HomeMy WebLinkAbout202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
ANNUAL PROJECT STATUS AND HABITAT RESTORATION
MONITORING REPORT 2021-2022
May 31, 2022
Project #: 81S-001-004
PREPARED FOR: Chevron Environmental Management and Real Estate Company
276 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PREPARED BY: Trihydro Corporation
1252 Commerce Drive, Laramie, WY 82070
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Scott McAlpin
Project Manager
AUTHENTICITY AND SIGNATURE PAGE
Trihydro Corporation hereby certifies that all statements furnished in the following Project Status and Habitat
Restoration Monitoring Report 2020-2021 and all supporting information reviewed and referenced within this Report
are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Further, we certify that all field surveys and monitoring
associated with this Report were performed by Trihydro Corporation using standards accepted by San Luis Obispo
County and accurately represent all information retained from field visits to the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Property
operated by Chevron Environmental Management and Real Estate Company, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Stephanie Seay Jenny Langford
Biologist/Compliance & Permitting Senior Scientist Specialist
Iliana Arroyos Galen Pelzmann
Biologist Biologist
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 PROJECT STATUS .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Work Completed ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Work in Progress ....................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Project Disturbance to Date ...................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 RESTORATION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Restoration Grading .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Restoration Site Establishment Summary .................................................... 3-1
3.2 Vernal Pool Construction .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Seeding ..................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Planting ...................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.1 Plant Community Restoration Planting ......................................................... 3-3
3.4.2 Special-status Species Patch Populations ................................................... 3-3
3.5 Irrigation ..................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.6 Weed Management ................................................................................................... 3-4
3.7 Maintenance and Adaptive Management ................................................................. 3-5
4.0 RESTORATION MONITORING ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Plant Communities ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.2 Vernal Complexes and Habitat ..................................................................... 4-1
4.1.3 Special-status Plants .................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.4 Faunal Support ............................................................................................. 4-3
4.1.5 Hydrological and Biogeochemical ................................................................ 4-3
4.2 Performance Monitoring ............................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.1 Monitoring Methods ...................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Monitoring Results ..................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.1 Plant Communities ........................................................................................ 4-5
4.3.1.1 Restoration Site Observations ...................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Vernal Complex Sites ................................................................................... 4-7
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Table of Contents (cont.)
4.3.3 Special Status Plants .................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.4 Faunal Support ............................................................................................. 4-9
5.0 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
List of Tables
2-1. Project Disturbance Summary
2-2. Revised SLO Tank Farm RWQCB Project Impacts and Mitigation Summary 2016-2021
3-1. Restoration Activity Overview
3-2. Restoration Site Summary Table
3-3. Seeding Activities
3-4. Weed Management Activities
4-1. Plant Community Success Criteria Summary
4-2. Vernal Complex Success Criteria Summary
4-3. Special Status Plant Success Criteria
4-4. Plant Community Monitoring Results
4-5. 2021-2022 Hydrologic Data Summary
4-6. Vernal Complex Representative Axis Measurements
4-7. Vernal Complex VPE Plant Species Monitoring Results
4-8. Special-Status Plant Population Monitoring Results
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
List of Figures
3-1. SLO Tank Farm Restoration Sites
4-1. Vernal Complex Axis Measurements
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
List of Appendices
A. JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS CALCULATION FIGURE
B. SUMMARY OF PROJECT TARGETS, STANDARDS, AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
D. MONITORING DATA SHEETS
E. VPFS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Chevron Environmental Management and Real Estate Company (CEMREC), Trihydro Corporation
Trihydro) has prepared this Annual Project Status and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report (Report) to document
the work and restoration activities associated with the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration
Project (Project), located within the Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm (SLO Tank Farm), San Luis Obispo,
California (Project site). Restoration activities have been implemented in accordance with the San Luis Obispo County
and agency-approved Landscape Restoration Plan for the Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation,
Restoration, and Development Project, San Luis Obispo County (LRP) (Padre, 2015a). This Report provides a
summary of the Project status and impacts to date, and a comprehensive summary of all restoration activities and
monitoring results for the May 2021 to May 2022 monitoring period (Monitoring Period).
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 2-1
2.0 PROJECT STATUS
2.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Project was permitted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and San Luis Obispo
County (County) under the following authority:
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearing House No. 2009031001)
County of San Luis Obispo Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (No. DRC2013-00056)
County of San Luis Obispo Amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (No. DRC2015-00067)
USFWS No Federal Take Concurrence (NFTC) Letter and email (dated December 11, 2014, August 24, 2016)
USFWS Biological Opinion (BO) dated May 24, 2016
ACOE Nationwide Permit Authorization (File No. SPL-2014-00444)
CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) (Notification No. 1600-2015-0094-R4), Amendment No. 1
June 19, 2018), Amendment No. 2 (October 19, 2018), and Amendment No. 3 (July 26, 2021)
RWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (No. 34015WQ06), Amendment No. 1
June 16, 2020), and Amendment No. 2 (October 14, 2020)
Since Project initiation in 2016, all work activities have been completed in accordance with the applicable EIR, CUP
and Amended CUP, USFWS No-take Concurrence Letter and Biological Opinion, ACOE, CDFW, and RWQCB 401
permit conditions. Future phases of the Project will comply with these, and any additional permits received. This
Report has been prepared and submitted in compliance with the following conditions and measures:
RWQCB Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 5
Amended CUP Condition of Approval No. 116 (FEIR BIO-1f)
CDFW SAA Avoidance and Minimization Measure 3.1 (a)
2.2 WORK COMPLETED
Project activities were initiated in 2016, and since then work has been completed in portions of SLO Tank Farm on the
north and south sides of Tank Farm Road. Work activities completed to date include site preparation, access road
2-2 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
construction, pipeline removal, restoration grading, excavation, remediation of hydrocarbon impacted soil, topsoil
segregation, vernal pool construction, VPFS inoculum collection and placement, hydroseeding, erosion control and best
management practices (BMP) installation, and netted enclosure maintenance. For detailed descriptions of all biological
pre-activity surveys and daily clearance surveys completed during Project activities, refer to the annual pre-activity and
biological monitoring summary reports for each subject year (Padre 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019, and
Trihydro 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b, 2022a, and 2022b).
2.3 WORK IN PROGRESS
Work in progress as of May 2022, has been limited to site maintenance, stormwater inspections and sampling, Surface
Hydrocarbon and Inspection Mitigation Plan (SHIMP) inspections, restoration activities, and preparation for
remediation activities within Reservoirs 5 and 7, including dewatering as needed. Proposed 2022 construction work is
located on the south side of the Chevron SLO Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project. Remediation work will
include excavating, stockpiling, and removing hydrocarbon containing soils within Reservoirs 5 and 7, building a
remedial cap over Reservoirs 5 and 7, vernal pool construction, and remediation and restoration of PPSH areas 1 – 6.
These activities are accompanied by backfilling with onsite clean soil, temporary access road construction, existing
road maintenance, and BMP installations. Current vernal pool restoration activities involve selective topsoil inoculum
collection from Borrow Area No. 2, and within the Reservoir 5 and 7 work areas. Vernal pool construction will take
place after remediation activities in Reservoirs 5 and 7 are completed.
A Trihydro geologist and biologist was onsite during construction activities to provide direction on construction work
while excavation monitoring, soil sampling, and providing biological clearances. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the locations
of the work areas.
2.4 PROJECT DISTURBANCE TO DATE
Project activities took place in previously disturbed and developed areas, as well as undisturbed natural habitats for
various plant and wildlife species within the Project site. Biological related activities such as biological resource pre-
activity surveys, worker environmental sensitivity orientation, biological clearances, and construction monitoring were
completed in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts to biological resources. Project activities have resulted in
disturbance to existing special-status plant species, plant communities, and wetlands throughout the Project limits.
Table 2-1 - Project Disturbance Summary and Table 2-2 - Revised SLO Tank Farm RWQCB Impacts and Mitigation
Summary Table 2016-2022 summarize the disturbances to date, and Appendix A - Jurisdictional Wetlands Impact
Calculation Figure provides supporting documentation.
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 3-1
3.0 RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
Restoration goals and targets focus on creation and enhancement of a functional landscape and ecosystem within the
SLO Tank Farm property following completion of Project activities. These goals are met through implementation of
restoration activities such as weed management and seeding and planting of native plant species. These activities in
turn provide suitable habitat for wildlife and improve hydrological processes throughout the SLO Tank Farm property.
The Project is being implemented in phases and as such, designation of the restoration sites and subsequent restoration
is initiated in the fall of each year following the completion of work activities within the Project phase limits. The
restoration site boundaries and habitat types are based on the LRP and detailed Project plans. This section describes
restoration activities completed during this Monitoring Period including restoration grading, vernal pool construction,
hydroseeding, seeding, planting, irrigation, weed management, and maintenance and adaptive management. Note that
restoration activities include initial implementation in addition to on-going monitoring and maintenance activities
associated with restoration sites that were established during previous Project phases. A summary of general
restoration activities and implementation periods are listed in Table 3-1 - Restoration Activity Overview. Active
restoration sites are illustrated in Figure 3-1. SLO Tank Farm Restoration Sites.
3.1 RESTORATION GRADING
The Project included grading in areas designated for restoration only, and in areas designated for excavation of
hydrocarbon impacted soils. The Project grading plans provided guidance on final topography and contours throughout
the Project site. Restoration grading for 2021 Project activities was initiated in July 2021, and consisted of vegetation
removal, topsoil segregation and stockpiling, then grading to final contours. In accordance with the LRP, and refined
in the Project grading plans, final grading completed during this Monitoring Period was designed to support the
following restoration plant communities and habitats: Grassland (GL) and Vernal Complex (VP).
3.1.1 RESTORATION SITE ESTABLISHMENT SUMMARY
Following completion of Project activities and grading, restoration sites were delineated and categorized by vegetation
composition (plant community, vernal complex, or special-status plant patch population) as shown in the Project
Grading Plans. Each site, with the exception of constructed vernal complex sites, was hydroseeded with a preliminary
seed mix specific to target species for soil stabilization and native vegetation establishment. Subsequent restoration
activities within the restoration sites will focus on re-seeding and/or planting with additional species as listed in the
LRP and weed management. Vernal complexes were hand-seeded with custom vernal complex seed mix. To date, the
Project Site has eight plant communities in restoration, and 19 created vernal pool complexes. Within these restoration
3-2 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
sites there is a total of 33 special-status plant population patches that occur. Table 3-2 – Restoration Site Summary
Table summarizes the restoration sites established to date.
3.2 VERNAL POOL CONSTRUCTION
Following completion of final remediation grading, vernal pool construction was initiated and implemented as
described in the Vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) (Branchinecta lynchi) Habitat Protection, Restoration and Monitoring
Plan (Padre 2015b). Biological oversight and construction guidance were conducted by Padre biologist Michaela
Hoffman and Trihydro biologist Tori Prado, authorized by the USFWS to monitor and handle the federally protected
VPFS. Using design data collected from reference sites, VPFS restoration habitat was created to mimic features with
highly productive VPFS populations currently existing on the Project site. Vernal pools were constructed in small
groups connected by swales, thereby creating a “vernal complex”. Nineteen vernal complexes were created
2017-2021) totaling 10.37 acres of VPFS restoration habitat (Table 3-2). Each constructed vernal complex was given
a specific identification label for future monitoring and Project activities. The vernal pools (VPs) created around
Reservoir 3 (R3) were labeled as follows: R3-VPX where “X” represents the habitats’ specific number (Figure 3-1).
The acreage created was sufficient to eliminate the potential of temporal loss of wetlands and to offset impacts to
VPFS-occupied habitat from 2021 remediation.
The slope and bottom contours of each restored and created vernal pool depression or complex of pools were designed
to provide optimal hydrologic conditions and to be comparable to reference habitats. Subsurface soils were compacted
90 to 95 percent compaction which was equal to or greater than compaction measured in the design reference VPFS
habitat. Average constructed depth ranged from 6 to 18 inches and the slope of sidewalls was estimated at five to ten
percent, depending on the depth and size of the depression.
HOBO® water data loggers were installed within each VPFS restoration habitat to record water levels and document
the seasonal hydroperiod for each complex. Data will be utilized to compare reference habitats to the created habitat to
measure success of the VPFS restoration habitats. Table 3-2 includes all vernal pool complexes constructed to date.
3.3 SEEDING
Based on the LRP, there are distinct seed mixes for each habitat type including grassland, coastal scrub, mixed riparian
scrub, transitional marsh, hydrophytic, and vernal complex. Native seed is purchased from S&S Seeds in Carpinteria,
California, or another local vendor, based on availability of species and quantities. Actual composition and seeding
rates may vary over time due to site conditions and germination success. Seed mix composition may be modified based
on availability and success of seed mix germination (i.e., use those species that adapt well to site conditions) during the
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 3-3
five-year monitoring period for each restoration site. Restoration seeding methods may include hydroseeding, drill
seeding, and/or hand broadcasting. A summary of seeding activities conducted during this Monitoring Period is
provided in Table 3-3 - Seeding Activities. Note that the there are three designated development areas illustrated on
Figure 3-1 (Reservoir 4, Northwest Operations Area, and Borrow Area No. 2) that are located within SLO Tank Farm
property limits. These three areas will not be restored to natural habitat because they are planned for potential future
development per the LRP and as such, are not discussed any further within this Report. Hydroseeding was conducted
between October 29, 2021 and November 16, 2021, within the 2021 work areas and the established restoration sites,
which is summarized in Table 3-3 – Seeding Activities.
3.4 PLANTING
Container stock will be planted either as a supplement to the seed mix or to provide the primary cover that defines each
plant community. Planting composition is based on those listed in LRP and may be modified based on availability and
survival (i.e., those species that adapt well to site conditions).
3.4.1 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION PLANTING
During the week of January 11, 2022, Trihydro biologists and contracted Entact laborers planted approximately
3,500 container plants of field sedge (Carex praegracilis), brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus), spike rush
Eleocharis macrostachya), salt rush (Juncus lescurii), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum),
creeping wild rye (Elymus triticoides), marsh pennywort (hydrocotyle ranunculoides), purple needlegrass (Stipa
pulchra), and silverweed (Potentilla anserina) within an approximately 2.15-acre area around the North Marsh, and
west fork of Tank Farm Creek. The plants were propagated at the growing facility located at the CEMC Guadalupe
Restoration Site.
3.4.2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES PATCH POPULATIONS
In November 2021, Trihydro hand seeded 57lbs of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, CTP)
within vernal pool restoration areas created during 2021. A total of 1.34 acres of CTP Patch Populations (PP-CTP)
were seeded between four vernal complex restoration sites within Reservoir 3: R3-VP19, -VP20, -VP21, and -VP22.
Seed was broadcast by hand within 24 hours of a rain event to minimize dispersal by wind. Irrigation was not installed
due to the hydrological sensitivity of the life cycle of VPFS. As a vernal pool endemic species, Congdon’s tarplant is
expected to receive optimal soil moisture within these restoration habitats without supplemental irrigation. The areas
are designated as special-status plant patch populations and, as they coincide with the same area as vernal complex
restoration sites, they will maintain their original restoration site identification labeled as R3-VP11, R3-VP12, etc., on
Figure 3-1.
3-4 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Topsoil where populations of Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis, CMG) and San Luis Obispo
owl’s clover (Castilleja densiflora spp. Obispoensis, SLOOC) occurred within the 2021 work area were salvaged and
stockpiled prior to grading. The salvaged topsoil contained viable rhizomes and seed bank of Cambria morning glory and
San Luis Obispo owl’s clover. The special-status plant soil stockpile was utilized as topsoil for restoration features within
the Reservoir 3 work area and will be delineated as patch populations in future surveys. Patch population construction
methods consisted of transport of stockpiled material to the designated location, where it was spread to an approximate
depth of 12 to 16 inches. Additional hand seed dispersal of Cambria morning glory and San Luis Obispo owl’s clover
occurred in December 2021. Fall and winter rains were expected to promote natural germination and growth of the
rhizomes and seed bank within the soil and therefore no irrigation was installed.
3.5 IRRIGATION
Irrigation is necessary when seasonal rainfall is insufficient for seed germination and container stock root establishment
following implementation of restoration measures. Restoration planting and seeding for the Project will generally
occur after approximately one year of preliminary restoration activities (basic native erosion control seed mix
application, weed management, etc.). It is expected that irrigation systems will be installed after restoration planting
and seeding is completed. Watering regimes could range from periodic watering using a water truck and hose to
installation of a temporary above ground irrigation system.
A temporary above ground irrigation system was installed in the North Marsh and Tank Farm Creek areas in October
and November of 2019, and additional lines were added in 2021 to NM-RS2. The system was installed by a
subcontractor to Entact, KD Janni Landscaping Inc., with oversite provided by Trihydro biologists. The system
consists of 14 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) interconnected pipes in a grid pattern, with attached sprinkler heads, and is
controlled by three control panels, each connected to a solar panel with two backup 12-volt batteries. The system was
set at an appropriate frequency and duration to promote root establishment and was turned off during the winter and
spring rain season. The irrigation system has continued to be operated from 2019 to 2022.
3.6 WEED MANAGEMENT
Invasive and select non-native plant species will be controlled within the restoration sites during the five-year
monitoring period to maximize the growth rate and success of native species. Targeted noxious species throughout the
site include Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), purple star thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), yellow star thistle
Centaurea solstialis), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Weed management
activities are implemented as preventative, preliminary, and restorative restoration measures. Methods consist of soil
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 3-5
tilling, mowing, weeding by hand or hand tools, and/or herbicide application. A summary of weed management
conducted during this Monitoring Period is provided in Table 3-4 -Weed Management Activities.
3.7 MAINTENANCE AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Maintenance activities consist of periodic repairs to irrigation systems, associated signage and fencing. Adaptive
management measures such as replacement seeding and/or replanting will be implemented if the survival and canopy
cover requirements do not appear to be progressing towards achievement of success criteria. If necessary, soil nutrients
may be tested to determine if nutrient deficiencies are a contributing factor to the lack of success.
During this Monitoring Period, maintenance activities were conducted within the R2-CS1, NM-HP1, and NM-RS2,
restoration sites. Periodic site checks were conducted at all restoration sites to determine the need for weed abatement,
irrigation, planting, seeding, BMP installation, and other adaptive management or maintenance. Existing BMPs within
vernal pool restoration sites NM-VP3N, NM-VP4, NM-VP5, NM-VP10, and R3-VP12 were removed as they were no
longer needed to protect the pools from remediation activities. A portion of R3-VP12 BMPs will be reinstalled in the
fall to protect the VP from potential erosion of the berm to the north/northeast outside of the VP. The periodic site
checks identified the need for further planting to increase the native plant cover in NM-HP1 and NM-RS2, as well as
the implementation of weed management activities as discussed in Section 3.4 Weed Management. Replanting in
North Marsh restoration sites was scheduled and completed the week of January 11, 2022. It was determined that
irrigation was needed for the North Marsh restoration sites (NM-HP1 and NM-RS2) to facilitate plant survival and was
scheduled after winter and spring rains ended. Maintenance on the irrigation system is conducted periodically while
the system is active.
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 4-1
4.0 RESTORATION MONITORING
Restoration monitoring for the SLO Tank Farm Project is based on a set of restoration targets, standards, and success
criteria (Appendix B – Summary of Project Targets, Standards, and Success Criteria), in conjunction with a
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach that recognizes the importance of hydrologic and biogeochemical processes that
drive many major ecosystem functions for long-term ecological restoration success. This section describes Project
success criteria, and performance monitoring and results for this Monitoring Period.
4.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
All restoration sites are monitored to evaluate progress towards achievement of success criteria set forth in the LRP.
Success criteria are based on Project goals and targets and are categorized by ecological form or function: plant
communities, vernal complex habitats, special-status plants, faunal support, and hydrological and biogeochemical.
Each success criterion is described in detail below.
4.1.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES
In order to capture the success of the restoration efforts, as well as the community structure, the success criteria for
plant communities are primarily based on percent plant cover and/or percent sapling survival, appropriate for each
community type, as summarized in Table 4-1 - Plant Community Success Criteria Summary.
4.1.2 VERNAL COMPLEXES AND HABITAT
Vernal complexes are created to provide suitable habitat for VPFS occurring within the Project site. The Vernal Pool
Fairy Shrimp Habitat Protection, Restoration and Monitoring Plan (VPFS HPRMP) (Padre, 2015b) provides
comprehensive guidance on avoidance and minimization measures for the species and reporting on success of
mitigation measures. Table 4-2 summarizes the success criteria for vernal complex plant community, structural, and
functional attributes.
4.1.3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
Special-status plants planted and/or seeded in distinct patch populations within suitable habitat created during
restoration become patch populations. The success criteria for special status plants are based on target densities for
plants within representative patch populations, as summarized in Table 4-3. Special Status Plant Success Criteria are
discussed in detail below.
4-2 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Cambria morning glory: Success criteria requires approximately 8 to 15 patch populations ranging from 0.5 to
1.0 acres in size within the Grassland plant community. Success of patch populations is determined by a target density
of two to five individuals per 1,000 cm2 quadrat by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Target acreage for
patch populations is 9.8 acres.
San Luis Obispo owl’s clover: Success criteria requires up to 15 patch populations ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 acres in size
within the Grassland plant community. Success of patch populations is a target density of two or more individuals per
1,000 cm2 quadrat by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Target acreage for patch populations is 8.3 acres.
Congdon’s tarplant: Success criteria requires Congdon’s tarplant populations within Grassland and wetland plant
community locations throughout the Project site. Patch populations ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 acre in size require a target
density of one or more individuals per 1,000 cm2 quadrat by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Target acreage
for patch populations is 14.4 acres.
California walnut (Juglans californica): Success criteria requires up to ten California walnut trees will be planted
within the Mixed Riparian plant community and require 100 percent survivorship by the end of the five-year
monitoring period. The walnut trees are avoided to the greatest extent feasible and are required to be restored at 1:1, as
necessary, depending on Project impacts.
Hoover’s button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri): Success criteria requires up to five patch populations
ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 in size within the Vernal Pool and Swale plant community. Patch populations require a target
density of one or more individuals per 1,000 cm2 quadrat by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Target acreage
for patch populations is 0.02 acres.
Purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra, PNG): Success criteria requires up to 15 patch populations ranging from 0.5 to
12.0 acres in size within the Grassland plant community. Patch populations require a target density equal to or greater
than ten percent vegetation cover by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Target acreage for purple needlegrass
grassland populations is 23.0 acres.
Special status plants are recorded in principle stages of phenology to provide more detailed information on population
trends, and reproductive success. Due to environmental variability plant population sizes may vary, increasing or
decreasing in size; therefore, patch population success is determined by the size of populations and/or target densities.
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 4-3
4.1.4 FAUNAL SUPPORT
Faunal support is measurable through measurement of structural and functional attributes of the landscape such as
wetland and riparian functionality and form. Success criteria have been designed to qualitatively assess the faunal
support/habitat functions of the restored and enhanced ecosystems of the Project site, such as San Luis Obispo Creek
re-connected oxbow, enhanced and riparian habitats. Specifically, faunal support success criteria will be achieved
through:
Establishment of greater than or equal to three waters/wetland classes, as defined by Cowardin et al., 1979, in the
Tank Farm Creek ecosystem within a five-year monitoring period
Habitat structure, contiguity, connectivity, and patch size retained throughout the Tank Farm Creek ecosystem,
with limited fragmentation in the landscape through the five-year monitoring period
4.1.5 HYDROLOGICAL AND BIOGEOCHEMICAL
Success Criteria have been designed to document significant changes within the channel systems, as compared to
baseline conditions. Hydrological and biogeochemical success criteria were designed to measure restoration and
enhancement of several hydrologic functions, and processes of removal, export, and/or cycling of elements and
compounds throughout the watershed system. Specifically, hydrological and biogeochemical success will be achieved
through:
Evidence of regular (annual) overbank flows from the restored East Fork San Luis Obispo Creek and Tank Farm
Creek channel systems to adjacent floodplains and wetlands through the monitoring period
Regular (annual or during wet season when it occurs) engagement of the oxbows by the main channel of the East
Fork San Luis Obispo Creek system
Stable sill structures at inlets and outlets
Stable depression and swale cross sections through the monitoring period (vernal complexes)
Development of a dynamic and relatively complex channel system along the channel and adjacent floodplain of the
restored Tank Farm Creek throughout the monitoring period
Stable channel connections to adjacent floodplain/wetlands, depressions, earthen mounds, habitat logs, and
deflection structures
4-4 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
4.2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Performance monitoring consists of qualitative and quantitative monitoring methods, used to evaluate the restoration
sites for progress towards achievement of success criteria. Generally, restoration sites will be monitored qualitatively
during the first few years after completion of Project activities, then transition into quantitative monitoring later in the
five-year monitoring period for each restoration site. Monitoring methods are described below.
4.2.1 MONITORING METHODS
Restoration monitoring methods utilized for restoration monitoring consist of the following:
Photo-documentation: Color photographs are taken at established, permanent stations in each revegetation area.
The photo number, compass direction, and location were documented
Quantitative Surveys: Quantitative surveys are conducted to quantify the total plant cover, plant density, native
and invasive species cover. Line-transect, line-quadrat, and/or point-intercept methods are utilized along
established transects within each restoration site. The transect numbers and transect lengths are dependent on the
size and shape of each restoration site. Data is collected and recorded on field data sheets or electronic tablets
during field surveys
Qualitative Surveys: Qualitative surveys include identification of plant species, wetland and native species
composition, and the need for maintenance/adaptive management. Data is collected and recorded on field data
sheets or electronic tablets during field surveys
Data Analysis: Data collected during quantitative surveys is analyzed to measure the hydrophytic and native
species composition and may include application of the species dominance test methods specified in the ACOE
Manual and ACOE Supplement, as needed
Vernal Complex Axes measurement: Measurements of the short and long axis of representative vernal complexes
are taken annually to determine changes in size over time which can be used as an indicator of vernal complex
function throughout the site. Measurement methods consist of establishment of a “short” axis measurement point,
and a “long” axis point, located at the top of the slope. A second point for each axis is determined by following a
north-south or east-west bearing from the designated axis point, finding the top of the slope along that bearing on
the opposite side of the complex, then measuring the distance between the two points along the axis. This method
is repeated in the same representative pools for the duration of the 5-year monitoring period
Hydrological Function Determination: Hydrological data is collected to document significant changes within the
channel systems, wetlands, and vernal complexes as compared to baseline conditions. General methods to collect
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 4-5
hydrological data include installation of data loggers within selected features, observations during storm events,
and measurements of physical characteristics of representative features
4.3 MONITORING RESULTS
The following is a summary of the results of restoration monitoring conducted during this monitoring period. Refer to
Figure 3-1, Appendix C - Site Photographs, and Appendix D – Monitoring Data Sheets for supporting documentation.
4.3.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES
Qualitative monitoring for plant communities within active restoration sites was conducted in spring 2021 and results
are summarized in Table 4-4. Plant Community Monitoring Results.
4.3.1.1 RESTORATION SITE OBSERVATIONS
On April 18, 26, and 28, and May 3, 2022, Trihydro biologists conducted quantitative surveys to assess the vegetative
conditions of all the restoration sites that have been established to date.
Grassland Sites. In November 2020, following completion of Project activities in the North Marsh work area,
NM-GL1 was hydroseeded with the preliminary native seed mix prior to the onset of winter rains. Vegetation cover for
2018 grassland site (NM-GL1) was approximately 90 percent relative to bare ground, with annual grasses as the
dominant species. Other dominant native and non-native species included bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca
echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa).
No noxious species were observed within this grassland site. The special status plant purple needle grass
Stipa pulchra) was observed with 2 percent cover within this restoration site. Vegetation cover for the 2017 grassland
site (R2-GL1) was approximately 94 percent relative to bare ground, with the dominant species being purple false
brome (Brachypodium distachyon), with other co-dominant species of slender wild oats (Avena barbata), and tocalote
Centaurea melitensis). No noxious species were observed within this grassland site. Purple needle grass also showed
dominance with 16 percent cover in the restoration site. Small patches of Cambria morning glory (Calystegia
subacaulis ssp. episcopalis) were also outside of the restoration transect survey area. The grassland restoration area
around Reservoir 3 (R3-GL3) was hydroseeded with the preliminary native seed mix in November 2021. Vegetation
cover for the 2021 grassland site was 45.5 percent relative to bare ground. Dominant species in R3-GL3 included
purple false brome, slender wild oats, and big heron bill (Erodium botrys). Cambria morning glory was observed in the
restoration site with a percent cover of less than 0.1 percent. No noxious species were observed within R3-GL3. No
irrigation system was installed at the grassland restoration sites.
4-6 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Coastal Scrub Site. Vegetation cover within the 2018 coastal scrub site (R2-CS1) was observed to be approximately
98 percent relative to bare ground, consisting of mostly non-native species. Slender wild oats was the main dominant
species. Other dominant nonnative species purple false brome , and tocalote. No noxious species or special status
species were observed within the coastal scrub site. Due to the dominant, non-native grassland species inhibiting the
establishment of a coastal scrub target community, adaptive management has been implemented to depress invasive
weeds while promoting the growth of native coastal scrub. Re-seeding with coastal scrub seed mix occurred in
November of 2021 before the onset of the winter rainy season. Additional seeding or planting, and targeted weed
control may occur in 2022.
Riparian and Marsh Sites. In November 2020, native riparian and hydrophytic plant species were planted in the North
Marsh Mixed Riparian (NM-RS2 and NM-RS3) and North Marsh Hydrophytic (NM-HP1) restoration sites.
Additionally, arroyo willow poles were planted along the boundaries of the North Marsh – Transitional Marsh
community (NM-TM1). Vegetation cover for 2018 mixed riparian site (NM-RS1) was approximately 57.8 percent
relative to bare ground, with purple false brome as the dominant species. Other dominant non-native species included
Mediterranean hoary mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), slender wild oats, and bird’s foot trefoil. California brome, soft-
chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), and bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). There was a 2.2 percent cover of
noxious species within NM-RS1, and no special status plants were observed within this restoration site. Vegetation
cover for 2018-2019 mixed riparian site (NM-RS2) was approximately 98 percent relative to bare ground, with bird’s
foot trefoil as the dominant species. Other dominant native and non-native species included creeping wild rye
Elymus triticoides) and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). No noxious species and no special status plants
were observed within this restoration site. Vegetation cover for 2018-2019 mixed riparian site (NM-RS3) was
approximately 91 percent relative to bare ground, with Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) as the dominant species.
Other dominant non-native species included bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides) and bird’s foot trefoil. No
noxious or special status species were observed within NM-RS3. Vegetation cover for 2018-2019 hydrophytic site
NM-HP1) was approximately 94.7 percent relative to bare ground, with bird’s foot trefoil as the dominant species.
Other native and non-native dominant species bristly ox-tongue and brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus). No
noxious or special status species were observed in NM-HP1. Vegetation cover for 2018-2019 transitional marsh site
NM-TM1) was approximately 97.3 percent relative to bare ground, with common spikerush (Eleocharis
macrostachya) as the dominant species. Other dominant species are non-native and included water speedwell
Veronica anagallis-aquiatica) young unidentifiable annual grasses. No noxious species and no special status plants
were observed within this restoration site. Re-planting of NM-HP1, NM-TM1, and NM-RS2. These restoration sites
also utilize an irrigation system.
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 4-7
4.3.2 VERNAL COMPLEX SITES
The constructed vernal complexes support a specific wetland plant species composition considered as one of the target
plant communities to be created as discussed in the LRP. As such, the vernal complexes are monitored for general
vegetation establishment purposes (plant community) in addition to being monitored for structure, function, and vernal
pool endemic (VPEs) species specific criteria. Monitoring results related to VPFS aquatic surveys (species presence,
population densities, etc.) are provided in the annual VPFS Monitoring Report which is attached to this Report as
Appendix E – VPFS Annual Monitoring Report. Results in this section relate to the success criteria listed in
Section 4.1.2 of this Report.
Monitoring for vegetation establishment within the nineteen constructed vernal complexes for the 2021-2022
monitoring period will be completed in June 2022 to ensure that vernal pool endemic flora has had adequate time to
establish. In December 2021, vernal complex sites lacking vernal pool endemic plant growth that were created in 2021,
were seeded with a Vernal Complex seed mix. No other vernal complexes were seeded within 2021-2022.
Structural and functional attributes of the constructed vernal complexes were measured, and the results are listed in
Table 4-5. 2021-2022 Hydrological Data Summary, and Table 4-6. Vernal Complex Representative Axis
Measurements and shown on Figure 4-1. Vernal Pool Restoration Habitat Axis. Further, Table 4-7. Vernal Complex
VPE Plant Species Monitoring Results summarizes VPE composition in representative vernal complexes from the 2021
monitoring season.
4.3.3 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS
Special-status plant patch population surveys established seven new patch populations during this Monitoring Period.
Restoration sites R3-VP19N, R3-VP19S, R3-VP20, R3-VP21, and R3-VP22, were hand seeded with Congdon’s
tarplant in November of 2021, along with the vernal complex seed mix, to establish five Congdon’s tarplant patch
populations. During qualitative surveys performed in 2021, Congdon’s tarplant individuals were observed in almost
every created vernal pool onsite, those lacking were NM-VP1, NM-VP9, and NM-VP10. Quantitative monitoring
within special status patch populations was conducted in May 2022 to assess the sites for population densities, percent
cover, emergent vegetation, evidence of growth, and need for adaptive management and maintenance. Quantitative
monitoring within the vernal pools for the 2021-2022 season will be conducted in June of 2022 to ensure that vernal
pool endemic flora has had adequate time to establish. Monitoring results for all other patch populations are listed in
Table 4-8: Special-Status Patch Population Monitoring Results.
4-8 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
Cambria Morning Glory Patch Populations. Cambria morning glory patch, PP-CMG1, was established within the
North Marsh Grassland restoration site (NM-GL1) near NM-VP10 on the north side of the Project Site in the proximity
to a population of Cambria morning glory removed during 2019 remediation. The density was estimated to be
0.3 individuals per 1,000cm2. PP-CMG2 was established adjacent to the south side of R3-VP16 on the north facing
slope. The density was estimated to be 1.3 individuals per 1,000cm2. PP-CMG3 was discovered within the Reservoir 2
Grassland restoration site (R2-GL1) on the northwest side of the Tank Ring. The density was estimated to be
approximately 25 individuals within the entire population. PP-CMG4 was discovered within the North Marsh
Grassland restoration site (NM-GL1) on the northern side, in between two old tank rings. The density was estimated to
be 5.0 individuals per 1,000cm2. PP-CMG5 was discovered within the North Marsh Grassland restoration site
NM-GL1) on the north side of NM-VP10, on a south facing slope. The density was estimated to be 4.4 individuals per
1,000cm2. Five new Cambria morning glory populations were discovered during patch population surveys. PP-CMG6
was discovered in the grassland to the west of NM-VP7 and had an approximate density of 4.4 individuals per
1,000cm2. PPCMG-7 is located between two tank rings just south of PP-CMG4. The density was estimated at
8 individuals for the entire patch. PP-CMG8 was discovered within the grassland to the east of R3-VP11 and contained
over 100 individuals within the entire patch. PP-CMG9 likewise contained over 100 individuals within the entire patch
and is located around newly constructed R3-VP22. PP-CMG10 is a small patch just north of R3-VP22 and contained
approximately 25 individuals. Three Cambria morning glory patch populations (PP-CMG4, PP-CMG-5, and PP-
CMG6) met the density success criteria of 2 – 5 individuals per 1,000cm2. Adaptive management recommendations
for Cambria morning glory patches include weed abatement to suppress the cover and density of non-native species and
reduce competition, followed by additional planting and/or seeding.
Congdon’s Tarplant Patch Populations. No special-status patch population monitoring was conducted this spring for
Congdon’s tarplant populations due to their late blooming season. Patch population surveys will be conducted in June
2022.
Purple Needlegrass Patch Populations. In 2018, one purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) patch, PP-PNG1, was
established in the southern portion of the Project Site on the side of the former Reservoir 2 (R2-GL1). Purple needle
grass cover was approximately 13.0 percent. PP-PNG2 was established in the southern edge of the North Marsh
Grassland (NM-GL1) on the north facing slope adjacent to NM-VP10. The percent cover of purple needle grass was
approximately 11.7 percent. PP-PNG3 was discovered in the southern portion of the Project Site on the south adjacent
side of PP-PNG1 on the former Reservoir 2 (R2-GL1). This patch is likely a result of expansion from PP-PNG1 and is
approximately 2.18 acres, however they are considered separate populations due to a gravel road that runs through the
two patches. The percent cover of purple needle grass was approximately 17.6 percent. PP-PNG4 is a small patch that
was discovered in the on the north side of Reservoir 2 (R2-GL1), on a low slope facing north. Purple needle grass
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 4-9
cover was approximately 9.0 percent. PP-PNG5 was discovered in the northern portion of the Project Site along a
small section of the perimeter of the North Marsh Grassland (NM-GL1). Purple needle grass cover was approximately
9.2 percent. PP-PNG6 was discovered in a small section within North Marsh Grassland (NM-GL1) along a silt fence
east adjacent to NM-VP10. Purple needle grass cover was approximately 40 percent for the entire patch. PP-PNG7
was discovered on the south facing slope of North Marsh Grassland (NM-GL1) adjacent to NM-VP10. Purple needle
grass cover was approximately 23.7 percent. Two new purple needle grass patch populations were discovered during
patch population monitoring. PP-PNG8 is a small patch on the tank ring just east of NM-RS2 and had a cover of
approximately 55 percent for the entire patch. PP-PNG9 was discovered to the south of R3-VP11 and had an
approximate cover of 30 percent for the entire patch. All purple needle grass patch populations with the exception of
two (PP-PNG4, and PP-PNG5) met the density success criteria of at least 10 percent cover. Weed abatement within
restoration grasslands is on-going and is recommended to continue to reduce the cover and density of non-native forbs
and competition. Additional seeding and planting of purple needlegrass is also recommended.
San Luis Obispo Owl’s Clover Patch Populations. San Luis Obispo owl’s clover, PP-SLOOC1, was established
adjacent to the south side of R3-VP16 on the north facing slope. No individuals were observed during special-status
patch population monitoring within this patch. PP-SLOOC2 was discovered along the northern side of R3-VP11, on
the south side of the Project Site in an area where historical populations occurred. The density was estimated to be
2.7 individual per 1,000cm2. PP-SLOOC3 was discovered along the southern side of R3-VP11, on the south side of the
Project Site in an area where historical populations occurred. The density was estimated to be 1 individual per
1,000cm2. PP-SLOOC2 is the only San Luis Obispo owl’s clover patch to meet success criteria of at least 2 individuals
per 1,000cm2. Weed abatement within the surrounding grassland of R3-VP11 is recommended to reduce the cover and
density of non-native forbs and competition. Additional seeding is also recommended.
The 2023 work planned for Oxbow reengagement of the cutoff oxbows to the main channel of the East Fork of San
Luis Obispo Creek will result in removal/take of one California walnut tree. In order to restore the 1:1 ratio of this
species, planting of the California walnut trees will occur during future restoration work within 2022-2023. The
California walnut tree will be utilized as habitat logs within the restoration area of Tank Farm Creek in 2023.
4.3.4 FAUNAL SUPPORT
Native plant restoration completed in November 2020 within the riparian scrub, hydrophytic, and transitional marsh,
and in January 2022 (except riparian scrub) support a mixed community structure for a variety of wildlife including
shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. During 2020 restoration site construction, large,
downed tree trunks and limbs were installed as habitat log structures and erosion control in high water volume sections
4-10 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
of the Tank Farm creek channel within restoration sites (NM-RS2 and NM-RS3). Baseline qualitative monitoring of
restoration sites included observations of wildlife usage (e.g., nesting, cover, food, and/or migratory stopovers).
Hydrological and Biogeochemical Vernal complexes were constructed during this Monitoring Period and hydrological
monitoring consisted of long and short axis measurement and depth and duration of inundation documentation. Results
are discussed and illustrated in Section 4.3.2.
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 5-1
5.0 DISCUSSION
This report provides a summary of Project status, disturbances to waters/wetlands and habitats, and restoration
activities that have been implemented to date. Project activities that have been completed and/or are in progress
include soil remediation, grading and excavation, installation of Project-related infrastructure such as temporary access
roads, above ground water line, staging areas, facilities decommissioning, and site entrance improvements. To date,
within the approximately 151.06 acres of total Project disturbance area, a total of 19.43 acres of waters/wetlands,
132.38 acres of plant community habitat, 22.63 acres of special-status plants, and 5.45 acres of vernal pool habitat have
been impacted.
There are 29 active restoration sites that have been constructed to date; 3 restoration sites were constructed in 2017,
13 sites in 2018, 2 sites in 2019, 5 sites in 2020, and 6 sites in 2021. Most of these sites are in the restorative phase of
restoration which consists of seeding with a basic native seed mix, weed management, native plant species
composition, invasive species management and conducting erosion control repairs or other site maintenance activities
as necessary. During the upcoming 2022-2023 monitoring period, restoration activities will include restorative seeding
with native seed comprised of species listed in the LRP, planting container stock as a supplement to seeding, if
necessary, and construction of new restoration sites within the Project disturbance areas. Temporary irrigation systems
have been and may be installed as necessary at each restoration site. The 40 special-status plant population patches will
also continue to be surveyed during the 2022-2023 monitoring period.
Restoration monitoring has been completed for the 2021-2022 monitoring period, which represents year six of the
overall Project duration. Restoration monitoring begins during the first year following construction and continues for a
duration of five years for each restoration site. Five restoration sites (NM-HP1, NM-TM1, NM-RS2, R2-CS1, and
R2-GL1) met the success criteria during the 2021-2022 monitoring period.
202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES
Marine Research Specialists. 2013. Chevron Tank Farm Remediation Project Final Environmental Impact Report
FEIR). Prepared for City of Sant Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, SCH#2009031001.
December 2013.
Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre). 2015a. Landscape Restoration Plan, Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation, Restoration, and Development Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. December 2015.
2015b. Vernal Pool Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan. Appendix H of the Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank
Farm Remediation, Restoration, and Development Project, San Luis Obispo County, California.
December 2015.
2016. 2016 Pre-Activity Biological Survey Report, Reservoir 2, Entrance Improvements, and Electrical Line
Connection to Waterwell. Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project, San
Luis Obispo County, California. August 2016.
2017a. Biological Resources Monitoring 2016 Annual Summary Report, Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation and Restoration Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. January 2017.
2017b. Pre-Activity Biological Survey Report, North Marsh Area Demolition, Grading, and Restoration, Chevron San
Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project, San Luis Obispo County, California.
March 2017.
2018. Biological Resources Monitoring 2017 Annual Summary Report, Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation and Restoration Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. January 2018.
2019. Biological Resources Monitoring 2018 Annual Summary Report, Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County, California. March 2019.
Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2016. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for Discharge
and/or Dredge of Fill Materials (Certification No. 34015WQ06). April 18, 2016.
6-2 202205_StatHabitatRstrMon_RPT.docx
San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building. 2014. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-027
Resolution Relative to the Granting of a Conditional Use Permit (DRC2013-00056). October 23, 2014.
Trihydro Corporation (Trihydro). 2019. 2019 Pre-Activity Biological Survey Report, North Marsh Area Demolition,
Grading and Restoration, San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo
County, California. April 2019.
2020a. 2020 Pre-Activity Biological Survey Report, Reservoir 3 Area Demolition, Grading and Restoration, San Luis
Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County, California. March 2020.
2020b. Biological Resources Monitoring 2019 Annual Summary Report for the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County, California. April 2020.
2021a. 2021 Pre-Activity Biological Survey Report, Reservoir 3 Area Demolition, Grading and Restoration, San Luis
Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County, California. April 2021.
2021b. Biological Resources Monitoring 2020 Annual Summary Report for the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County, California. January 2021.
2022a. 2022 Pre-Activity Biological Survey Report, Reservoir 5 and Reservoir 7 Areas Demolition, Grading and
Restoration, San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County,
California. April 2022.
2022b. Biological Resources Monitoring 2021 Annual Summary Report for the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm
Remediation and Restoration Project. San Luis Obispo County, California. January 2022.
TABLES
TABLE 2-1. PROJECT DISTURBANCE SUMMARY
Entrance improvements;
electrical connection
water well installation;
debris pile removal; and
pipeline assessment
Reservoir 4 remediation
and grading; water line
installation, and culvert
installation
X X
North Marsh
Remediation and
Grading
2019
Remediation and grading in
North Marsh, southern
Tank Farm Creek, and
PPSH Area 10, and
underground utility
abandonment in North
West Operations Area
x x 35.73 35.68 6.26 10.54 0.43
2020
Remediation and grading in
PPSH Area 7, PPSH Area
8, Arsenic Area, and North
West Operations Area
x x 14.94 9.82 5.73 0.59 0.28
2021
Remediation and grading in
Reservoir 3; excavation of
common earth backfill
material and grading in the
Oxbow Borrow Area
x x 25.34 15.49 5.82 0 4.03
151.06 132.38 22.63 19.43 5.45
2016 X 6.29
Plant
Communities
Work
Year Scope
Work type Feature and Habitat Disturbance (acres)2
Remediation Total3 Waters/WetlandsSpecial-Status
Plants VernalPoolsOtherGrading1
0
3 Total Disturbance includes developed/ruderal areas that are not considered a plant community; the acreage is based on as-built mapping included in the annual Biological Resources
Monitoring Annual Summary Report (Padre, 2016, Padre, 2017, Padre, 2018, Padre, 2019, Trihydro, 2020, and Trihydro, 2021).
Reservoir 2 remediation
and grading
Totals to date
1 Other grading refers to grading/trenching for infrastructure, restoration grading activities, and any other ground disturbance not related to soil remediation.
2 Disturbance acres based on pre-activity mapping for plant communities, special status plants, and documented mapping for waters/wetlands, and vernal pools as per the LRP (Padre,
2015a).
2018 X
30.05 1.54 0.3 0
X
2017 33.32
8 0.71
0
X 35.44
X
5.96 1.61
35.38 1.67
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 2-2. REVISED SLO TANK FARM RWQCB PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY 2016-2021
Compensatory
Mitigation Compensatory Compensatory
1:1)1 Mitigation Mitigation
2:1)1 (2:1)1
linear linear cubic cubic linear linear cubic cubic linear linear cubic cubic
feet feet yards yards feet feet yards yards feet feet yards yards
2016 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------
2017 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------
2018 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------
2019 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------
2020 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------
2021 ------------------------------------------
Total Permitted7 ----1.7 3,630 1,240 1,692 1.7 ----------------------------
2016 ------------------------------------------
2017 ------------------------------------------
2018 ------------------------------------------
2019 ------------------------------------------
2020 ------------------------------------------
2021 ------------------------------------------
Total Permitted7 ------------------------------------------
2016 ----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2017 ----0 0 0 0 0 0.22 453 ----1,352 1,352 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2018 --------27,592 31,776 0 0 0 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2019 0.042 400 10.268 1,289.70 37,234 35,003 10.26 0 0 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2020 0.15 184 0.39 946.00 3,442 2,517 0 ----------------------------
2021 ------------------------------------------
Total Permitted7 ----26.5 6,670 73,857 7,272 26.5 1.4 1,530 ----4,612 933 2.8 0.4 <5 ----1,318 267 0.8
2016 ----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2017 ----0 0 0 0 0 0.08 171 ----413 413 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2018 ----0 0 2,475 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2019 0.23 215 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0 0 0 ----0 0 0
2020 ----0 0 ------0.05 178 ----3,672 322.7 0 --------------
2021 ----4.42 2,875.50 32,448 21,144 4.42 --------------0.09 318.60 ----39.65 0 1.52
Total Permitted7 ----8 4,020 17,014 14,296 8 0.9 1,888 ----4,887 135 1.8 0.1 <5 ----543 15 0.2
PROJECT
DISTURBANCE
TOTAL
0.272 615 15.078 4,165.20 99,787 87,923 14.68 0.35 624 ----1,582 1,572 0 0.09 318.60 ----39.65 0 1.52
TOTAL PERMITTED7 ----36.2 14,320 103,471 24,610 36.2 2.3 3,418 ----9,499 1,068 4.6 0.5 ------1,861 282 1
7Total permitted volumes taken from RWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 34015WQ06, Appendix A, dated 4/18/2016. Current approved grading permit volumes may differ.
Excavation Fill
Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Impacts Excavation Fill Impacts
Temporary
Excavation Fill Impacts
2 Nomenclature consistent with the Landscape Restoration Plan (Padre, 2015).
3 For most of East Fork San Luis Obispo Creek, associated riparian communities occur generally within the confines of the creek bank; therefore, no additional riparian impacts are provided outside of the streambed.
acres acresacresacresacresacresacresacres
6 Mitigation acreage includes federal wetlands and non-federal wetlands.
4 Includes all waters/wetlands mitigation requirements for the Project, including one-parameter wetlands and development impacts.
5 Mitigation acreage includes streambed and riparian habitats.
acres
Streambed
Riparian3
Federal Wetland
Non-federal Wetland
Notes:
Water Type2
Remediation/Restoration
Outside of Development Areas
Remediation/Restoration
Within Development Areas (impacted first by remediation)
Development Only
1 Mitigation ratio consistent with the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and the County of San Luis Obispo Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (MRS, 2013) (CUP DRC2013-00056)
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-1. RESTORATION ACTIVITY OVERVIEW
Preventative Before Project grading and remediation.
Preliminary
Immediately after completion of Project activities;
duration approximately one growing season or one
year.
Restorative After preliminary restoration period, through the five-
year monitoring period as needed.
Hydroseed native seed mix to stabilize soil
and out-compete non- native plants in the
seed bank.
Preliminary
Immediately after completion of Project activities and
final grading; duration approximately one growing
season or one year.
Seeding (hydroseed, drill, and/or hand-
broadcast methods) and planting with LRP
plant community seed mix and plant
species.
Restorative
After completion of preliminary restoration activities;
approximately one year after completion of Project
activities; duration five years or until success criteria
are met.
Irrigation Restorative During five-year monitoring period as needed.
Restoration activity(s)Implementation Period
Weed management (tilling, herbicide
spraying, hand pulling)
Restoration Phase
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-2. RESTORATION SITE SUMMARY TABLE
R2-GL1 Grassland 6.44 2017
R2-CS1 Coastal Scrub 3.10 2017
NM-VP1 Vernal Complex 0.05 2017
NM-GL1 Grassland 15.20 2018-2019
NM-RS1 Mixed Riparian Scrub 0.14 2018
NM-RS2 Mixed Riparian Scrub 1.90 2018-2019
NM-RS3 Mixed Riparian Scrub 2.55 2018-2019
NM-HP1 Hydrophytic 6.72 2018-2019
NM-TM1 Transitional Marsh 0.43 2018-2019
NM-VP2 Vernal Complex 0.21 2018
NM-VP4 Vernal Complex 0.15 2018
NM-VP5 Vernal Complex 0.10 2018
NM-VP7 Vernal Complex 0.25 2018
NM-VP8 Vernal Complex 0.14 2018
NM-VP9 Vernal Complex 0.12 2018
NM-VP3N Vernal Complex 0.47 2019
NM-VP3S Vernal Complex 0.30 2019
NM-VP10 Vernal Complex 1.30 2019
R3-GL2 Grassland 3.78 2020
R3-VP11 Vernal Complex 0.52 2020
R3-VP12 Vernal Complex 0.47 2020
R3-VP16 Vernal Complex 0.10 2020
R3-VP17 Vernal Complex 0.13 2020
R3-VP18 Vernal Complex 0.12 2020
R3-VP19 Vernal Complex 0.05 2021
R3-VP20 Vernal Complex 4.49 2021
R3-VP21 Vernal Complex 1.09 2021
R3-VP22 Vernal Complex 0.31 2021
R3-GL3 Grassland 7.57 2021
Site ID Plant community Acres Year Constructed
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-3. SEEDING ACTIVITIES
R3-VP19
R3-VP20
R3-VP21
R3-VP22
R3-GL3 Restorative
Oxbow Borrow Area Preliminary
R2-CS1 Restorative Coastal Sage Scrub
Acmispon glaber
Artemisia californica
Baccharis pilularis
Mimulus aurantiacus spp.
aurantiacus
Eriogonum fasciculatum spp.
Foliolosum
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
Salvia mellifera
Bromus carinatus
Festuca microstachys
Stipa pulchra
10/2021 through
11/2021
SeedingDateRestorationPhase
12/28/2021
Grassland
Bromus carinatus
Festuca microstachys
Stipa pulchra
Asclepias fascicularis
Eschoscholzia californica
Lupinus bicolor
Sisyrinchium bellum
10/2021 through
11/2021
Site Seed Mix Name Seed Mix Species
Preliminary Vernal Complex
Eleocharis machrostachys
Hordeum brachyantherum
Lasthenia glabrata
Lepidium nitidum
Centromadia parryii spp.
Congodonii
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-4. WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
2022 Work Areas
Reservoir 7, Tank Farm
Creek, Oxbow No. 1,
Oxbow No. 2)
Preliminary Herbicide
R3-GL2 Preventative Herbicide1
R3-VP11
R3-VP12
R3-VP16
R3-VP17
R3-VP18
1 Herbicide brands include Milestone and Telar; approved for use in and around aquatic habitats.
Artichoke thistle
Italian thistle
Yellow star thistle
5/24/2021
Date(s)
Note:
Restoration
PhaseSite Method Target Species
Preventative Herbicide1 Stinkwort 11/1/2021
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-1. PLANT COMMUNITY SUCCESS CRITERIA SUMMARY
Mixed Riparian Scrub
Coastal Sage Scrub
Mixed Riparian
Woodland
Percent Plant Cover Sapling Survival
Emergent
communities
70% plant cover
NAGrasslands
Invasive (Noxious) Species
Transitional Marsh,
Hydrophytic1
NA Not applicable.
10% plant canopy cover
70% plant canopy cover
10% patch populations
of purple needlegrass
grassland)
Vernal Wetland
Depressions and Swales2
Not significantly different
from pre-established
reference vernal wetland
plant communities
80% sapling
survival 10% plant canopy cover
Scrub/shrub and
woodland
communities3
40% plant canopy cover
Notes:
1 Transitional Marsh and Hydrophytic Plant Communities correspond to the Freshwater Marsh habitat as described in the LRP.
2 Vernal wetland depressions and swales are comprised of vernal pool endemic (VPE) plant species and are monitored for specific success criteria as described
in the Vernal Pool Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (Padre, 2015b). Criteria includes target values and restoration site comparisons for total vegetative
cover, VPE species composition and dominance, and plant vigor.
3 Mature scrub/shrub and woodland plant communities typically have a canopy cover that can range from intermittent to continuous. A success criterion of <40%
reflects the relatively low density of plants that are necessary to create communities that are comparable to natural conditions. In addition, allowing space between
plants (<40% cover) provides suitable conditions for these communities to increase in density over time, following completion of Project monitoring.
Plant Communities
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-2. VERNAL COMPLEX SUCCESS CRITERIA SUMMARY
Criterion1 Description
Compaction The degree of compaction of soils/substrates in constructed depressions and swales show no
significant departures from Baseline/Year 0 conditions.
VPFS Habitat Protection, Restoration and Monitoring Plan
Long and short axis cross sections show no significant departures from Baseline/Year 0
conditions
The overall shapes, areas, and conditions of representative buffers surrounding constructed
vernal depressions and swales not significantly different from Baseline/Year 0 conditions
through the monitoring period.
No inputs or accretion of sediment are evident in representative constructed vernal
depressions and swales and their buffers through the monitoring period.
Native plant species dominate constructed vernal depressions and swales and are not
significantly different from pre-established reference plant communities appropriate for wet
period.
Landscape Restoration Plan
Structural
Topographical
Sedimentation
Vegetation Cover
VPE Dominance
Maximum depth of ponding of constructed depressions or swales must be within range of
monitoring reference site conditions and the longest period of ponding not greater than 125
percent of a set of reference depressions or swales that will serve as a comparison to the
structure of the constructed depressions.
Depressions and swales will demonstrate the ability to pond water at a depth and duration long
enough to support VPFS (minimum of 30 days maximum of 60 days). To account for variability
in rainfall totals from year to year, duration of inundation for restored and created VPFS habitat
will be within the range of contiguous inundation observed in monitoring reference sites.
Absolute cover and relative cover by VPEs in each constructed feature will be no less than the
minimum recorded in the monitoring reference sites over any two year monitoring period. Data
from constructed depressions and swales will be compared to the reference data set, and not
depart greater than 75 percent from the reference site data.
By the final year of monitoring (Year-5), any VPEs that are dominant (relative cover of at least
20 percent) in at least 30 percent of the monitoring reference sites will be present as a
dominant species in at least 30 percent of the constructed depressions and swales.
Hydrological Performance
Depth
Duration
Vernal Pool Endemic (VPE) Plant Establishment2
VPE Percent Cover
VPE Numbers
Notes:
1 Distinct sets of criteria set forth in the LRP (Padre, 2015a) and VPFS HPRMP (Padre, 2015b).
2 VPE data can be pulled from plant community monitoring data collection.
Each constructed depression or swale will support no fewer than the lowest number of VPEs
recorded in reference depressions or swales for more than two consecutive years.
VPEs will be as vigorous and reproductively active in the constructed features as in the
monitoring reference sites.VPE Vigor/Reproduction
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SUCCESS CRITERIA
Species Target Acreage1 Target Density 2
Cambria morning glory 9.8 Two to five individuals per 1,000 cm2
San Luis Obispo owl's clover 8.3 Two or more individuals per 1,000 cm 2
Congdon's tarplant 14.4 One or more individuals per 1,000 cm 2
Hoover's button-celery >0.02 One or more individuals per 1,000 cm 2
California walnut 10 trees N/A
Purple needlegrass 23 Equal to or greater than 10% vegetation cover
San Luis Obispo serpentine
dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp.
Bettinae )
Salvage and Curation N/A
Notes:
1Mitgation 1:1 acres; Purple needlegrass mitigated 2:1 acres;
2 cm = centimeter
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-4. PLANT COMMUNITY MONITORING RESULTS
R2-GL1 NA NA 120.0%0.7%
R2-CS1 NA NA 146.7%0.0%
NM-GL1 NA NA 139.3%0.0%
NM-RS1 NA NA 71.1%0.0%
NM-RS2 NA NA 164.0%0.0%
NM-RS3 NA NA 122.0%0.0%
NM-HP1 NA NA 144.0%0.0%
NM-TM1 NA NA 140.0%0.0%
NM-GL3 NA NA 36.0%0.0%
NM-VP1 90.0%60.0%NA NA
NM-VP2 40.0%0.0%NA NA
NM-VP3N 90.0%50.0%NA NA
NM-VP3S 90.0%40.0%NA NA
NM-VP4 90.0%20.0%NA NA
NM-VP5 90.0%20.0%NA NA
NM-VP7 90.0%0.0%NA NA
NM-VP8 90.0%20.0%NA NA
NM-VP9 90.0%10.0%NA NA
NM-VP10 80.0%10.0%NA NA
R3-VP11 20.0%10.0%NA NA
R3-VP12 20.0%10.0%NA NA
R3-VP16 20.0%0.0%NA NA
R3-VP17 40.0%20.0%NA NA
R3-VP18 10.0%10.0%NA NA
R3-VP19N 90.0%50.0%NA NA
R3-VP19S 80.0%50.0%NA NA
R3-VP20 80.0%55.0%NA NA
R3-VP21 80.0%60.0%NA NA
R3-VP22 60.0%25.0%NA NA
Site
Monitoring Results 2020-2021
Qualitative Quantitative
N/A - Not applicable; Data to be collected in June 2022
Invasive Cover
Percent)
Plant Cover
Percent)
Invasive Cover
Percent)
Plant Cover
Percent)
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-5. 2021-2022 HYDROLOGIC DATA SUMMARY
Feature No.Maximum Depth
cm)
Hydroperiod
Duration (days)
NM-VP1 62.2 16
NM-VP2 75.5 92
NM-VP3N 80.7 39
NM-VP3S 96.2 89
NM-VP4 52.7 67
NM-VP5 60.0 95
NM-VP7 70.3 82
NM-VP8 82.9 93
NM-VP9 47.9 40
NM-VP10 47.9 150
R3-VP11 34.8 73
R3-VP12 62.5 33
R3-VP16 29.7 67
R3-VP17 34.2 50
R3-VP18 34.7 75
R3-VP19N NA 28
R3-VP19S 21.2 39
R3-VP20 17.4 47
R3-VP21 23.6 49
R3-VP22 12.6 37
FS-25 27.3 24
FS-34 55.4 71
FS-51 55.1 34
Reference Features
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-6. VERNAL COMPLEX REPRESENTATIVE AXIS MEASUREMENTS
Feature No.Short-Axis (feet)Long-Axis (feet)
NM-VP1 54 154
NM-VP2 102 137
NM-VP4 92 112
NM-VP5 140 212
NM-VP7 30 122
NM-VP8 62 127
NM-VP9 61 158
R3-VP11 30 128
R3-VP12 72 182
R3-VP16 11 106
R3-VP17 27 237
R3-VP18 38 59
R3-VP19N 22 40
R3-VP19S 27 45
R3-VP20 442 481
R3-VP21 177 254
R3-VP22 100 169
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-7. VERNAL COMPLEX VPE PLANT SPECIES MONITORING RESULTS
NM-VP1 NM-VP2 *NM-VP3N *NM-VP3S NM-VP4 NM-VP5 NM-VP7 NM-VP8 NM-VP9 *NM-VP10 R3-VP11 R3-VP12 R3-VP16 R3-VP17 R3-VP18 *R3-VP19N *R3-VP19S *R3-VP20 *R3-VP21 *R3-VP22
Absolute Vegetation Cover 168.0%114.0%136.0%138.0%60.0%98.0%133.0%140.0%148.0%122.0%88.0%30.0%30.0%126.0%44.0%90.0%80.0%80.0%80.0%60.0%
VPE Percent Cover <1.0%14.0%21.0%16.0%2.0%4.0%1.0%14.0%26.0%0.0%<0.1%2.0%<0.1%18.0%<0.1%0.0%0.0%<1.0%<1.0%5.0%
VPE Dominance No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
VPE Numbers NA NA 10 10 40 40 NA 40 40 0 20 NA NA 50 NA 0 0 50 35 35
VPE Vigor/Reproduction NA NA Vegetative Vegetative Vegetative Vegetative NA Vegetative Vegetative NA Vegetative NA NA Vegetative NA NA NA Vegetative Vegetative Vegetative
Criteria1
Notes: VPE Vernal Pool Endemic plants
NA: Not applicable; This data was not collected in 2020 but will be in future monitoring events.
These vernal pools were recently constructed and their vernal pool data was determined through qualitative surveys
1The criteria listed in this table is derived from the VPFS HPRMP (Padre, 2015b) and is distinct from the LRP plant community criteria for Vernal Complex Habitat. In future years, the results in this table can be calculated from data collected during annual plant
community site restoration site monitoring.
2021-2022 Results
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 4-8. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATION MONITORING RESULTS
PP-PNG1 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 2.45 2018 13.0%20 Yes
PP-PNG2 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.28 2019 11.7%11 Yes
PP-PNG3 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 2.18 2020 17.6%24 Yes
PP-PNG4 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.09 2020 9.0%22 Yes
PP-PNG5 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.03 2020 9.2%18 Yes
PP-PNG6 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.01 2020 *40.0%*60 Yes
PP-PNG7 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.11 2020 23.7%97 Yes
PP-PNG8 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.08 2022 *55.0%*100+Yes
PP-PNG9 Purple Needlegrass Patch
Population 0.00 2022 *30.0%*25 Yes
PP-CMG1 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 1.14 2019 2.3%3 Yes
PP-CMG2 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.06 2020 8.3%13 Yes
PP-CMG3 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.00 2020 *15.0%*25 Yes
PP-CMG4 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.04 2020 15.8%50 Yes
PP-CMG5 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.00 2020 21.4%44 Yes
PP-CMG6 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.00 2022 20.0%44 Yes
PP-CMG7 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.00 2022 *5.0%*8 Yes
PP-CMG8 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.01 2022 *55.0%*100+Yes
PP-CMG9 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.23 2022 *30.0 *100+Yes
PP-CMG10 Cambria Morning Glory Patch
Population 0.00 2022 *15.0 *25 Yes
PP-SLOOC1 San Luis Obispo Owl's Clover
Patch Population 0.06 2020 0.0%0 Yes
PP-SLOOC2 San Luis Obispo Owl's Clover
Patch Population 0.01 2020 2.7%27 Yes
PP-SLOOC3 San Luis Obispo Owl's Clover
Patch Population 0.05 2020 1.2%10 Yes
PP-CTP1 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population 0.32 2019 NA NA NA
PP-CTP2 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population 5.97 2019 NA NA NA
PP-CTP3 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population 0.05 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP4 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population 0.51 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP5 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population 6.15 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP6A Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP6B Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP7 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP8 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP9 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP10 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP11 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP12 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP13 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP14 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP15A Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP15B Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
PP-CTP16 Congdons Tarplant Patch
Population NA 2021 NA NA NA
Total individuals or percent for entire patch
NA: Not applicable; not mapped due to occurance within wet vernal depressions; data to be collected in June 2022
Patch Population ID Area
Acreages)
Need for Adaptive
Management (Yes/No/NA)Density (Individuals/m2)Population Type Year
Constructed
Percent
Cover
202205_SLOTFAnnualAllTbl_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
FIGURES
Last exported to pdf from ArcGIS Pro by hettick on 5/24/2022, 11:42 AM.
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
File: Fig3-1_RestorationSiteIndexMapM:\CHEVRON\SANLUISOBISPO\GIS\MAPPING\ECOLOGICAL\ANNUALPROJECTSTATUSANDHABITATRESTORATIONMONITORING REPORT\2021_2022\SLOTF_
STATUSRESTORATION_2022.APRXDate: 5/24/22Scale:
1" = 600'Checked By: JLDrawn
By: PH CEMC SAN
LUIS OBISPO TANK
FARM SAN
LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESTORATION SITE
INDEX MAP
FIGURE 3-
1 0
600 'NM-
RS1 R3-
VP20 R2-
CS1 R3-
VP11 R2-
GL1 R3-
VP16 R3-
GL3 NM-
HP1 R3-
VP18 R3-
VP19N R3-
VP12 R3-
VP19S NM-
HP1 R3-
GL1 NM-
RS3 NM-
GL1 R3-
VP21 R3-
GL2 NM-
RS2
R3-VP17
R3-VP11 R3-
VP22 NM-
TM1 PPSH
10
Reservoir 4
CompletedWorkArea
Reservoir No.
2 North
Marsh Arsenic
Berm Reservoir
3
Completed Work
AreaReservoir
7 Reservoir
5 2020 Northwest Operations
Area Maxar, Microsoft EXPLANATION
PROJECT BOUNDARY
DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEDICATION RIGHT-
OF-
WAY DEDICATION ACTIVE OR
IN PROGRESS RESTORATION AREA
RESTORATION AREA TO
BE
CONSTRUCTED
PROPOSED 2022 WORK
AREAS POST-RESTORATION
PLANT COMMUNITIES COASTAL
SAGE
SCRUB GRASSLAND
HYDROPHYTIC MIXED
Last exported to pdf from ArcGIS Pro by hettick on 5/23/2022, 3:26 PM.
M:\CHEVRON\
SANLUISOBISPO\GIS\MAPPING\
ECOLOGICAL\ANNUALPROJECTSTATUSANDHABITATRESTORATIONMONITORING
REPORT\2021_
2022\SLOTF_
STATUSRESTORATION_2022.
APRX-R3-
VP20 3.97
Acres R3-VP19N 0 Acres R3-VP19S
0
Acres R3-
VP21
1.12
Acres County
of San
Luis Obispo, Maxar, Microsoft
EXPLANATION AXIS
ENDPOINT AXIS
VERNAL COMPLEX
PROJECT BOUNDARY
R3-VP20 3.
97 AcresR3-
VP19N 0
Acres R3-VP19S 0 Acres R3-VP21
1.12
Acres R3-VP22
0 Acres
County of
San
Luis Obispo, Maxar, Microsoft R3-VP20 3.
97 Acres
R3-VP21 1.
12 Acres
County of San
Luis Obispo,
Maxar, Microsoft
R3-VP20 3.97 Acres R3-VP21
1.12 Acres
R3-VP22 0
Acres County of
San Luis Obispo, Maxar, Microsoft 1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070www.trihydro.comP) 307/745.7474 (F)
307/745.7729 Date: 5/23/
22Scale: 1" = As ShownChecked By:
GPDrawn By: PH
CEMC SAN
LUIS OBISPO TANK
FARM SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
VERNAL POOL
RESTORATION HABITAT AXIS FIGURE
APPENDIX A
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS CALCULATION FIGURE
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TARGETS, STANDARDS, AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 1 of 26
Photo 1. Reservoir 2 – Grassland 1 (to left) and Coastal Scrub 1 (right) restoration areas. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 2 of 26
Photo 2. North Marsh – Grassland 1 restoration area. Grassland south of NM-VP10. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 3 of 26
Photo 3. Reservoir 3 – Grassland 1 restoration area. Area was hydroseeded in autumn of 2021. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 4 of 26
Photo 4. North Marsh – Mixed Riparian Scrub 1 restoration area. Aspect: east. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 5 of 26
Photo 5. North Marsh – Mixed Riparian Scrub 2 restoration area, photo 1. Former stream channel is visible with grassland species on the banks and aquatic or
wetland species within the corridor. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 6. North Marsh – Mixed Riparian Scrub 2 restoration area, photo 2. This portion of the Riparian Scrub 2 Restoration area features plants that were out
planted in 2020-2021 and their accompanying irrigation. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/22.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 6 of 26
Photo 7. North Marsh – Hydrophytic Community 1 restoration area. Low lying area inhabited by wetland and aquatic plant species with dense vegetation
coverage. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 8. North Marsh – Transitional Marsh 1 restoration area. Wetland flora and annual grasses dominate the habitat. Pooled water no longer present.
Aspect: northwest. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 7 of 26
Photo 9. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 1 restoration area. Aspect: east. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 8 of 26
Photo 10. North Marsh - Vernal Complex 2 restoration area. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 9 of 26
Photo11. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 3N restoration area, photo point 1. Aspect: southeast. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 10 of 26
Photo 12. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 3N restoration area, photo point 2. Aspect: southeast. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 11 of 26
Photo 13. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 3S North restoration area. Aspect: northeast. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 14. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 4 restoration area. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 12 of 26
Photo 15. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 5 restoration area. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 13 of 26
Photo 16. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 7 restoration area, photo point 1. Aspect: east. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 14 of 26
Photo 17. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 7 restoration area, photo point 2. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 15 of 26
Photo 18. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 8 restoration area. Aspect: southwest. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 16 of 26
Photo 19. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 9 restoration area. Aspect: northwest. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 17 of 26
Photo 20. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 10 restoration area, photo point 1. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 21. North Marsh – Vernal Complex 10 restoration area, photo point 2. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 18 of 26
Photo 22. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 11, photo point 1. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 23. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 11, photo point 1. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 24. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 12. Aspect: northeast. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 19 of 26
Photo 25. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 16 restoration area. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 20 of 26
Photo 26. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 17 restoration area. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 21 of 26
Photo 27. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 18 restoration area. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 22 of 26
Photo 28. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 19N restoration area. Aspect: northwest. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 23 of 26
Photo 29. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 19S restoration area. Aspect: southeast. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 24 of 26
Photo 30. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 20 restoration area, photo point 1. Aspect: north. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 31. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 20 restoration area, photo point 2. Aspect: south. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 25 of 26
Photo 32. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 21 restoration area. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_PhotoLog_APP-C.docx 26 of 26
Photo 32. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 22 restoration area, photo point 1. Aspect: east. Date: 5/20/2022.
Photo 33. Reservoir 3 – Vernal Complex 22 restoration area, photo point 2. Aspect: west. Date: 5/20/2022.
APPENDIX D
MONITORING DATA SHEETS
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Ambrosia psilostachya NP Perennial 1.0 Stipa pulchra (2%)
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Avena spp.EP Perennial 1.3
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial 1.0
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial 13.3
Brassica nigra EA Annual 6.7
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial 7.3
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 10.7
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual 7.3
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens EA Annual <0.1
Carduus pycnocephalus IEA Annual 1.0
Centaurea melitensis EA Annual <0.1
Cirsium vulgare EP Perennial <0.1
Epilobium brachycarpum NA Annual 2.0
Epilobium campestre NA Annual <0.1
Erodium botrys EA Annual 2.0
Erodium cicutarium EA Annual 2.0
Eschscholzia californica NA Annual 4.0
Festuca myuros EA Annual <0.1
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 8.7
Foeniculum vulgare EP Perennial <0.1
Geranium dissectum EA Annual 6.0
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial 10.7
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia NA Annual 3.0
Hordeum brachyantherum NP Perennial <0.1
Hordeum marinum EA Annual 2.0
Lactuca serriola EA Annual 6.0
Lomatium utriculatum NP Perennial <0.1
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 6.0
Lupinus succulentus NA Annual <0.1
Lysimachia arvensis EA Annual <0.1
Medicago polymorpha EA Annual <0.1
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 2.7
Phalaris aquatica EP Perennial <0.1
Plantago coronopus EA Annual <0.1
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial 6.0
Ranunculus californicus NP Perennial <0.1
Rumex crispus EP Perennial 6.0
Sisyrinchium bellum NP Perennial <0.1
Sonchus spp.EA Annual <0.1
Stipa pulchra NP Perennial 2.0
Vicia villosa EA Annual 19.3
Xanthium strumarium NA Annual 2.0
Number of Species 43.0
Number of Native Species 14.0
Number of Native Perennial 8.0
Number of Native Annual 6.0
Number of Non-Native Species 28.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 1.0
Total Cover 120.0
Non-Native Cover 105.3
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.7
Native Cover 14.0
Native Perennial Covver 9.3
Native Annual Cover 4.7
Relative Cover 90.0
Summary
North Marsh Grassland #1
Date Surveyed: 4/18/2022
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Ambrosia psilostachya NP Perennial 4.0
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Avena spp.EP Perennial <0.1
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial 4.0
Bolboschoenus robustus NP Perennial <0.1
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial 1.0
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial 8.0
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 1.0
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual 4.7
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens EA Annual <0.1
Carex praegracilis NP Perennial <0.1
Centaurea melitensis EA Annual <0.1
Distichlis spicata NP Perennial <0.1
Eleocharis macrostachya NP Perennial 10.0
Elymus triticoides NP Perennial 11.0
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 12.7
Foeniculum vulgare EP Perennial <0.1
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial 19.3
Hordeum brachyantherum NP Perennial 4.7
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum EA Annual 0.7
Isolepis cernua NA Annual <0.1
Juncus bufonius var. bufonius NA Annual <0.1
Juncus phaeocephalus NP Perennial 14.0
Lactuca serriola EA Annual 4.0
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 54.0
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 3.3
Phalaris aquatica EP Perennial <0.1
Plantago coronopus EA Annual 8.0
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial 6.0
Polypogon monspeliensis EP Perennial 8.0
Polypogon viridis EP Perennial <0.1
Rumex crispus EP Perennial 0.7
Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis NP Perennial <0.1
Sisyrinchium bellum NP Perennial <0.1
Sonchus spp.EA Annual <0.1
Stachys ajugoides NP Perennial <0.1
Trifolium angustifolium EA Annual 2.0
Trifolium fragiferum EP Perennial 2.0
Typha latifolia NP Perennial <0.1
Number of Species 39.0
Number of Native Species 16.0
Number of Native Perennial 14.0
Number of Native Annual 2.0
Number of Non-Native Species 23.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 0.0
Total Cover 146.7
Non-Native Cover 118.0
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 28.7
Native Perennial Covver 28.7
Native Annual Cover 0.0
Relative Cover 94.7
North Hydrophytic Community
Date Surveyed: 5/3/2022
Summary
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Alisma triviale NP Perennial 3.3
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Bolboschoenus robustus NP Perennial 2.7
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial <0.1
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual 2.0
Cyperus eragrostis NP Perennial 1.3
Distichlis spicata NP Perennial 12.0
Eleocharis macrostachya NP Perennial 65.3
Epilobium brachycarpum NA Annual 2.0
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 16.0
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial 14.0
Hordeum brachyantherum NP Perennial <0.1
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum EA Annual 2.0
Juncus phaeocephalus NP Perennial 4.0
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 9.3
Persicaria amphibia emersa NP Perennial 1.0
Plantago coronopus EA Annual <0.1
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial <0.1
Poa annua EA Annual 13.3
Polypogon monspeliensis EP Perennial 4.0
Polypogon viridis EP Perennial <0.1
Rumex crispus EP Perennial 0.7
Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis NP Perennial 9.0
Trifolium angustifolium EA Annual 2.0
Veronica anagallis-aquatica EP Perennial 15.3
Xanthium strumarium NA Annual 0.7
Number of Species 26.0
Number of Native Species 12.0
Number of Native Perennial 10.0
Number of Native Annual 2.0
Number of Non-Native Species 14.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 0.0
Total Cover 139.3
Non-Native Cover 53.3
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 86.0
Native Perennial Covver 84.7
Native Annual Cover 1.3
Relative Cover 97.3
Summary
North Transitional Marsh
Date Surveyed: 5/3/2022
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Avena spp.EP Perennial 8.9
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial 4.4
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial 17.8
Brassica nigra EA Annual 13.3
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial 2.2
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 2.2
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual 4.4
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens EA Annual 2.2
Carduus pycnocephalus IEA Annual 2.2
Erodium cicutarium EA Annual 2.2
Festuca myuros EA Annual <0.1
Festuca perennis EP Perennial <0.1
Foeniculum vulgare EP Perennial <0.1
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial <0.1
Hordeum brachyantherum NP Perennial <0.1
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 8.9
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 0.0
Plantago coronopus EA Annual 2.2
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial <0.1
Rumex crispus EP Perennial <0.1
Number of Species 21.0
Number of Native Species 3.0
Number of Native Perennial 3.0
Number of Native Annual 0.0
Number of Non-Native Species 17.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 1.0
Total Cover 71.1
Non-Native Cover 62.2
Invasive Non-Native Cover 2.2
Native Cover 6.7
Native Perennial Covver 6.7
Native Annual Cover 0.0
Relative Cover 57.8
North Riparian Scrub #1
Date Surveyed: 4/18/2022
Summary
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial <0.1
Brassica nigra EA Annual <0.1
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual 4.0
Cirsium vulgare EP Perennial <0.1
Cyperus eragrostis NP Perennial <0.1
Distichlis spicata NP Perennial <0.1
Eleocharis macrostachya NP Perennial 4.0
Elymus triticoides NP Perennial 32.0
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 4.0
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial 2.0
Hordeum brachyantherum NP Perennial 4.0
Hordeum marinum EA Annual <0.1
Juncus lescurii NP Perennial <0.1
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 50.0
Lysimachia arvensis EA Annual <0.1
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 12.0
Persicaria amphibia emersa NP Perennial <0.1
Plantago coronopus EA Annual 12.0
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial <0.1
Polypogon monspeliensis EP Perennial 34.0
Polypogon viridis EP Perennial <0.1
Potentilla anserina NP Perennial <0.1
Rumex crispus EP Perennial 12.0
Salix laevigata NP Perennial <0.1
Salix lasiolepis NP Perennial <0.1
Sonchus spp.EA Annual 2.0
Trifolium repens EP Perennial <0.1
Number of Species 28.0
Number of Native Species 11.0
Number of Native Perennial 11.0
Number of Native Annual 0.0
Number of Non-Native Species 17.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 0.0
Total Cover 164.0
Non-Native Cover 126.0
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 38.0
Native Perennial Covver 38.0
Native Annual Cover 0.0
Relative Cover 98.0
North Riparian Scrub #2
Date Surveyed: 4/28/2022
Summary
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Anthemis cotula EA Annual 1.0
Avena spp.EP Perennial <0.1
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial <0.1
Brassica nigra EA Annual 3.0
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial <0.1
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 2.0
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual <0.1
Carduus pycnocephalus IEA Annual <0.1
Distichlis spicata NP Perennial 4.0
Elymus triticoides NP Perennial 6.0
Epilobium campestre NA Annual 2.0
Erodium cicutarium EA Annual 2.0
Festuca myuros EA Annual <0.1
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 32.0
Geranium dissectum EA Annual 17.0
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial 29.0
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia NA Annual 1.0
Hordeum brachyantherum NP Perennial 2.0
Hordeum marinum EA Annual 1.0
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum EA Annual <0.1
Lactuca serriola EA Annual 3.0
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 16.0
Lysimachia arvensis EA Annual <0.1
Medicago polymorpha EA Annual 1.0
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 1.0
Phalaris aquatica EP Perennial 2.0
Plantago coronopus EA Annual 1.0
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial 5.0
Rumex crispus EP Perennial 5.0
Sonchus spp.EA Annual 1.0
Trifolium fragiferum EP Perennial <0.1
Typha latifolia NP Perennial <0.1
Vicia villosa EA Annual 2.0
Number of Species 33.0
Number of Native Species 7.0
Number of Native Perennial 5.0
Number of Native Annual 2.0
Number of Non-Native Species 25.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 1.0
Total Cover 122.0
Non-Native Cover 114.0
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 8.0
Native Perennial Covver 6.0
Native Annual Cover 2.0
Relative Cover 91.0
North Riparian Scrub #3
Date Surveyed: 4/18/2022
Summary
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Ambrosia psilostachya NP Perennial <0.1
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Artemisia californica NP Perennial <0.1
Avena spp.EP Perennial 52.0
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial <0.1
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial 36.0
Brassica nigra EA Annual 2.0
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial <0.1
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 8.0
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual <0.1
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens EA Annual <0.1
Centaurea melitensis EA Annual 22.0
Erodium botrys EA Annual 2.0
Erodium cicutarium EA Annual 2.0
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 2.0
Hazardia squarrosa NP Perennial <0.1
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia NA Annual <0.1
Hordeum marinum EA Annual <0.1
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum EA Annual <0.1
Lactuca serriola EA Annual <0.1
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 4.0
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 6.0
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial 6.0
Sonchus spp.EA Annual <0.1
Number of Species 24.0
Number of Native Species 6.0
Number of Native Perennial 5.0
Number of Native Annual 1.0
Number of Non-Native Species 18.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 0.0
Total Cover 144.0
Non-Native Cover 144.0
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 0.0
Native Perennial Covver 0.0
Native Annual Cover 0.0
Relative Cover 98.0
Reservoir 2 Coastal Scrub #1
Date Surveyed: 4/26/2022
Summary
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Ambrosia psilostachya NP Annual <0.1 Stipa pulchra (16%)
Anthemis cotula EA Annual 0.7
Avena spp.EP Perennial 33.3
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial 6.7
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial 39.3
Brassica nigra EA Annual <0.1
Bromus carinatus var. carinatus NP Perennial 5.0
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 4.0
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual <0.1
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens EA Annual <0.1
Carduus pycnocephalus IEA Annual <0.1
Centaurea melitensis EA Annual 8.7
Erodium botrys EA Annual 2.0
Erodium cicutarium EA Annual 4.0
Festuca microstachys NA Annual <0.1
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 1.3
Foeniculum vulgare EP Perennial <0.1
Hazardia squarrosa NP Perennial <0.1
Helminthotheca echioides EP Perennial <0.1
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia NA Annual 1.0
Heterotheca grandiflora NP Perennial <0.1
Hordeum marinum EA Annual 1.0
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum EA Annual 1.0
Lactuca serriola EA Annual <0.1
Lotus corniculatus EP Perennial 2.7
Melilotus indicus EA Annual 5.3
Microseris douglasii NA Annual <0.1
Plantago coronopus EA Annual <0.1
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial 4.7
Rumex crispus EP Perennial <0.1
Sisyrinchium bellum NP Perennial 6.0
Sonchus spp.EA Annual <0.1
Stipa pulchra NP Perennial 16.0
Number of Species 33.0
Number of Native Species 10.0
Number of Native Perennial 7.0
Number of Native Annual 3.0
Number of Non-Native Species 22.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 1.0
Total Cover 140.0
Non-Native Cover 107.3
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 32.7
Native Perennial Covver 32.0
Native Annual Cover 0.7
Relative Cover 94.0
Reservoir 2 Grassland #1
Date Surveyed: 4/28/2022
Summary
Species
Native / Non-Native /
Invasive Non-Native
Annual /
Perennial
Absolute Cover (%)Absolute Cover (%) of Sensitive Plant Species
Ambrosia psilostachya NP Perennial <0.1 <0.1% Calystegia subacaulis ssp. Episcopalis
Anthemis cotula EA Annual <0.1
Avena spp.EP Perennial 2.5
Baccharis pilularis NP Perennial <0.1
Brachypodium distachyon EP Perennial 3.5
Brassica nigra EA Annual <0.1
Bromus diandrus EA Annual 1.0
Bromus hordeaceus EA Annual 1.5
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens EA Annual <0.1
Calystegia subacaulis ssp. Episcopalis NP Perennial <0.1
Centaurea melitensis EA Annual <0.1
Distichlis spicata NP Perennial 1.0
Erodium botrys EA Annual 4.0
Erodium cicutarium EA Annual 0.5
Eschscholzia californica NA Annual <0.1
Festuca perennis EP Perennial 2.0
Hazardia squarrosa NP Perennial 1.0
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia NA Annual <0.1
Hordeum marinum EA Annual 1.0
Hypochaeris radicata EP Perennial <0.1
Lamarckia aurea EP Perennial <0.1
Medicago polymorpha EA Annual <0.1
Plantago lanceolata EP Perennial 3.0
Polypogon monspeliensis EP Perennial 1.0
Silene gallica EA Annual <0.1
Number of Species 25.0
Number of Native Species 7.0
Number of Native Perennial 5.0
Number of Native Annual 2.0
Number of Non-Native Species 18.0
Number of Invasive Non-Native Species 0.0
Total Cover 36.0
Non-Native Cover 34.0
Invasive Non-Native Cover 0.0
Native Cover 2.0
Native Perennial Covver 2.0
Native Annual Cover 0.0
Relative Cover 45.5
Reservoir 3 Grassland #3
Date Surveyed: 4/18/2022
Summary
PP-PNG1
QUAD #Indiv Count % Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 0 0 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 0 0
3 3 10
4 0 0
5 3 10
6 3 10
7 8 25
8 0 0
9 0 0
10 0 0
11 0 0
12 0 0
13 3 80
14 0 0
15 15 100
16 0 0
17 3 10
18 0 0
19 3 30
20 0 0
21 3 30
22 3 5
23 0 0
24 1 3
Averages:2 13.042
sq m:20
PP-PNG2
QUAD #Indiv Count % Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 3 5 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 0 0
3 3 80
4 3 20
5 0 0
6 2 3
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 1 20
10 1 1
11 0 0
Averages:1.1818182 11.727
sq m:11.818182
PP-PNG3
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 3 10 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 3 20
3 3 10
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 1 4
7 3 3
8 8 98
9 8 98
10 3 40
11 3 15
12 0 0
13 0 0
14 3 40
15 3 3
16 3 20
17 0 0
18 0 0
19 3 5
20 3 4
21 3 20
22 0 0
23 1 2
24 3 30
Averages:2.375 17.58333
sq m:23.75
PP-PNG4
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 1 7 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 3 7
3 3 10
4 1 1
5 3 20
Averages:2.2 9.000
sq m:22
PP-PNG5
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 1 3 Grassland near road 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 3 25
3 0 0
4 1 2
5 3 15
6 3 10
Averages:1.833333 9.17
sq m:18.33333
PP-PNG6
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
PP-PNG7
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 3 5 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 15 40
3 15 20
4 8 10
5 8 70
6 3 60
7 3 30
8 3 5
9 1 2
10 1 2
11 3 15
12 3 9
Averages:9.692308 23.69231
sq m:96.92308
PP-PNG8
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
PP-PNG9
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 25 30
New population. Entire
patch sampled.
4/11/2022 IA, GP
IA, GP16040
1 100+55
New population. Entire
patch sampled.
4/11/2022 IA, GP
Population expanding in size
from 2021 survey. Entire
patch sampled.
4/11/2022
PP-CMG1
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 0 0 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 3 25
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 0 0
10 0 0
11 0 0
Averages:0.272727 2.272727
sq m:2.727273
PP-CMG2
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 0 0 no CMG observed at all in PP 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 8 50
Averages:1.333333 8.333333
sq m:13.33333
PP-CMG3
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
PP-CMG4
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 3 20 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 8 20
3 8 15
4 8 30
5 0 0
6 3 10
Averages:5 15.83333
sq m:50
1 25 15 Entire patch sampled.4/11/2022 IA, GP
PP-CMG5
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 8 60 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 3 7
3 8 30
4 0 0
5 3 10
Averages:4.4 21.4
sq m:44
PP-CMG6
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 8 50 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 8 35
3 3 5
4 3 10
5 0 0
Averages:4.4 20
sq m:44
PP-CMG7
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
PP-CMG8
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
PP-CMG9
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
PP-CMG10
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 25 15
New population
2022. Entire patch
sampled.
4/11/2022 IA, GP
1 100+30
New population
2022. Entire patch
sampled.
4/11/2022 IA, GP
4/11/2022 IA, GP
1 100+55
New population
2022. Entire patch
sampled.
4/11/2022 IA, GP
New population
2022
1 8 5
New population
2022. Entire patch
sampled.
PP-SLOOC1
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 0 0 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
Averages:0 0
sq m:0
PP-SLOOC2
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 13 10 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 1 2
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 2 4
Averages:2.666667 2.666667
sq m:26.66667
PP-SLOOC3
QUAD #Indiv Count% Cover Notes Date Surveyor
1 1 2 4/11/2022 IA, GP
2 1 2
3 0 0
4 8 7
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 0 0
10 1 1
11 0 0
12 1 2
Averages:1 1.166667
sq m:10
APPENDIX E
VPFS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
1-0 https://trihydrocorp.sharepoint.com/sites/Chevron-SLOTankFarm/Shared Documents/ProjectDocs/11_Reports/VPFS_Annual_Monitoring_Report/2021-
2022_Wet_Season/1_Text/202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
2021-2022 VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4)
CHEVRON SAN LUIS OBISPO TANK FARM REMEDIATION AND
RESTORATION PROJECT
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
May 31, 2022
Project #: 81S-001-003
PREPARED BY: Trihydro Corporation
142 Cross St, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PREPARED FOR:
Chevron Environmental Management and Real Estate Company
276 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Status ............................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Sampling Schedule ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Data Management ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Water Parameters ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Volumetric Aquatic Sampling .................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Seasonal Rainfall Totals ........................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Sampling Schedule and Monitors ............................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Water Parameter Data .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.4 Hydroperiods ............................................................................................................. 3-3
3.5 Volumetric Aquatic Sampling .................................................................................... 3-3
3.6 Other Invertebrates and Wildlife ............................................................................... 3-4
3.7 Seasonal Rainfall Totals ........................................................................................... 3-4
4.0 DISCUSSION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Adaptive Management Measures ............................................................................. 4-2
5.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
List of Tables
3-1. VPFS Habitat Hydroperiods
3-2. Average VPFS Population Density (individuals/m3)
3-3. Total VPFS Gravid Females
3-4. Average California Fairy Shrimp Population Density (individuals/m3)
3-5. Monthly Rainfall Totals by Year (inches)
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
List of Figures
1-1. VPFS Wet Season Monitoring Features
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
List of Appendices
A. FIELD DATA SHEETS
B. DATA SUMMARY TABLE
C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Chevron Environmental Management and Real Estate Company (CEMREC), Trihydro Corporation
Trihydro) has prepared this vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS; Branchinecta lynchi) Annual Monitoring Report (Report)
of aquatic surveys conducted during the 2021-2022 wet season for the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation and
Restoration Project (Project), located within the Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm (SLO Tank Farm), San Luis
Obispo, California (Project site). Monitoring surveys were conducted to satisfy conditions of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion (BO) (File No. 08EVEN00-2015-F-0323) (SPL-2014-00444) and
evaluate restoration success in accordance with the Project Landscape Restoration Plan and Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
Habitat Protection, Restoration and Monitoring Plan (Padre 2015).
The purpose of this Report is to provide survey methods, data analysis, and comparison against success criteria. In
addition, adaptive management strategies have been recommended in an effort to achieve success criteria in the future.
Appendix A includes field data sheets, Appendix B provides a data summary table for all monitoring events, and
Appendix C provides representative site photographs.
1.1 PROJECT STATUS
Project activities during the 2021 construction year included remedial excavation and restoration grading on the south
side of the Project site in the Reservoir 3 work area. Following remediation and backfill of the Project’s southern side,
four VPFS restoration habitats were created and inoculated totaling 5.94 acres of VPFS restoration habitat (R3-VP19
North, R3-VP19 South, R3-VP20, R3-VP21 and R3-VP22 on Figure 1-1). The acreage created was sufficient to
eliminate the potential of temporal loss of wetlands and to offset the 4.03 acres of VPFS habitat that was directly
impacted during 2021 remediation. Additional information detailing the VPFS habitat restoration construction can be
found in the Annual Project Status and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report 2021-2022 (Trihydro, 2022).
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 2-1
2.0 METHODS
Annual monitoring of restoration VPFS habitat and designated reference VPFS habitat features (restoration and
reference features, respectively) was conducted during the 2021-2022 wet season to document the progress of VPFS
populations transplanted into created vernal pools. VPFS monitoring will continue annually until performance criteria
are achieved for a period of five years. In addition, the hydrology of partially affected habitat (FS-6) was monitored to
determine if the hydroperiod and water chemistry continue to be suitable to support VPFS lifecycle. Monitoring of
restored VPFS habitat was conducted independently from the site restoration monitoring for waters/wetlands that do
not support VPFS, including vernal pool endemic and rare plant community monitoring.
Notification of annual monitoring was sent to Chis Kofron, USFWS Recovery Permit Coordinator, on October 29,
2021, and surveys began on December 29, 2021. Monitoring was conducted by USFWS-qualified biologists and/or
technicians working under the supervision of qualified biologists.
2.1 SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Monitoring surveys for this project typically consist of four, multi-day sampling events during the wet season,
following pool inundation. Due to the low amount of rainfall this winter, only two sampling events were conducted.
VPFS restoration habitat was considered to be inundated when it held greater than three centimeters of standing water
24 hours after a rain event. Sampling began no later than two weeks after the initial inundation of restoration features.
2.2 DATA MANAGEMENT
Field data for each feature was recorded on pre-printed data sheets, reviewed post-sampling for quality control, and
copied into Word format (Appendix A – Field Data Sheets). Data tables were created in Excel for processing and
analysis. Water volume data (area of net aperture by tow length) were used to determine VPFS density for each
feature.
2.3 WATER PARAMETERS
Aquatic sampling included the collection of water parameter data to document hydrologic performance. Data collected
during each sampling episode included the total area of inundation, water depth, pH, electrical conductivity and water
temperature. Water chemistry and temperature data was collected with a Hanna® Combo water meter. In addition,
HOBO® water data logger stations recorded duration of inundation for each habitat feature throughout the wet season
including date of initial inundation and date of final dry down). Visual observations of other potential water quality
problems such as presence of erosion, oil film, trash, or other debris were also documented.
2-2 202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
2.4 VOLUMETRIC AQUATIC SAMPLING
Volumetric aquatic sampling consisted of quantitative analysis of the total hatched VPFS and gravid female VPFS
collected during each sampling effort. In addition, other fairy shrimp species (i.e., California fairy shrimp [Linderiella
occidentalis]) were captured, identified and quantified. All fairy shrimp captured during sampling activities were
released into the pool of capture after being quantified.
Sampling was conducted with volume-standardized plankton tow samples using a handheld dip net with 500-micron
mesh plankton netting. Three tow samples were replicated through each pool feature. Tow-lengths and net sizes were
determined based on the water depth and size of the habitat feature. Net aperture sizes ranged from 42cm2 to 990cm2.
Branchiopods collected were counted individually, or if densities were greater than 100 population estimates were
made in logarithmic fashion (100's, 1,000's, 10,000's, etc.). The density of each species within each VPFS habitat
feature was calculated using the volume measurements of each sample tow. Population density was calculated for each
tow and then an average population density was calculated for each species per feature.
All other collected invertebrate organisms were identified in the field to the lowest taxonomic classification possible
family, order, or class) or to an "other" category for worms, mollusks, etc. Larval amphibians and other wildlife using
the pool was also recorded.
2.5 SEASONAL RAINFALL TOTALS
Precipitation totals for each month during the wet season and annual rainfall totals were tracked and compared to prior
monitoring years and average years for the purposes of tracking whether a monitoring season was drier than normal or
wetter than normal. Precipitation that is above or below normal levels may affect VPFS habitat hydroperiods and the
success of VPFS hatching and survival.
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 3-1
3.0 RESULTS
The following section presents monitoring results for the branchiopod populations within created and restored habitats
and evaluates if the VPFS populations meet success criteria. In addition, hydrologic data is presented below to
demonstrate habitat suitability for VPFS; however, an evaluation of hydrogeologic performance and success is
discussed in the Annual Project Status and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report 2021-2022 (Trihydro, 2022).
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success of VPFS populations is achieved with the establishment of self-sustaining VPFS populations as demonstrated
by volumetric aquatic sampling. VPFS populations are considered established once self-reproducing populations are
observed for a minimum of five years in which successful reproduction occurs and VPFS relative population densities
fall within the range of relative population densities observed in monitoring reference features. VPFS reproduction is
considered successful when gravid females are observed at least as frequently as they are observed in monitoring
reference features. Viable VPFS cysts will be documented in the soil of the restoration habitats at the end of the
five-year monitoring period.
Success of vernal pool and swale creation and restoration for the purposes of reestablishment of VPFS populations is
also measured using several different parameters including hydrologic conditions and functions, and establishment of
vegetation including vernal pool endemic (VPEs) plant species. The success of vernal depression and swale plant
community establishment and stability of geomorphic qualities of the restored and created VPFS habitats are reported
separately in the Annual Project Status and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report 2021-2022 (Trihydro, 2022).
3.2 SAMPLING SCHEDULE AND MONITORS
Sampling events were conducted on December 29 and 30, 2021, and January 14, 17, and 18, 2022. Aquatic surveys
were completed by USFWS-approved, Padre biologist, Michaela Craighead (TE-13636B-1), who was assisted by
Trihydro biologist Galen Pelzmann.
3.3 WATER PARAMETER DATA
During each sampling event, water parameter data was collected within each monitoring feature including water
temperature, depth, pH, and electrical conductivity. Since reference pools are the model for restoration success, water
parameter data is described by comparing water quality values of restoration features with reference features. A
complete set of water parameter data collected throughout the monitoring surveys is provided in Appendix B.
3-2 202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
Water temperatures recorded at the monitoring features fell within the range that is normally suitable for VPFS
4.5 degrees Celsius [°C] to 23°C). Temperature values within a pool are plastic within a 10 ºC range through a
24-hour period. Water temperature taken at the time of VPFS tow density sampling only reflects the temperature at the
time of sampling and not the average temperature of the pool. Water temperatures measured within restoration features
ranged from 9.8°C to 17.6ºC in December, and 12.6°C to 18.2ºC in January. Water temperature in the reference features ranged
from 10.6°C to 12.4ºC in December, and 13.3°C to 18.7ºC in January. Water temperature fluctuated proportionately with air temperatures,
size of each feature, wind intensity, and depth of ponding, with the minimum recorded temperature in December (
NM-VP1 at 9.8ºC), and the maximum recorded temperature in January NM-VP19S at 18.2ºC).
Restoration habitats had a mean water temperature of 14.4°C during periods of peak VPFS population density. Maximum water depth was
measured during
each sampling event in the deepest areas of each monitoring feature. The restoration features depth ranged from 9
cm to 100 cm in December, and 9 cm to 57 cm in January. The reference features depth ranged from 24 cm
to 50 cm in December, and 16 cm to 35 cm in January. The pH measured in the monitoring
features fell within the range that is normally suitable for VPFS (6.3 to 8.5) with the exception of six restoration pools.
The restoration features pH ranged from 5.95 to 7.41 in December, and 6.39 to 7.65 in January. The reference
habitats pH ranged from 6.40 to 7.21 in December, and 6.84 to 7.66 in January. The average acidic value of restoration feature
pH during the December sampling event was 6.4, and the average alkaline pH was 7.4. The average
acidic value of restoration feature pH during January was 6.5, and the average alkaline pH was 7.3. During the December
sampling period, pools NM-VP3S, NM-VP4, NM-VP5, R3-VP17, R3-VP19S, and R3-VP22 had pH less than
6.3. While the pH in these pools was lower than the normally suitable range for VPFS, immature branchiopods and nauplii larvae were
observed in tow samples within the six pools, and in some cases mature VPFS were also observed. Electrical
conductivity recorded in the majority
of the monitoring features fell within the range that is considered suitable for VPFS: 48-481 parts
per million (ppm) total dissolved solids, which corresponds generally to an electrical conductivity (EC) range of 71.6
microsiemens (µS) to 717.9 µS. The restoration features EC ranged from 29 µS to 660 µS in December, and 84
µS to 773 µS in January. The reference features EC ranged from 76 µS to 148 µS in December, and 124 µS to 201
µS in January. During the December sampling event, pools R3-VP11, R3-VP18, R3-VP19N, R3-VP20, R3-VP21,
and R3-VP22 had EC values lower than 71.6 µS. Immature branchiopods were observed within tow samples from these
six pools, and all pools with the exception of R3-VP19N contained adult VPFS. Likewise, in January, pool NM-
VP10 had an EC greater than 717.9 µS. Tow samples from NM-VP10 contained adult VPFS during January’s
sampling event.
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 3-3
3.4 HYDROPERIODS
HOBO® water data loggers were installed in monitoring features NM-VP1, NM-VP2, NM-VP4, NM-VP5, NM-VP7,
NM-VP8, NM-VP9, and reference features in October 2018. NM-VP3North (NM-VP3N), NM-VP3South
NM-VP3S), and NM-VP10 had data loggers installed in November 2019. Data loggers were installed in R3-VP11,
R3-VP12, R3-VP16, R3-VP17, and R3-VP18, in November 2021. Data loggers for R3-VP19S, R3-VP20, R3-VP21,
and R3-VP22 were installed in October 2022. Data was downloaded on May 13, 2022, processed in HOBOware Pro®,
and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Table 3-1 summarizes the hydroperiods measured in each monitoring restoration
feature and reference features. All restored features became inundated by the December sampling event. NM-VP1,
NM-VP3N, R3-VP12, R3-VP19N, R3-VP19S, and R3-VP22 were the only restoration features to have a hydroperiod
less than 40 days during the 2021-2022 wet season.
3.5 VOLUMETRIC AQUATIC SAMPLING
Volumetric aquatic sampling was conducted in twenty restoration features, and three reference features. Four
restoration features were constructed and inoculated during the 2021 Project remediation activities. VPFS densities
number of individuals/m3) and gravid female count data for all monitoring features are summarized in Tables 3-2
and 3-3.
The highest VPFS population densities were observed in reference feature FS-51 during the January sampling event
average population density: 147 VPFS/m3; average gravid females/m3: 116). The highest VPFS population densities
observed in a restoration feature occurred in R3-VP22 (population density range: 5 to 299 VPFS/ m3; average gravid
females/m3: 18.) All restoration and reference features which ponded in 2021, except for NM-VP1, NM-VP3N,
NM-VP3S, NM-VP7, NM-VP8, NM-VP9, and R3-VP19N held mature VPFS during the 2021-2022 wet season
sampling events.
R3-VP22 was the most productive restoration pool, achieving an average tow density peak of 299 VPFS/m3. R3-VP12
was the second-most productive restoration pool, with an average tow density of 199 VPFS/m3. R3-VP12 also held the
greatest total number of mature Branchinecta females (average tow density of 122 gravid females). NM-VP4 and
NM-VP10 had tow densities which fell within the range of tow densities of the reference features (56 to 147 VPFS/m3)
recorded this year.
NM-VP3S, NM-VP7, NM-VP8, and R3-VP19N contained immature vernal pool branchiopods during initial sampling
in December, but these individuals could not be determined to genus at the time of survey.
3-4 202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
3.6 OTHER INVERTEBRATES AND WILDLIFE
Other invertebrates observed in monitoring features included cladocerans, amphipods, copepods, ostracods,
conchostracans, gastropods, zygopterans, planarians, Coleoptera families: Corixidae and Dystiscidae, and Diptera
families: Culicidae, Chaoboridae and Chironomidae. Sierran tree frog (Pseudacris sierra) tadpoles were also observed
in inundated features. Other wildlife and/or wildlife signs observed in and around restoration features during surveys
included mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), snowy egrets (Egretta thula), red-winged black bird (Agelaius
phoeniceus), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferous).
3.7 SEASONAL RAINFALL TOTALS
Rainfall data was downloaded from the Gas Company Station No. 3099 monitored by the San Luis Obispo County
Water Resources Department. The rainfall station is located less than one-mile northeast of the Project site. A total of
10.36 inches of rain fell in San Luis Obispo from November 2021 to April 2022, which is less than the five-year
average of 14.7 inches of rain fall for the same time period (Table 3-5). In addition, La Nina conditions were present
during the 2021-2022 winter. Drought conditions tend to take place during La Nina events in central coast California,
and it is therefore likely that this project site will only undergo one pool-inundating event during the 2021-2022 wet
season. (NOAA, 2021).
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 4-1
4.0 DISCUSSION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Overall, the restoration features monitored this year appear to be suitable habitat for branchiopods based on appropriate
water parameter data, minimum hydroperiod, and the observation of VPFS or California fairy shrimp in nineteen of the
restoration features sampled during the 2021-2022 wet season. VPFS and California fairy shrimp were not observed in
one restoration pool; NM-VP1 did not hold water for the minimum hydroperiod for branchipods to mature and had
dried before the January survey for adult branchiopods could be conducted.
Restoration features NM-VP2, NM-VP3S, NM-VP4, NM-VP5, NM-VP7, NM-VP8, NM-VP10, R3-VP11, R3-VP16,
and R3-VP18 exceeded the desired hydroperiod of a maximum of 60 days. Size and depth of original pool construction
and low evaporation rates (i.e., low air temperatures, wind speeds) might have influenced the extended hydroperiods.
Other reasons behind extended hydroperiods should be considered. First, created vernal pool habitat in the marsh area
of the project is likely to retain more water from the groundwater table than vernal pools outside of the marsh.
Secondly, the compacted claypan of the vernal pools needs time to develop the draining features of natural vernal pool
soil, such as cracks within the clay that occur with “repeated wetting and drying cycles” (Black and Zedler, 1998).
Since precipitation amounts vary from year-to-year, it cannot yet be determined if the hydroperiods of restored vernal
pools are decreasing to values similar to the reference features, which have average hydroperiods between 30-60 days.
Recorded observations show that the hydroperiods of artificial pools become more like that of natural pools within a
10-15-year period (Black and Zedler, 1998). Therefore, restoration features on the Tank Farm project site can be
expected to have hydroperiods similar to the restoration features over time, assuming other parameters, such as depth
and vegetation cover do not also effect the length of the hydroperiod.
Reproductively mature individuals of both branchiopod species were observed in twelve restoration features, allowing
for the potential for the populations to propagate and become established over the five-year monitoring period.
Drought years may pose a serious problem for restoration success if the minimum hydroperiod cannot be maintained.
Other ecological factors may have contributed to the low VPFS population densities in restoration features including
predation, competition, and percent of population hatched due to diapause; however, these factors are outside of the
aquatic sampling and monitoring scope. The adaptive management measures recommended in the following section
are provided to potentially increase the likelihood of VPFS establishment in the features where population density did
not meet success criteria during the 2021-2022 wet season.
4-2 202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx
4.1 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES
An adaptive management approach allows changes in depth, management, or success criteria in response to the results
of the annual monitoring (Padre, 2015). Additional maintenance and adaptive management activities related to
adjacent upland habitats and vernal pool communities are included in the Annual Project Status and Habitat Restoration
Monitoring Report 2020-2021 (Trihydro, 2022). The following measures are recommended in an effort to improve the
success of restoration of VPFS habitat and establish VPFS populations:
Supplement restoration features with low VPFS densities with additional, high-density, inoculum soil from
designated donor habitats (Padre, 2015).
Do not dilute high-density inoculum with low density inoculum and concentrate high density inoculum in the
deepest portions of constructed pools.
In the absence of grazers on the northern portion of the Project site, implement weed abatement and grassland
management in upland regions of and adjacent to VPFS restoration features to maintain baseline hydrographic
conditions within the edge and upland areas.
If VPE plant species are not observed to be establishing dominance, additional vernal complex seed should be added
to the pool. Healthy plant communities within clay-rich vernal pools are essential sources of oxygen and nitrogen
nutrient-cycling (Bauder et al., 2011). Vegetation would also allow for evapotranspiration, which could help reduce
extended hydroperiods.
Consider re-grading elevations within features that are unoccupied by VPFS and have displayed less than minimum
hydroperiod.
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 5-1
5.0 CONCLUSION
Trihydro and Padre conducted VPFS wet season monitoring surveys in features that were created and inoculated during
remediation activities from 2018-2021. The goal of restoration is to create habitats to mitigate for the impact to
existing VPFS-occupied habitat. Population monitoring was conducted in features to measure the success of
establishing VPFS populations. The data collected to date suggests that four restoration pools are within the same
range as reference pools for gravid female counts and that four restoration pools are within the same range as reference
pools for average tow density. The fourth year of monitoring is complete, and monitoring is scheduled to continue
annually for a period of five years for R3-VP19N, R3-VP19S, R3-VP20, R3-VP21, and R3-VP22. R3-VP11,
R3-VP12, R3-VP16, R3-VP17, and R3-VP18 will be monitored for four more years, and NM-VP3N, NM-VP3S, and
NM-VP10 will be monitored for two more years. All other restoration pools will be monitored for one year, at which
point, those pools will be evaluated for successful restoration and creation of vernal depressions and swales according
to the success criteria (Section 3.1).
202205_SLOTF-VPFSMon_RPT.docx 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES
Bauder, E, et al. 2011. A Draft Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing
Wetland Functions of Vernal Pool Depressional Wetlands in Southern California. San Diego State University.
March 2020, Website: http://www.bio.sdsu.edu/pub/andy/vernalpools/Bauder2009_03_Ch3.pdf.
Black, C, and Zedler, P. 1998. An Overview of 15 Years of Vernal Pool Restoration and Construction Activities in
San Diego County, California. University of California Merced. May 2020. Website:
https://vernalpools.ucmerced.edu/sites/vernalpools.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/3.2_an_overview_of_1
5_years_of_vernal_pool_restoration_and_conservation_activities_in_san_diego_county_california_by_charles
black_nd_paul_h._zedler.pdf.
Eriksen, C. and Belk, D. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc.
March 2021.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic
Discussion issued by Climate Prediction Cenber/NCEP/NWS and the International Research Institute for
Climate and Society. March 2021. Website:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html.
Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre). 2015. Landscape Restoration Plan, Chevron San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Remediation,
Restoration, and Development Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. December 2015
Trihydro. 2022. Annual Project Status and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report 2019-2020, Chevron San Luis
Obispo Tank Farm Remediation, Restoration, and Development Project, San Luis Obispo County, California.
May 2020.
TABLES
TABLE 3-1. VPFS HABITAT HYDROPERIODS
NM-VP1 12/23/2021-1/8/2022 16
NM-VP2 12/13/2021-3/15/2022 92
NM-VP3N 12/22/2021-1/30/2022 39
NM-VP3S 12/14/2021-3/13/2022 89
NM-VP4 12/14/2021-2/19/2022 67
NM-VP5 12/14/2021-3/19/2022 95
NM-VP7 12/13/2021-3/5/2022 82
NM-VP8 12/14/2021-3/17/2022 93
NM-VP9 12/23/2021-2/1/2022 40
NM-VP10 12/14/2021-5/13/2022 150
R3-VP11 12/14/2021-2/25/2022 73
R3-VP12 12/23/2021-1/15/2022 33
R3-VP16 12/13/2021-2/18/2022 67
R3-VP17 12/14/2021-2/2/2022 50
R3-VP18 12/13/2021-2/26/2022 75
R3-VP19N 12/13/2021-1/10/2022 28
R3-VP19S 12/13/2021-1/21/2022 39
R3-VP20 12/13/2021-1/29/2022 47
R3-VP21 12/13/2021-1/31/2022 49
R3-VP22 12/13/2021-1/28/2022 37
FS-25 12/23/2021-1/16/2022 24
FS-34 12/14/2021-2/23/2022 71
FS-51 12/23/2021-1/26/2022 34
Reference Features
Maximum Recorded Continuous
Hydroperiod (days)Feature No.Inundation Dates
Restoration Features
202205_AllTables_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-2. AVERAGE VPFS POPULATION DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS/M3)
Feature No.December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
NM-VP1 0 Dry
NM-VP2 <1; 1010 IM1 0
NM-VP3 North 0 0
NM-VP3 South 38 IM1 0
NM-VP4 <1; 1129 IM1 139
NM-VP5 838 IM1 50
NM-VP7 1 IM1 0
NM-VP8 37 IM1 0
NM-VP9 0 0
NM-VP10 51; 922 IM1 167
R3-VP11 44; 800 IM1 0
R3-VP12 34; 30 IM1 199
R3-VP16 373 IM1 206
R3-VP17 30 IM1 15
R3-VP18 11; 2362 IM1 0
R3-VP19N 71 IM1 Dry
R3-VP19S 8 IM1 53
R3-VP20 9; 23 IM1 24
R3-VP21 13; 27 IM1 24
R3-VP22 5; 9 IM1 299
FS-25 921 IM1 126
FS-34 4571 IM1 56
FS-51 457 IM1 147
Restoration Features
Reference Features
Notes:
1 Branchiopod nauplii present; however, individuals were immature and were not identified to species. No adult L.
occidentalis were present during time of sampling.
202205_AllTables_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-3. TOTAL VPFS GRAVID FEMALES (INDIVIDUALS/M3)
Feature No.December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
NM-VP1 0 Dry
NM-VP2 0 0
NM-VP3N 0 0
NM-VP3S 0 0
NM-VP4 0 98
NM-VP5 0 34
NM-VP7 0 0
NM-VP8 0 0
NM-VP9 0 0
NM-VP10 4 72
R3-VP11 24 0
R3-VP12 14 122
R3-VP16 0 105
R3-VP17 0 3
R3-VP18 10 0
R3-VP19N 0 Dry
R3-VP19S 0 0
R3-VP20 5 16
R3-VP21 7 8
R3-VP22 0 18
FS-25 0 26
FS-34 0 34
FS-51 0 116
Restoration Features
Reference Features
202205_AllTables_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-4. AVERAGE CALIFORNIA FAIRY SHRIMP POPULATION DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS/M3)
Feature No.December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
NM-VP1 0 Dry
NM-VP2 1010 IM1 1724
NM-VP3N 0 14
NM-VP3S 38 IM1 5
NM-VP4 1129 IM1 381
NM-VP5 838 IM1 299
NM-VP7 1 IM1 40
NM-VP8 37 IM1 18
NM-VP9 0 332
NM-VP10 922 IM1 42
R3-VP11 800 IM1 181
R3-VP12 30 IM1 9641
R3-VP16 373 IM1 906
R3-VP17 30 IM1 74
R3-VP18 2362 IM1 282
R3-VP19N 71 IM1 Dry
R3-VP19S 8 IM1 1164
R3-VP20 23 IM1 56
R3-VP21 8; 27 IM1 8
R3-VP22 9 IM1 0
FS-25 921 IM1 17,044
FS-34 4571 IM1 1852
FS-51 457 IM1 39
Restoration Features
Reference Features
Notes:
1 Branchiopod nauplii present; however, individuals were immature and were not identified to species. No adult L.
occidentalis were present during time of sampling.
202205_AllTables_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
TABLE 3-5. MONTHLY RAINFALL TOTALS BY YEAR (INCHES)
Month 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019 2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-2016
November 0.24 0.00 2.05 3.7 0.23 2.05 1.30
December 8.71 1.38 4.33 1.26 0.12 4.09 2.56
January 0.00 7.64 2.40 6.22 3.11 14.11 6.65
February 0.00 0.22 0.00 6.89 0.16 10.52 0.79
March 0.90 1.10 6.06 5.35 8.20 1.61 5.08
April 0.51 0.00 1.85 0.24 0.35 1.81 0.2
Wet Season Total 10.36 10.34 16.69 23.66 12.17 34.19 16.58
Source: Rainfall Totals Gas Company Station 3099, San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Department.
202205_AllTables_TBL.xlsx 1 of 1
FIGURES
APPENDIX A
FIELD DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
Dates: 12/29/21, 12/30/21 Surveyors: Michaela Craighead, Galen Pelzmann
Times: 0930 - 1530, 0920 - 1400
LN
Temperature (°C)9.8
pH 7.41
Conductivity (µS)660
Current Max 37
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)11.2
pH 6.98
Conductivity (µS)310
Current Max 54
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Weather: 48.5°F, 67.6°F
Feature No. NM-VP2 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry Connected to cattle
pasture in ranch north
of project boundary
Water Depth (cm)
256
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature (1000)
Immature (1000)
Male(1); Immature (1000)
Population Density (per m3)
1
Feature No. NM-VP1 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Notes
CLAD, COP, OST, M
CLAD, COP, OST, M, D
0
0
Population Density (per m3)
180
Est. No. of Individuals
0
0
0
0
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 1 of 12
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)10.9
pH 6.65
Conductivity (µS)106
Current Max 57
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)12.1
pH 6.21
Conductivity (µS)134
Current Max 100
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Immature (3)
Population Density (per m3)
COP, OST, COR
1254
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature (10)
Immature (100)
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
0
0
Population Density (per m3)
COP, Planaria, Gastropod
Feature No. NM-VP3S NotesDry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
976
Est. No. of Individuals
0
0
0
0
Feature No. NM-VP3N Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Notes
2 of 12 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)11.5
pH 6.26
Conductivity (µS)200
Current Max 53
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)11.6
pH 6.24
Conductivity (µS)199
Current Max 56
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Immature(1000)
Population Density (per m3)
COP, D, M, P
634
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
0
Immature(100)
Feature No. NM-VP5 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Male (1); Immature(1000)
Population Density (per m3)<
1
CLAD, COP, OST
Notes
720
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(10)
Immature(1000)
Feature No. NM-VP4 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Notes
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 3 of 12
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)11.6
pH 6.42
Conductivity (µS)255
Current Max 54
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)11.1
pH 6.30
Conductivity (µS)214
Current Max 88
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Notes
Notes
AMPH, CLAD, COP, D, M, OST
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
CLAD, COP, D, M
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(100)
Immature(10)
Feature No. NM-VP8 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
564
Immature(1)
Population Density (per m3)
1024
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(1)
Immature (1)
Feature No. NM-VP7 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
4 of 12 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)12
pH 6.56
Conductivity (µS)142
Current Max 38
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.99 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)11.6
pH 6.38
Conductivity (µS)279
Current Max 40
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
51
Notes
T1 and T2: non-gravid
females.
T3: 10 non-gravid
females
Notes
0
0
Feature No. NM-VP9 Dry: Yes No
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Male(6), Female(14), Immature(100)
Male(5), Female(14), Immature(1000)
Feature No. NM-VP10 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
0
0
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
COP, D
Male(14), Female(18), Immature(110)
554
Est. No. of Individuals
0
Photos on Sharepoint
0
3220
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
CLAD, COP, M, OST, P
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 5 of 12
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)11.3
pH 6.44
Conductivity (µS)58
Current Max 30
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)12.8
pH 6.62
Conductivity (µS)75
Current Max 58
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Notes
North finger: depth
11cm. Nauplii and
immature present.
Only gravid females
recorded.
Male(13), Female(15), Immature(20)
Male(6), Female(5), Immature(10)
Feature No. R3-VP12 Dry: Yes No
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
1750
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Notes
Connected to FS-77
on east side.
Only gravid females
recorded.
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
34
Feature No. R3-VP11 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
220
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
44
Male(2), Female(1), Immature(10)
Male(10), Female(3), Immature(10)
Male(14), Female(15), Immature(10)
CLAD, COP, OST
Male(8), Female(11), Immature(10)
CLAD, COP, OST
Photos on Sharepoint
6 of 12 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)14.5
pH 6.38
Conductivity (µS)104
Current Max 25
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 7.6 m; Volume: 0.33 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 7.6 m; Volume: 0.33 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 4.6 m; Volume: 0.019 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)13.3
pH 6.26
Conductivity (µS)84
Current Max 34
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Notes
Feature No. R3-VP16 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
80
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(100)
Immature(10)
Immature(100)
Immature(10)
Immature(10)
Immature(10)
Feature No. R3-VP17 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
116
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
None
OST
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 7 of 12
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)14.1
pH 6.30
Conductivity (µS)70
Current Max 31
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)17.6
pH 6.46
Conductivity (µS)34
Current Max 9
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Feature No. R3-VP19N Dry: Yes No
Water Chemistry
Photos on Sharepoint
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
24
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(3)
Immature(3)
Water Depth (cm)
None
Notes
Notes
Female(1), Immmature(1000)
Feature No. R3-VP18 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
OST
Female(1), Immmature(100)
11
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
270
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Male(1), Female(11), Immature(2000)
8 of 12 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)17.0
pH 5.95
Conductivity (µS)75
Current Max 18
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)15.8
pH 6.37
Conductivity (µS)47
Current Max 14
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Flow from VP-20
downstream to FS-59
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(1)
Feature No. R3-VP19S Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Notes
20
Feature No. R3-VP20 Dry: Yes No
Water Chemistry
None
18250
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Male(4), Female(4), Immature(10)
Male(1), Female(1), Immature(10)
Male(1), Female(1), Immature(10)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
9
Water Depth (cm)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
None
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 9 of 12
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)15.5
pH 6.52
Conductivity (µS)36
Current Max 18
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)14.3
pH 6.29
Conductivity (µS)29
Current Max 17
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
5
None
None
Feature No. R3-VP22 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry Only non-gravid
females recorded
Water Depth (cm)
Male(2), Female(2), Immature(1)
Male(2), Immature(10)
100
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Male(1), Immature(5)
Male(3), Female(4), Immature(10)
10
Male(4), Female(5), Immature(10)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
13
Feature No. R3-VP21 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry VP-20 connected to
VP-21
Water Depth (cm)
4500
10 of 12 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)11.3
pH 6.69
Conductivity (µS)76
Current Max 24
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)12.4
pH 6.40
Conductivity (µS)148
Current Max 45
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Water Chemistry
Notes
Photos onSharepointDry: Yes NoFeatureNo. FS-25 (reference)
Water Depth (cm)
Only nauplii present
COP, M, OST, P
840
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Immature(1000)
Immature(1000)
Immature(1000)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
CLAD, COP, P
Feature No. FS-34 (reference)Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
234
Est. No. of Individuals (*nauplii species undetermined)
Nauplii (10)
Nauplii (10)
Nauplii (1000)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 11 of 12
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)10.6
pH 7.21
Conductivity (µS)133
Current Max 50
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.44 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna COP
Est. No. of Individuals (*nauplii species undetermined)
Nauplii(100)
Nauplii(100)
Nauplii(100)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
Feature No. FS-51 (reference)Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Only nauplii present
Water Depth (cm)
234
12 of 12 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
Dates: 1/14/22, 1/17/22, 1/18/22 Surveyors: Michaela Craighead, Galen Pelzmann
Times: 1200 - 1500, 0900 - 1400,
0815 - 1200
LN
LN
Temperature (°C)15.8
pH 6.62
Conductivity (µS)289
Current Max 43
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)16.1
pH 6.56
Conductivity (µS)267
Current Max 24
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Population Density (per m3)14
OST, COP
660
Est. No. of Individuals
4
1
Feature No. NM-VP3N Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Algal sheen and odor
Water Depth (cm)
1000
Population Density (per m3)
1724
CHIR, CLAD, CONC, COP, OST, M, D, STF, Z
240
Est. No. of Individuals
1000
1000
Feature No. NM-VP2 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Weather: 72°F, 50°F, 52°F
Feature No. NM-VP1 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 1 of 11
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)15.0
pH 6.49
Conductivity (µS)233
Current Max 49
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)16.1
pH 6.60
Conductivity (µS)316
Current Max 39
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Male(5), Female(10)
10
Population Density (per m3)
139
381
COP, OST, M, Planaria
480
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Male(10), Female(50), Immature(100)
100
Male(50), Female(100)
100
Feature No. NM-VP4 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Population Density (per m3)5
COP, OST
850
Est. No. of Individuals
4
Feature No. NM-VP3S Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Algal sheen and odor
Water Depth (cm)
2 of 11 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)15.6
pH 6.58
Conductivity (µS)274
Current Max 48
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)15.2
pH 6.90
Conductivity (µS)543
Current Max 57
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
3
Population Density (per m3)40
OST, CLAD, Gastropod, STF, COP, Planaria, AMPH
570
Est. No. of Individuals
3
10
Feature No. NM-VP7 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Algal sheen and odor
Water Depth (cm)
Male(6), Female(11)
100
Population Density (per m3)
50
299
STF, COP, OST, CHIR, Coleoptera
386
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(5), Female(15)
100
Male(5), Female(10)
100
Feature No. NM-VP5 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 3 of 11
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)14.2
pH 7.30
Conductivity (µS)490
Current Max 53
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 7.3 m; Volume: 0.42 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)12.6
pH 7.29
Conductivity (µS)389
Current Max 25
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 3.7 m; Volume: 0.040 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 7.3 m; Volume: 0.20 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 7.3 m; Volume: 0.20 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
100
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)332
OST, COP, STF, C, CLAD, CHIR, Planaria
150
Est. No. of Individuals
100
Feature No. NM-VP9 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Algal sheen and odor
Water Depth (cm)
5
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)18
OST, COP, CLAD, Planaria, M, CHIR
160
Est. No. of Individuals
10
4
Feature No. NM-VP8 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
4 of 11 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)15.4
pH 7.65
Conductivity (µS)773
Current Max 40
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)15.9
pH 6.43
Conductivity (µS)84
Current Max 25
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 9.4 m; Volume: 0.26 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
100
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)181
OST, COP, CLAD, Planaria, CHIR
200
Est. No. of Individuals
9
8
Feature No. R3-VP11 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Male(1), Female(1)
10
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
167
42
OST, COP, Z, Coleoptera, Planaria, CLAD
3125
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(150), Female(100)
10
Male(10), Female(20)
10
Feature No. NM-VP10 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 5 of 11
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)17.9
pH 7.03
Conductivity (µS)122
Current Max 40
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.58 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 3.4 m; Volume: 0.037 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)16.6
pH 6.39
Conductivity (µS)156
Current Max 18
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 8.5 m; Volume: 0.092 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 8.5 m; Volume: 0.092 m3 L. occidentalis 100
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 8.5 m; Volume: 0.092 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
50
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
206
906
OST
40
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(12), Female(10)
100
Male(6), Female(10)
Male(10), Female(9)
Feature No. R3-VP16 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Male(8), Female(13)
1000
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
199
9641
CLAD, COP, OST
1200
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(8), Female(6)
100
Female(3)
1000
Feature No. R3-VP12 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
6 of 11 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)16.5
pH 6.40
Conductivity (µS)163
Current Max 19
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 7.6 m; Volume: 0.082 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)16.4
pH 6.42
Conductivity (µS)95
Current Max 23
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)282
STF, COP, CLAD
13
100
100
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
244
Est. No. of Individuals
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
15
74
OST, CHIR, STF, Planaria, COP
Feature No. R3-VP18 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Male(1), Female(1)
8
Male(3)
16
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
80
Est. No. of Individuals
Feature No. R3-VP17 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 7 of 11
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
LN
Temperature (°C)18.2
pH 6.51
Conductivity (µS)174
Current Max 9
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 1.5 m; Volume: 0.0063 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 1.5 m; Volume: 0.0063 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 1.5 m; Volume: 0.0063 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 4 B. lynchi
Length: 1.5 m; Volume: 0.0063 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)16.8
pH 6.63
Conductivity (µS)153
Current Max 11
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
24
56
COP, OST, CLAD, STF
15,174
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(1), Female(1)
5
Female(1)
2
Feature No. R3-VP20 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Flow from VP-20
downstream to FS-59
Water Depth (cm)
5
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
53
1164
STF, COP, CLAD, OST
Male(5), Female(1)
15
10
Est. No. of Individuals
7
Male(1)
10
Feature No. R3-VP19S Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Feature No. R3-VP19N Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
8 of 11 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)16.8
pH 6.42
Conductivity (µS)150
Current Max 14
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.042 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)16.1
pH 6.48
Conductivity (µS)106
Current Max 9
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 4.6 m; Volume: 0.019 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 4.6 m; Volume: 0.019 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 4.6 m; Volume: 0.019 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Male(7)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
299
COP, OST
75
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(8)
Male(1), Female(1)
Feature No. R3-VP22 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry North section of pool
is only area with water
Water Depth (cm)
Male(1), Female(1)
1
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
24
8
COP, OST, CHIR
3800
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(1)
Feature No. R3-VP21 Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 9 of 11
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)18.7
pH 7.66
Conductivity (µS)124
Current Max 16
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 8.5 m; Volume: 0.49 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 4.3 m; Volume: 0.046 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 5.2 m; Volume: 0.056 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
LN
Temperature (°C)14.7
pH 6.84
Conductivity (µS)201
Current Max 35
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.11 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Male(5), Female(8)
Immature(100)
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
56
1852
COP, CLAD, OST, Planaria, CONC, CHIR
360
Est. No. of Individuals (*all immature species undetermined)
Female(1)
Immature(100)
Male(2), Female(2)
Immature(100)
Feature No. FS-34 (reference)Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
Male(9)
100
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
126
17,044
COP, CHIR, Planaria, CONC
65
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(15), Female(6)
1000
Male(5), Female(3)
1000
Feature No. FS-25 (reference)Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
10 of 11 202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx
APPENDIX A. VPFS FIELD DATA
LN
Temperature (°C)13.3
pH 7.12
Conductivity (µS)181
Current Max 25
Estimated Max
Surface Area (m2)
Tow 1 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 2 B. lynchi
Length: 10 m; Volume: 0.28 m3 L. occidentalis
Tow 3 B. lynchi
Length: 8.5 m; Volume: 0.23 m3 L. occidentalis
B. lynchi
L. occidentalis
Other Fauna
Male(8), Female(30)
10
Population Density ( No.
individuals per m3)
147
39
COP, CLAD, OST
150
Est. No. of Individuals
Male(10), Female(35)
10
Male(8), Female(25)
10
Feature No. FS-51 (reference)Dry: Yes No
Photos on Sharepoint
Notes
Water Chemistry
Water Depth (cm)
202205_VPFSFieldDataEntry_APP-A.xlsx 11 of 11
APPENDIX B
DATA SUMMARY TABLES
APPENDIX B-1. VPFS RESTORATION FEATURES - WATER PARAMETER DATA
Feature No.Parameter December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
Temperature (°C)9.8 Dry
pH 7.41 Dry
Conductivity (µS)660 Dry
Maximum Depth (cm)37 Dry
Surface Area (m2)180 Dry
Temperature (°C)11.2 15.8
pH 6.98 6.62
Conductivity (µS)310 289
Maximum Depth (cm)54 43
Surface Area (m2)256 240
Temperature (°C)10.9 16.1
pH 6.65 6.56
Conductivity (µS)106 267
Maximum Depth (cm)57 24
Surface Area (m2)976 660
Temperature (°C)12.1 15.0
pH 6.21 6.49
Conductivity (µS)134 233
Maximum Depth (cm)100 49
Surface Area (m2)1254 850
Temperature (°C)11.5 16.1
pH 6.26 6.60
Conductivity (µS)200 316
Maximum Depth (cm)53 39
Surface Area (m2)720 480
Temperature (°C)11.6 15.6
pH 6.24 6.58
Conductivity (µS)199 274.0
Maximum Depth (cm)56 48
Surface Area (m2)634 386
Temperature (°C)11.6 15.2
pH 6.42 6.90
Conductivity (µS)255 543
Maximum Depth (cm)54 57
Surface Area (m2)1024 570
NM-VP1
NM-VP2
NM-VP4
NM-VP5
NM-VP7
NM-VP3N
NM-VP3S
1-202205_VPFSRestoration_APP-B1.xlsx 1 of 3
APPENDIX B-1. VPFS RESTORATION FEATURES - WATER PARAMETER DATA
Feature No.Parameter December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
Temperature (°C)11.1 14.2
pH 6.30 7.30
Conductivity (µS)214 490
Maximum Depth (cm)88 53
Surface Area (m2)564 160
Temperature (°C)12.0 12.6
pH 6.56 7.29
Conductivity (µS)142 389
Maximum Depth (cm)38 25
Surface Area (m2)554 150
Temperature (°C)11.6 15.4
pH 6.38 7.65
Conductivity (µS)279 773
Maximum Depth (cm)40 40
Surface Area (m2)3220 3125
Temperature (°C)11.3 15.9
pH 6.44 6.43
Conductivity (µS)58 84
Maximum Depth (cm)30 25
Surface Area (m2)220 200
Temperature (°C)12.8 17.9
pH 6.62 7.03
Conductivity (µS)75 122
Maximum Depth (cm)58 40
Surface Area (m2)1750 1200
Temperature (°C)14.5 16.6
pH 6.38 6.39
Conductivity (µS)104 156
Maximum Depth (cm)25 18
Surface Area (m2)80 40
Temperature (°C)13.3 16.5
pH 6.26 6.40
Conductivity (µS)84 163
Maximum Depth (cm)34 19
Surface Area (m2)116 80
NM-VP10
NM-VP9
NM-VP8
R3-VP12
R3-VP16
R3-VP17
R3-VP11
2 of 3 1-202205_VPFSRestoration_APP-B1.xlsx
APPENDIX B-1. VPFS RESTORATION FEATURES - WATER PARAMETER DATA
Feature No.Parameter December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
Temperature (°C)14.1 16.4
pH 6.30 6.42
Conductivity (µS)70 95
Maximum Depth (cm)31 23
Surface Area (m2)270 244
Temperature (°C)17.6 Dry
pH 6.46 Dry
Conductivity (µS)34 Dry
Maximum Depth (cm)9 Dry
Surface Area (m2)24 Dry
Temperature (°C)17.0 18.2
pH 5.95 6.51
Conductivity (µS)75 174
Maximum Depth (cm)18 9
Surface Area (m2)20 10
Temperature (°C)15.8 16.8
pH 6.37 6.63
Conductivity (µS)47 153
Maximum Depth (cm)14 11
Surface Area (m2)18,250 15,174
Temperature (°C)15.5 16.8
pH 6.52 6.42
Conductivity (µS)36 150
Maximum Depth (cm)18 14
Surface Area (m2)4500 3800
Temperature (°C)14.3 16.1
pH 6.29 6.48
Conductivity (µS)29 106
Maximum Depth (cm)17 9
Surface Area (m2)100 75
R3-VP18
R3-VP19N
R3-VP19S
R3-VP20
R3-VP21
R3-VP22
1-202205_VPFSRestoration_APP-B1.xlsx 3 of 3
APPENDIX B-2. VPFS REFERENCE FEATURES - WATER PARAMETER DATA
Temperature (°C)11.3 18.7
pH 6.69 7.66
Conductivity (µS)76 124
Maximum Depth (cm)24 16
Surface Area (m2)234 65
Temperature (°C)12.4 14.7
pH 6.40 6.84
Conductivity (µS)148 201
Maximum Depth (cm)45 35
Surface Area (m2)840 360
Temperature (°C)10.6 13.3
pH 7.21 7.12
Conductivity (µS)133 181
Maximum Depth (cm)50 25
Surface Area (m2)234 150
December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
FS-25
FS-34
FS-51
Reference Habitats Parameter
2-202205_VPFSReference_APP-B2.xlsx 1 of 1
APPENDIX B-3. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BRANCHIOPOD PER SAMPLING TOW
Branchinecta lynchi 0 Dry
Linderiella occidentalis 0 Dry
Branchinecta lynchi <1 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 1724
Branchinecta lynchi 0 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 14
Branchinecta lynchi 0 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 5
Branchinecta lynchi <1 139
Linderiella occidentalis 0 381
Branchinecta lynchi 0 50
Linderiella occidentalis 0 299
Branchinecta lynchi 0 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 40
Branchinecta lynchi 0 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 18
Branchinecta lynchi 0 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 332
NM-VP9
December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
Restoration Features
NM-VP1
Feature No. and
Species Observed
NM-VP3N
NM-VP3S
NM-VP2
NM-VP4
NM-VP5
NM-VP7
NM-VP8
3-202205_SamplingTow_APP-B3.xlsx 1 of 3
APPENDIX B-3. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BRANCHIOPOD PER SAMPLING TOW
December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
Restoration Features
Feature No. and
Species Observed
Branchinecta lynchi 51 167
Linderiella occidentalis 0 42
Branchinecta lynchi 44 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 181
Branchinecta lynchi 34 199
Linderiella occidentalis 0 9641
Branchinecta lynchi 0 206
Linderiella occidentalis 0 906
Branchinecta lynchi 0 15
Linderiella occidentalis 0 74
Branchinecta lynchi 11 0
Linderiella occidentalis 0 282
Branchinecta lynchi 0 Dry
Linderiella occidentalis 0 Dry
Branchinecta lynchi 0 53
Linderiella occidentalis 0 1164
Branchinecta lynchi 9 24
Linderiella occidentalis 0 56
Branchinecta lynchi 13 24
Linderiella occidentalis 0 8
NM-VP10
R3-VP11
R3-VP12
R3-VP16
R3-VP17
R3-VP18
R3-VP19N
R3-VP19S
R3-VP20
R3-VP21
2 of 3 3-202205_SamplingTow_APP-B3.xlsx
APPENDIX B-3. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BRANCHIOPOD PER SAMPLING TOW
December 29th Survey January 14th Survey
Restoration Features
Feature No. and
Species Observed
Branchinecta lynchi 5 299
Linderiella occidentalis 0 0
Branchinecta lynchi 0 126
Linderiella occidentalis 0 17,044
Branchinecta lynchi 0 56
Linderiella occidentalis 0 1852
Branchinecta lynchi 0 147
Linderiella occidentalis 0 39
R3-VP22
FS-25
FS-34
FS-51
Reference Features
3-202205_SamplingTow_APP-B3.xlsx 3 of 3
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 1 of 23
Photo 1. NM-VP1. Aspect: east. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 2 of 23
Photo 2. NM-VP2. Aspect: west. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 3 of 23
Photo 3. NM-VP3N. Aspect: southeast. Date: 3/28/2022 Photo 4. NM-VP3N. Aspect: southeast. Date: 3/28/22
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 4 of 23
Photo 5. NM-VP3S. Aspect: east. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 5 of 23
Photo 6. NM-VP4. Aspect: north. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 6 of 23
Photo 7. NM-VP5. Aspect: south. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 7 of 23
Photo 8. NM-VP7. Aspect: southwest. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 8 of 23
Photo 9. NM-VP8. Aspect: southwest. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 9 of 23
Photo 10. NM-VP9. Aspect: northeast. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 10 of 23
Photo 11. NM-VP10. Aspect: south. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 11 of 23
Photo 12. NM-VP10. Aspect: north. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 12 of 23
Photo 13: Top: R3-VP11. Eastern Swale. Aspect: southwest. Date: 3/28/2022
Photo 14: Bottom: R3-VP11. Western Swale. Aspect: west. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 13 of 23
Photo 15. R3-VP12. Aspect: northeast. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 14 of 23
Photo 16. R3-VP16. Aspect: south. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 15 of 23
Photo 17. R3-VP17. Aspect: west. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 16 of 23
Photo 18. R3-VP18. Aspect: south. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 17 of 23
Photo 19. R3-VP19N. Aspect: northwest. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 18 of 23
Photo 20. R3-VP19S. Aspect: southeast. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 19 of 23
Photo 21. R3-VP20. Aspect: south. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 20 of 23
Photo 22. R3-VP20. Aspect: north. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 21 of 23
Photo 23. R3-VP21. Aspect: west. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 22 of 23
Photo 24. R3-VP22. Aspect: west. Date: 3/28/2022
APPENDIX C. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
202205_Site_Photographs_APP-C.docx 23 of 23
Photo 25. R3-VP20. Aspect: east. Date: 3/28/2022