed use, and light industrial development on the parcels near the mouth of Rheem Creek (South of Parchester). Developers have proposed removing the open space zoning designations on their properties to maximize economic development.
While these are legitimate visions, the focus of this document is on opportunities to implement conservation and restoration projects on the North Richmond Shoreline. The findings and discussion that follow assume that the goal is to maximize restoration opportunities on the remaining open space along the Shoreline.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 8
Inventory of Restoration Opportunities The North Richmond Shoreline consists of over 170 parcels owned by over 40 parties. This dispersed landownership is perhaps the single greatest impediment to coordination conservation planning. The section below inventories the remaining open space (not including Point Pinole Regional Shoreline) including approximately 450 acres of upland open space, 500 acres of tidal marsh, 900 acres of intertidal mudflat, and 3,000 acres of subtidal lands.
Parcels Included in the Inventory of Restoration Opportunities
The section that follows describes the current habitats, opportunities for restoration, zoning, development plans (if any), barriers to restoration, and contacts for the parcels outlined in yellow above.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 9
Bird’s Eye View of the Breuner Marsh Area Looking East
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 10
Breuner Marsh
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Subtidal/Intertidal Mudflats Eelgrass/native oysters 90 Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh 15 Non‐native Grasslands Tidal Marsh 40 Non‐native Grasslands Coastal Prairie 43 Non‐native Grasslands Creek/riparian 5 Seasonal Wetlands ‐ 25 TOTAL 218
Site Description: For the sake of this document, Breuner Marsh refers to the 218 acres of land immediately south of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline that the East Bay Regional Park District acquired by eminent domain in 2006. Locally, when people refer to Breuner Marsh, they are often referring to the full 238 acres of land that include both the 218 acres of EBRPD land and an additional 20 acres still owned by Don Carr. We refer to these additional 20 acres as Breuner Creekside below.
The EBRPD exercised eminent domain and acquired the 218 acres in 2006 citing the property’s proximity to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline and its exceptional ecological values as public goods requiring protection. The previous property owners sued over the assessed fair market value the property and have appealed the jury decision. The lawsuit is ongoing.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 11
This publically‐owned site has the potential for considerable restoration. Nearly half of the property is open water. Eighteen acres at the northern extent of the property are filled tidal marsh, formerly part of Giant Marsh. The non‐native grasslands on the site have the potential to be restored to coastal prairie. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) identifies the site as habitat for black rail and San Pablo vole.
EBRPD has identified its restoration and public access goals for the site. The high priority goals include: restoration of 40 acres of tidal marsh (including sloughs) enhancing existing seasonal wetlands, enhancing transitional areas between ecological habitats, establishing a program to control feral animals, improving habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse, clapper rail, enhancing access for viewing the Bay, extending the Bay Trail, and establishing a 20 space parking lot. EBPRD has identified many other moderate and low priorities for restoration and public access as the site.5
The EBRPD expects the restoration to also include revegetation of the existing Rheem Creek channel (realignment is not possible with the private ownership of the Breuner Creekside parcel). One of the many challenges of restoration at this site will be determining the extent and nature of fill placed on the property over the past century. It is unclear yet whether this fill is clean or reusable.6
As of June 2009, the EBRPD had identified $3 million in funding for restoration from a tentative settlement of Castro Cove natural resource damage assessments, state and federal grant programs, and Measure WW bond funding. The EBRPD has indicated that the first phase of restoration is likely to occur in 2012 or 2013.
Status of Restoration: Preliminary design phase. The EBRPD requires additional funding. Though EBRPD has $3 million committed, an early cost estimate for all the marsh and creek restoration was closer to $7 million.
Contact: Brad Olsen, East Bay Regional Park District, 510‐544‐2622, [email protected]
5 EBRPD, 2010. Breuner Property Restoration and Public Access Project – Request for Proposals. February 19. 6 Brad Olsen, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal Communication. February 12, 2010 and February 25, 2010. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 12
Breuner Creekside
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Non‐native Grasslands Coastal Prairie 15 Non‐native Grasslands Creek/riparian 2.5 Seasonal Wetlands ‐ 2.5 TOTAL 20
Site Description: The term Breuner Creekside refers to the 20 acres of land (two parcels) in the south east corner of Breuner Marsh that remain in private ownership and are zoned for light industrial use.
Demgen and Robertson7 identified the site’s potential for creek restoration, the preservation of willow sausals, and enhancement for upland grassland nesting habitat for short‐eared owls and northern harrier. The site’s conservation value is enhanced by its proximity to EBRPD’s Breuner Marsh and the planned Bay Trail. Development of the site would include access across the EBRPD’s Breuner Marsh property. Access, construction activities, and the presence of cars, buildings, and possibly pets could impact and limit restoration on the adjacent, publicly‐owned Breuner Marsh property.
7 Demgen, F. and D. Robertson. 2009. North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area Restoration Opportunities and Constraints. October 13. (Document included as Appendix 1.) Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 13
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has expressed concern over the presence of the pesticide toxaphene on the site. Environmental samples indicated very low concentrations of arsenic.8 Fill used in the former Rheem Creek channel includes metal lead.9
Prior to the 1960’s era Army Corps flood control project, a channelized Rheem Creek flowed through the property and the former alignment is still visible in aerial photos. Four willow sausals currently grow on the property in the former channel alignment. The Rheem Creek Watershed and Conceptual Restoration Plan identified the opportunity to restore a meandering channel through this property that would then flow through the Breuner Marsh property and enter San Pablo Bay just south of the spit. See Appendix 2.
Restoration Challenges: The landowner has demonstrated that he is very interested in developing this site. Fill used in the former Rheem Creek channel includes metal lead. Excavations for a new channel will have to be subsequent to a complete clean up of the site. The current landowner is involved in a voluntary clean up of the site.
Contact: Stan Davis, Bay Area Wetlands, LLC, 925.432.8500
8 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. Parkway Transit Village. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=70000184 (Accessed on December 8, 2009) 9 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2008. Community Profile. Parkway Transit Village. Richmond, California, 94806. March. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 14
Murray Property
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Non‐native Grasslands Coastal Prairie 50 Seasonal Wetlands ‐ 4 TOTAL 54
Site Description: The Murray Property consists of three contiguous parcels owned by Murray Parkway Properties, LLC. Most of the 54 acres are zoned for light industrial use. Approximately 8‐10 acres, concentrated along the northern boundary with Breuner Marsh, is zoned for open space. The northern boundary of the property is approximately 100 feet from Rheem Creek.
The land is mostly non‐native grasslands currently used for grazing horses. The property includes a former stock pond (wetland) and other seasonal wetlands totaling four acres. Demgen and Robertson identified the potential for protection or enhancement of upland nesting habitat for short‐eared owls or northern harriers. The CNDDB identifies the site as habitat for San Pablo song sparrow.
The property has arsenic and phosphoric acid contamination from past industrial land uses. It is believed that the contamination is concentrated in the southern portion of the
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 15
site where bio‐remediation is ongoing. The southwest parcel has deed restrictions limiting the types of development.10
Restoration Challenges: The property is currently privately owned. The owner has expressed some interest in selling the property for open space. Soil contamination issues could complicate public acquisition of the site.
Contact: Dan Murray, Murray Parkway Properties, LLC, 415.435.3433, [email protected]
10 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. Stauffer Chemical Co. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=07280072 (Accessed on December 8, 2009) Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 16
Bird’s Eye View of the Panattoni Property Looking East
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 17
Panattoni Property
Site Description: The Panattoni property is east of the UPRR tracks but is included in this assessment because it is still open space and is hydrologically connected to the shoreline by Rheem Creek. The approximately 25 acre site is zoned for light industrial use and has an entitled development plan. The existing development proposal includes a modest restoration of Rheem Creek that will double the width of the creek corridor from 37 feet to 75 feet and plant native trees on the south side of the creek for shade. Though entitled, the development has been delayed by the sagging real estate market and access problems. Panattoni Development Company has indicated that the entitled development proposal is no longer economically viable. They do not expect to advance the project until 2011 when they may revisit and redesign the proposed development.11
Demgen and Roberston identified the site’s potential for creek restoration, an denhancement of upland grassland habitat for short‐eared owl and northern harrier.
The site is across the street from the former American Standard property, site of a Department of Toxic Substances Control mandated clean up. According to the DTSC, “it is suspected that material from [American Standard] was used to fill the former channels of Rheem Creek at [Panattoni] and adjacent low lying areas by the U.S. Corps
11 Jason Quintel, Panattoni Development Company. Personal Communication, November 30, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 18
of Engineers when they constructed the present channel. This fill material contained lead and zinc (most likely from glazes used at the [American Standard]).”12
Restoration Challenges: The property is privately owned. Soil contamination issues could complicate public acquisition of the site. Soil contamination issues need to be confirmed.
Contact: Jason Quintel, Panattoni Development Company, 916.381.1561
12 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. American Standard Products. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=07320035 (Accessed on December 8, 2009) Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 19
Bird’s Eye View of the Richmond Rod and Gun Club Looking East
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 20
Richmond Rod & Gun Club
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Upland development Coastal Prairie 20 Tidal Marsh ‐ 5 Subtidal/Intertidal Mudflats Eelgrass/native oysters 65 TOTAL 90
Site Description: The Richmond Rod & Gun Club (RRGC) is on the shores of the San Pablo Bay adjacent to Breuner Marsh, Murray Parkway, and Freethy. The mouth of Rheem Creek is 350 feet east of the property. The approximately 90 acre site consists of roughly 20 acres of upland uses associated with the RRGC, five acres of pocket tidal marshes, and the remainder intertidal mudflats and subtidal lands. The RRGC operates five skeet ranges, two trap ranges, and several rifle and pistol ranges. The skeet ranges are over water. The RRGC also uses the site for storage of trailers, boats, and duck blinds.
Between 1960 and 1993, the RRGC used lead shot at its skeet ranges. The Regional Water Quality Control Board estimated that “many tons” of lead shot and clay targets were deposited into the RRGC’s mudflat. The RWQCB and RRGC resolved to leave the lead pellets in place as they had been covered by bay sediments and their removal
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 21
would be costly and would risk increasing exposure. The RRGC continues to use the skeet range with steel shot.13
Restoration Challenges: The Richmond Rod and Gun Club may be a private landowner willing to restore segments of their own property. The Marin Rod and Gun Club has been a leader in subtidal restoration, restoring oysters and eelgrass on several acres of their property. The presence of lead in the subtidal areas of the RRGC presents a significant barrier to subtidal restoration on the property. The currently preferred approach is to not disturb the lead beneath the mud. Eelgrass or oyster restoration would likely require placement of seedballs or oyster pallets that may disturb the bed and expose the lead. Similarly challenging, the majority of the RRGC’s subtidal lands are within the scatter zone of their skeet range. Any restoration in that area would be showered with shot and clay pigeons.
Upland portions of the property are currently used for RRGC programs or storage.
Contact: John Talbot, President 510.223.4004; Caretaker, 510.233.3893
13 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. Order No. 93‐127. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 22
Freethy
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Non‐native grasslands Coastal Prairie 15 Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh 7 TOTAL 22
Site Description: The Freethy property is located between the Richmond Parkway to the south, Murray to the east, the Richmond Rod and Gun Club to the north, and San Pablo Marsh to the west. The approximately 22 acre property consists of 18 parcels that are owned by a consortium of landowners. Approximately seven acres along the boundary with San Pablo marsh is imported fill on former tidal marsh.
Demgen and Robertson identified the sites potential for tidal marsh restoration and enhancement to short‐eared owl and northern harrier nesting habitat. The CNDDB identifies the site as habitat for San Pablo vole and San Pablo song sparrow.
The owners of the Freethy parcel have indicated that they are very interested in developing the parcel. The property is fully entitled for development though the entitlement is over 25 years old and will need to be re‐entitled. The property is zoned for light industrial. The landowners have floated a recent development proposal that includes live‐work units.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 23
Restoration Challenges: Land is privately held by landowners who have indicated that they are intent on developing the property.
Contact: Josh Genser, 510.237.6916, [email protected]
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 24
Bird’s Eye View of the San Pablo Marsh Looking South
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 25
San Pablo Marsh
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Upland Coastal Prairie 5 Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh 100 Subtidal/Intertidal Mudflats Eelgrass/native oysters 255 TOTAL 360
The San Pablo Marsh is at the mouth of San Pablo Creek, south of Rheem Creek and north of Wilcat Creek. The property is bounded to the north by the Richmond Rod and Gun Club and to the south by the West County Landfill and other industrial lands. Some minor tidal marsh restoration has occurred on the eastern edge of the marsh near Richmond Parkway (described in more detail in the Additional San Pablo Marsh Properties section).
San Pablo Marsh is a young marsh. Early USGS maps show the area as open water. Land use activities upstream in the watershed contributed enough sediment into the system that the creek’s mouth accreted bay‐ward. Based on USGS maps, the majority of the accretion occurred between 1900 and 1950 making the marsh less than 100‐years old. Until about 1950, San Pablo Marsh and Wildcat Creek Marsh were contiguous. The construction of the landfill and associated infrastructure (roads and bridges) severed the connection between the two marshes. (See Appendix 3.) No assessment of current habitat conditions or restoration opportunities exists.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 26
Demgen and Robertson identified the site’s potential for preserving habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse habitat and salt marsh wandering shrew (known occurrences) and for California clapper rail, black rail, San Pablo song sparrow, San Francisco common yellowthroat, and soft bird’s beak.
Three hundred and sixty acres of the marsh are owned by a consortium of landowners who seek to sell the property to a public agency or mitigation bank (parcels outlined in yellow on above aerial). Approximately 100‐acres of this property are tidal marsh. The rest is intertidal mudflats and subtidal lands. Some of the landowners have passed away recently and the group is working out various probate issues so that it can sell the property. The East Bay Regional Park District has been in contact with the consortium and is hopeful that it will be able to purchase the land. The ownership group would like to retain a few acres of upland to sell for industrial uses (similar to what it currently on‐ site or nearby).14
The California Transportation Commission has recommended committing $300,000 through the Environmental Enhancement Mitigation Program toward the acquisition of the site.
Restoration Challenges: Landownership. The land is currently held by a private consortium but once their probate issues are resolved, it may pass into public ownership. Once publicly held, a detailed assessment of restoration needs will be necessary to generate a project description and cost estimates.
Contacts: N/A
Additional Information Contacts: Nancy Wenninger, East Bay Regional Park District, 510‐ 544‐2607, [email protected]
14 Nancy Wenninger, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal communication, November 30, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 27
Additional San Pablo Marsh Properties
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Upland Coastal Prairie 8 Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh 34 Intertidal Mudflats Intertidal Mudflats 12 TOTAL 54
Site Description: Along the eastern edge of San Pablo Marsh are eight parcels owned by four separate landowners. Property 1 is owned by private landowners Crader & Hicks. Property 2 is owned by the City of Richmond. Property 3 is owned by Jorge Rueda. Property 4 was previously owned by Colorspot. The address of the current owner listed on county records matches that of Blackstone Health Insurance Services in Walnut Creek, but ownership is unclear.
Collectively, the four properties include approximately 34 acres of tidal marsh, eight acres of upland, and twelve acres of intertidal mudflats. The CNDDB identifies the site as habitat for San Pablo song sparrow and salt marsh harvest mouse.
In 1996, the City of Richmond completed the restoration of 3.3 acres of tidal marsh on its 12‐acre property (Property 2) as mitigation for the Richmond Parkway. At roughly the same time, Colorspot completed a 1.5 acre tidal marsh restoration project on its property (Property 4) as mitigation for other activities. It is likely that further tidal marsh
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 28
restoration on either of these parcels would be limited by the pipeline that passes underneath them.15
The East Bay Regional Park District has attempted to contact Crader & Hicks and has heard no response.
Contacts: N/A
Additional Information Contacts: Nancy Wenninger, East Bay Regional Park District, 510‐ 544‐2607, [email protected]
15 Stewart Siegel, Wetlands and Water Resources. Personal Communication, November 24, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 29
Karnes
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Non‐native Grasslands Tidal Marsh 14 TOTAL 14
Site Description: The Karnes property is fourteen acres of former tidal marsh immediately south of San Pablo Marsh and north of existing industrial lands. The property is 300‐500 feet north of San Pablo Creek. From 1969 to 1998, the site was an automobile salvage and storage yard. During this period, the tidal marsh on the property was filled without permits or authorization. A Phase I environmental site assessment determined that “it [is] likely that the Site soil and groundwater contain contamination…including petroleum compounds, metals, and solvents.” The site is non‐native grassland with litter, concrete, and other refuse from its days as an auto wrecking lot.16 The property is zoned for industrial land uses.
Restoration Challenges: The property is privately owned and may have contamination issues that complicate public acquisition. A Chevron pipeline traverses the property that may limit tidal range and marsh restoration.
Contact: N/A
16 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. American Standard Products. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=70000164 (Accessed on December 10, 2009) Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 30
Bird’s Eye View of the West County Landfill Looking North
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 31
West County Landfill
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Upland landfill Coastal Prairie 230 Open water Tidal Marsh/mudflats 70 Intertidal Mudflats (Nevada Parc.) ‐ 60 TOTAL 360
Site Description: At 235 feet above sea level, the 360‐acre West County Landfill towers above the North Richmond Shoreline. The landfill is located on former baylands between the mouths of San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks. South of the landfill is Wildcat Creek Marsh. To the north is San Pablo Marsh and the San Pablo Bay.
From the Center for Land Use Interpretation website: The West Contra Costa County Landfill in North Richmond is one of the largest and oldest continuously active landfills on the Bay. It serves communities all along the south shore of San Pablo Bay, from Crockett to parts of Berkeley. The pile, started as bay fill in 1952, is approaching its permitted terminal height of 235 feet. Due to compaction caused by the weight of the mound, the waste extends 25 feet below sea level. Like most landfills in the Bay Area, WCCC is privately owned, and was recently bought by Republic Industries, which in addition to owning landfills
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 32
across the country, also owns the National and Alamo car rental chains, and the used car chain AutoNation. 17
Having reached its height limit, Republic Services has stopped accepting refuse and has been capping the landfill with clean fill to prepare it for retirement. A three‐mile spur of the bay trail will ring the base of the landfill. One and a half miles are open and the second of three phases is expected to open in 2010. The land is zoned for parks and open space.
Approximately 230 acres of the property are landfill on former mudflats, subtidal lands, and tidal marsh. (See Appendix 3 for historical aerials.) Approximately 120 acres are open water, surrounded by levees. The Nevada Parcel, so named for its slight resemblance to the shape of the state of Nevada, was breached between 1979 and 1981 and is mostly intertidal mudflats. The remainder is still surrounded by an intact levee. The footprint of the former Wildcat Creek Marsh is still visible, making this an attractive place to restore tidal marsh. Demgen and Robertson identified the potential to restore tidal action to this site. However, water quality and leachate from the landfill may prevent restoration at this site.
Restoration Challenges: Water quality in open water area. Leachate from landfill.
Contacts: Kevin Finn, Area President, 510.262.1679, [email protected]; Sheryl Granzella, Community Relations Manager, 510.262.1647, [email protected]
17 Center for Land Use Interpretation. West Contra Costa County Landfill. http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3442/ Accessed December 10, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 33
Bird’s Eye View of the Wildcat Creek Marsh Looking North
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 34
Wildcat Creek Marsh
Site Description: Wildcat Creek Marsh is the largest tidal marsh in the East Bay north of Fremont and owned almost entirely by Chevron (the northern and eastern margin is owned by the West County Wastewater District). The 350 acre marsh is a remnant of the 2,000 acre marsh that connected the San Pablo Bay to the central San Francisco Bay. The CNDDB identifies the site as habitat for San Pablo song sparrow, San Pablo vole, and salt marsh harvest mouse.
In the late 1990’s Chevron completed the Wildcat Creek Marsh Restoration Project on approximately 250 acres. The project carved slough channels to sections of the marsh that had been cut off from tidal circulation by sediment deposition. Much of the Chevron facility sits upon former bayland habitat. In the past, Chevron has converted effluent treatment ponds into wetland habitat. 18
Given the size of Wildcat Creek Marsh, it would make sense to direct restoration funds to this location. However, the use of public funds for restoration often requires a conservation easement or other assurance that the lands will be preserved in perpetuity as habitat. In the recent Castro Cove Natural Resource Damage Assessment process,
18 Chevron Richmond Refinery. Preserving and Restoring Natural Ecosystems. http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/richmond/safety/protecting_habitat.aspx. Accessed December 10, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 35
Chevron indicated that it was not interested in providing conservation easements for Wildcat Creek Marsh.19
Restoration Challenges: Landowner’s willingness to pursue further restoration.
Contact: Walt Gill, Government Affairs Manager, Chevron, 510.242.3585, [email protected]
19 Natalie Cosentino‐Manning, NOAA Restoration. Personal Communication, April, 2008. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 36
State Lands Commission Subtidal Lands ‐ North Richmond Strategic Eelgrass Reserve
Existing Habitat Type Restoration Potential Approximate Acreage
Subtidal Eelgrass Eelgrass/native oysters 1,500 Other Subtidal Eelgrass/native oysters 2,500 TOTAL 4,000
Site Description: Between the deep water shipping channel and the mudflats that ring the Shoreline is a large bed of subtidal eelgrass. Eelgrass is a long marine grass that grows in shallow areas of the bay and provides important habitat for Pacific herring, salmon, crabs and other species of interest and concern. It also provides hunting and foraging habitat and food for many types of waterfowl. Eelgrass beds or meadows trap and remove suspended particulates from the water, improve water clarity and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Eelgrass meadows also cycle nutrients and generate oxygen during daylight hours. Eelgrass meadows are among the most productive marine habitat in the world.
At 1,500 acres, the North Richmond eelgrass bed is both the largest bed and comprises half of all the eelgrass in the San Francisco Bay. Predictive models indicate that eelgrass in the Bay could potentially grow on more than 30,000 acres baywide.20 Most of the eelgrass bed in North Richmond grows on subtidal lands owned by the State Lands Commission (SLC) with some overlap onto privately held subtidal lands.
Permission to restore State Lands Commission lands is secured though a Surface Leasing Application. The purpose of the lease is to transfer liability for the project and lands from the SLC to the project proponent. Leases are free to public agencies. To private organizations, leases cost 9% of the assessed land value discounted for the public benefit of the project (potentially free for restoration projects). Leases are usually renewed every 10 years. Cities and special projects can receive 49‐year leases.
Restoration Challenges: Restoration is constrained by data limitations. Much of what we know about the North Richmond eelgrass bed is from the 2003 Merkel side‐scan sonar surveys. These surveys represent a single point in time. A second, more recent survey has been completed but not published yet. Researchers at the Tiburon Audubon Center have found that eelgrass extent and location varies annually in Richardson Bay. Outside of the single survey, we know very little about the condition of the North Richmond eelgrass bed. It may be that the bed requires monitoring and protection rather than restoration. Restoration efforts may be better suited elsewhere in the bay where we would expect to see eelgrass but do not.
20 Dr. Kathy Boyer, San Francisco State University. Eelgrass in San Francisco Bay: Conservation and Restoration of a Habitat Forming Species. Presentation at State of the Estuary Conference. October 1, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 37
Restoration of subtidal lands on the North Richmond Shoreline requires considerable scientific understanding, a willingness and ability to assume liability associated with the lease of SLC lands, and a boat. The EBRPD has indicated an interest in restoring subtidal lands on their property, but to date, no willing, qualified project champion exists to restore subtidal lands owned by the State Lands Commission.
Contact: Jessica Rader, State Lands Commission, 916.574.1850; Marilyn Latta, State Coastal Conservancy, 510‐286‐4157, [email protected]
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 38
Richmond Parkway Overpass
Site Description: Though not technically shoreline restoration, public access to the shoreline is an important issue to the local communities who have been denied access to their shoreline for generations. The Wildcat Creek Trail connects with the San Francisco Bay Trail at the East Bay Regional Park District’s Wildcat Creek Staging Area on the Richmond Parkway. Where the Wildcat Creek Trail crosses the Richmond Parkway, it is directed into an underpass alongside Wildcat Creek (pictured above). The underpass does not function. It is almost always full of water or mud or both. The nearest crosswalk is a third of a mile in either direction. Most trail users resort to running across the four lane parkway.
EBRPD, City of Richmond, Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Watershed Council, and local advocates have been working toward finding a solution. The EBRPD commissioned a feasibility study that estimated the cost of an overpass at $7‐8 million. The City and EBRPD have recently met and agreed that the overpass is the preferred option. The overpass will need sufficient room for a landing on the east side and any development on the parcel to the north will need to accommodate the overpass and the elevated trail users into its design. This will require the coordination of the County Redevelopment Agency.
Contact: Ann Riley, Regional Water Quality Control Board, 510.622.2420, [email protected]
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 39
Invasive Spartina on the North Richmond Shoreline Invasive Spartina is an aggressive cordgrass that has spread rapidly through the San Francisco Estuary. Invasive Spartina alters the Bay’s habitats and hydraulics, and hybridizes with native cordgrass to create a similarly invasive and destructive hybrid.
The San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) has been mapping, monitoring, and eradicating invasive Spartina along the North Richmond Shoreline for several years. The map below shows the extent of infestation along the Shoreline.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 40
The pattern of red dots shows a prolific infestation of invasive Spartina on the North Richmond Shoreline, particularly in the area of San Pablo Marsh and the Richmond Rod and Gun Club. A partial explanation for this pattern is that these are privately held lands where ISP has had difficulty securing permission to treat invasive Spartina. 21
While the presence of invasive Spartina along the North Richmond Shoreline should not modify any acquisition strategies, it does suggest a conservative restoration approach. ISP recommends best management strategies for tidal marshes near invasive Spartina. BMPs include monitoring and removing any invasive Spartina, not restoring tidal action to new marshes until invasive Spartina or its hybrids are removed from the area, and care in selecting native Spartina plantings.
21 Ingrid Hogle. Invasive Spartina Project. Personal communication. December 3, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 41
Recommendations Conservation Action Plan The Nature Conservancy promotes a conservation planning process known as “Conservation Action Planning” (CAP). CAP is a “relatively simple, straightforward and proven approach for planning, implementing and measuring success for conservation projects.”22 It is an adaptive management framework that helps conservation practioners focus their strategies, identify threats, and learn over time. The CAP process includes the following ten steps:
1. Identify people involved in the project 2. Define project scope and focal conservation targets 3. Assess viability of focal conservation targets 4. Identify critical threats 5. Conduct situation analysis 6. Develop strategies: objectives and actions 7. Establish measures 8. Develop work plans 9. Implement 10. Analyze, Learn, and Share
More detailed information on conservation action planning is available in Appendix 4 and online at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/index_html. This memo defers to those documents for greater detail on the recommended conservation planning activities.
The Coastal Conservancy asked RDG to examine whether the CAP process is appropriate for the North Richmond Shoreline and to recommend modifications to tailor it to the particular social dynamics, environmental legacy, and possible conservation goals for the shoreline.
Given the value of the habitat and the interest of the community, RDG recommends implementing a Conservation Action Planning process with the following critical caveats.
Willing Participants Participation in Conservation Action Planning is voluntary. It is important to include major landowners as they will either be the primary vehicles of restoration or, ata minimum, their buy‐in will be necessary to implement restoration actions.
Chevron has made it clear that it is not interested in participating in any sort of coordinated conservation planning. Wildcat Creek Marsh is considered part of the operating area of the refinery and public access is prohibited for security purposes. For
22 The Nature Conservancy. 2007. Conservation Action Planning Handbook. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 42
these reasons, Chevron has communicated its desire to not be included in any planning.23
The private landowners who seek to develop their properties are not likely to participate in discussions that focus on restoration of their properties (though they may be interested in participating in a Specific Plan – see below). The East Bay Regional Park District has indicated some interest in coordinated conservation planning. In order for the activity to be worthwhile it would need to include more than just the EBRPD. At a minimum, a CAP should involve EBRPD, Republic Services (owners of the landfill), the City of Richmond, Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Watershed Council, a party willing to assume liability for subtidal restoration on State Lands Commission property, and at least two other community or organizational representatives. Short of that, there are other existing venues that would suffice (e.g., the City of Richmond/EBRPD liason meeting, internal EBRPD planning processes).
Two‐tier Conservation Action Plan Part of Conservation Action Plan is establishing the vision, part of it is designing, engineering, measuring, and monitoring. The vision setting is appropriate for all‐ inclusive public meetings. The more technical elements should be open to the public but discussions will necessarily include a level of technicality that is beyond the expertise of most members of the public. The CAP should quickly establish its vision and conservation focus with the input of the public but then convene a series of technical meetings that will focus on the details of achieving conservation goals. Subsequent to these technical meetings, the process should convene another public meeting to vet the actions and ensure that they are consistent with the goals of the interested public.
Cultural Sensitivity Richmond is a richly diverse city. Conservation planning processes can be unintentionally exclusive. The language, tools, and protocols (many unspoken) of conservation planning speak to a very specific audience. Details such as how the seating is arranged, what time the meeting takes place, who is invited to speak first, how an agenda is structured, and who leads the discussion are all culturally‐determined. Attention to many small details can determine how effective a planning process is at facilitating the exchange of information between parties, particularly in multi‐cultural settings.
This report does not intend to detail those planning protocols that are effective in Richmond (or are variably effective depending on the community they address). Rather, it is critical that the consultants selected to implement the CAP be conversant in these issues. Ideally, the consultants will be from Richmond or at least reflective of the cultural diversity that Richmond exhibits. At a minimum, the consultants should
23 Walt Gill. Public and Government Affairs. Chevron. Personal communication. January 22, 2009. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 43
exhibit that they are experienced and aware of the nuances required to plan across multiple cultures.
Scope, Schedule, and Budget Planning processes will consume as much time as they are given. Given that the Conservation Action Plan is an iterative process, it is beneficial to limit the first iteration as much as possible so that actions can begin. The first iteration will likely identify the fact that there is a paucity of information on habitat quality and wildlife populations on the North Richmond Shoreline. That is to be expected and should not constrain the planning process. We propose below that the first iteration of the CAP (minus implementation of any actions) consist of six meetings over six months.
The table below outlines a rough work plan, schedule, the CAP steps covered, other required work, and a preliminary budget. The budget assumes that the participants are volunteering their time (both during meetings and between) as in‐kind services.
Activity CAP Steps Supporting Work Timing Cost Estimate Pre‐kickoff Meeting 1. Identify people involved in the project Outreach to public, Month 110,000$ meeting preparation Meeting #1 (public) 1. Identify people involved in the project Meeting preparation, Month 120,000$ 2. Define Project Scope and Targets compilation of existing data Meeting #2 (technical) 2. Define Project Scope and Targets Meeting preparation Month 25,000$ Research 3. Assess Viability of Targets Research on viability Month 25,000$ Meeting #3 (technical) 4. Identify Critical Threats Meeting preparation, Month 315,000$ 5. Complete Situation Analysis analysis of available 6. Objectives and Actions data Research 7. Measuring Results Analysis of available Month 410,000$ Meeting #4 (technical) 8. Develop Work Plan Meeting preparation, Month 510,000$ preparation of data Meeting #5 (public) Meeting and report Month 620,000$ preparation Implementation 9. Implement Actions As required As required ‐ 1st Annual Meeting Analyze, Learn, Adapt, Share Meeting preparation Month 18$ 5,000 TOTAL $ 100,000
Two events should precede initiation of the Conservation Action Plan. The Subtidal Habitat Goals Report is due in September 2010. The plan will establish bay‐wide goals for subtidal habitat restoration. It will benefit the CAP to have these goals established. The second event is resolution of the acquisition on San Pablo Marsh. If the EBRPD will acquire this property, it would behoove the CAP to wait until that acquisition is complete and it is known whether or not that property will be publically owned.
South of Parchester Specific Plan If the Richmond General Plan Update defers on the issue of planning the South of Parchester area (uplands near the mouth of Rheem Creek), the Coastal Conservancy could assist the City by funding a specific plan for the area. The Coastal Conservancy was heavily involved in the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan that established the Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 44
existing zoning. The South of Parchester Specific Plan would be an update to the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, albeit for a smaller area. It would be advantageous to include those parcels that are in unincorporated Contra Costa County south of South of Parchester so that the resulting plan is more complete and comprehensive.
Defining the scope and cost of a Specific Plan is beyond the scope of this project. The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan cost approximately $100,000 (1993 dollars) plus city and county in‐kind services and took a few years to complete.24 A Specific Plan for the South of Parchester area would likely cost between $100,000 and $200,000.
Richmond Shoreline Restoration Working Group Short of a formal conservation plan or specific plan, there may be an opportunity for a Richmond Shoreline Restoration Working Group similar to the Wildcat San Pablo Creeks Watersheds Council (WSCWC). A working group would meet periodically (quarterly or less) to coordinate, share information, and maintain momentum for shoreline and subtidal restoration. The formation of the group should be subsequent to the release of the Subtidal Habitat Goals report and should assume responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the Subtidal Habitat Goals along the North Richmond Shoreline.
The working group could be a subcommittee of the WSCWC (which also covers the Rheem Creek watershed). The EBRRD, City of Richmond, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and several community and environmental organizations all regularly attend the WSCWC meetings. A subcommittee focused on shoreline restoration may include other landowners, oyster and eelgrass restoration specialists, and other parties more directly involved in tidal marsh and subtidal restoration.
The subcommittee would benefit from a paid coordinator (40‐80 hours per year) to call meetings, set agendas, follow up on tasks, and issue meeting notes.
Fund Current Restoration and Acquisition Activities In any conservation planning situation are “no regret actions” that can be advanced without a completed conservation plan. These are actions that would nearly certainly be included in any conservation plan.
In the case of the North Richmond Shoreline, these actions are the EBRPD’s restoration of Breuner Marsh and the acquisition of San Pablo Marsh. Both of these are ambitious activities and the Park District is still seeking funding to advance them to completion. The Coastal Conservancy has already begun assisting the EBRPD to locate funds for Breuner restoration.
24 Melanie Denninger, State Coastal Conservancy. Personal communication. February 23, 2010. Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 45
Restoration Opportunity Inventory of the Entire Richmond Shoreline Part of the intent of this document is to serve as a resource for parties who would like to or need to fund restoration along the North Richmond Shoreline (e.g. trustee agencies involved in a Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program). The entire Richmond Shoreline is 32 miles long and this document only covers about a quarter of that. A full inventory of the entire Richmond Shoreline, parcel by parcel, would assist funders in identifying restoration opportunities, contacting stakeholders and landowners, and understanding the status of other proposed shoreline projects throughout Richmond. A project of this scope with a final document similar to this one would cost approximately $25,000.
Job Training and Local Involvement The communities along the North Richmond Shoreline are financially disadvantaged. Restoration of the shoreline will represent a significant investment of time and resources. To the extent possible, restoration efforts should reach out to and include the local communities not just for input into planning processes, but as sources of labor and job training opportunities. Several local organizations (e.g. Urban Tilth, CYCLE, The Watershed Project) are involved in habitat restoration and job training in the area. These organizations and others can be excellent vehicles for training youth and young adults in the profession of environmental restoration.
CONCLUSION The North Richmond Shoreline is a resource of enormous ecological value and lacking a coordinated conservation plan. This document serves as a reference for the initiation of a conservation action plan on the Shoreline.
There are a number of planning activities the Coastal Conservancy can fund or otherwise support. The greatest impediment to conservation action planning is the lack of landowners willing to commit their lands for restoration and participate in conservation planning. In the absence of a conservation action plan, the Coastal Conservancy can invest funds in the acquisition of lands or easements from willing sellers until a critical mass of land is available for conservation planning.
Restoration NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE / CONSERVATION PLANNING MEMO Design 31 MARCH 2010 Group, LLC 46
Appendix 1 - North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area Restoration Opportunities and Constraints
Memorandum
Date: October 13, 2009
To: Michele Jesperson
From: Francesca Demgen, Dina Robertson
Subject: North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area Restoration Opportunities and Constraints
URS Corporation assisted the California Coastal Conservancy (CCC) with the compilation of a GIS geodatabase of existing information that would be used for conservation planning in the North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area (NRSCPA). The files included in the geodatabase, delivered to the CCC in 2008, and a brief description of the layers is included in Appendix 1. A site visit to the NRSCPA on December 2008 was attended by staff from URS Corp., CCC and the Restoration Design Group, LLC (RDG). Information from the geodatabase, in combination with field observations made during the site visit was used to identify sites with potential for restoration or preservation. The initial evaluation used the following screening factors to remove sites from further consideration. Examples of sites that fall under each category are given. • Property is currently providing habitat value and is in public ownership, e.g. Wildcat Creek. • Property is owned by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), or is under consideration for acquisition by EBRPD, or a restoration plan exists or is in preparation, e.g. Point Pinole Regional Park and Rheem Creek. • Property is owned by Chevron or other private landowner not interested in selling, e.g. Chevron refinery. • Property is developed or is unsuitable for restoration, e.g. active landfill and residential areas. • Property includes an existing or proposed segment of the Bay Trail. This evaluation process culminated in a list of eight sites suitable for further consideration. The eight sites are: San Pablo Creek Marsh, Freethy, Murray, Landfill Marsh, Richmond Rod and Gun Club, the San Pablo Creek Corridor, Panattoni and the Breuner Creekside. The site locations are shown on Figure 1. The sites were selected for further evaluation because of their potential preservation or enhancement value to provide high quality habitat or have an ownership status that provides opportunity for future acquisition. The following discussion summarizes opportunities and constraints for habitat restoration and/or preservation, as well as general recommendations for future studies useful for completing a conservation plan for the NRSCPA.
1.0 North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area Description The NRSCPA extends over approximately seven miles of shoreline, stretching along the San Francisco Bay from Point Pinole Regional Shoreline to the Chevron Refinery and Castro Cove. Shoreline habitats include tidal marsh, intertidal mudflat, upland grassland and eucalyptus forest, numerous creeks, and treatment ponds. The NRSCPA includes several large and small industrial areas as well as the approximate 350 acre Wildcat Creek Marsh. Landowners are many within the greater NRSCPA, some of the largest landowners include: Chevron USA Inc., Contra Costa Flood Control District, Republic Services (owns landfill and some adjacent lands), Richmond Rod and Gun Club Inc., numerous additional private landowners, West Contra Costa Sanitary District and EBRPD. Land ownership is a layer in the geodatabase.
X:\x_env\_permit\Demgen\SCC_North_Richmond_Shoreline\Deliverables\Technical Memo\For Delivery\updated 10_2009\North Richmond Shoreline memo updated Oct 1 o9.doc 10/13/09 Page 2 of 7
2.0 Opportunities and Constraints The following section describes opportunities and constraints for restoration and/or preservation in the NRSCPA. Restoration and preservation opportunities within NRSCPA include preservation, restoration and enhancement of tidal wetland, including special status species habitat, providing habitat connectivity, expansion of publicly- owned tidal marsh and upland habitat through land acquisition, and links and additions to the San Francisco Bay Trail. General constraints can include contamination (arsenic, lead, diazinon, and others), lack of a willing seller, topographic location and connectivity of parcels to existing tidal and upland habitat, presence of utilities and railroads, public opposition and land use zoning designations. San Pablo Creek Marsh Site The San Pablo Creek Marsh site, approximately 150 acres, is located adjacent to and east of Goodrick Rd. It is southwest of the Richmond Rod and Gun Club and west of the Freethy site. This area is primarily tidal marsh habitat. It is composed of multiple parcels owned by multiple private landowners including: Industrial Land Company, Anthony Menosse and Gwen Bowen Crader, as well as a small parcel owned by the City of Richmond. It is thought that the property owners are willing sellers, and that EBRPD may be, but not confirmed, in negotiations for purchase of the properties (2008 personal communication). Unique Opportunities • Preservation of a large contiguous piece of remnant tidal marsh habitat. • Landowners willing to engage in negotiations for sale of property for preservation purposes (not confirmed). • Preservation of known salt marsh wandering shrew and salt marsh harvest mouse populations. • Both proposed and existing segments of the Bay Trail are adjacent to this site. • Preservation and/or enhancement of suitable habitat (no confirmed occurrences) for: California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), San Pablo song sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) and soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis). Constraints • No publicly available records indicate contamination of this site. However, the site is adjacent to the Landfill, which at one time processed hazardous waste and has known soil and water contamination violations. Freethy Site The Freethy site, approximately 20 acres, is south of the Richmond Rod and Gun Club along Goodrick Rd. Habitat is currently primarily upland non-native grassland with some remnant tidal marsh. It is currently zoned light industrial, and is privately owned. The current owner plans to construct residential development on this parcel (2008 personal communication). Current landowners include Joe and Heidi Shekou and the Richmond Development Company. Unique Opportunities • Restoration of tidal marsh habitat. • Preservation and enhancement of upland habitat. • Preservation and/or enhancement of suitable upland grassland nesting habitat (no confirmed occurrences) for: short eared owl (Asio flammeus) and northern harrier (Circus cyanus). Page 3 of 7
Constraints • Publicly available information on potential contamination indicates that the site was evaluated for hazardous waste sometime in the past, but it is unknown what the results of these studies were (Envirostar 2009). Therefore, contamination could be a constraint at this site. • Owners are actively pursuing development of the site, and therefore may not be willing to sell this property for open space. • Zoning may be a constraint at this location. Murray Site The Murray site, approximately 50 acres, is located on the east side of Goodrick Rd. It is zoned primarily as industrial, although there is public support and activity to have this area rezoned open space (2008 personal communication). This property is privately owned by Murray Parkway Properties, LLC. Current land use includes horse grazing. It is upland habitat dominated by non-native grassland. It is adjacent to undeveloped upland grassland to the north. Unique Opportunities • Restoration of tidal marsh habitat. • Preservation and enhancement of upland habitat. • Existing Bay Trail adjacent to the western boundary of this site. • Preservation and/or enhancement of suitable upland grassland nesting habitat (no confirmed occurrences) for: short eared owl and northern harrier. Constraints • This property is noted to have arsenic and phosphoric acid contamination from past land use practices (Envirostar 2009). It is unknown what the status of the contaminations is as of August 2009. • Pipeline (Chevron) lies within and along the outer boundary of this site (on 3 sides). • Zoning may be a constraint at this location. Landfill Marsh Site The Landfill Marsh site (informal name for the purposes of this document) covers approximately 100 acres adjacent to and south of the West County landfill. This site is owned by West County Landfill Inc. A levee, built at some time between 1958 and 1968 surrounds the parcel. The levee prevents tidal flow to the marsh interior. The dominant vegetation is pickleweed in the interior and iceplant and coyotebrush along levees. The marsh is expected to be hypersaline most of the year. The salinity in December of 2009 was measured at 54-57 parts per thousand (ppt), while a neighboring slough open to tidal action measured 28 ppt. Unique Opportunities • Restore tidal action and substantially improve a large piece of existing tidal marsh habitat in the NRSCPA. • In close proximity to Wildcat Creek Marsh (separated only by a levee), a relatively intact, large (approximately 350 acres) tidal mash. • Preservation and/or enhancement of suitable habitat (no confirmed occurrences) for: black rail, San Pablo song sparrow, San Francisco common yellowthroat and soft bird’s beak. Page 4 of 7
• Preservation of known occurrences of California clapper rail (personal communication 2009). • Existing Bay Trail follows the southern and western boundaries of this site. Constraints • No publicly available records of contamination exist. However, there are records of contamination of the groundwater and soils from hazardous materials associated with the hazardous waste facility in close proximity to the landfill marsh (Envirostar 2009). • It is unknown if the landowner is a willing seller. Richmond Rod and Gun Club Site This site is approximately 25 acres in size, located along the Richmond shoreline between swaths of tidal marsh. The undeveloped marsh to the north, called the Breuner Marsh (owned by EBRPD), is slated for restoration with mitigation funds from Castro Cove contamination. The marsh to the south is included in the San Pablo Creek Marsh Site. The majority of the Richmond Rod and Gun Club Site is disturbed from activities associated with shooting range operation. The site is located on historic bay fill and includes small pockets of remnant tidal marsh. The site is expected to have some level of contamination from lead associated with shooting range operation. Unique Opportunities • Restoration of tidal marsh habitat. • Provide habitat linkage to Murray Site, if acquired. • Proposed Bay Trail alignment passes through the Richmond Rod and Gun Club Site; existing Bay Trail adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Constraints • There is a potential for lead and other type of hazardous material contamination. • It is unknown whether the landowner is a willing seller. San Pablo Creek Corridor Site The lower 1,000 feet of San Pablo Creek (downstream from approximately the end of Parr Blvd.) historically flowed to the south of the landfill, through Wildcat Creek Marsh to the Bay. The creek was rerouted to flow northward to a new confluence with San Francisco Bay through the tidal marsh habitat in the San Pablo Creek Marsh site. Historically, there was also connectivity between Wildcat Creek Marsh and San Pablo Creek Marsh. The land ownership associated with the linkage corridor includes West County Wastewater District, West County Landfill Inc., and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Unique Opportunities • The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report identified a potential habitat benefit from linking the San Pablo Creek Marsh and Wildcat Marsh (Goals Report 1999). Since there is currently no connection between these two areas the linkage would create a dispersal and movement corridor for small mammals of these two tidal marsh systems. • Existing Bay Trail alignment at this location. Constraints Page 5 of 7
• Contamination issues in this area are likely, due to its immediate adjacency with the hazardous waste facility that was cited for groundwater and soil contamination. • San Pablo Creek is designated as critical habitat for steelhead, which could require additional permitting and present limitations to restoration design. • Electrical transmission line and /or towers at this location. Panattoni Site The Panattoni site is approximately 11 acres of undeveloped land east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and west of Giant Highway and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. Rheem Creek bisects the site and the Richmond Parkway passes overhead. The area is primarily upland, non-native grasslands with some coyote brush. Rheem Creek is a trapezoidal flood control channel 1,300 feet long and approximately 40 feet wide at the top of bank. The site is zoned for light industrial land use and has an approved development plan. A condition of the development plan requires doubling the width of Rheem Creek and replanting a riparian canopy on the south bank. Unique Opportunities • Creek restoration. • Preservation and enhancement of upland habitat. • Contiguous to undeveloped upland habitat. • Preservation and/or enhancement of suitable upland grassland nesting habitat (no confirmed occurrences) for: short eared owl and northern harrier. Constraints • This site is slated for development and has an approved development plan in place. • Zoning may be a constraint at this site. • Unknown contamination status. • Presence of freeway infrastructure. • Oil and gas pipeline (Kinder Morgan) along and within the eastern boundary of site.
Breuner Creekside Site The EBRPD manages the 200 acres of Breuner Marsh, all of which is zoned open space. Approximately 20 acres of the site was zoned light industrial and remains with the previous owner, and is included in the Breuner Creekside parcel. The former Rheem Creek channel (pre-1960’s flood control project) ran through this parcel and willow sausals (groves) remain along the channel route. The parcel is adjacent to approximately 1,000 feet of the current Rheem Creek channel. The Rheem Creek Watershed Assessment and Conceptual Restoration Plan calls for the restoration of Rheem Creek to near its former course through this parcel.
Unique Opportunities • Restoration of Rheem Creek. • Protection of willow sausals. Page 6 of 7
• Preservation and enhancement of upland habitat. • Proposed Bay Trail passes through the western portion of this site. • Preservation and/or enhancement of suitable upland grassland nesting habitat (no confirmed occurrences) for: short eared owl and northern harrier.
Constraints • Owners are actively pursuing development of the site and may not be willing to sell the property for open space
3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The vast majority of the opportunities for restoration and/or preservation described in this memo are located on private land. As such, there is little existing site-specific technical data that could be used to further evaluate these opportunities. Due to the past and current land uses of the sites, a crucial piece of information needed for all sites is the presence or absence of hazardous material contamination. Publicly available data on contaminations is limited, and further studies or inquiries are needed to determine the type and extent of contamination that may be present to determine restoration potential and constraints. Identification of property owners and discussions to explore a landowner's willingness to sell, interest in conservation easements or engagement in restoration activities is another important factor yet to be determined for most sites, as well as determining parcels important for the Bay Trail alignment. Data Gaps • Complete Phase 1 and likely Phase 2 Site Assessments for contaminants on all sites, particularly if earthmoving is anticipated. • Determine underground pipeline depth, status, and easement width for the San Pablo Creek Corridor. • Determine if utility easements or other easements are present. • Obtain topographic data on sites considered for creek and tidal restoration. LiDAR could be cost effective because of the close proximity of the sites. • Determine permitting challenges and restoration constraints due to the presence of sensitive species or their habitats. The next step for conservation planning on the North Richmond Shoreline is to define goals and objectives for both the entire planning area and for each of the eight sites. Then the outstanding opportunities and constraints can be identified, e.g. presence of contamination and presence of a willing seller. The appropriate time for conducting the other studies listed above may be during the feasibility analysis (based on the site specific goals and objectives). The graphic below illustrates standard site evaluation process.
Page 7 of 7
Site Evaluation Process
(1) (2) Goals & Feasibility Objectives Analysis
(5) (3) Check: Concept Data Design meeting Collection goals and & Modeling objectives?
(4) Concept Development & Design
4.0 References Envirostar database. State of California database of recorded hazardous waste sites. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=07280072. Accessed August 2009. Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, Calif./S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif. Personal Communications 2008. Personal communication with Rich Walking of Restoration and Design Group, LLC (RDG) during December 2008 site visit. 2009. Personal communication with Michael Lynes of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. Observations of special-status bird species during Fall 2007 and Summer 2008 shorebird and waterfowl surveys at the Landfill Marsh Site. Sonoma Napa
Solano
Marin
Contra Costa
San Francisco Panatonni Site Alameda Breuner Creekside Site
San Mateo Murray Site Richmond Rod Santa Clara and Gun Club Site
Freethy Site Rh ee m C ree San Pablo Creek Marsh Site k
San Pablo Creek Corridor Site
Parr Blvd n Pablo Sa Creek
Landfill Marsh Site Landfill
y
k P
Wildcat Creek
d
n
o
m
h
c i
Wildcat Marsh R
R ic hm on T d rib Ln o
f W i
l
d
c
a
t
580
Approximate boundary of sites with R i ch restoration opportunities in NRSCPA m o n d A NRSCPA Boundary ve
0 0.5 1
Miles
California Coastal Conservancy Figure 1 North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area (NRSCPA) Restoration Opportunities October 2009 Appendix 1. Contents of GIS Geodatabase for North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan Area (NRSCPA)
Shapefile Name Details Year Data Source Biology Salt marsh harvest mouse occurrence records from 2006 study by Shellhammer for San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) within Salt_Marsh_Harvest_Mouse the NRSCPA 2006 H.T. Harvey and Associates, Howard Shellhammer Predicted habitat from Cal Wildlife habitat relationships (CWHR) for birds in the state Birds of California. 2005 California Department of Fish and Game
Predicted habitat from CWHR for Amphibians_5_mi_clip amphibians- 5 mile buffer from NRSCPA 2005 California Department of Fish and Game CNDDB occurrences records in the CNDDB_clipped_to_project NRSCPA 2009 California Department of Fish and Game CNDDB occurrence records within a 10 mile CNDDB_clipped_to_10_mile_buffer buffer of the NRSCPA 2009 California Department of Fish and Game Alameda_whipsnake All Critical Habitat for Alameda whipsnake 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service All Critical Habitat for Steelhead Central Steelhead_Central_California_Coast California Coast (CCC) ESU 2005 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Presence as well as habitat type and quality Steelhead_distribution_Central_California_Coast for CCC ESU over entire range 2005 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) All Critical habitat for steelhead- central Steelhead_California_Central_Valley valley ESU 2005 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Presence as well as habitat type and quality Steelhead_distribution_California_Central_Valley for Central Valley ESU over entire range 2005 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Delta smelt All Critical habitat for Delta Smelt 2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Santa_Cruz_tarplant All critical habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant 2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polygon coverage of historical natural vegetation for central California based on the work of A.W. Kuchler, in the vicinity of Endangered Species Recovery Program and the U.S. historical_natural_veg_Kuchler_1977 NRSCPA. Data from 1977, digitized 1999 1999 Bureau of Reclamation MPGIS Service Center Vegetation of the NRSCPA- Current as of vegetation July 2008 2008 Upland Habitat Goals, Bay Area Open Space Council Current habitats digitized from the Natural Heritage Inventory, clipped to NRSCPA Current_habitats_NHI boundary 2008 Natural Heritage Inventory Location and field description of collected Spartina samples, and contains the lab results as reported by the UC Davis Spartina DNA_08 lab, clipped to NRSCPA 2008 California State Coastal Conservancy Line features of invasive spartina presence and distribution clipped to NRSCPA boundary from San Francisco Invasive Ln_Spartina_08 Spartina Project 2008 California State Coastal Conservancy
Polygon features of invasive spartina presence and distribution clipped to NRSCPA boundary from San Francisco Poly_Spartina_08 Invasive Spartina Project 2008 California State Coastal Conservancy Point features of invasive spartina presence and distribution clipped to NRSCPA boundary from San Francisco Invasive Pt_Spartina_08 Spartina Project 2008 California State Coastal Conservancy
California clapepr rail observations at Castro clapper rail survey evans Cove by Jules Evans in 2005 and 2007 2005 and 2007 URS Political Township and range boundary in vicinity of Township_range NRSCPA 1997 Teale GIS Solutions Group city limits in the vicinity of NRSCPA. Coast City_limits line is clipped out Unk. GreenInfo Network Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Zoning Land use zoning for Contra Costa County 2008 Development Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and urban_limits Urban limits of Contra Costa County 2008 Development Public, conservation, and trust land ownership boundary in the vicinity of Public_lands NRSCPA 2003 California Resources Agency Legacy Project U.S. Geological Survey for California Resources Geographic names in the vicinity of Agency's California Advisory Committee on GNIS_2006 NRSCPA 2006 Geographic Names (CACGN) Tax_rates Tax rates of contra Costa county 2007 Contra Costa County Protected land boundary in the vicinity of Protected_lands NRSCPA 2003 Natural Heritage Institute boundary of Rheem Creek restoration Plan Lower_Rheem_Creek_Restoration_Plan study area - within NRSCPA 2008 Natural Heritage Institute Parcel boundaries with APN numbers ANP_parcels clipped to NRSCPA 2008 Contra Costa County parcels with ownership clipped to NRSCPA- parcel_ownership not complete Unk. Natural Heritage Institute Census_block_2000 Census block 2000 clipped to NRSCPA 2005 Contra Costa County Planned land use for the bay area clipped to Bay_Area_planned_landuse NRSCPA boundary 2008 Upland Habitat Goals, Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Trail alignment for NRSCPA as of Lee Chien Huo; Bay Trail Planner Bay_Trail October 2009. 2009 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Rough outline of parcels discussed in 2009 NRSCPA restoration opportunities and constraints memo for Coastal Conservancy- site_boundaries_for_memo not official boundaries 2009 URS Hydrology National wetland Inventory wetland San Francisco Invasive Spartina Project, California NWI_SF_Bay boundaries within NRSCPA vicinity 2007 State Coastal Conservancy Strahler Method Stream order in vicinity of Strahler_Method_stream_order NRSCPA Unk. Upland Habitat Goals, Bay Area Open Space Council Stream segments or reaches in NRSCPA NHDFlowline Vicinity Unk. U.S. Geological Survey historical_bay Unknown extent of bay Unk. San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) historical_bay_extent Unknown extent of bay Unk. San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) Inventory of creeks and drainages in Contra Creek_drainages Costa County 2007 Contra Costa County NHD_watersheds All watersheds in the state of California Unk. U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater basins and sub-basins as defined by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) clipped to NRSCPA groundwater vicinity 1997 Teale GIS Solutions Group Q3 flood data from the Flood Insurance Rate Fema_Flood_Maps Maps clipped to NRSCPA Vicinity Unk. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Infrastructure Electrical substations in the North American power transmission grid clipped to NRSCPA electrical_infrastructure vicinity 2007 Global Energy Transmission lines with a capacity greater electrical_transmission_line than 69kilovolts in NRSCPA vicinity 2007 Global Energy Decisions Electrical power generation plants clipped to electric_power_plants the NRSCPA boundary 2006 Global Energy Gas transmission pipelines, hazardous The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), liquid transmission pipelines, and LNG Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety natural_gas plants in the state of California 2004 Administration (PHMSA) all major gas transmission and hazardous The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), liquid transmission pipelines, and liquefied Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety liquid_pipeline natural gas plants in the state of California 2004 Administration (PHMSA) Tank farms located in the vicinity of tank_farm NRSCPA Unk. Unknown fire_station Fire stations in the vicinity of NRSCPA 2006 Techni Graphic Systems, Inc Refineries in West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership States clipped to refineries NRSCPA 2004 Unknown sewer Sewer location within NRSCPA Unk. Unknown substation Electrical substations within NRSCPA Unk. Unknown Detailed streets, interstate highways, and Tele Atlas North America, Inc./Geographic Data streets_carto major roads in Contra Costa County 2003 Technology, Inc., ESRI Detailed streets, interstate highways, and Tele Atlas North America, Inc./Geographic Data streets major roads in Contra Costa County 2003 Technology, Inc., ESRI Tele Atlas North America, Inc./Geographic Data interstates Interstate highways in Contra Costa County 2005 Technology, Inc., ESRI Tele Atlas North America, Inc./Geographic Data highways All highways in Contra Costa county Unk. Technology, Inc., ESRI Facilities that discharge to water with information on sites within the EPA's Permit Compliance System, located within EPA_pcs_npdes NRSCPA boundary Unk. Environmental Protection Agency Topography and Geology 10 foot topographic contours in NRSCPA contours_10ft vicinity derived from May 2000 aerials 2000 Contra Costa County Digital soil survey containing information about the kinds and distribution of soils on Soils the landscape clipped to NRSCPA vicinity 2007 National Cooperative Soil Survey Quaternary surficial deposits, liquefaction susceptibility, liquefaction, earthquake Witter, R.C. 1, Knudsen, K.L. 2, Sowers, J.M. 1, ground effects, earthquake ground failures, Wentworth, C.M. 3, Koehler, R.D. 1, Randolph, C.E. 1, liquefaction_and_quaternary_deposits clipped to NRSCPA boundary. 2006 U.S. Geological Survey Project Extent Full extent of the NRSCPA not clipped to the Project_extent shoreline 2008 URS Extent of the NRSCPA clipped to the Project_extent_clipped_to_shore shoreline 2008 URS Project_extent_stencil NRSCPA stencil 2008 URS Extent of NRCPA not clipped to shoreline Proejct_extent_RDG_edited AND includes Panatonni parcel 2009 Rich Walking of Restoration Design Group, LLC Rheem Creek Data Data from GPS creek surveys for Rheem Creek including water, substrate, shade, _Ft_In_Rheem slope, undercut, located east of NRSCPA 2005 Contra Costa County Data from GPS creek surveys for Rheem Creek, including bank composition and Bank_Com_Rheem placement 2005 Contra Costa County Citizen sites located on the DS edge of the BMICitizenSites_Rheem BMI Site 2005 Contra Costa County Data from GPS creek surveys for Rheem Creek, including type location and substrate Bridge_Rheem of bridges 2005 Contra Costa County Data from GPS creek surveys for Rheem Curve_Po_Rheem Creek including LB and RB undercuts 2005 Contra Costa County Dams located on Rheem creek from GPS Dams_Rheem surveys 2005 Contra Costa County Location and composition of debris in Debris_J_Rheem Rheem Creek from GPS creek surveys 2005 Contra Costa County location and type of drop in Rheem Creek Drop_Rheem from GPS survey 2005 Contra Costa County Vegetation data from GPS creek surveys for Vegetation_Rheem Rheem Creek 2005 Contra Costa County Miscellaneous data from GPS creek surveys Special_Rheem for Rheem Creek 2005 Contra Costa County Outfall structures from GPS creek surveys Outfalls_Rheem for Rheem Creek 2005 Contra Costa County Invasive species data from GPS creek Invasive_Rheem surveys for Rheem Creek 2005 Contra Costa County Raster Data National land cover data for the San Francisco Bay Area. Includes 21 different land cover categories with a spatial National_Land_Clover_data_bay_area resolution of 30 meters. 1993 U.S. Geological Survey Archived historical topographic map of Mare U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Area historical_mareisland19161 Island in 1961. 2002 Regional Database (BARD) Archived historical topographic map of Mare U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Area historical_mareisland1942 Island in 1942 2002 Regional Database (BARD) Archived historical topographic map of the U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Area historical_sanfrancisco1899r06a San Francisco Bay in1899 2002 Regional Database (BARD) Archived historical topographic map of the U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Area historical_sanfrancisco1915a San Francisco Bay in 1915 2002 Regional Database (BARD) Archived historical topographic map of the U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Area historical_sanfrancisco1942a San Francisco Bay in 1942 2002 Regional Database (BARD) Aerial imagery aerial photograph of NRSCPA vicinity 2007 DigitalGlobe ImageConnect Service Appendix 2 – Lower Rheem Creek Conceptual Restoration Plan
POINT PINOLE Bay Trail REGIONAL SHORELINE WEST COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
Trail Link Bay Trail Overpass
SAN PABLO BAY
Pt. Pinole Entry GIANT MARSH
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL ROAD
Vista Point / Restored Tidal Old Ferry Marsh Landing Bay Trail
Boardwalk / Trail
Vista Point Trail / Bridge Seasonal Rheem Wetland Creek Meadow PARCHESTER Restoration COMMUNITY
Restored Tidal Marsh
Nature Center and Trails
Trail / RR Overpass
Old Rheem Creek Channel / Wetland PRESERVATION / Bay RESOURCE RICHMOND Trail AREA ROD and GUN Rheem Creek Trail CLUB
AY
RICHMOND PARKW GIANT ROAD Entry
Road GOODRICK AVENUE GOODRICK
LOWER RHEEM CREEK CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN
Restoration Design Group, LLC 2560 Ninth Street Suite 216 0100 200 400 600 RDG Berkeley, CA 94710 T 510.644.2798 F 510.644.2799 ` FEET 2-17-2006 Appendix 3 – A Tale of Two Marshes
Wildcat and San Pablo –A Tale of Two Marshes
One hundred and fifty years ago, Wildcat and San Pablo Marshes were part of a single, large, 2000 acre marsh that stretched from the San Pablo Bay to the south Richmond shoreline. Even as late as 60 years ago, San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks flowed into a one contiguous marsh. The West County Landfill was built on top of the marsh, mudflat, and open water, separating the mouths of the two creeks and creating two separate, smaller marshes. See the historical aerial photos below.
One large marsh is better than two smaller marshes. It allows marsh animals to move freely around a larger area to find food and shelter and generally leads to a healthier ecosystem.
Is there a way to re‐connect Wildcat and San Pablo Marshes so that animals can travel freely between the two?
San Pablo San Pablo Marsh Marsh
Wildcat Creek Wildcat Creek Marsh Marsh
1946 1968
San Pablo San Pablo Marsh Marsh
Wildcat Creek Wildcat Creek Marsh Marsh
1958 2005 Appendix 4– Conservation Action Plan Fact Sheet
Conservation Action Planning (CAP)
The Nature Conservancy achieves conservation results by designing and implementing conservation projects at multiple scales. Over the past 15 years, TNC has developed an integrated process for planning, implementing, and measuring conservation success for its conservation projects. This process is called the “Conservation Action Planning (CAP)” process. The CAP process has been tested with a wide range of projects from different parts of the world and is supported by a network of trained CAP professionals that make up the Efroymson Coaches Network for Conservation Action Planning.
The CAP process guides project teams to identify effective conservation strategies. It provides an objective, consistent and transparent accounting of conservation actions and the intended and actual outcomes of conservation projects. It enables project staff to responsively adapt their actions to improve strategy effectiveness and achieve greater conservation impact. A brief summary of the CAP Process is provided below. For a full set of CAP and Efroymson Coaches Network news, tools, training opportunities, examples, and guidance documents, visit www.conserveonline.org/workspaces/cap/.
THE 10 STEPS OF THE CAP PROCESS Defining 1. Identify People Involved In Your Project Your Project This step asks you to identify your most valuable Project people Project scope & focal resource – the people who will be involved in targets designing and implementing your project. Addresses questions like: ♦“Who will design our project?, ♦“Who will be responsible for ensuring the plan goes forward?, ” “Who can give us advice?, ♦“Who will help us through this process?” Using Results to Developing Adapt & Improve Conservation Strategies & Measures Target viability Analyze actions & data Action Critical threats 2. Define Project Scope & Learn from results Situation analysis Adapt project Objectives & actions Focal Conservation Targets Share findings Planning Measures With this step you define the extent of your project and select the specific species and natural systems that your project will focus on as being representative of the overall biodiversity of Implementing the project area. This step helps your project team Strategies & Measures come to consensus on the overall goal and scale of Develop workplans Implement actions the project and your ultimate measures of success. Implement measures Addresses questions like: ♦“Where is our project?”, ♦“What are we trying to conserve or restore?”
3. Assess Viability of Focal Conservation Targets This step asks you to look at each of your focal targets carefully to determine how to measure its “health” over time. And then to identify how the target is doing today and what a “healthy state” might look like. This step is the key to knowing which of your targets are most in need of immediate attention, and for measuring success over time. Addresses questions like: ♦“How do we define ‘health’ (viability) for each of our targets?”, ♦“What is the current status of each of our targets?”, ♦“What is our desired status for each of our targets?” 4. Identify Critical Threats This step helps you to identify the various factors that immediately affect your project’s focal targets and then rank them so that you can concentrate your conservation actions where they are most needed. Addresses questions like: ♦“What threats are affecting our targets?”, ♦“Which threats are more of a problem?”
5. Conduct Situation Analysis This step asks you to describe your current understanding of your project situation – both the biological issues and the human context in which your project occurs. This step is not meant to be an unbounded analysis, but instead probes more deeply into the conditions surrounding your critical threats and degraded targets to bring explicit attention/consideration to causal factors, key actors, and opportunities for successful action. Addresses questions like: ♦“What factors positively & negatively affect our targets?”, ♦“Who are the key stakeholders linked to each of these factors?”
6. Develop Strategies: Objectives and Actions This step asks you to specifically and measurably describe what success looks like and to develop practical and strategic actions you and your partners will undertake to achieve it. In particular, you want to try to find the actions that will enable you to get the most impact for the resources you have. Addresses questions like: ♦“What do we need to accomplish?”, ♦“What is the most effective way to achieve these results?”
7. Establish Measures This step involves deciding how your project team will measure your results. This step is needed to help your team see whether its strategies are working as planned and thus whether adjustments will be needed. It is also needed to keep an eye on those targets and threats that you are not acting on at the moment, but may need to consider in the future. Addresses questions like: ♦“What do we need to measure to see if we are making progress towards our objectives and whether our actions are making a difference?”, ♦“Are there other targets or threats that we need to pay attention to?”
8. Develop Work Plans This step asks you to take your strategic actions and measures and develop specific plans for doing this work as your project goes forward. Addresses questions like: ♦“What do we specifically need to do?”, ♦“Who will be responsible for each task?”, ♦“What resources do we need?”
9. Implement Action and monitoring plans won’t do any good sitting on the shelf – your challenge here is to trust the hard work you have done and implement your plans to the best of your ability. Implementation is the most important step in this entire process; however, given the diversity of project needs and situations, the only requirement is: ♦ Put your plans into action
10. Analyze, Learn, Adapt, & Share This step first asks you to systematically take the time to evaluate the actions you have implemented, to update and refine your knowledge of your targets, and to review the results available from your monitoring data. This reflection provides insight on how your actions are working, what may need to change, and what to emphasize next. This step then asks you to document what you have learned and to share it with other people so they can benefit from your successes and failures. Addresses questions like: ♦“What are our monitoring data telling us about our project?”, ♦“What should we be doing differently?”, ♦ “How will we capture what we have learned?”, ♦ “How can we make sure other people benefit from what we have learned?”
Appendix 5 – Potential Stakeholders
POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS FOR NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE CONSERVATION PLAN Contact Phone Email Landowners Breuner Creekside Stan Davis 925.432.8500 City of Richmond Bill Lindsay 510.620.6512 Chevron Walt Gill 510.242.3585 [email protected] East Bay Regional Park District Brad Olsen 510.544.2622 [email protected] Freethy Josh Genser 510.237.6916 [email protected] Murrayy Dan Murrayy 415.435.3433 [email protected] Panattoni Development Company Jason Quintel 916.381.1561 Republic Services Sheryl Granzella 510.262.1647 [email protected] Richmond Rod and Gun Club John Talbot 510.223.4004 West County Wastewater District EJ Shallaby 510.222‐6700 Agencies Bay Conservation and Development Commission Joe LaClair 415.352.3656 [email protected] Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Tim Jensen 925.313.7008 [email protected] Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency DʹAndre Wells 925.335.7200 Department of Fish and Game Suzanne Gilmore 707‐944‐5536 [email protected] East Bay Regional Park District Brad Olsen 510.544.2622 [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Natalie Cosentino‐Manning 707.575.6081 natalie.c‐[email protected] San Francisco Estuary Partnership Lisa Owens‐Viani 510.622.2337 [email protected] State Coastal Conservancy Marilyn Latta 510.286.4157 [email protected] US Fish and Wildlife Service Christy Smith 707.769.4200 [email protected] Community Representatives North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council Luz Gomez 510.374.3231 Parchester Village Neighborhood Council Rachel Garcia 510.965.2295 [email protected] Shields‐Reid Neighborhoodg Council Johnnyy White [email protected] NGOs Citizens for East Shore Parks Patricia Jones 510.524.5000 [email protected] Community Health Initiative Johnny White [email protected] Golden Gate Audubon Society Mike Lynes 510.843.6551 [email protected] North Richmond Shoreline Open Space Alliance Whitney Dotson 510.367.5379 SPAWNERS Femke Oldham 510.665.3538 [email protected] The Wathershed Project Juliana Gonzalez 510.665.3430 [email protected] Urban Creeks Council Neoma LaValle 510.540.6669 [email protected] Urban Tilth Doria Robinson 510.778.5886 [email protected] West County Toxics Coalition Dr. Henry Clark [email protected] Wildcat and San Pablo Watersheds Council Tim Jensen 925.313.7008 [email protected] Other San Francisco State University Dr. Kathy Boyer (415) 338‐3751 [email protected]
This list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather intial contacts that would have an interest in a North Richmond Shoreline Conservation Plan.