Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutGray's Crossing Specific Plan FEIR Technical Appendixes rico II GRAY'S CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Prepared for: j TOWN OF TRUCKEE 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Prepared by: , PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS _' 140 Independence Circle, Suite C Chico, CA 95973 530- 894 -3469 1 Fax: 530- 894 -6459 www.pacificmunicipal.com 1 September 2003 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan • Gray's Crossing Golf Course Truckee, California • 1 1 1 Prepared for: 1 East West Partners, Developer Gray's Station, LLC, Owner 12257 Business Park Drive, Suite 8 Truckee, CA 96161 Prepared by: 1 The Division of Environmental Planning Audubon International Institute PO Box 1226 . Cary, NC 27512 i August 2003 © Audubon International 1 Natural Resource Management Planfor Gray's Crossing. Golf Course TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 • 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1 -1 1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AT THE GRAY'S CROSSINq GOLF COURSE 1 -1 1.1.1 Prevention 1 -2 . 1.1.2 Control 1 -2 1 ' 1.1.3 Monitoring 1 -3 1.2 CONCEPT OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 1 -4 1.2.1 Best Management Practices • 1 -4 1.2.2 Integrated Pest Management 1 -5 , 1.2.3 Audubon International's Signature Sustainable Development Program 1 -6 • . 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - 2-1 II • 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION 2 -1 2.1.1 Physical Setting 2 -2 2:1.2 Topography • 2 -2 2.1.3 Water 2 -5 1 2.1.4 Ground Water 2 -5 2.1.5 Soils • 2 -6 • , 2.1.6 Vegetation and Wildlife 2 -13 2.1.7 Open Space 2 -15 2.1.8 Climate 2 -17 t 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 -17 2.2.1 Environmental Protection Areas 2 -18 3.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3 -1 • 3.1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3 -1 4.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 4 -1 . 4.1 SOURCE PREVENTION BMPS FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 4 -3 ' 4.1.1 Resistant Turf Varieties ' 4 -3 • 4.1.2 Cultural Control of Pests 4 -3 4.1.3 Proper Irrigation Water Management 4 -3 4.1.4 Soil Testing and Plant Tissue Analysis • 4 -4 1 4.1.5 Timing and Placement of Fertilizers 4 -4 • 1 Audubon International Institute • Page ii 1 1 . . 1. Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ' ' • (Continued) • . I 4.1.6 Slow.Release Fertilizer 4-4 4.1.7. Biological Control of Pests . 4-4 I 4.1.8 Pesticide Selection 4-5 4.1.9 Rotation of Pesticides . 4-5 4.1.10 Correct Application of Pesticides . . • 4-5 • 1 4.1.11 Correct Pesticide Container Disposal, 4-5 • 4.2 MANAGEMENT ZONES AT GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 4-5 I 4.2.1 Management Zone A: No-Spray Zones• . 4-6 4.2.2 Management Zone 13: Limited Spray Zones 4-6 4.2,3 Management Zone C: Bridge Crossings 4-6 4.3 LAND USE CONTROL BAPS FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 4-8 4.3,1 Vegetative Practices 4-8 1 4.3.2 Infiltration Practices . 4-10 4.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF BMPs . . 4-12 ' 4.5 MAINTENANCE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FACILITIES ' 4-12 4.5.1 Infiltration Sumps 4-15 . 4.5.2 Gra . ssed Swales . 4-15. 1 45.3 Vegetative Filter Strips 4-15 . . . - I - 5.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 5-1 5.1 AGRONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 5-4 5.1.1 Soil Mixes and Modifications 5-4 1 5.1.2 TurfgraSs Selection • . . • . . • 5-6 • . 5.2 GOLF COURSE CULTURAL PRACTICES 5-8 • 1 • 5.2.1 Mowing • • • 5.2.2 Fertilizing • , • 5-8 5-9 I 5.2.3 Cultivation Practices 5-14 • 5.3 BASIC ANNUAL MAINTENANCE GUIDE FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE . . 5-15 • 5.4 PESTICIDE SELECTION 5-19 / 5.4.1 Pesticide Use Restrictions • - • 5-22 5.5 SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS • 5-25 I 5.5.1 Disease Control . 5-25 5.5.2 Insect Control ' • 9 • • 1 • . 5.5.3 Weed Control . ' 5-31 Audubon International Institute . • • Page iii • 11 : 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1 5.6 SCOUTING PROGRAM FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 5 -33 1 5.6.1 Scouting Program for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -34 5.6.2 Record Keeping 5 -37 5.7 MANAGING THE PROGRAM - PERSONNEL 5 -37 1 5.7.1 Superintendent 5 -38 5.7.2 Assistant Superintendent 5 -38 II •Irrigation Technician 5 -38 5.7.4 Pesticide Technician • 5 -39 5.7.5 Mechanic 5 -39 5.8 PESTICIDE SAFETY 5 -39 5.8.1 Storage. • 5 -39 1 5.8.2 Handling and Application 5 -40 5.8.3 Disposal 5 -40 Q 5.8.4 Pesticide Record Keeping 5 -40 • 5.8.5 Spill Prevention and Response 5 -41 • 6.0 WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT 6 -1 6.1 IRRIGATION 6 -1 6.2 IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT 6 -1 6.3 WEATHER STATION 6 -5 6.4 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY 6 -5 7.0 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 7 -1 , 7.1 SURFACE WATER AND GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION AND GROW -IN 7 -1 7.1.1 Construction 7 -1 • 7.1.2 Grow -In 7 -2 7.2 GOLF COURSE AND POST CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 7 -2 7.3 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER 7 -3 1 • 7.4 LAKES AND WATERCOURSE MANAGEMENT 7 -3 7.4.1 Inspections 7 -3 , 7.4.2 Maintenance of Vegetative Conditions 7 -4 7.4.3 Restoration and Repair of Damaged Areas 7.4 7.4.4 Record Keeping 7 -4 7.5 LAKE AND POND WEED MANAGEMENT 7 -5 1 Audubon International Institute Page iv 1 1 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ( TABLE OF CONTENTS • (Continued) 1 7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 7 -10 , 7.6.1 Phase I: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Sediment Quality during Construction and Immediate Post - Construction Period • 7 -11 . • 1 7.6.2 Phase 11: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Sediment Quality during Golf Course Operations 7 -20 7.6.3 Data Storage • 7.6.4 Data Analysis 7 -22 Ill 7.6.5 Criteria for Management Response 7 -22 7.6.6 Field Quality Control and General Water and Sediment Sampling • Considerations 7 -25 8.0 MAINTENANCE FACILITY 8 - 1 I 8.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 8 -2 8.1.1 Pesticide Storage and Mixing 8 -2 8.1.2 Wash Pad 8 -5 8.1.3 Fuel Island 8 -6 1 9.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY PLANNING 9 -1 9.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT 9 -1 1 9.1.1 Product Use Considerations 9 -2 9.1.2 Product Manufacturing Considerations • • 9 -3 I 9.1.3 Raw Materials Considerations 9 -4 9.1.4 Disposal and Reuse Considerations 9 -4 • 9.2 CONSERVING ENERGY 9 -5 . 9.2.1 Background Information 9 75 9.2.2 Lighting 9 -6 • 1 9.2.3 Buildings 9 -8 9.2.4 HVAC and Solar 9 -8 I • • 9.2.5 Equipment and Machines 9 -11 9.2.6 Motors 9 -12 9.2.7 Vehicles 9 -13 r ( 9.2.8 Getting Organized 9 -15 t I Audubon International Institute Page v ' • r Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • . TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1 • • 10.0 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 10 -1 11.0 REFERENCES 11 -1 r APPENDIX I: Analysis of Pesticides for Use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course APPENDIX II: IPM and Scouting Report Forms and Data Reporting Forms APPENDIX HE Example of a Hazardous Communication Program APPENDIX IV: Summary of Studies on Water Quality and Nutrients and Pesticides APPENDIX V: Maintenance Facility Best Management Practices APPENDIX VI: Wildlife and Habitat Enhancement Information APPENDIX VII: The Audubon International Signature Program 1 • 1 • ,, . • • • r 1 • • • r 1 r 1 Audubon International Institute - Page vi • t I I 1'_ Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 . i . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 21. Site Vicinity Map for Gray's Crossing • 2 -3 • Figure 2 -2. Topographic Map.of.Gray's Crossing 2 -4 1 • Figure 2 -3. Open Space at the Gray's Crossing Project Site • 2 -16 Figure 2 -4: Preserve Design for Gray's Crossing. • 2 -19 1 Figure 4 -1. A Generalized Concept of the Best Management Practices "Train" • 7. • Approach to Managing Resources at Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 4 -2 I Figure 4 -2.. Proposed Golf Course Routing and Management Zones • at The Gray's Crossing Golf Course . • 4 -7 Figure 4 -3. Typical Infiltration Sump for Use at Gray's Crossing 4 -11 Figure 4 -4. Relative Effectiveness of Best Management Practices to Protect Surface Waters 4 -13 I Figure 5 -1. IPM Decision Making Flow Diagram for Gray's Crossing Golf Course. 5-3 IL Figure 5 -2. Temperature Ranges for Turfgrass Disease Development 5 -27 Figure 5 -3. Interrelationship Between Turfgrass Disease Infection and 1 • Symptom Development 5 -28 •Figure 7 -1. Map of Gray's Crossing Golf Course Showing Sampling Locations 1 forSurface Water (SW), Ground Water (GW), and Sediment (S). 7 -13 1 1 1 . 1 Audubon International Institute Page vii 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course LIST OF TABLES 1 Table 2 -1. Soil Physical and Chemical Properties for the Several Soil Series on the Project Site 2 -12 • Table 2 -3. Average Precipitation Data (inches) over a 54 -Year Period at Truckee, • . California. 2 -17 Table 2 -4. Maximum and Minimum Average Temperatures over a 54- Year -Period at Truckee, California • 2 -17 a • Table 4 -1. A Summary of Management Zones and Drainage Treatment from Greens, Tees and Fairways at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. • 4 -16 Table 4 -2. Storm Water Pollutant Removal Efficiencies, Urban BMP Designs 4 -14 Table 5 -1. Standards for Physical Parameters to Meet the Specifications fora 1 Green Constructed to the USGA Green Section Method. 5 -5 Table 5 -2. Native or Reclamation Grasses Which May Be Used for the Nonplay " Areas At Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -7 Table 5 -3. Recommended Mowing Practices Used for the Turf Areas at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -8 "Table 5 -4.' General Fertilizer Applications on Greens and Tees (Pounds per 1000 square feet per year) at Gray's Crossing Golf Course • • 5 -12 , Table 5 -5. Suggested Fertilizer Schedule for Greens and Tees (Pounds per 1000 square feet per application) for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 5 -12 Table 5 -6. .General Fertilizer Applications on Fairways and Roughs (Pounds per acre per year) at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -13 Table 5 -7. Suggested Fertilizer Schedule for Fairways and Roughs (Pounds per acre per application) for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -13 Table 5 -8. Basic Annual Maintenance Guide 5 -17 Table 5-9. Results of the Risk Assessment for Pesticide Selection at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -22 . • Table 5-10. Restrictions for Use of Pesticides at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. 5 -24 Table 5 -11. Fungicides Recommended for Control of Specific Turfgrass Diseases at Gray's Crossing Golf Course -5 -25 Table 5 -12. Suggested Thresholds for Treatment of Insect Problems at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -30 Table 5 -13. Insecticides Recommended for Control of Specific Turfgrass Insects at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -30 Table 5 -14. Guidelines for Initiation of Weed Control at Various Locations at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5 -32 - s Audubon International Institute . • Page viii . 1 1 , • I - Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course . . LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 1 . Table 5 -15. Herbicides Recommended for Control of Specific Turfgrass Weeds at Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 5 -33 1 . Table 6 -1. Turfgrass Irrigation Requirements for Greens and Tees at Gray's Crossing Golf Course Based on Average Rainfall and Moisture I Availability 6 -3 Table 6 -2. Turfgrass Irrigation Requirements for Fairways and Roughs at Gray's 1 Crossing Golf Course Based on Average Rainfall and Moisture • ' Availability 6 -4 Table 6 -3. Average Monthly Irrigation Scheduling for Greens and Tees at Gray's I Crossing Golf Course • 6 -6 Table 7 -1. Standard Aquatic Nuisance Plant Control Methods 7 -6 Table 7 -2. Effectiveness of Herbicides for Aquatic Weed Control in Irrigation • Water Supplies 7-8 • f Table 7 -3. 'Waiting Period in Days Before Using Water after Application of . Herbicides for Aquatic Weed Control. 7 -9 Table 7 -4. Suminary of the Monitoring Program for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 7 -11 1 Table 7 -5. Variables to be Analyzed (x) in Surface- and Ground- Water and Sediments at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 7 -14 1 Table 7 -6. Variables, Container Type, Preservation, and Holding Times for Water Samples in Surface- and Ground -Water at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 7 -17 • Table 7 -7. Variables, Container Type, Preservation, and Holding Times for .' 1 . Sediment Samples at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. 7 -19 Table 7 -8. Response Thresholds for Variables at Gray's Crossing Golf Course 7 -24 • Table 7 -9. Number and Types of Samples Taken for Field Quality Control 7 -27 • • i 1 r . • i I Audubon International Institute Page ix • • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • • 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1 Gray's Crossing Golf Course and community is a private development on 757 acres. The project . proposes an 18 -hole golf course, 410 single family residential units, 57 cottages, 73 attached . units, 90 units of employee housing, a church site, a village center for office /retail, and lodging. Preservation of habitat is proposed on ,414 acres by maintaining open space. . • This Natural Resource Management Plan has been prepared for the 18 -hole golf course and it is 1 • part of the Environmental Master Plan for Gray's Crossing. It identifies the management program for the golf course within the context of the basic physical and ecological components of the property. Based on these characteristics, management strategies that encompass sustainability — using natural resources without depleting them, in ways that will support human activity — have been identified and evaluated, and will be implemented. • Development and management of Gray's Crossing focuses on sustainable resource management . and application of scientifically based environmental decisions in design, construction, and _ management. This proactive approach to developmentat Gray's Crossing integrates (.1 environmental and agronomic practices and promotes managing golf courses in the ecosystem concept. By managing golf courses and associated developments as part of the ecosystem, the 1 golf course takes advantage of, or mimics, naturally functioning ecosystems. On a practical level,.this Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing integrates.golf course design; . golf course cultural practices (maintaining the turf), Best Management Practices, Integrated Pest Management, and environmental monitoring. The result is a thoughtfully designed and carefully operated course in which there is integration between cultural practices and the environment, and protection of resources (Smart et al., 1993; Smart and Peacock, 2002). A Natural Resource Management Plan, similar in scope, will also be prepared for the community. 1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AT THE GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE - ' The focus of the Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course is on the following: • Prevention of environmental problems by correct siting and incorporating Best • Management Practices into the design of the golf course and maintenance facility, and • the use of Integrated Pest Management to control pests; 1 • Audubon International Institute Page 1 -1 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Controlling potential problems at the source through appropriate turfgrass cultural practices including the judicious use of fertilizers and pesticides, selection of pesticides specifically for Gray's Crossing Golf Course based on an ecological risk assessment, an effective irrigation management program, and identification of management.zones within the golf course area; and • Conducting an environmental monitoring program that evaluates the effectiveness of the management program. s • 1.1.1 Prevention The first step to prevent environmental problems was to design Gray's Crossing Golf Course I with an understanding of the ecological systems at the site, and incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the golf course and development. Best Management. Practices I (BMPs) are integrated into the golf course design and were implemented during construction and on -going maintenance operations. Examples of BMPs which incorporate this app roach are given below in Section 1.2, and are provided in detail in Section 4.0. An Integrated Pest. Management (IPM) program has been instituted for Gray's Crossing Golf 1 Course. The IPM program is the cornerstone of the day -to -day management of the course and it integrates turf cultural practices, turf pests, and environmental conditions. IPM uses information L about turfgrass pest problems including environmental conditions which may precipitate these problems, and integrates these with turfgrass cultural practices and pest,control measures to prevent or . control unacceptable levels of pest damage. • I 1.1.2 Control ..Control means providing appropriate management of materials and systems at Gray's Crossing 1 Golf Course so that environmental problems do not occur. Three of the main issues involving . golf courses focus on the use of fertilizers and pesticides in the management program, and I operations at the maintenance facility. In order to protect sensitive environmental areas at Gray's Crossing Golf Course, this management program ensures that materials used to maintain the turf, I the location of fertilizer and pesticide storage and mixing, equipment washing, and any drainage - from these areas are not detrimental to natural resources. I Audubon International Institute Page 1 -2 • 1 . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 The Gray's Crossing Golf Course facility, like other well run golf course operations, will rely on a combination of cultural programs. •Cultural practices include mowing, fertilization; irrigation, 1 cultivation (primarily vertical mowing and core aerification), topdressing and other mechanical practices. Many turfgrass oultural practices could have an impact on the environment. . Erroneously, many people assume that when fertilizers or pesticides are used they either move off -site or downward to the groundwater in response to irrigation or rainfall and create environmental problems, particularly to surface waters. While there is a potential for materials to move offsite, this possibility will be greatly reduced at Gray's Crossing •GolfCourse by . • developing low risk irrigation, fertilization and pesticide programs and ensuring these programs are administered on a day -to -day basis by a qualified golf course superintendent. At Gray's Crossing Golf Course, the IPM program is coupled with an ecological risk assessment to determine the chemicals that can safely be used at the golf course. Management zones - are also • . established, so that the can be managed differently at different locations throughout the golf cotirse. For example, 'areas next to ponds may managed differently than an upland area. 1.1.3 Monitoring Monitoring provides a means to measure the success of the design, construction and operations . of the golf course through a program that strives to evaluate environmental conditions. The • l • monitoring program evaluates the effectiveness of the management program. This encompasses sampling surface water and sediment to determine if any detrimental effects on the environment . • are noted. The goals of the monitoring program are as follows: 1. To provide baseline data as to the site characteristics regarding environmental conditions; • 2. To provide data that assesses environmental conditions, thus providing a basis for . measuring compliance with environmental regulations; and 1 3. To.ensure that Integrated Pest Management and the BMPs are functioning properly. This management plan has been developed eveloped'to detail how the Gray's Crossing Golf Course design, construction, and most importantly, maintenance protects environmentally sensitive areas ••• is such as streams, wetlands and wildlife habitats and meet public and regulatory agency environmental objectives. By implementing the programs contained in this plan an • environmentally sensitive approach to golf course management has been ensured. 1 1 • Audubon International Institute Page 1 -3 1 • 1 • . • 1 _ 'Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1.2 CONCEPT OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ' • A key compon to environmentally sensitive management of Gray's Crossing Golf Course is ' the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Numerous scientific studies have documented that BMPs and IPM coupled with 1 • efficiency in rate and timing of fertilizer and pesticide applications and efficient irrigation • management will substantially reduce or completely eliminate potential water quality problems r (Peacock and Smart, 1995; Peacock et al:, 1996). . I 1.2.1 Best Management Practices Best Management Practices are those engineering or cultural approaches to golf course 1 management which act to prevent the movement of sediments, nutrients or pesticides into . environmentally sensitive areas or to contaminate groundwater. Through the use of Best I Management Practices (BMPs) turfgrass management exists in harmony within a natural setting. The use of BMPs to protect water quality is affordable, easily implemented and an effective pollution control practice. Best Management Practices (BMPs) effectively eliminate the risk of • • ' unwanted materials reaching environmentally sensitive areas. Distinct BMPs for turfgrass areas . have been adapted from those suggested by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation E Service (Bottcher and Baldwin, 1986). II Examples of BMPs include biological and cultural control of pests, risk assessment based • • pesticide selection, correct application of pesticides, correct pesticide container disposal, proper I • timing and placement of fertilizers, planting resistant crop varieties, use of soil testing and plant • analysis, use of slow release fertilizer, good irrigation water management, use of aquatic filter 1 ponds, good subsurface drainage routing, regulated runoff impoundments, use of Iand absorption areas, and grassed waterways or outlets, and critical area plantings for intercepting drainage. All turfgrass management cultural practices and IPM strategies at Gray's Crossing Golf Course have 1 employed those BMPs described. 1 r • • • Audubon International Institute ' • Page 1-4 • . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf.Course l 1 1.2.2 Integrated Pest Management • 1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program that uses information about turfgrass pest problems and environmental conditions, which may precipitate these problems, and integrates ' 'these with turfgrass ciltural practices and pest control measures to pievent or control unacceptable levels ofpest damage (Ferrentino, 1990). This is not a new idea. as IPM practices • have been an integral part of general agriculture for over 30 years. However, as concern over the protection of natural resources has increased it has become more refined andtaken more of a systematic approach: This preventative approach integrates a number of objectives including: • • Development of a healthy turf that can withstand pest pressure; • 1 • Judicious and efficient use of chemicals; • Enhancement of populations of natural, beneficial organisms; and 1 • Effective timing of handling pest problems at the most vulnerable•stage, often resulting in reduced pesticide usage. • It is an ecologically based system that uses both biological and chemical approaches to control. As with BMPs, IPM strategies have been incorporated into every aspect of this plan for Gray's , 'Crossing Golf Course, and have taken into consideration the entire scheme of golf course operations as they relate to environmental impact. 1 The IPM approach includes the following six basic components: . • 1 1) Monitoring of potential pest populations and their environment; 2) Determining pest injury levels and establishing treatment thresholds; • 3) Decision making, developing and integrating all biological, cultural, and chemical . . • control strategies; • 4) Educating personnel on all biological and chemical control strategies; • 5) Timing and spot treatment utilizing either the chemical, biological or cultural 1 methods; and • 6) Evaluating the results of treatment. This approach coupled with compiling a site specific history and keeping informed as to advances in tuifgrass management make it a workable program. While the economic advantages • 1 Audubon International Institute • Page 1 -5 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course t of IPM are tangible, the sociological and environmental consequences of judicious pesticide use alone are strong justification for. implementation. . ' 1.2.3 Audubon International's Signature Sustainable Development Program • I Audubon International is a not - for -profit environmental organization that specializes i n sustainable natural resource management. Audubon International was created to administer and is unify programs with a national and international focus including the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System, the Audubon Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program, Audubon Canada, I the Audubon International Institute, and the Audubon Society of New York State.. . • The Audubon Signature Sustainable Development Program provides comprehensive 1 environmental planning assistance to landowners with projects in the design and development stages. The Audubon International Institute staff work with owners, architects, consultants, and I managers from the des stages through construction. By offering guida and technical • assistance; the Institute staff help to establish a management program that focuses on sustainable natural resource management. The Sustainable Development Program focuses on wildlife conservation and habitat enhancement, water quality management and conservation, waste reduction and management, energy efficiency, and Integrated Pest Management. Projects that 1 • receive Audubon Signature Status are considered internationally significant environmental demonstration sites for sustainable resource management. See Appendix VII for additional . 1 infonnation on the Signature Program and Audubon International. r 1 . a r • Audubon International Institute - Page 1 -6 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 2.0." ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Increasing attention has been focused recently on the interrelationships between golf courses and the environment, in particular on protecting habitat and water resources from contamination by nutrients and pesticides (Balogh and Anderson 1992; Walker and Branham 1992). By taking a �" proactive environmental' approach to construction and management of Gray's Crossing Golf • • Course, the probabilities of negative occurrences can be significantly reduced (Peacock and Smart 1995; Peacock et al, 1996). In the process of environmental planning, existing site 1 conditions, and resources Were identified and measures to protect those resources, and reduce probabilities of negative occurrences during development and operations were specified. At 1 Gray's Crossing Golf Course several steps were followed and they are identified below. • • Environmental management practices that are addressed in this Environmental Planning section include the following: 1) identification of Management Zones; 2) Best Management Practices; and 3) Management of the Golf Course and its Natural Resource Interactions. Other significant management practices include Integrated Pest Management with selection of pesticides and fertilizer and restrictions on the use of certain materials in sensitive areas, Water Conservation 1 . Management, Water Quality Management, and Maintenance Facility Management are addressed in Sections 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0, respectively. 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION Gray's Crossing Golf Course site has been examined relative to environmental characteristics, including location of wetlands, intermittent streams and proximity of environmentally sensitive 6 areas to golf hole locations. The site has been visited to reconcile - topographic maps, golf course routing plans, and engineering drawings and to provide a more detailed analysis of the vegetation, types of wetlands, soil conditions and relationship of the ecological community to the - golf course design and maintenance facility. Data and information were gathered from many different sources, in addition to onsite work. These documents included the Gray's Crossing Planned Development, Draft Environmental Impact Report (PMC, 2000), and Gray's Crossing Specific Plan (SCO, 2002). • • • • r Audubon International Institute • -Page 2 -1 • III , . • 111.- Natural Resource Management Plan for (3ray's Crossing Golf Cause 1 2.1.1 Physical Setting The project site is approximately 789 acres (Figure 2-1). The property is located north of I:80 I . and both sides .of SR.89.andis.rnostly undeveloped. Surrounding properties are primarily residential, with tarCelS iMsize. Site elevation ranges from 6,246•feet in the northwest to 1 • 5,880 feet along thieS bOundary. The site includes mixed pineforeston steeper slopes . .... in the north and northwest and open meadows in the earitial and southern portion of the site . „ I along SR 89 Dam road. Prosser Creek Reservoir is a water storage and flood control facility managedby.the US Bureau_ of Land Management and is located approximately 0.5 miles . , I north of the project site An unnamed drainage crosses the property in a southwest to northwest direction and terminates into the reservoir. A...smaller unnamed drainage traverses the southern portion of the site, and drains to the open space property to the east. 1 The vegetation Communities on the project site represent a transitional zone between the west 1 and east sides Of:the Sierra Nevada crest and the subalpine and mountain elevations. The plant , communities on thefiite can be best as 1) mixed pine forest, 2) big sagebrush scrub, and 3) MOntane,Meadow.' . . I i1.2 Topogiaphyii Site elevation ranges from 6,246 feet in the northwest to 5,880 feet along the southeastern 1 boundary (Figure 2-2) The project site is mostly gently sloping, with slopes less than 10%; however, there aresome'alopes between 10 and 25% along potions of the intermittent stream I channel that traverSes,thesite. -Slopes that exceed 25% are in the northwestern corner of the site, the nortiaern extreme southeastern corner. The 'unnamed', intermittent stream bisects I. the property from southwest to northeast. ' . . . . i IP . $ 1. . . . . - - . . . 111 Audubon International Institute Page 2-2 1 _ AERIAL PHOTO ;a.x•) 3 TO RENO FOR GRAYS CROSSING L _`7 `a o BEING SE OK ANCE 2 AND IS ,1 aM THE U4 OP L+. S ? 1RU E TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP V � ® NORM H [JON 2 RASE. MDM N OP HEWN O IR II CALIFORNIA 1 SI lRUCKEE ' VK7P1I71' MAP 'c? 1 a ' v t^ f -;,' -0." u4° M y`�"+;� - �`k 1 4 '\¢Y' t l+ 4+ I +t L 4 it � , A .1. it ern i � r 4v—,..'a , t + ' •:!*1 ? c; ` 4 : 1 'kw. 4 •�" 1 S"- , l ry. sY. ! F r i i 1 i+ r ■ 1 r w r ° +:71 , 1 ki I t I l / 1 l H ..:::‘:111: ' ct r / 1 t t �` •!'{� { ;� ;" L t \ ��A r��l' iTt� fh v it F � t 41 + .. ? 1 � 1 y ' � + ` �#! • j� >(a / a 5l,'I F V{7�i4 5 t r � : ; . + t∎4 \;r I t ~ I' t 1 x 1 i' 4 t ,t. i i � '- a -- . L r . ) - 1 ' f i w n . u1 1 �" t ' i t? ,, t 3 , ? { . C? ., ln f e 4�7 ¢ t S r t l ti a 0.-314 ' V {W 4 t 'y/ , +1 L sha e � ( g +L a �Yf.A t j l ' J 'S - tA y ' S I- t c C f t . . I ,1 # 7' , .k � i f tts.,. � .a 4 : / V'j. + t t t 1 •. 41 . , t H t tc i tdi t 5 1` 44 a ' C „ 5 ,7 1 '`.4 , ' 1 -0 , i ♦ i;.4 1 / Ery. 4 r, v y ,y a . R ,r -c a, 1 + R il 1 i1 ' I t V x {y/ � +Q G�t E + icr .L k� 1 - , sir • ti A hte, `fL ft �Y S 041 'v t ' ty / ` .. l � k 0 r i { l e,. T- 1 } 6— r *I c; dl , i t' ��� } { 4 �C R f 3.i. c Y f ' 1, 1 1 1' 0 ?d 7 r� F � „ ( s/r+ + f -t/ f ., xZ ' t \ A y i' \ � t i t: P v � 7 ,' ... r r ie ' 7 �1� ? y i t 3(. 1 r y i ., . � 1 • �"t :l / s it .,�h . rv x , v — ) . i E t. ✓ t s mt \ ,:t ` -/fi A .. ^ i l l l P a +� If� � t.), '. . e: 'or < /i a , p A. l ,,it r ai , Po v 4 � 1 �' I - v a Y J ` 4 y` \ a e \ xfir ''';3• � ,/ q i ', , qq:� s � ` 5 .It i V.; w ; + f 1 L n-9 � 9 .SY' '' 1yr 0/ SiM1� I2 i•I /I +L # C-4 4 '-51-71_ .il. E"/ l'' i r +: 1 ' t:' ■ G''411 ^ y .7d j E i ni P-4" t . i. ` la, tr4, '.1•-.-,- '+ �P . ' �� -4, r fi ti t xr4t - \ n ,. _,y) � J t y H js�, , 6 , ; C A f e 1- • H t'�5 ..yY � -: 1,11t4.0,„”, / d � v "",4SS +. ` .� '0'.,..,2 1 t S 4` " .. s '- t y¢ z i.il✓ �, tc] e'*L�I r ,' r k c Y 1 . : l ! 1 ' i �A . 1. A l - � tJ • ci• .• ,� •,, J 4•A4 tr rna. t '; 144- ' I;'. . - wl• ;`, ; ,r ! . '- { t • r � • '� r.�+ 5 a(i a r. •i ����ggqL ,S ' j� , ' l. L • / #�' J r'� r ;•,:t.° . Il �� �', . AI - .•e+ t . ,, 2 +5 ,1 1 T 1 " 7 > �I 't t '� E #k 4".L R `?' j /4 1. 4 .i Y7 L \ + 1 xS3 ; q 4 + l zr ' 1, x"1 ' f a. J k >ic,{ t . \ a I v '‘4.1t ‘.(1.)...4 + ) 1. L i.,� ..J+ a F.r - ,j ' L � n.•...441. 4 . t t "° t e/ j /�,``//�� ”%;.,/ /� , `t i . a41r h <, ��•• 1 ®e iT4tc f . :44 1 i 1' 1.0 \ i ,, K Y + l 1 -. „ r . Y'1 "/® /l't , v ,/ r ,c + < ` Y l/ i s5. H SY y, t ? F ' mils . r y � .,i e a i\ \ 'v C"' ' it. �L.''S O. . l i i . . t . 1 f 1 t t •. t , / if x n 1i (, j ”' r a ... WC' 1 1, t t ra i \'t ' 4 \ ci. t, ` 1 F 4 r f 4'. f r . .• „,,y1,,, � , i 1 ti + # 1 ei " u K t 1 1 ..` g I Y v 2 _ ` t � { r + f r t ! • e s e 1 ; I t r , S. \ c4-r \ ' U t u . ., 5 H r . o .. f „II YI, . I •H 1 n �� t 'C " o r { r r +; I e . j4 i'', � J\ 4 i , `1 1i J '' . •\, t itx e t t F c s ..,,V t£ I' a. . i t ),, \ t{ .; i .�. s H s i \ 41/-r l ,. t rS I, wry \ t 1 r ' % y ' - y c ✓" ...-vim. ".,� � • k , r ' 1 i:z r :,: r {t�✓p ul 1,1 11 ,H i` + ^t !so . Fe n \ ' i . ' 4 ■ 1 + > E ti� i i I 1- Fig ure 2 -1. Site Vicinity Map for Gray's Crossing ,, u ,... 1 CC 4�;: • 1 i —I — . v:,_ / - Page 2 -3 r Sic 1 1 i C Tki f . ', t J ,tLZ F �,'°'� ` it¢fi* ,' " ' h. < '+ t i'„ € '� e ni 3 of ` r=v �, 3`° x • 3^ � C ` ' & t t' a d h � 4 � C 4 q� , ti,." i �'' kx � • • • • i s <; „ r 94'* ,'. oo - `m-t \ t c„, ��` ®Q� '. • �JttJ � Inc 4, t t y�e��,. } �� , ��,v F � 1 , r d , �� � ta, . I ti -_ I Ki 1 N leeiSS � Y. S m i 151:1 .. 198 } i ®st 4tx `n PwM a'6 t,CJ. ; I y r - f" ..• . c 4 . L'�1" �a Rt�"3sr s, tos°.affiaeasse^a � < � -`'+- �' 6 �`�,..: -- � w " � � Ni a pp 1 ` :i e + 1 t �� S t. i I � J : 1 d �.F ® a -/f 7 it �. (. C • r \; l , - J am` j X 1� , �r f it ✓ J liff y ,1 1 .. r i t j iJ c a , Vv+� ,vim :-r . f - f ' k. t , J 'VW,/t'.'.1'...:":,' / i� l � if ,Nome , ! 1 � _ " �! i t / Sa a --� ¢ °'mss.. - I ' 1�» ,% ,. , -- - vim -- \� 13 PIC J I Cam, ' . Ci -._ M aka - • r ravAl�eit•Y_ r A. y � ��, fl 5'130 i / � t � I . .. r � j _ — /1 "e.- Snw Tait m enl i 'i, l ,�!' /. arple /,'� r' _ifr'uc i tls �7� �~ I ms p • 4 .. . ��ianal fad,' r !',y•� C I 0 "."—.. }� ' . Map Scale 1:22,217 Figure 2 -2. Topographic Map of Gray's Crossiug Projection: State Plane 1983 N Zone: California Zone II I - Datum: NAD 1983 0 0.125 0,25 0.5 0.75 1 Units: US Survey Feet Miles • 1 Page 2 -4 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 2.1.3 Water . The project site has two intermittent streams (Figure 2 -2). The larger:unnamed drainage on the II- U.S.G.• topographic map for the Truckee Quadrangle, arises •southwest of Alder Hill near the Tahoe Donner area. It enters the project site at-its southwestern corner and flows in a northeast direction through the site before it empties into Prosser Creek Reservoir north of the• site. Another intermittent stream with tributary channels traverses the southeastem portion of the 1 project site,. in a course parallel to the south of the other intermittent stream.. . Streams in the vicinity of the project site include Alder Creek to the northwest and Trout Creek . to the southwest. Both creeks are perennial streams: The Truckee River, one of the major streams in the Sierra Nevada region, is located approximately one -half mile south of the project site. Other than the two intermittent streams, there are no bodies of water on the - project site. The nearest body of water is Prosser Creek Reservoir, a man-made lake located'approximately three- 3 quarters miles north of the site. In general, reservoirs in the Truckee River Basin store Water in • the spring and release it in the summer and early fall, primarily to satisfy water demands in the State of Nevada (U.S. Department of the Interior and State of California, :1998). Donner Lake, a natural take, is located approximately four miles southwest of the project site. Donner Creek flows from Donner lake to the Truckee River. 2.1.4 Ground Water • I Geology of Northern California (CDMG, 1966) indicates the project area lies within the Martin Valley Groundwater Basin. The Martis Valley is recognized as_an aquifer by the Califomia Department of Water.Resources (DWR). Analysis of this aquifer has determinedthe following characteristics, as reported ih DWR Bulletin 1,18 (1975): . . • Water is produced from the younger alluvium over an area of 25 square miles. $ • The depth of the zone ranges from 10 to 400 feet. • Average well yield is 600 gallons per minute (gpm), with yields as high as3,300 gpm Estimated storage capacity is 1,000,000 acre -feet, usable capacity is'50;000 acre -feet. The estimated safe yield is 20,000 acre -feet per year with the potential - for additional - • development. - . Audubon International Institute Page 2 -5 1 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Y The DWR maintains a system of wells that monitor groundwater levels. One monitoring well is i located adjacent to the site (Sanders Well), while two others are in the immediate vicinity of the project site, while another is located north of the site. Data from the well north of the site along I State Route 89 (SR 89) indicate groundwater levels generally within a range between 30 and • 40 feet below land surface. Another well southeast of the site has had groundwater levels I measured between 65 and 85 feet below land surface. The third well, located on the site near the .. . Interstate 80 /SR 89 interchange, has had groundwater levels between 190 and 210 feet below 1 land surface until recently. The varying groundwater levels are indicative of the complex . groundwater structure typieal of the Sierra Nevada region. 0. 2.1.5 Soils • I The US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service is responsible for • collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for private lands within the United States. The Planned Community -2 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, • Volume 1, SCH No. 99012032 Prepared by Pacific Municipal Consultants dated April 2000 • reports as follows: • "Much of the Town (Truckee) in underlain with glacial till, moraines and . I outwash. These soils can be described as silty /sandy gravels or gravelly /silty sands. Glaciers have transported large volumes of sediments from the crest of the I Sierra Nevada. These sediments were distributed throughout the Truckee area as glacial deposits. Along with silts, sands and gravels, these deposits include cobbles and boulders, some of which weigh tons. Typical soil depths are between 20 and 60 inches, except where surface boulders exist. The project site contains • mostly alluvium, colluvium and glacial outwash deposits. However, the northern III portion of the site contains basalt and latite deposits which emanated from Alder Hill." "A variety of soil•types have been identified on the project site by a soil survey I . conducted. for the Tahoe National Forest area by the US Forest Service, in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resource Conservation Service). The eastern portion of the site predominantly contains 1 • Martis -Euer Variant complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes (MEE). The Maths component of this soil has a dark brown sandy loam on top, and a brown gravelly sandy clay loam below. The Etter component has a grayish brown gravelly sandy Audubon International Institute Page 2 -6 • 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course .. .� loam on top, and a pale brown, very gravelly clay loam deeper down. Both . • components are well- drained soils with moderately slow permeability at the subsoil level, but rapid permeability in the substratum. The Martis -Euer Variant complex has a moderate erosion hazard." 1 "On the higher elevations of the eastern portion, near the northern boundary, the Kyburz -Trojan complex; 9 to 30 percent slopes (FUE), is found. The Kyburz component has brown gravelly sandy loam on its surface, reddish brown gravelly clay loam in its subsoil, and weathered andesitic rock in its substratum. The Trojan component is similar, except that its subsoil contains a brown and light brown clay loam, and its substratum has slightly fractured andesite. The Kyburz- 1 Trojan complex is a well - drained soil with moderately slow permeability. It has a high erosion hazard, due in part to the slopes. The soil along the intermittent . stream channel traversing the center of the site is the Aldi- Kyburz complex, 2 to 30 percent slopes (ARE). The Aldi component is a shallow soil with a brown loam surface layer, a brown clay loam subsoil and a weathered andesite substratum. It is well- drained, but permeability is slow to very slow, and erosion =-� hazard is high." • _, "On the western portion of the project site, the area of the proposed school 1 • contains Martis -Euer Variant, Euer- Martis. Variant, and Kyburz -Aldi soils. Euer- . Martis Variant complex, 2. to 5 percent slopes (EUB), is similar to the Mantis -Euer Variant except that the Euer component is predominant. The Euer - Martis Variant • is a well- drained soil with a moderate erosion hazard. Unlike the Martis -Euer Variant, permeability within the subsoil of the Euer -Martis Variant ranges, from moderate to rapid. The Kyburz -Aldi complex, 2 to 30 percent slopes.(KME), is similar to the Aldi - Kyburz complex except that the Kyburz component.,. 1 predominates. Its characteristics are similar to those of the Aldi- Kyburz complex.'." Within the area of greater slopes in the western portion, the most common soil types .are the Aldi- Kyburz complex, the Fugawee - Tahoma complex, and the Kyburz -Rock outcrop -Trojan complex. The Fugawee- Tahoma complex, 3.0 to 50% slopes (FTF), is a well- drained soil with moderate to moderately slow permeability. The erosion hazard is high. Both components have a loam surface layer, a gravelly clay loam subsoil, and a weathered andesitic substratum. However, the Fugawee 1. surface layer is a sandy loam, while the Tahoma surface layer is a gravelly loam. The Kyburz- 1 Audubon International Institute Page 2 - 1 .. 1 _ Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course l_ Rock outcrop-Trojan com p lex 30 to 50% slop es (KRF), is similar in both composition and characteristics to the Kyburz -Trojan compleic, except that it contains outcrops of volcanic rock. . The majority of the site is comprised of soil of the Kyburz and Martis series while Aldi, Euer and Trojan soils as complexes play a minor role. Information is available on the Martis and Trojan I soil series. Martis soils - The Martis series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in glacial till and • outwash from mixed sources, mainly volcanic. These soils are on glacial outwash plains and . have slopes of 2 to 5 %. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual iir temperature is about 42 °F. Taxomonically they are Fine - loamy, mixed, frigid Ultic Haplozeralfs. A typical pedon is as follows: • Martis gravelly sandy loam- on a north facing slope of 2% under big sagebrush at 5,775 feet elevation. (Colors are for dry soil unless otherwise stated. When described on 7/2/73 the soil was moist below 17 inches). • A11-0 to 7 inches; dark brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) . moist; moderate fine and medium granular structure; soft, very friable, nonsticky and • nonplastic; few fine, common very fine roots; many very fine interstitial pores; 10% • pebbles; strongly acid (pH 5.5); clear wavy boundary. (3 to 7 inches thick) III Al2 - -7 to 17 inches; brown (1 OYR 4/3) sandy loam, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) moist; moderate fine and medium granular structure; soft, friable, slightly sticky and slightly • . plastic; few very fine and medium roots; many very fine interstitial pores; 5% pebbles; strongly acid (pH 5.5); clear wavy boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick) • 1121t--17 . to 23 inches; brown (1 OYR 5/3) gravelly sandy clay loam, dark brown t • (7.5YR 3/2) moist; moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; slightly • hard, firm, sticky and slightly plastic; few fine roots; few very fine interstitial and • 1 discontinuous tubular pores; few thin clay films as bridges and lining pores, very few moderately thick clay films as bridges; 5% stones, 5% cobbles, 20% pebbles; strongly I • , , acid (pH 5.5); abrupt wavy boundary. (6 to 12 inches thick) • • B22t - -23 to 33 inches; brown (1 OYR 5/3) gravelly light sandy clay loam, dark brown . • (7.5YR 3/2) moist; massive; hard, firm, sticky and slightly plastic; few fine roots; few very fine vesicular and discontinuous tabular pores; very few moderately thick clay t_ films lining pores and as bridges, common thin clay films as bridges; 7% cobbles, 15% pebbles; medium acid (pH 6.0); clear wavy boundary. (8 to 13 inches thick) Audubon International Institute • Page 2 -8 1 Natural Resouice Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 B31t - -33 to 46 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) gravelly sandy clay loam, dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) moist; massive; hard, firm, sticky and plastic; few medium fine . 1 • roots; few very fine tubular pores; few thin and moderately thick clay films as • bridges; 20% pebbles; medium acid (pH 6.0); clear wavy boundary. - (6 to 14 inches , . thick) • • B32t - -46 to 67 inches; brown (I OYR 5/3) sandy loam, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) moist; massive; slightly hard, friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few very fine and fine roots; few discontinuous tubular pores; few thin and moderately thick clayfilms line pores and as bridges; 10% pebbles; medium acid (pH 6.0). (15 to 24 inches thick) • 1 • The solum is 40 to 70 inches thick. The•umbric epipedon is 10 to 20 inches thick and in some pedons includes•the upper B horizon. Base saturation is 35 to 50 %. Mean 'annual 1 soil temperature is 41° to 45 °F. The mean summer soil temperature is 59° to 62 °F., but • • in some pedons that have 0 horizons, the mean summer soil temperature is 49° to 53 °F. . The soil is dry between depths of 8 to 24 inches from mid -July through mid - October, and moist in all parts the rest of the year. Pedons under open stands of timber have thin 0 horizons. ' 1, • The A horizon has color of 10YR 3/2, 4/2, 4/3 or 5/3 dry, and'T5YR 2/2, 3/2, 3/3; 10YR 3/1, 3/2, or 3/3 moist. It is sandy loam or loam with 5 to 20% gravel. This horizon has granular, subangular blocky, or thick platy structure. It is slightly to strongly acid. • • The upper part of the B2t horizon has color of 7.5YR 5/4; 10YR 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 6/3 or 6/4 • • dry, and 7.5YR 3/2, 4/3, 4/4; 10YR 3/3, 3/4 or 4/4. It is sandy clay loam or heavy sandy loam with 18 to 27% clay, 15 to 30% gravel, and 3 to 5% cobbles. This horizon has • • subangular blocky structure or is massive and has high bulk density in most pedons. It is medium to strongly acid. The lower part of the Bt horizon has colors of 7.5YR 4/4, 5/4; 10YR 5/3, 6/3, 6/4 dry and 7.5YR 3/2; 10YR3 /4, 4/3, 4/4 and 5/4 moist. It is sandy clay loam or sandy loam and has 3 to 20% cobbles and 10 to 80% gravel. Rock fragments increase with increasing depth and exceed 35% below 32 inches in some pedons. • Martis soils are on gently sloping glacial outwash plains. Elevations are 5,500 to 6,000 feet. Slopes are 2 to 5 %. They formed in mixed glacial outwash dominated by volcanic 1 material. The climate is typified by warm dry summers and cold moist winters. . . Audubon International Institute Page -2 -9 1 1 . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course . I ; Mean annual precipitation ranges from 25 to 35 inches. Mean annual temperature is from 40° to 45 °F., mean January temperature is 24 °F., and mean July temperature is about 60 °F. The average frost -free season is 20 to 40 days. 1. Martis eabilit soils ar for e wid with slow m f anhabitatd moderately ow • 1 permy. The y are dra used ne housing , gr wildli , and recreation. sl Vegetation is'sagebrush and bitterbrush. Jeffrey and lodgepole pine occur on pedons with I less dense subhorizons. They can be found in the Intermountain valleys of the northeastern Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. The soils are not extensive. II . Trojan soils - The Trojan series consists of deep to very deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from andesite, basalt, schist and aigillite. Trojan soils are on hills and III mountains. Slopes range from 2 to 50 %. .The mean annual precipitation is about 20 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 45 °F. Taxonomically they are Fine - loamy, mixed, frigid ' Ultic Argixerolls. A typical pedon is as follows: (Colors are for dry soil unless otherwise noted.) . 11 • Oi - -3 to 0 inches; mat of pine needles, twigs, and leaves decomposing with depth; . . abrupt smooth boundary. • . 1 . • Al - -0 to 3 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 4/2) gravelly sandy loam, dark reddish brown • (5YR 3/2) moist; weak thick platy and moderate fine granular structure; soft, friable, 1 . - nonsticky and nonplastic; common very fine and fine, and few medium roots; many very fine interstitial and tubular pores; slightly acid (pH 6.5); clear smooth boundary. • (3 to 5 inches thick) A2 - -3 to 10 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 4/2) gravelly sandy loam, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) moist; weak medium subangular blocky structure; slightly. hard, friable, I • nonsticky and nonplastic; common very fine, fine and medium roots; few very fine . and fine tubular pores; slightly acid (pH 6.5); clear smooth boundary. (610 8 inches 1 thick) • Bw - -10 to 21 inches; brown (7.5YR 5/4) gravelly loam, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) moist; small areas of yellowish red (5YR 4/6); weak fine and medium subangular . blocky structure; slightly hard, friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few very I fine, common fine and coarse, many medium roots; few fine and medium, and . common very fine pores; moderately acid (pH 6.0); clear smooth boundary. (8 to 15 inches thick) • I Audubon International Institute Page 2 -10 1 Natural Resource Management for Gray's Crossing Golf Course -1 } Btl - -21 to 37 inches; mixed brown and light brown (7.5YR 5/4 and 6/4) gravelly clay loam, reddish brown (5YR 4/4) moist; moderate fine and medium angular blocky structure; hard, slightly firm, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few fine and coarse, common medium roots; few very fine tubular pores; common thin strong brown , (7.5YR 5/6) clay films in pores and on peds; moderately acid (pH 6.0); gradual smooth boundary. (10 to 20 inches thick) • Bt2 - -37 to 48 inches; mixed brown and light brown (7.5YR 5/4 and 6/4)- gravelly clay loam, reddish brown (5YR 4/3) moist; small areas of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and reddish brown (7.5YR 4/4) moist; moderate fine and medium angular blocky 1 structure; hard, slightly firm, sticky and slightly plastic; few fine and medium roots; few very fine tubular pores; many thin clay films in pores and on peds; moderately 1 acid (pH 6:0); gradual smooth boundary. (8 to 15 inches thick) • Bt3 - -48 to 61 inches; light brown and reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/4 and 6/6) gravelly clay loam, reddish brown (5YR 4/4) moist; moderate medium angular blocky structure; hard, firm, sticky and plastic; few fine and medium roots; common very ' fine tubular pores; common thin clay films in pores and bridging sand grains; moderately acid (pH 6.0); clear smooth boundary. (10 to 20 inches tliick) • • Bt4 - -61 to 67 inches; light brown (7.5YR 6/4) very gravelly loam, reddish brown (5YR 4/4) moist; hard, firm, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few thin clay films lining pores and bridging sand grains; moderately acid (pH 6.0); clear smooth , boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick) • • R - -67 to 72 inches; slightly fractured andesite. , Depth to a lithic contact of andesite, basalt, schist and argillite is 40 to 80 inches. The mean annual soil temperature is about 43° to 47 °F. The soil temperature is above 41 °F. • from about April 1 to November 15 and above 47 °F. from April 15 to November 1. The soil between depths of about 10 to 20 inches is usually dry all of the time from July 15 until November 1 and is moist in some or all parts the rest of the year. The base saturation is between 50 and 75% in all horizons. Some pedons lack 0 horizons. The A horizon color is 10YR 5/2, 5/3, 4/2, 4/3; 7.5YR 5/2, 4/2. Moist color is 10YR 2/2, 3/2, 3/3; 7.5YR 3/2; 5YR 3/2, 3/3). It is sandy loam and loam modified by 5 to 25% rock fragments, mostly gravel. 1 The Bt horizon color is 10YR 5/3, 5/4, 6/4; 7.5YR 6/4, 5/4, 5/3, 6/6, 5/6; 5YR 6/4, 5/4, 6/6. Moist color is 7.5YR 4/2, 4/4, 3/2, 3/4; 5YR 4/3, 4/4, 3/3, 3/4, 5/6, 4/6. It is loam, 1 Audubon International Institute .. - ' Page 2 -11 1 I 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 clay loam and sandy clay loam. Modified by 15 to 35% rock fragments in the upper part and greater than 35 to 60% rock fragments in the lower part. Clay content is 20 to 30% in the upper part and up to 35% clay in the lower part. The Trojan soils are on hills and mountains slopes range from 2 to 50 %. Elevations is I 4,900 to 6,120 feet. They formed in material weathered from andesite, basalt, schist and argillite. The climate is semiarid with warm dry summers and cold moist winters. Mean I annual precipitation is 12 to 28 inches. Snowfall is 24 to 36 inches. Average January temperature is 27 °F.; average July temperature is 60 °F.; mean annual temperature is 43° to 47 °F. The frost -free period is 30 to 100 days. L These soils are well drained with medium to rapid runoff and moderately slow 1 permeability. They are used for timber production and livestock grazing. The vegetation is open stands of Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine with bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, big 1 sagebrush, cheatgrass and scattered western juniper. IC sl''21 01•'� 1ans �h mrc rt..„ t h Svc al � ���` A, - , ' a� the ro e Y: v `' I ' 424^ Urtil x ;;:e;.4) ks q k£" ti '5' 4*«',A, " c , i rP ° Ti T. � � j x �e atla s, 1 littit k , c „e ' 1 � ,, a ), r i -• 0 Serr . e a r „ e . t ..v:..... hr ts ki � u i ;' �`1 see. 1 Kyburz 0 -6" gr -sl 10 -18 2.0-6.0 0.08 -0.10 5.6 -6.5 2.0 -4.0 I 6 -34" gr -1, gr -cl; gr -scl 20-35 2.0-6.0 0.11 -0.15 5.6 -6.5 - - 34 -38" wb 0.2 -0.6 Martis I 0 -17" 1 15 -20 0.6 -6.0 0.08 -0.14 5.1 -6.5 1.0 -2.0 17 -33" gr -scl, gr -st 18 -27 0.2 -0.6 0.10 -0.14 5.1 -6.0 33-46" gr -scl, gr -sl 18 -27 0.2 -0.6 0.06 -0.12 5.1 -6.0 1 46 -67" sl; gr -sl 10 -20 2.0 -6.0 0.08 -0.10 5.1-6.0 - Trojan I 0 -10" st -sl 10 -20 10 -67" gr -1, gr -cl, gr -scl 20 -30 0.6 -2.0 0.08 -0.10 6.1 -6.5 1.0 -3.0 0.2 -0.6 0.12 -0.15 5.6 -6.0 67 -71" uwb - - - - I cl = clay loam; gr = gravelly; 1= loam; scl = sandy clay loam; sl = sandy loam; st = stratified; uwb = unconsolidated weathered bedrock; wb = weathered bedrock m c 1 Audubon International Institute Page 2 -12 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course -, 2.1.6 Vegetation and Wildlife 1 The project site supports Jeffrey pine forest, Great Basin sagebrush scrub, montane meadow, and intermittent drainage habitats. The dominant vegetation and wildlife species associated with 1 these habitats are described below (from PMC 2000). 2.1.6.1. Mixed Pine Forest. Vegetation. The mixed pine forest, which totals 611.3 acres (74.5 % of the site) is the dominant vegetation community found on the project site, the majority of which is located in the northern half of the site. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Jeffrey Pine (Pinus jeffreyi) are the dominant tree species, with several stands of lodgepole pines i (Pinus monticola) occurring on the site. The understory in this habitat is sparse and consists mostly of Great Basin sagebrush. 1 • Wildlife. Mixed pine forest habitat provides cover, foraging, and breeding habitat for a large diversity of resident and nugatory wildlife. Wildlife species occurring in this habitat include hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), brown- headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine), westem tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), lodgepole ( ; chipmunk (Tamias speciosus), and montane vole (Microtus montanus).. . Additional species observed in this habitat include western wood peewee (Contopus sordidulus), 1 Steller's jay (Cy.anocitta stelleri), pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), mountain chickadee (Podecile gambeli), white - breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinens.is), raccoon (Procyon lotor),.western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), Oregon junco (Junco hyemalis thurberi), yellow -tamped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus). 2.1.6.2. Great Basin Sage Scrub. 1 Vegetation. Great Basin sage scrub is the second most predominant vegetation community found on the project site. It comprises 193.1 acres, which is 23.5% of the 1 site. This habitat is adjacent to mixed pine forest. Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is the dominant plant species found in the Great Basin sage scrub habitat onsite; however, grasses such as squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) and blue wildrye glaucus) also occur here. Additional species observed in this habitat include lupine (Lupinus sp.) cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.) and oyster plant (Tragopogon porrifolius). A few individual pines are interspersed among the sage scrub. Audubon International Institute. • Page 2 -13 1 L • • • • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Wildlife. Great Basin sage scrub supports foraging and breeding habitat for various wildlife species such as western gray squirrel, red - tailed hawk (Buteo janiaicensis), turkey 1 vulture (Catharses aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern flicker, chipping sparrow, vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and Oregon junco. Additional wildlife species observed include violet green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), American robin ( Turdus migratorius), and mountain chickadee. 23.6.3. Montane Meadow. Vegetation. The montane meadow habitats, which total 14.5 acres (1.8% of the site) are associated with intermittent drainages flowing from the northeast site boundary to the southwest comer of the site. Annual . bluegrass and barley (Hordeum brachyantherum) are grasses observed in this habitat on the project site. Numerous herbaceous species, including yarrow (Achillea millefolium), fireweed (Epilobium sp.), cinquefoil, and primrose (Primula sp.), were also found in this habitat. Wildlife. The montane meadows on the project . site provide movement corridors for j numerous species of wildlife. These habitats also provide cover and foraging ■ - opportunities for resident and migratory wildlife. Species observed in this habitat include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonotaj, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), and green- tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus). 2.1.6.4 Seasonal Marsh. Vegetation. The seasonal marshes, which total 1.2 acres (approximately 0.2% of the site), support wetland vegetation characteristic of seasonal marshes commonly found in the Sierra Nevada. On the project site, seasonal marsh habitats are found adjacent to intermittent drainages and multiple wetland species such as sedge (Carex sp.), spikerush - (Eleocharis sp.), and rush (Juncus sp.) were found in this habitat. Additional species include buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), fleabane daisy (Erigeron foliosus), and annual • 1 , bluegrass (Poa annua). Wildlife. Seasonal marsh habitat provides cover and foraging opportunities comparable to those found in the montane meadow habitat on the project site; additionally, wildlife species expected to occur in this habitat are similar to those found in the montane meadow habitat onsite. Such species include killdeer, green tailed towhee, and western bluebird.. • Audubon International Institute Page 2 -14 • 1 • . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 2.1.6.5. Vegetation and Wildlife of Particular Interest.. Several species of regional or state • interest potentially occur on this site, although none has been conclusively documented. The . 1 • plants Ivesia sericoleuca and Eriogonum umbellatum are possible residents, as are wolverine, Sierra Nevada red fok, yellow warbler, not goshawk, and other raptor species. 1 2.1.7 Open Space Open space, areas are utilized to protect sensitive areas, to provide recreational opportunities, and as visual corridors (Figure 2 -3). Approximately 414 acres of the project site (55 %) is designated 1 for open space and recreation uses, which is intended to conserve natural feature of the project • site and create public and private recreational opportunities. Sensitive areas, such as wetlands and open meadows, have been preserved. Recreational uses that are allowed in the open space have been delineated and restricted to areas not considered to be sensitive wildlife habitat or 1 important migratory movement areas. A trail network has been designed for Gray's Crossing to encourage pedestrian access between • facilities, encourage outdoor use, and reduce automobile traffic. Several niiles•of trails would be located in the natural open space areas throughout the project site. Permitted'uses in the open space are limited to pedestrians, bicycles, cross- country skiers, and emergency vehicles. Trails would be available to the public, which provide opportunities for linkage t� future regional trail systems within Maths Valley. • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 Audubon International Institute Page 2 -15 1 • i 7 • DEVELOPMENT AREA . • • ' FOR _ _ • I - . • . GRAYS CROSSING . _ _ _ , ., (--- k 1 , . - I -• t hi 1 • I . ‘ ' I , . OPEN ACE2 • . • • . ----- ------ . 5P . ItAiDar3 . . • • " . . • • OPEN SPACE I • \ e • \ I 1221 hal3 . - I ' NN, I I • 1 I s ) \ N \ -/ .".. // 47 . I • "" i . C,/ \ ) ,,.. ,. . 7 •1` \ `' 0 / 7 . 1 I . • f. 1 / , AN\t‘ I' • • • / 1 I . I it . / C.: • T. , 4. b . /) N . I . . I ////7 f mr• /P / 7 ,,,. / / /-•% "Ili • I - 1 I //fia \ \ \ / / • • .• / 1 # S • il / / 7 , t i • , ) , / . „ „ r . • if -\ 6 / 1 i II 11 r di z / ,, ' i ,t ... e , / • II I , 6 N ., c „ % • , % . , , •.;: ;,. \-.....; 1 1 , , / ------r— - N . ' / / • n * ■ 7 r / A' 7 `i ( Ir. / , \ ( Y' 45 ..,. . , re ,, • #:.' :.. • ../....x... i vq>.• .:7-,C7•77c;:: tZ : I • 1 t ,----------.= I \ ,r 1 • I :1 ' ' ; ;:-...:' .. ,• ,....":” , ; ..:' ‘. / • r , • OPEN SP E ) 4 . WS ACM I l . • • i -- - .;),,......> ,r ,, ,' "a .. '-"'' 'J • i i el' /7. I .. I ■ e Or . , 0. - x • / -..... C \ \NS 0 e4 S di 4, , • „,-.--, ../ ,,,...-...-2 • Lb , , . . ...,., 2 1/4„.. ,//// r::::,,:- g i . . „ • / . ,, 0 • . ' I , / 7 . i • ,- / ‘ I at ei . ,4•I JO 3":"•- . . f 9 / TYPICAL AREA 1:104 • i •• OM / / cosir • , / / . 6•CXF DISTURBANCE. I _ —I— / — — — — 1 • ."/ / „at 0 . . c,' ,- 0 6 / TOTAL GOLF APEAt IRS 0/3 •• TYPICAL AMONG AAEA " ODES NOT SHOW INTERIOR .' WEN SPACE WITHD4 / .. 1 PRIVATE OWNED-SH2 t• '''' t \ \ _ --• . / ,,, \ / ...... . ______ _ .„., 1 SCALE V' s 300' . . 1 N. -. I 1 i DEVELOPEO AREA..., use sews s en TOTAL 1 ■ i 0 • CNNN/0... C 0 „. „„, 4"-, 1" in ltil . ....M. , .... NI A (II LEGEND: I I etY11.0•11, •••• onnoto co .....ots "L. I == ennaorte .4.4 - 14141t$ ".. 1.I I • I WETLANDS (DB-MEADE BY 7.7z Ins ECOSYNTIESIS - OCT. 2000 I • s•-...... es...-. ss. . . 1 sr .r.... = r isco Figure 2-3. Open Space at the Gray's Crossing Project Site. i..r.r............ _ v.?. te I . . Page 2-16 ter • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 j 2.1.8 Climate The following tables summarize conditions related to growth of cool -season grasses. These are exceptionally good conditions for maintaining cool - season grasses in the mountains of California. Cool -season grasses such as creeping bentgrass, perennial ryegrass, Kentucky bluegrass and fine fescues have optimum growth in the temperature range of 60 to 75 °F. Since 1 adequate rainfall to sustain turfgrass growth does not occur, irrigation must supplement rainfall especially from late spring through mid - summer. • This will be highly variable from year -to -year. Irrigation requirements in relation to climatic data are discussed in Section 6.0 under Water 1 Conservation Management. Table 2 -3 summarizes average precipitation by month over a 54 -year period at Truckee; and Tablet -4 summarizes maximum and minimum average 1 temperatures over a 54 -year period at Truckee. abl ecrpt attoo D (mcbes) o er . 54 ear ' e rrodxa ; l : r ckecs . if nnaa . P < t ■ t ali r � x %, '�'"yN,.rr m t c ^ "h'- r � � f R,�. ° s tip - r I' at _ _'=�i< Sep 8� -�°' . ra Rain 6.1 4.9 4.2 2.2 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.6 4.0 5.4 31.9 1 Snow 46.7 40.5 37.3 17.3 4.6 0.5 0 0 0.4 2.7 18.5 38.0 206.5 Ti 1 xe° y ' x 4k r 4iz.t� "..- }cr='`.�,"U:)i�» "2 x`u #'M a a�T ° 6 tt "" ab axnn ��y�i„Av.,. a d i t t' u Temperatures to era - t e�►o F �„ . .y�z L W I * d' v 'II S S „L ' ''✓,:, ag T Y l y Z 1 Max 39.4 42.9 46.6 53:6 63.1 72.7 81.8 80.9 74.5 63.7 48.7 40.6 59.0 Min 14.8 16.8 21.1 25.6 31.4 37.0 41.6 40.2 35.6 28.5 22.1 16.2 27 :6 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 1 After identifying site conditions, the next steps in the environmental planning process were to 1 determine the golf course's position in the landscape and determine areas that require protection, and management practices and strategies that are appropriate to protect resource areas. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 2 - 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 2.2.1 Environmental Protection Areas Environmental protection areas are those areas on the Gray's Crossing property that are 1 susceptible to change which can alter ecosystem or habitat structure or function, and include areas that exhibit any of the following characteristics: 1) it supports a rare, threatened, or • endangered species; 2) it is valuable because of its maturity, density, or diversity of plant or animal species; 3) it is a highly productive habitat; 4) it has a high commercial, economic, or recreational value. Environmental protection is necessary for these areas. 1. Groundwater Quality. Groundwater quality and the potential for introduction of 1 unwanted chemicals to the groundwater. 2. Surface Water Quality. The intermittent streams and created lakes located at the 'property will be protected. 3. The Open Space Areas indicated in the Ecological Design for Gray's Crossing. The preserve design for Gray's Crossing is shown in Figure 4 of the Ecological 1 Design and as Figure 2 -4 below. The preserves are further discussed in Section 10, • and include: • • Alder Creek/Prosser Hill Preserve • Northern Ponderosa Pine Preserve 1 • Central Wash Preserves • Vegetation preservation corridors throughout the golf course • 1 One of the objectives of this plan is to provide the necessary protection for these areas by correct design and management of the golf course and maintenance facility. Management practices and strategies that identify protection measures are given in Section 3.0, Construction Management; and in Section 4.0, Best Management Practices and include the following: 1) identification of Management Zones, 2) Best Management Practices to protect resources, and 3) management of the golf course and natural resource interactions. Other significant management practices ' including Integrated Pest Management (with selection of pesticides and fertilizer and restrictions on the use of certain materials in sensitive areas), Water Conservation Management, Water . • Quality Management, and Maintenance Facility Management are addressed in Sections 5.0, 6.0, I 7.0, and 8.0, respectively. Audubon International Institute - Page 2 -18 1 ►� % ►�� �� } il f � /i ,gR Uf a ,' t o .- a ' �. ��2 ' 1 « s n i / e r ,, s , z, i El ms , 1 a. - `4S' t ,, -, G 1 x, • N �.1 ' 1 11 " � � �� \ \ _ �!% 1 ♦ y am ♦ ���� %• °4 p �� � ir ' ' ;I\ � • ♦ / n om" - � �,. FrA �� � _ /'9 / • �r/ �•a � � 1 1sj ' = = fix ♦ ?r � ' 1 IN k • � ■■.1 1. ' ♦ ` g # 9 3 I ► 1 � ►� � p �oo � , ICY `' �° x�'� UUU —�i , ,� 1 C +,pt P�iO 'a_ i ,zy �t i lk \'� -� / ��► `��` 1 �/� ♦ �— _ , rr, •. • ���I� �� tea .w� ,, �� � �_ d +?i r M4 • f ) as 14 .4I k ' F o t � � � ¢ s i A 7 { ♦ p S : � - 3 ".E1:;,`.?' tea . SP ®' w d ..e t ♦ .4e P f ; i' /YJ \ `i� I i � � ++y ik,. • `rvw`® .'+a ice, 1 e cii i�� l f S '/ f - Fn{. le �4i 1G , ,1� ,` r- } ,. fie! , ,.o,= : 1 t `\. 1 ir 1 4 - uy o z ' s =. Alternat Locations for 11.0, . � o- . /.P"w Northern Connections .: \ \ - ��e �z / . ® Critter Underpass 1 : - " ,f' `` \ ,C "�� 11e .may„ Passible Corridors 1 r/ e" - ` , � j�' ; *-r. Legend ir►�� /� 250 Acre Preserve (Off Site) �- / %/ L I Alder Creek/ Prosser Hill Preserve , ' O p � 1P =' ".} Golf 8 Wash Preserve ,T j 1 / N / il 104 \ \// Northern Ponderosa Pine Preserve t • Existing Wildlife Underpass • • Wildlife Underpass Figure 2 -4. Preserve Design for Gray's Crossing. 1 • Map Scale: 1:11,214 Projection: State Plane 1983 N Zone: California Zone 11 �- , Datum: NAD 1983 0,036.575 0.15 0.225 0.3 r 1 1 AUDUBON Units: US Survey Feet Miles inrex�aTryne� Page 2 -19 1 1. • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 3:0: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1 • Managing site disturbance during clearing and construction is an important step in minimizing ecological damage to the site Site disturbance should be minimized, especially along the • property boundary and preserve areas. Minimization of disturbance is important because 1 disturbance upsets ecological systems at the site which negatively affect biodiversity, stability 1 and overall ecological health of the site. Even though the site can be revegetated so that it looks attractive or perhaps as it once did, disturbance upsets the functioning of the area.. For example, nutrient recycling is retarded or impaired, and hydrological characteristics are altered. 3.1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1 The following identifies components of a construction management program. When followed, it should minimize site disturbance and provide the foundation for enhancement of the habitat and 1 wildlife on the property. 1. Clearly identify all jurisdictional limits. This includes wildlife management or protection areas; trees to be saved; pipelines or other right-of-ways. • 2. Protocols for clearing vegetation for golf course construction should be defined on a site plan. The plan should include identification of areas for the following: storage Area for wood chips; storage area for soil; area for removal of all vegetation • between the marked limits; area for removal of all undesirable vegetation; service roads; limits of second phase clearance; and wooded zones, buffers, and corridors. • 3. Areas for Soil Storage and Burn/Rubbish Piles must be identified. Service roads to the storage areas should be identified. • 1 4. All areas designated for clearing are marked and defined. This should be 1 completed by the Golf. Course Project Manager with input from appropriate • personnel, which may include the Natural Resource Manager, Audubon International, 1 • Golf Course Architect, Landscape Architects, and associated team members. Marked areas employ color-coding that is consistent throughout the project. • 1 Audubon International Institute - Page 3 -1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5. Clearing should be iterative. For example, on a golf course the first phase of clearing will generally include the initial center lines and an approximate 100 foot wide strip, with 50 ft cleared on either side of the center line. Phase If will include selective clearing, and will begin only after Phase I has been inspected and approved by the team. Phase III will include selective removal of remaining vegetation, depending upon the requirements of each golf hole. Throughout the clearing process all specimen trees that have been marked will remain. • 6. Clearing lines should be identified with a uniform, color coding. Care needs to be 1 taken so that flagging does not fade, and that the different colors do not fade or become indistinguishable. 1 7. When clearing wooded areas, specimen trees should be identified and protected. Tree protection may be based on a combination of the following factors: • Fonn (preference towards unique specimens); • Health (preference towards those with relatively little evidence of heart rot or other damage); and • Representation (attempt to ensure any species which are locally less abundant continue to be represented within the retained stand); and • . Regulatory (maintaining the trees that are required by law). 1 8. An attempt should be made to preserve specimen trees, significant sites, or other . .important features wherever possible. In many cases; the final determination of what can be preserved successfully will not be made until clearing begins. This is the heart of incremental planning, in which decisions are made based on the results of previous aetions. To ensure the greatest opportunity for the successful retention of these sites, the following practices should be employed: 1 • • Areas to be retained are to be clearly marked prior to the onset of clearing within an area. • Grading, and any vehicular movement is to be kept to an absolute minimum within the areas to be preserved, for example, the drip -line of the base of trees to be preserved. This can be achieved by the placement of temporary construction fencing (orange `snow - fence') around such areas. 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 3 -2 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 2 • In maintaining these areas, an emphasis is placed on vegetation that produces food 1 as well as appropriate habitat. These are valuable food sources fora variety of wildlife. 9. Edge conditions will need to be maintained, restored, or created. This is ' particularly important with clearing that is proposed within and adjacent to wooded • • areas. Construction activity (actual clearing as well as haul,road activity) should be 1 kept within the specified boundaries, and follow the prescribed pattern of clearing.• Regrading is to be kept to an absolute minimum within these transitional areas. Where minor regrading is necessary native topsoil should be reinstated. Native 1 topsoil contains a seedbank that will encourage the development of a natural edge. Plantings along these edges should allow for the rapid establishment of appropriate native species. ' 10. Haul routes should be identified and the roads must be followed at all times. Unacceptable environmental damage may occur if the vehicles deviate from the haul roads. For example, soil compaction•may occur and cause stress to plants; habitat may be destroyed; foraging and nesting sites may be damaged. Haul roads should follow the route of the cart path. • 11. Implement your erosion control plan. The plan should be used each time the golf . course undergoes any type of construction or re construction. ' 12. An education program for construction workers should be developed. A 15- to 20- minute session with the contractor, including the supervisors and operators, provides a common vision for the property. The contractor and everyone knows 1 expectations. An effective way to present this is with an 8 %z" x 11" brochure. It should highlight (by `bulleted' points) the major protection areas, and what the contractors should and should not do in particular areas. 13. Utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to treat stormwater runoff. The use of vegetated swales to direct runoff waters, or of buffers constructed from native plant materials are effective in minimizing the effect from the direct input 'I. of drainage waters. "Soft" engineering is preferred over the use of concrete or "hard" piping of water, where this is appropriate for stonnwater management: 1 Audubon International Institute Page 3 -3 . 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course t 14. Surface and subsurface drainage from greens must be directed over vegetative buffers, through vegetative swales, or into sumps, or similar devices before 1 discharging to water. The use of swales, sumps, or other devices that retain or move drainage water away from surface waters are meant to be protective of surface waters 1 (i.e., protect them from unwanted chemical inputs). Many different means to this end exist, the goal is to avoid putting chemicals directly into water, in a way that makes the sense for the specific property. • 15. Drainage from fairways should be routed away from direct input to surface 1 waters. •This is to protect the resource from unwanted inputs, and it also protects the property owner. Best management practices can be used effectively. Do not drain directly to the lakes. 16. The Natural Resource Management Center footprint should be established. The location should be maximized for efficiency of operations; safe operations of equipment; correct siting of washpads, pesticide storage and mixing areas, fuel islands, equipment maintenance, etc. to minimize the potential for negative incidents; --'* and ease of deliveries. 17. Bridge crossings must be built so that the impact to the environment is 1 minimized during construction. Erosion barriers described in the Erosion Control Plan (silt fence with hay bales, and sedimentation ponds where needed) will be in place for bridge crossings. Bridge construction will be conducted so that construction equipment does not 'enter a stream, wetland or other waterbody; rather, only the location of the footings will disturb the bottom areas. The bridges are built with the bridge itself as the work platform. Clearing should be by hand to avoid damaging the wetland or waterbody with heavy equipment. 18; Cart path construction. Clearing for the cart path should follow the guidelines for clearing of the golf course. The cart path should be routed to avoid sensitive areas and areas that have been identified for protection (e.g., specimen trees). Erosion barriers described in the Erosion Control Plan (e.g., silt fence with,hay bales, and sedimentation ponds where needed) will be in place for construction. Construction will be conducted so that construction equipment does not enter sensitive areas, or disturb areas that are othenvise undisturbed. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 3 - 1 • - _ Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 19. If quality landscape material is available on site for transplanting, a nursery 1 should be established. Natural vegetation that is removed from the site should be appropriately potted and held in the nursery until it is time to revegetate the property. The nursery needs to be in an area that has electricity and water, and that is convenient to revegetation locations. 20. Respect all wildlife as an important part of the ecosystem. 1 • Avoid harming wildlife, both plants and animals. , • Call for help in removing animals you are not comfortable with. 1 21. Follow guidelines for on -site fuel storage. Fuel tanks that are temporarily stored on site must be properly located and protected to minimize the possibility, of spills and 1 environmental impacts. • Fuel or chemical storage tanks should not be placed within 150 feet of any „ 1 environmentally sensitive areas. These areas include lakes, creeks (created or • natural), stormwater treatment structures, etc. • All storage tanks are require to have secondary containment. At a minimum, an earthen berm must be constructed around the tank. This berm must sized to contain at least a third of the total tank volume in case of a tank rupture or equipment failure. 1 22. In case of a fuel or chemical spill, follow appropriate response procedures for containment and cleanup. 1 • Report spills to on -site supervisor. • If possible, collect information such as type of fuel or chemical, estimated volume of spill, and any other hazardous /safety information. 1 23. Follow approved dewatering practices. Dewatering activities must meet all 1 regulatory requirements. Waterbodies, wetlands, natural save areas, and other environmentally sensitive resources should be protected from dewatering discharges. 1 Care must also be taken to ensure that erosion and sedimentation control practices are properly installed and functioning. 1 1 . Audubon International Institute - - Page 3 -5 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course } 4.0. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Best Management Practices are those design or cultural• approaches to golf course management • which act to prevent the movement of sediments, nutrients or pesticides into environmentally sensitive areas. Through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) turfgrass management , coexists in harmony with the natural landscape features. The goals of BMPs are as follows: • 1. To reduce the off -site transport of sediment, nutrients and pesticides; 1 2. To control the rate, method and type of chemicals being applied; and 3. To reduce the total chemical load by use of Integrated Pest Management. 1 The quantity and quality of water moving from the Gray's Crossing Golf Course facility can be protected by appropriate watershed controls and management practices. Because water is the primary movement mechanism for contaminants, protection of water resources also provides protection for sensitive areas and species. Preventative measures preclude potential contaminants from creating environmental problems in waters and habitat. BMPs include preventative and structural controls which constitute the building blocks of the watershed ; 1 protection program. • Preventative measures include nonstructural practices that minimize or prevent the generation of runoff and the contamination of runoff by pollutants; for example, using organic fertilizers. Structural controls are capital improvements designed to remove, filter, detain, or reroute potential contaminants carried in surface water. The most effective way to manage surface water and protect groundwater is by using a comprehensive systems approach that includes integration of preventative practices and structural controls (Eaker, 1994). This comprehensive systems approach, used throughout the Gray's Crossing Golf Course stresses - optimum site planning and the use of natural drainage systems. A stormwater management system is considered as a "Best Management Practices (BMPs) Train" in which the individual BMPs are considered the cars. In most cases, the more BMPs incorporated into the system the better the performance of the treatment train (Figure 4 -1). The first cars might include BMPs•to minimize generation of runoff (e.g., irrigation management) and pollutants (e.g., IPM) and the • final car could include retention ( Eaker, 1994). 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 4 -1 1 Panel A: Schematic of Water Flow. Panel B: A Generalized Concept of the BMP Train. Traditional Approach BMP Approach Correct Siting and Design of Green green drain line green drain line Correct Construction l 25 foot turf swale Appropriate Turfgrass Selection Management Zones 25 foot vegetative area (e.g. No Spray Zones, Limited Spray Zones, (plante n with natives) Restricted use Pesticides) 1 Preventative Practice BMPs (e.g., IPM, tissue testing, pesticide selection, irrigation management, slow release fertilizers) pond o: lake 25 foot of native area Land use Control BMPs (e.g., infiltrators, water quality basins) sheet fl . to undisturbed. 1 _ forest . I ea Vegetative Land Use Control BMPs (e.g. vegetated filter strips, natural areas, grassed swales) 1 Environmental Monitoring Figure 4 -1. A Generalized Concept of the Best Management Practices. "Train" Approach to Managing Resources at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course _ - 1 Preventative measures are considered the `first line of defense'. in an integrated storm water management system. The preventative measures used at Gray's Crossing Golf Course include 1 land use controls and source prevention practices. The preventative measures for use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course include detailed land use planning and source prevention practices. This approach is based Oda. tiered concept off prevention, control, and detection - prevent problems from occurring, have safe - guards in place to control any problems, and have a monitoring program to detect changes in environmental quality. 4.1 SOURCE PREVENTION BMPS FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 1 Source prevention practice BMPs to be employed at the Gray's Crossing Golf Course include use of resistant crop varieties; cultural control of pests, proper irrigation water management, good nutrient management teclmiques (including: soil testing and plant analysis to determine fertilizer 1 requirements; proper timing and placement of fertilizers; and the use of slow release fertilizers), biological control of pests, risk analysis for pesticide selection, rotation of pesticides, correct 1 application of pesticides, containment of pesticide and fertilizer storage and mixing/loading areas and correct pesticide container disposal. These are described below: X19 • • 4.1.1 Resistant Turf Varieties Resistant Turf Varieties involves the use of plant varieties that are resistant to insects, nematodes, diseases, etc., in order to reduce pesticide use. Care has been taken in the selection of the turfgrass species and cultivars best adapted for the edaphic and-climatic conditions of the Gray's Crossing Golf Course site. 4.1.2 Cultural Control of Pests Cultural Control of Pests involves using cultural practices to partially substitute for pesticides. 1 - Details of the proper cultural practices including mowing, fertilization, irrigation, and cultivation practices are included in this plan to take advantage of every aspect of cultural control of pest problems. • 4.1.3 Proper Irrigation Water Management 1 This BMP involves determining and controlling the rate, amount, and timing of irrigation water application in order to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and fertilizer and pesticide movement. The Audubon International Institute Page 4 -3 • 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course irrigation system will be designed to have an average application rate below the infiltration capacity of the soil so that no surface ponding will occur and maximum efficiency of water 1 percolation will occur. All irrigation will be based on a water balance method which takes into account plant water use, environmental conditions, soil drainage and natural rainfall (See Section 6.0, Water Conservation Management'). • 1 • 4.1.4 Soil Testing and Plant Tissue Analysis I • Soil testing and plant tissue analysis is used to determine the amount of fertilizer that is needed by the plant so that over fertilization.and subsequent losses of nutrients is avoided. All initial fertilizer recommendations will be based on soil testing and plant tissue testing. All subsequent fertilization programs will be finalized based on a minimum sampling program consisting of 1 annual soil and quarterly tissue analyses. 4.1.5 Timing and Placement of Fertilizers • Timing and placement of fertilizers for maximum utilization by plants and minimum leaching or 1, movement by surface runoff will be practiced. Every precaution in fertilization timing, including scheduling to avoid potential rainfall which could produce runoff and/or leaching, verification of application rate through proper calibration of equipinent, and choice of materials will be employed by the golf course superintendent. Fertilizer placement will be scrutinized to comply with the Management Zone requirements in Section 4.2.. 4.1.6 Slow Release Fertilizer ' Applying slow release fertilizers to minimize nitrogen losses from soils prone to leaching is another effective BM?. All fertilization programs include the use of slow release fertilizers. • • 4.1.7 Biological Control of Pests I Using natural enemies either native or introduced as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program can reduce.the use of pesticides. Biological controls which provide effective pest management for turfgrasses are limited; however, they will be implemented as necessary and practical. • • • l� Audubon International Institute • • - Page 4-4 _ 1 1 - 1 b t � r t m 4 K � xs5 5 R lw �� � � Y s ix £4 I � Y� r IN , ,,,.,._,..,: i.. : i . ii ,„ < „, „ ira 4 -a: : :$6 4 :1 1 1 / a , ' . .. ' il i 4r illi sto \ ■7,4,0 A i-, -aro ir /4,,,-** 0:4 i . Ica 4) %Ali: i:tt ' /■ „,, , 0 a, _ ,., „Fr", I e S Nc,--- i /*MTh ■ 1 //' RP* 1 1st I I '- �A ..`®� 4; Ir .t /, �' / .�ssa \P. 7 o �B ill t---, ' -,t,„ it JI i f � r � r y � �a � � � L��' I1, �'� � r a "-- r - ,e / . .../.4..s.A...e.,./. ��� / � f �-'Y"' u d '�yW eG� ♦a / f� «+ x ( 1 q b �`7 t' t✓ � ,A I , l 4 ��d P / 4 \ t r Oita ,, �. R Alternate Locations for t ° ( o � te Northern Connections • \ \ Irk 1 II t. r y .te r 4 e Cr tterUMerpass \" \ �" \ tlr5^,a .p'' -+—+ Possible Cordtlors � � 1 a , % 0 ' ®M;g Legend ∎ , 4101011111,41... �am� / 250 Acre Preserve (Otf Site) ^ i V S ' , i , 1 , : : J Alder Creek /Pross er Hill Preserve 4 s ' , i'. 1 Golf & Wash Prese a s. ; .4 z , ' o, „ft,- l - ; rt I il '' /, P\� i ® Existin hern Wildlif Ponderosa e Underpass Pine Preserve Figure 4 -2. Proposed Golf Course Routing and Management Zones at The Gray's Crossing Golf Course. M li ap Scale: 1:11,214 Management zones are shown in red. N Projection: State Plane 1983 A Zone: California Zone II 1 Datum: NAD 1983 00.031.975 0.15 0225 0.3 AUUC OS Units: US Survey Feet Miles 1pik0.KArionaL Page 4 -7 , 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 4.3 LAND USE CONTROL BMPs FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE Examples of land use control BMPs that will be used at the Gray's Crossing Golf Course include 1 subsurface drainage, land absorption areas (vegetated filter strips), regulated runoff impoundment, grassed waterway or outlet, and critical area planting and these are briefly 1 • described below.' • One of the goals of the Audubon International Signature Program is to protect water bodies and I • the animals and plants that inhabit those environs. The best protection from unwanted inputs is • to have no drains discharging directly to water, By allowing water to be treated prior to 1 movement into a water body the probabilities of creating a negative situation (e.g., nutrient loading, or toxins) are minimized. Because the drainage plans are being finalized, these land use controls may be changed, and this 1 plan will also be changed to reflect the final BMPs for the property. Based on discussions with the development team, and our understanding of the drainage planning, the following BMPs may be used at the property. 4.3.1 Vegetative Practices Vegetation can be used to reduce the velocity of stormwater, which helps promote infiltration ' into the soil and settling of solids. Plants also protect against erosion and remove pollutants through uptake. Common examples of vegetative filters used throughout the Gray's Crossing 1 Golf Course are vegetated filter strips and swales. Vegetative filters act as natural biofilters to reduce storm water flow and pollutant load, and turf areas are effective filters: Turf uses the natural processes of infiltration, filtration and biological uptake to reduce flows and pollutant 1 loadings. 1 4.3.1.1. Dry / Wet Swale. Swales are earthen Channels covered with a dense growth of a hardy grass. Swales have a limited capacity to convey large volumes of runoff, but are effective outlet I devices or components of a BMP treatment train. Swale effectiveness can be enhanced by adding small check dams (4 -10 inches high) across the swale bottom, thereby increasing detention time. Swales are effective in routing water to maximize contact time of water and 1 vegetation. An example is the routing of water from the under- drains of greens. Filtration can be greatly increased by carefully choosing the route of water from the under-drain. If space is limited, drainage water could be directed to flow along a path that maximizes the distance of Audubon International Institute Page 4 -8 r 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course contact with vegetation, rather than be directly routed to the lowest point. The effectiveness of swales in reducing flows and pollutants is similar to filter strips. 1 4.3.1.2. Filter Strip / Outlet to Natural Area. Filter strips are typically bands of close - growing 1 vegetation, usually grass, planted between pollutant source areas and a receiving water (e.g., pond, lake, or stream). They can also be used as outlet or pretreatment devices for other • stonnwater control practices. Filter strips reduce pollutants such as sediment, organic matter, • and many trace metals by the filtering action of the vegetation, infiltration of pollutant - carrying water and sediment deposition. The Gray's Crossing golf project includes dense growing turf, or native vegetation which will be incorporated into the golf course perimeter areas. In order to be an effective BMP, filter strips will have a minimum width of 50 feet, with slopes not to exceed ' 10 %. • Vegetated filter strips remove sediment and attached chemicals, organic material, trace metals, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Sediment removal rates are generally greater than 70% and nutrient removal is typically greater than 50% (USEPA, 1993). The length of the vegetated • filter strip is an important variable influencing effectiveness because contact time between runoff and vegetation in the filter strip increases with increasing filter strip length. Some sources • suggest a minimum of 50 ft of vegetative buffer for maximum effectiveness (Dillaha et al., 1989), and other studies have shown that 15 to 25 feet of turf is an effective filter (e.g. Doyle ' et al., 1977; Baird et al., 1996). 4.3.1.3. Vegetated Buffer. A vegetated buffer is a natural or landscaped strip of land that protects the edges of waterbodies and provides vegetative treatment of runoff. ' 4.3.1.4. Turfgrass Used as a Vegetative Filter. One of the most effective BMPs for protection of surface water is use of turf as a vegetative filter in swales and filter strips. Turfgrassed areas 1 are extremely effective in reducing soil losses compared to other cropping systems. In a comparison of soil loss from conventional agriculture with soil loss from turf, measured soil loss from tobacco production (42101bs /acre) was 842 times higher than from turf,areas, (5 lbs /acre) even with a slope,of 16% on a silt loam soil (Gross et al:, 1987; Gross et al., 1990). Where • polluted runoff from agricultural areas has occurred, establishment of turf buffer strips of only 15 feet have been shown to improve water quality (Doyle et al., 1977). 1 Audubon International Institute Page 4 -9 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Recent studies at Oklahoma State University have shown that turfgrass buffers of 16 ft effectively reduce concentrations of chemicals in rurioff waters (Baird et al., 1996). Wauchope (1978) noted that in cases where water quality has declined due to agricultural practices leading to loss of nutrients and erosion, grass buffer strips placed between treated fields and surface waters have significantly reduced the problem. This is related to the architecture of the turf ' . canopy and the fibrous nature of the turf root system. Turf density, leaf texture and canopy height are physical factors which restrain soil erosion and sediment loss by dissipating impact 1 energy from rain and irrigation water droplets providing a resistance to surface movement of water over turf. Turfgrasses have an extensive fibrous root system with 80% of the root mass 1 found in the upper 2 inches of the soil profile (Welterlen et al., 1989). Therefore it is a combination of the turf canopy and root mass which have a strong soil stabilizing effect. 4.3.2 Infiltration Practices 1 Treatment structures that promote water entering into the soil and recharging or replenishing ground water. Infiltration devices include basins, trenches, and dry wells. If properly designed and maintained, infiltration devices can effectively remove pollutants through adsorption to soil ;.. particles. 4.3.2.1. Infiltration Sump /Trench.. Infiltration trenches are excavations typically filled with stone aggregate used to capture and allow infiltration of stormwater runoff. This runoff volume 1 gradually exfiltrates through the bottom and sides of the trench into the subsoil and eventually, reaches the water table. The Infiltration sump is particularly useful in greens drainage systems: 1 A schematic is given in Figure 4 -3. These systems are effective because they direct the first `flush' from the greens drainage to the soils, and in cases of larger flows the water simply exits . the pipe. They do not clog because they are a closed system. These should work well at Gray's Crossing where groundwater is over 500 feet below the surface. The same idea can be effectively applied to a larger area using a trench. • • 4.3.2.2. French Drain. French'drains are systems of perforated pipe set in trenches. The trenches are filled with porous stone which allows runoff to percolate out of the drain pipes and into the surrounding soil. French drains are designed to infiltrate only small volumes of runoff. 1 Pretreatment measures may necessary to prevent clogging and failure. 1 , • Audubon International Institute Page 4 -10 1. -. Infiltration Sump Design Specifications oa. (Cross Section) . a Sump cover Pertoroiea pipe. .dro•el p;p —> 01.4 «ll ■ eti O e F _ � is a � ,I � M i 4 . , 0 . :. ° r• SMall Y40nf Til/ {,le � ; � -, - ° -Fa e e e' q 4 a q Q ' _ f • w 1. Total minimum sump diameter of 3 feet (including stone fill). Filter fabric is required between soil and stone bed material to minimize clogging.. 2. Vertical pipe must be perforated and at least 18" diameter. Column of stone inside pipe to be a minimum of one foot deep. c 3. Bottom sump elevation must be 2' (minimum) above groundwater table. 4. Stone inside vertical pipe should be filled only up to a. level 6"-12" below inlet and outlet drain inverts. This promotes infiltration and allows for some solids buildup. . °° 5. Stone should be clean and sized to maximize infiltration rates (cg. #57 stone) 6: Top of sump can Ix at grade or covered (under turf when in play area). Covered sumps should be mapped and locations recorded (GPS, flags, etc.). 7. Vertical pipe must be capped to allow maintenance access. Routine maintenance is required on an annual basis (minimum) and sumps should be cleaned of sediment and debris and stone replaced if needed. t 1• MO OMR i soms we is i 1• am 1• as is we is 1• e a 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - k 4.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF BMPS 1 The effectiveness of pollutant removal is a function of three interrelated factors: 1) the removal 1 mechanisms used by the BMP, which include physical, chemical, and biological processes; 2) the fraction of runoff treated by the BMP; and 3) the nature of the, pollutant being removed. Thus, an I effective BMP tram is one that treats 100% of runoff by physical, chemical, and biological processes. Figure 4 -4.and Table 4 -2 show relative removal efficiencies of infiltration basins, ' vegetated filter strips, grass swales, wet ponds, and storm water wetlands for four variables (total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and chemical oxygen demand). By including as many removal mechanisms as possible the probability of success for removal of a particular 1 pollutant is increased. ' BMPs that utilize settling and filtering processes are relatively effective at removing sediment and pollutants that are bound to sediment particles (Figure 4 -4). Turf buffers are very effective I filters that allow drainage of water from the course and, at the same time, effective filtering to improve water quality. Turf density, leaf texture and canopy height are physical factors which restrain soil erosion and sediment loss by dissipating impact energy from rain and irrigation . -.- water droplets providing a resistance to surface movement of water over turf. Ponds and infiltration BMPs can achieve 60 to 100% removal efficiencies for sediment. Infiltration BMPs are capable of similar removal efficiencies for sediment, but are subject to clogging if sediment ' inputs are excessive.. Wet ponds and extended - detention ponds with shallow marshes have a I moderate to high capability for removing both soluble and particulate pollutants because they utilize settling and biological uptake. 4.5 MAINTENANCE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FACILITIES ' Periodic long -term inspection and maintenance of the proposed BMPs for the Gray's Crossing Golf Course will be essential to ensure that they will function as designed. The superintendent I and maintenance crew are responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the BMPs for the golf course. 1 1. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 4 -12 • 1 1 • 80 Total Suspended Solids 80 Total Phosphorus • 60 60 'w c o 040 ° ' ,340 s^ « -.s � , _ , ' k , 3 5 {' � ' �+ � ®': te < 1 71,P1 20 i : i Y ti 5 ® , . e F ' , * r® ® I } j, ® 0 Infiltration Basin Grass Swale Stormwater Welland Infiltration Basin Grass Swale Stormwater Wetland Vegetated Filter Strip Wet Pond Vegetated Filter Strip Wet Pond 80 Total Nitrogen 80 Chemical Oxygen Demand c o F s ,. o o x_ U cG - 040 — -04 ._ .,. 20 :4,,. 20 0 0 Infiltration Basin Grass Swale Stormwater Wetland Infiltration Basin Grass Swale Stormwater Wetland Vegetated Filter Strip Wet Pond Vegetated Filter Strip Wet Pond ro W ac . - A Figure 4 -4. Relative Effectiveness of Best Management Practices to Protect Surface Waters. it (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, 1993) . i! 111111 MO OM IM 'INS =II ! IS E MN ' NM a — f! r f M 1 I _, Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 b t t :#4 0'T o. e4 C r � t e ° 9 E t' t e •t u •� rah ao� . 0 i..1 1,a owns: a r_ i .• e® y'g,dy Extended Detention Pond I Design 2- 75% 50% 35% 55% 55% 40% Design 3 . .80% 70% 55% 75% • 75% 50% 1 Wet Pond . • Design 4 55% 35% 25% 25% 45% 25% 1 Design 5 75% 55% 40% 40% 70% 40% Water Quality Basin 1 Design 7 70% 50% 50% 50% 50% 70% Filter Strip 1 Design 11 40% 20% 20% 40% 40% 20% Design 12 90% 50% 50% 90% 90% 70% Design 12A • . '80% 40% 40% 80% 80% 60% • Grassed Swale ' Design 13 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 20% Design 14 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 30% 1 Extended Detention Basins - Design 2: "First flush" runoff volume produced by 1.0 inch, detained for 24 hours. Design 3: Runoff volume produced by 1.0 inch storm detained for 24 hours or more with shallow marsh added in I . bottom stages. .Wet Pond " Design 4: Pemtanent pool equal to 0.5 inches of runoff per watershed ac. I Design 5: Permanent pool equal to 2. time the volume of runof from the mean storm ( 0.5 inches). Water Quality Basin I - Design 7: Infiltration basin which filtrates "first flush" of 0.5 inch runotf/impervious acre. Filter Strips Design 11: 25 to 50 foot turf strip. I Design 12: 100 foot wooded strip. Design 1 2A: 25 to 50 foot wooded strip. Grassed Swale Design 13: High slopes with check darns. II Design 14: Low gradient (less than 5%) with check dam. f Sources: Schueier 1987 and NYSDEC, 1993. ' Audubon International Institute Page 4 -14 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1.. 43.1 Infiltration Sumps 1 Inspections should occur m the spring and fall to ensure that they are functioning properly. _ 1 - 4.5.2 Grassed Swales Swale maintenance is largely aimed at keeping the grass cover dense and vigorous (see Section 5.2). This primarily involves periodic, mowing, occasional spot reseeding, and weed control. Watering may also be necessary in times of drought, particularly in the first few months after establishment. In addition, excessive sediment buildup behind check dams will be removed 1 as necessary. 1 4.5.3 Vegetative Filter Strips 1 Maintenance required for a filter strip depends on whether or not natural vegetative succession is allowed to proceed. Maintenance tasks and costs are both sharply reduced for these "natural" 1 filter strips. However, corrective maintenance is still needed around the edge of the strip to prevent concentrated flows from forming. Shorter filter strips must be managed as a lawn or short grass meadow. These strips will be mowed at Least 2 -3 times a year to suppress weeds and interrupt natural succession (see Section 5.2.1). Periodic spot repairs, watering and fertilization may be required to maintain a dense, vigorous growth of vegetation. Accumulated sediments deposited near the top of the strip will need to be manually removed over time to keep the original grade. All filter strips will be inspected on an annual basis. Strips will be examined for damage by foot or vehicular traffic, encroachment, gully erosion, density of vegetation, and evidence of 1 concentrated flows through or around the strip. Extra strip maintenance must be devoted in the first few months and years to make sure the strip becomes adequately established. This may 1 involve extra watering, fertilization and reseeding. (Schueler, 1987). 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 4 -15 i , — — 'a I_ a a n mint s '• i as nu am ala • r . m ar Ana c • k. ? m A - arse � � � ...2, a a Ono. 7 . 4 .re, s %,0 0i4TtE rtiqn,;,:af .. . a §r'C llI8 - fh x ; B": tllteu " 1 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter OK, but direct drainage over Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge turf and native areas. See 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along and direct surface water and subsurface note a. directly to stream. Swales or green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. elevated fairway edges direct water. 2 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water> 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or tees, green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. filter. See note a. elevated fairway edges direct water. 3 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least. Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water > 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or tees, green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. filter. See note a. . elevated fairway edges direct water. 4 No Management Zones OK. Maximize surface water and OK, but direct drainage over OK, but sheet -flow drainage water required subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf note a. vegetation: 5 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain' 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not - (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water> 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or tees, green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. filter. See note a. elevated fairway edges direct water. 6 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 . ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water> 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or tees, green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. filter: See note a. elevated fairway edges direct water. 1 7 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and . away from stream. Allow - 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water > 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or ` tees, green and fairway.. drainage away from the stream. filter. See note a: elevated fairway edges direct water. r @ •. i �, iri n 14 i u e II i a d' i 41 ::! L U' e* Ti i 5 z e5 � arl e pp 0 0•• a $ u e I e men = '" Yep .. .'k ` m ."_ 8 No Management Zones OK. Maximize surface water and OK, but direct drainage over OK, but sheet -flow drainage water required subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf. note a. vegetation. 9 No Management Zones OK. Maximize surface water and OK, but direct drainage over OK, but sheet -flow drainage water required subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf. note a. vegetation. 10 No Spray Zone (50ft) and OK. Maximize surface water and Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone subsurface drainage through native away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along vegetation and turf. water > 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or tees and fairway. - filter. See note a. elevated fairway edges direct water. 11 No Management Zones .OK. Maximize surface water and OK, but direct drainage over 'OK, but sheet -flow drainage water • required subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf. note a. - vegetation. 12 No Management Zones OK. Maximize surface water and • OK, but direct drainage over OK, but sheet -flow drainage water required subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf note a. vegetation. ' 13 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter OK, but direct drainage over Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone ' between the green and stream edge turf and native areas. See 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along and direct surface water and subsurface note a. directly to stream. Swales or green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. elevated fairway edges direct water. 14 . No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along • ., direct surface water and subsurface water > 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or b tees, green and fairway. . drainage away from the stream. • filter. See note a. elevated fairway. edges direct water. 15 No Management Zones . OK. Maximize surface water and • OK, but direct drainage over OK, but sheet -flow drainage water ' • required • subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf. ' . _ note a: . . vegetation. • ! 11.1 NIP s N Ilia n MB at IS s a* r M i M S IS �■s an vas, an au.. a a a as r■r , ate g i —, a .1111111.; $ — Egentr r . n�6 :'y �sa�� " az w h 414 , t i e `• is n1 iUII. o a d 6 n n 0 • i u}. C a lele � i s 8, ` ' `� 's- ' - , d o' '::. i ' .&u StArt ,:tat 'tat-Wit- -1 -4,P 5 itTO 4 ate' eole� �o en' ea en s e + e a� e tni r 16 No Management Zones OK. Maximize surface water and OK, but direct drainage over OK, but sheet -flow drainage water required subsurface drainage through native turf and native areas. See through the maximum length of vegetation and turf note a. vegetation. 17 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter OK, but direct drainage over Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge turf and native areas. See 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along and direct surface water and subsurface note a. directly to stream. Swales or green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. elevated fairway edges direct water. I8 No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water > 50 ft vegetative directly to stream. Swales or tees, green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. filter. See note a. elevated fairway edges direct water. Driving No Spray Zone (50ft) and Maintain 50 ft of vegetative filter Surface drainage directed Direct drainage water over at least Range Limited Spray Zone between the green and stream edge and away from stream. Allow 50 ft of turf and native areas, not (additional 25ft) along direct surface water and subsurface water > 50 ft vegetative .directly to stream. Swales or tees, green and fairway. drainage away from the stream. filter. See note a. elevated fairway edges direct water. * Management zones are defined the text. A 50 ft No Spray Zone has been established for all areas along water bodies, and 25 ft Limited Spray Zones are established for particular areas on the golf course. Drain lines do not go directly into water bodies or wetlands, and water from water quality basins will be filtered through a 50 ft vegetation filter prior to movement into surface water. For tees it is recommended that tops be planted in bentgrass, and the slopes and surrounding areas planted and maintained as a `rough` or turf buffer. This will allow filtration of surface flow from the tees and provide needed attenuation. The minimum turf filter area should be 50 ft. • 0 ro 0 w 00 - • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course r 5.0. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a management program that uses information about 1 turfgrass pest problems and environmental conditions which may precipitate these problems, and integrates these with turfgrass cultural practices and pest control measures to prevent or control 1 unacceptable levels of pest damage (Ferrentino, 1990). It is a preventative approach incorporating a number of objectives including the following: 1) development of a healthy turf that can withstand pest pressure; 2) judicious and efficient use of chemicals; 3) enhancement of populations of natural, beneficial organisms; and 4) effective timing of handling pest problems at . the most vulnerable stage, often resulting in reduced pesticide usage. It is an ecologically based system that uses biological and chemical approaches to control. • 1 Like BMPs, 1PM strategies have been incorporated into every aspect of this plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course, and have taken into consideration the entire scheme of golf course • operations as they relate to environmental impact. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs rely on six basic approaches for plant and environmental protection. These include the .1 following: . 1. Regulatory - using certified seed and sod to prevent unwanted weed contamination and selecting the best adapted turfgrass species; 2. Genetic - selecting improved grasses which perform well in specific areas and show a resistance to pest problems; 3. Cultural - following recommendations made for proper cultural practices which . maintain the turf in the most healthy condition and influence its susceptibility and 1 recovery from pest. problems. Practices such as aerification, vertical mowing, topdressing, maintenance of proper soil nutrient levels, sound irrigation management and proper mowing techniques produce a high - quality turf; 4. Physical - cleaning equipment to prevent spreading of diseases and weeds from infected areas; 5. Biological - for a limited number of pest problems biological control can be used whereby natural enemies are introduced to effectively compete with the pest. Favor- ing natural predation by preserving or enhancing wildlife is also an approach; and 1 Audubon International Institute • Page 5 -1 1 1 . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 6. Chemical - pesticides are a necessary and beneficial approach to turf pest problems, but use is restricted in many cases to curative rather then preventative applications, t reducing environmental exposure. Pesticide selection is based on a risk 1 assessment approach that strives to use only pesticides that are based not only on effectiveness, but using materials that act quickly and degrade quickly, are not soluble • and not persistent. Few pesticide applications are made on a regularly scheduled basis. Exceptions may include preemergence herbicides and fungicides used to control certain diseases. Additionally, materials are applied strictly in accordance with Label instructions, at labeled rates, under appropriate environmental conditions ' (i.e., no spraying on windy days or when rain is forecast), with a low - volume or shrouded sprayer to reduce the possibility of drift, and materials are rotated as to use. This deters the development of resistant strains of pests which may require more 1 frequent and/or higher rates of pesticide applications. This approach includes six basic components as follows: 1. Monitoring of potential pest populations and their environment; 2. Determining pest injury levels and establishing treatment thresholds; 3. Decision making, developing and integrating all biological, cultural, and chemical control strategies; 4. Educating personnel on all biological and chemical control strategies; 5. Timing and spot treatment utilizing either the chemical, biological or cultural methods; and 6. Evaluating the results of treatment. Figure 5 -1 is a flow chart for decision making based on IPM strategies. I One of the most critical components to IPM programs is monitoring. A well - trained and experienced golf course superintendent scouts to detect symptoms of a pest problem on a daily basis. This approach coupled with compiling a site specific history, and consulting with specialists in.turfgrass management make it a workable program. While economic advantages of IPM are marginal, the sociological and environmental consequences of judicious pesticide use is strong justification for implementation. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -2 1 Experience and Data Based Information Input Nov • • Establish Pest. Thresholds • NO • Establish Monitoring Program — * • Conditions Favorable for No Curative • Establish Potential Pest,Problems Pest Occurrence? Action Needed A • Establish Curative Techniques . YES • Ne • • • Implement Preventative Strategies 1 • • 1 Monitor for Pest Presence or Symptoms of Pests - v Pests are Present or Symptoms NC > Continue Pest of Pests are Found • Monitoring if YES • . • . Program -� • • Identify Pest and Level of Damage 1 Does.Damage and Do Pest Levels NO • Exceed Thresholds? YES 1 Implement Curative Treatment - • Consider all Curative Techniques • Use Risk Assessment Techniques to Select Pesticides • . . r • Determine Effectiveness of Treatment 1 • • v Determine Effectiveness of Management Strategies • Figure 5 -1. Integrated Pest Management Decision Flow Chart for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Page 5 -3 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5.1 AGRONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS • I Agronomic and cultural practices are important components in maintaining environmental integrity and enhancing the current conditions at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. The land use design and extensive use of Management Zones, Best Management Practices, and Integrated Pest . Management, as discussed above, coupled with state -of -the -art agronomic and cultural practices ensure environmental sensitivity of the golf course conservation area. Particular attention has been given to areas adjacent to freshwater wetlands and watercourses to protect the habitat and water quality. The following sections discuss agronomic and cultural practices that are critical to maintaining environmental sensitivity at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. • 5.1.1 Soil Mixes and Modifications • s • While soil modification on large acreage is impractical, some soil modification is necessary. Grading will result in a mixing of topsoil and subsoil and will require'extensive soil testing for • determination of nutrient levels prior to sprigging/sodding. 5.1.1.1. Putting Greens. With the amount of play expected at Gray's Crossing Golf Course, it is important that greens be constructed to withstand traffic and wear, and at the same time, protect environmental resources. Playing surfaces were constructed with materials which provide good drainage and resist wear and compaction, and this maximizes the playability even immediately . after rainfall or irrigation. It is also important that surface and subsurface drainage be directed to I appropriate filtration areas so that water resources are protected. For these reasons, the greens are to be constructed based on a United States Golf Association method as detailed in "USGA ' Recommendations for a Method of Putting Green Construction" (USGA Green Section Record, 1993). This method of construction is based on the principle of a perched water table. This unique system takes advantage of discontinuity within the soil profile which disrupts intemal drainage until saturated conditions occur. By using a four inch layer of primarily one - quarter inch diameter gravel, overlaid with approximately 14 to 18 inches of a specified high sand content ' intermediate and/or root zone mixture, water will be retained in the and profile for turfgrass use Audubon International Institute Page 5.4 r Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course _ 1 without immediate drainage until saturated conditions occur. Materials which may have a propensity to move in the soil solution are held for maximum attenuation times and if trace 1 amounts are transported under saturated flow conditions, maximum dilution within the soil profile will occur. The entire putting green is under drained by a series of perforated pipes 1 installed at the subgrade. These are spaced on no less than 15 -foot centers and have outflow directed to water quality basins for detention, buffer areas for filtration or through specially constructed filtration units. This type of system affords the best approach to irrigation management and controlled discharge of excessive rainfall from the more intensively managed areas of the golf course. Successful construction of a USGA green requires these specifications to be rigidly followed for r five basic values which are used as criteria for recommending the root zone mixture. These values are percentages of total porosity; capillary (micro -) pore space which contributes to the r water holding capacity; non - capillary (macro -) pore space which adds aeration porosity; saturated conductivity (water permeability); and organic matter content. In addition, particle size and 1 mechanical analyses are usually run as the percentage of sand, silt and clay as well as the different percentages of the sand fractions. These determine how fast the soil will drain and its potential to resist compaction from traffic and wear. To meet the requirements, samples of 1 materials to be used in construction were sent to a qualified soil physical testing laboratory to r determine the proper ratio for mixing of these materials to meet the standards listed in Table 5 -1. Subsequent recommendations for pH adjustment of the root zone mixture and addition of fertilizers will depend on the final ratio of materials used and were made based on chemical 1 analyses of the mixture. I II Total Porosity 35% 55% 1 Capillary Porosity 15% 30% Noncapillary Porosity 15% 25% 1 Saturated Conductivity 6 to 12 inches/hr 12 to 24 inches/hr Organic Matter Content 1% by weight 5% by weight 1 r Audubon International Institute Page 5 -5 1 I . - .. Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course e OdrOs o st a ` a te "e r 1 ,�3� w , . „ fir - r • ii B 1 . ..` ht5kt'zvl O t o f . 3R;xSZw Y e ° .".`- _ I Y :.i I i t { .; itard5Sa i tniksitar t . Vil .2initty),: H P I 'It! ° :‘f 1 ,, t I nH,J ° e ' '4 1 Particle size ' Medium & Coarse sands 60% -- Fine sand 20% I Very fine sand 5% . Silt 5% Clay -- 3% 5.1.1.2. Tees. Tees are the most trafficked areas on the golf course. Tees should be constructed in the same manner as the putting greens. The higher height of cut on the tee surface provides a much deeper root system in the soil profile and imparts considerably better wear tolerance than is I usually observed on putting greens. Typically tee areas are as intensively managed as greens and the nutrient and pesticide requirements are similar. Surface runoff and subsurface drainage has been directed into appropriate filtration areas, which may include adjacent roughs, out of play areas, or other vegetative areas. 51.1.3. Fairways and Roughs. It is not anticipated that soil modification of fairways and roughs will be considered given the soil physical properties of the native topsoil. Soil samples will be analyzed once final grading begins so that pre - planting fertilization recommendations can be made. I 5.1.2 Turfgrass Selection I Over the years extensive research in turfgrass breeding programs has resulted in grass varieties that are exceptionally well- suited for golf course turf. Cultivars selected for,use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course will be those that are efficient in water use and low in susceptibility to 1 insects, disease and weed infestation. In addition, the natural characteristics of the turfgrasses limit movement of pesticides and fertilizers into underlying soils, surface water, and yi g ground water. Thatch produced by the turf acts as an organic filter to chemically bind pesticides that might otherwise enter the local surface Audubon International Institute Page 5 -6 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 I and ground waters. Producing a healthy turf, which is needed for a golf course, has the added benefit of immobilization and rnicrobial degradation of pesticides retained in the thatch layer. In 1 addition, turfgrass root systems are quite extensive and fibrous, and are able to adsorb and absorb applied pesticides that might penetrate the canopy and thatch and reach the roots. Thus, a healthy 1 turf results in effective nutrient and pesticide retention and control. 5.1.2.1. Greens and Tees. Will be seeded to Dominant Plus creeping bentgrass at a rate of ' 1.5 lbs. /1000 sq.ft. This blend was selected for its superior turf quality, disease resistance, traffic 1 tolerance and heat resistance. This will provide a quality surface with fewer problems than other older cultivars. 1 5.1.2.2. Fairways. Will be seeded or sodded with a Kentucky bluegrass blend. Consultation 1 with turfgrass seed specialists will help in making the final determination of exact cultivars. The intent is for the owner to then inter -seed with Colonial bentgrass following sod establishment to provide better playability. 1 5.1.2.3. Roughs and Turf Buffers. These will be seeded or sodded with a blend of Kentucky bluegrass. Consultation with turfgrass seed specialists will help in making the final determination of exact cultivars. a oR '• a l a��.� C s o M a v ee r :' h e B; la �r • . dillip 5.1.2.4. Nonplay Areas. These n :fT G'1 ,I. t cr try !, . ouNu should be seeded with native or " l 1 reclamation grasses that will do well 1 itWass in the high altitude environment. A ',...Q t sail 6 ° e ,6 .lI ',EL tl recommended list of grasses which Hard Fescue Festuca longifolia 1 could be included in this mixture is Big Bluegrass Poa ampla given in Table 5 -2. Additional Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus grasses which could be considered in Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus • 1 a mixture would include Western Sheep Fescue Festuca trachyphylla 1 Wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), Thickspike Wheatgrass (Elymus California Biome Bromus carinatus lanceolatus), Crested Wheatgrass Blue Flax Linum lewisii 1 (Agropyron cristatum), Chewings Sulfer Flower Eriogonim umbellatum Fescue, (Festuca rubra ssp. Beard Tongue Penstemon strictus 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -7 1 I I .. Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course commutata) Red Brome (Bromus rubens), Prairie Junegrass (Koeleria pyramidata) and Tufted 1 Hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa). 1 5.2 GOLF COURSE CULTURAL PRACTICES 1 The cultural practices that produce and sustain a healthy turf are mowing, irrigation, fertilization and cultivation. These operations, alone or in combination, often cause changes in the root and ` canopy micro- environment. These changes can have either a positive or negative effect. Thus, it is essential that these practices are executed in a proper and timely manner to insure turfgrass 1 quality and playability. The best deterrent to weed, insect and disease infestation is a healthy turf. Thus, maintaining hearty grasses will minimize the need to apply fertilizers and pesticides. 5.2.1 Mowing ' Mowing is the most basic maintenance operation on a golf course. Without regular mowing at the appropriate heights of cut, the course would become unplayable. With good mowing iii.- practices, density, texture, color, root development, wear tolerance and other aspects of turf quality are enhanced. Proper mowing practices also can reduce the amount of irrigation needed. Taller grass can have a significantly higher evapotranspiration rate and thus a greater need for water. Mowing grass too short stresses the turf which not only produces a need for more water; I but can cause the weakened turf to be more susceptible to weed, insect and disease infestation. Recommended mowing practices which are used at Gray's Crossing Golf Course are presented in I Table 5 -3. . � 7 a � fit; 1, n� •.1 '! t , L a Height .5/32 -3/16 % -% Y4- 1.0 1%2 2 I (inches) (0.156 - 0.1875) (0.375 - 0.625) (0.75 - 1.0) (1.5 - 2) Fre uenc Dail 2 to 4 times per 2 to 3 times ' q y y week . per week 7 to 14 days ,' Clippings Remove Remove Return or Return Remove* *Depends upon equipment and overall management objectives. ' Audubon International Institute - Page 5 -8 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 Grass variety and turf use have the greatest influence on mowing height. Each turfgrass has a mowing tolerance range within which it can be expected to provide outstanding turf. The best approach is to use the highest mowing height acceptable for the various playing surfaces. However, if fast greens are required for tournament play, mowing can be lowered below 1 recommended minimums for a short period of time. On the other hand, another possibility is to continue mowing at the higher height and double cut twice; this operation will produce the same green speed as the lower cut. In addition, during the summer months when stress is likely to occur, the height of cut should not be lowered. If the membership demands faster green speeds, double cutting once or twice per week can be,done. Additionally, rolling several times per week improves speed without lowering the height of cut. 1 Mowing height and growth rate have the most influence on mowing frequency. As a rule -of- thumb, mowing is done often enough so that no more that one -third of the leaf is removed at any cutting. Frequent mowing is best because it minimizes the negative effect on photosynthesis, and helps maintain a high percentage of leaf surface which is necessary for healthy root development. 1 If mowing is scheduled at appropriate intervals and the grass clippings are dispersed uniformly, 1. leaving the clippings on the fairways and roughs does not cause problems. Research has indicated that returning clippings to the surface does not greatly increase thatch buildup on turf that is otherwise properly managed. Clippings decompose rapidly, thus returning some fertilizer and organic matter to the soil, and they also help conserve moisture and insulate the soil. Clippings are always removed from greens and tees to prevent interference with the play. Col- lected clippings should be combined with a high carbon source (such as leaves) and composted. Compost can be used as a soil amendment for renovation or other landscape projects. 5.2.2 `. Fertilizing • • 1 5.2.2.1. General Recommendations. The most important aspect of the fertilizer program at Gray's Crossing Golf Course is to ensure that the nutrients applied to the golf course turf and 1 landscape areas do not migrate to surface or ground water. Migration of the nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) can result in pollution of resources, most notably eutrophication. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the elements most often associated with the eutrophication of lakes and streams (Jones & Bachmann, 1976; Wetzel, 1982). Eutrophication of water bodies may Audubon International Institute Page 5 - 9 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course f result in algal blooms, aquatic plant infestations, reduction in depth, and a marked decrease in overall water quality (see Section 7.0). 1 Attention must be given to protect ground water resources at Gray's Crossing Golf Course from contamination by nitrate- nitrogen. Much of the nitrogen fertilizer applied to the golf course will 1 be in the ammonium and nitrate forms, and most of the ammonium should be converted by soil microorganisms to nitrate, provided there is adequate aeration and optimum soil pH. From an 1 environmental perspective, nitrate is highly mobile and is thus readily available for plant uptake;.. however, the mobile nature of nitrate also allows it to be leached into ground water. The,Federal I drinking water standard for nitrate is 10 mg/I. However, nitrate concentrations should be less than 0.5 mg/1 to protective of the freshwater ecosystems at the site. A review of the published research on nitrogen fertilizers applied to turfgrasses (Petrovic, 1990) 1 has determined that nitrate- nitrogen concentrations in soil water leaching through the surface soil exceeds drinking water standards of 10 ppm only on sandy soils when one of the following conditions exist: 1) high levels of soluble nitrogen are applied, greater than 3 lbs. N /1000 sq.ft. at one time; or 2) very frequent (daily) irrigation is practiced coupled with application of water 1 soluble nitrogen sources. Minimizing nitrate movement is directly related to best management 1 practices that control nitrogen sources and irrigation. This is accomplished by applying the correct nitrogen source at the correct time, rate, and location and by applying the correct amount 1 of irrigation at the correct time, rate and location.. Reports by Walker and Branham (1992) concluded that several management options are available to minimize or eliminate any threat to ground or surface water by 1) limiting irrigation to replacement of soil moisture; 2) using slow 1 release nitrogen sources; 3) timing fertilizer applications in relation to active uptake; and 4) use of realistic nitrogen application rates. All of these factors are part of the management program 1 for Gray's Crossing Golf Course and reduce or eliminate non -point source losses of nutrients from the golf course. • When a fertilizer is applied in excess of what the plant can use or when the turf is not actively I growing due to temperature, water, light, lack of an individual nutrient, etc., much of the application could be lost from the golf course. For these reasons, before a fertilizer is applied, 1 the limiting. growth factors for the turfgrass should be considered. hr addition, only a'fertilizer containing the nutrients in the right form needed by the plant should be used and applied at the right rate and frequency. Plants will respond to fertilizer only if it contains a nutrient that is 1 deficient. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -10 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 The first step, then, in arriving at a sound fertilizer program at Gray's Crossing Golf Course is to . have the soil analyzed to determine pH, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and potassium 1 availability and balance. From this information a valid lime and fertilizer program can be developed with the assurance that excess nutrients will not be applied. Nitrogen is the nutrient used by grasses in the largest quantities. Its function is to stimulate 1 vegetative growth and provide the grass with green color. Nitrogen fertilization will be • determined by color, density and rate of growth (clipping yields) of grass, tissue analyses, as well as soil nitrogen reserves. Interpretation of soil nitrogen analyses to exact amounts which are available to the plant is difficult. For this reason, nitrogen rates are adjusted, but not solely based on soil testing. Leaching of nitrate nitrogen can be safely regulated by making controlled applications (spoon feeding), using controlled materials (slow - release) or using a combination of these approaches. Controlled applications can be made by using soluble fertilizers and applying 1 the materials with sprayers that have been calibrated to put out an accurate amount of material per acre. The superintendent personally controls the rate and frequency of fertilizer application, 1 and thereby reduces the tendency to apply excessive amounts of nitrate and ammonium forms of nitrogen on an infrequent basis. • Materials such as natural organic sources (Milorgranite, Sustane, Nature Safe, etc.), isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), methylene ureas (MU) and coated ureas (SCU, Polyon, Poly -S, Sulfurkote -II and others) are all slow - release (SR) nitrogen sources. They have the advantage of supplying a longer more uniform source of nitrogen, a lower salt index and reduced nitrogen leaching. By combining soluble nitrogen sources with the slow - release nitrogen products, availability can be extended to the grass without fear of nitrogen leaching into the groundwater. 1 5.2.2.2. Basic Fertilizer Program. Most turfgrasses can be grown within a wide soil pH range. However, for optimum soil microbial activity and improved nutrient availability it is preferred to keep the pH in the 5.5 to 6.5 range. 1 The following discussion provides a general overview of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium 1 applications on various playing surfaces. Adjustments to the rates provided here are made based on analyses which include color, density and rate of growth (clipping yields) of grass, tissue analyses, as well as soil nitrogen reserves. It is also important to maintain a calcium to magnesium ratio of 10:1. Audubon International Institute n - Page 5 -11 1 I Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Greens. If the soil test shows that either dolomite for soil pH correction and/or 1 phosphorus are needed, they are applied during the aerifying operation so that they can be worked into the root zone. The addition of potassium should be made in three to four 1 applications per year and applied at the rate of %2 to 1 pound per 1000 square feet. Slow release sources of nitrogen should be applied at the rate of 0.5 to 1.0 pound per 1000 1 square feet (Tables 5 -4 and 5 -5). I Tees. If phosphorus and dolomite are needed, the tee surfaces should be treated in the same manner as the greens, described in the preceding paragraph. Nitrogen and ' potassium should be applied at about the same rate as for the putting greens (Tables 5 -4 and 5-5). I e, a� er iltzex 'rop tc t aus on re tx kM ees ' i a a � '� 0 > ,54�Y . 4 G ma vg5aS .o , 9of x b.� y s'�3a y +�x � �! <a e 01. a e -1ae e'n a l . ; ;tale"! a 'v ' • ?kt .tee •,,,,,, ; A i ' 1 og °' aap' R.i s Rite t a IU k 1 % QI1E %W I ' Greens 3to6 1to5 2to5 Tees 3to6.. 1to3 2to5 1 tAdjustments should be made based upon testing results and turf response. 1 ;inf. l -el e• l � rs a a rre as Q • e 'o � n'0 - t ' a " a • . a el x,..00, f a t ` Y ' " si °O i ^ al fk . a 'Ott 1 71,1711i VjK FR pilst I N trop nyr) WS 0.5 WS 0.5 NO 1.0 NO 1.0 NO 1.0 WS 0.5 (lb SR 0.5 SR 0.5 6.0 SR 0.5 I Phosphorus (lb /1000ft2 /yr) 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.45 1 Potassium (lb /1000ft2 /yr) 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0,8 0.5 3.9 ' application maybe reduced or eliminated after first several years. ' b WS = Water soluble, SR = Slow release, NO = Natural organic I t Adjustments should be made based upon testing results and turf response. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -12 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course t Fairways. Dolomite and phosphorus applications would be based on soil test results and no individual application of nitrogen or potassium should exceed 40 pounds per acre unless at least to 3/4 of the nitrogen is from a slow release source (Tables 5 -6 & 5 -7). 1 Roughs. Roughs should be fertilized two times per- -year. Dolomite and phosphorus applications should be based on soil test results. Individual applications of nitrogen and ' potassium should not exceed 40 pounds per acre with %: the nitrogen from a slow release source (Tables 5 -6 and 5 -7). ' e . a en. 1?ft s &V IM tt 1 1 1 1 al , 1 1 ' O 1 t. & - , r '.ice 3 xC - $ li ' 1 tee., nal ;s r ?t S 14. tlrtlSe aro az r s� a r' ii, a i, 1' . 1 11 j� 1} 1 1 . v rn$ � �e }y 0 - . y '.". 1 > siti ItligHt ° ' . b pr. . wY�+s r a " —d 76,4 I Fairways 90 to 180 45 to 135 90. to 225 1 Roughs 45 to 90 0 to 45 _ 45 to 90 tAdjustments should be made based upon testing results and turf response. 1' •alt -7 m`r ug e t tl ei� ear. s a1sl� °ougl� • '1 /s, 1 • =per.a p ;inn). 0 Vi a'' s 4" SI I 64 &1ur'g : ...aa g .. ..,,% . a ,,,........14..„,,,o, nII my > u e ' Nitrogen WSJ 22.5 NO 45 .NO 45 WS 22.5 (lb /acre /yr) SR 22.5 180 SR 22.5 Phosphorus (lb /acre /yr) 22.5 18 18 58:5 Potassium 45 36 36 45 162 1 (lb /acre /yr) WS 22.5 WS 22.5 Nitrogen 90 SR 22.5 SR 22.5 ' Phosphorus 22.5 22.5 Potassium 45 45 90 t a WS = Water soluble, SR = Slow release, NO = Natural organic t Adjustments should be made based upon testing results and turf response. , Audubon International Institute Page 5 -13 1 1 ' Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 5.2.3 Cultivation Practices • II To help develop and sustain quality turf, spiking, vertical mowing, aerifying, topdressing and rolling are used. These operations physically alter the plant's environment by removing and or relocating soil and organic materials or altering turf g rowth habit. These cultural practices are performed only when turfgrasses are actively growing. 1 5.2.3.1. Spiking. Spiking is most useful in breaking up soil surface compaction and improving moisture infiltration and gas exchange. In addition, it is useful in lifting the blades of grass ' before mowing to aid in preventing the turf from 'thatching. 1 5.2.3.2. Vertical Mowing. When done on a timely basis, vertical mowing is used to remove mower induced grain on greens and reduce thatch. In addition, vertical mowing is used to thin ' turf so that a better job of reel mowing can be done. Also, vertical mowing is usedto separate the soil from aerifier cores and mix the soil with the sand used to fill the aerifier holes and topdress the playing surface. 1 5.2.3.3. Ariffying. The main purpose of aerification is to relieve surface compaction which in turn improves surface water infiltration, allows for good root penetration, provides for easier air exchange in the soil, improves nutrient uptake, removes excess thatch and increases turfgrass vigor. Two types of aerification are used. Coring involves removing plugs from the soil profile, thus allowing for lateral expansion of the remaining soil thereby relieving soil compaction. This I is accomplished using an aerifier equipped with hollow coring tines. Using solid coring tines or water injection aerification can provide benefits to the soil by improving infiltration and soil I aeration, but they do not relieve soil compaction. Both approaches are incorporated into management strategies. Core aerification on putting greens is commonly followed with topdressing. ' • 5.2.3.4. Topdressing: Topdressing.aids in thatch decomposition, lessens grain development in the turf, stimulates new shoot growth, encourages stolon rooting and makes the ball roll true and faster. Although a small amount of thatch (% to % inch thick) is desirable to provide a certain 1 amount of resiliency, thatch is the greatest single limiting factor in the development of fast, uniform greens. Although topdressing does not prevent the development of stems and. roots Iwhic h contribute to thatch buildup, it does keep the thatch separated to prevent dense, compacted Audubon International Institute Page 5 -14 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Coutse .. • . mats from forming. By mixing suitable topdressing materials with the organic material, thatch layers, as such, will not develop and thatch will decompose faster. 5.2.3.5. Rolling. New light weight self propelled rolling equipment has made rolling a viable , practice for smoothing the turf surface and improving green speed. It is frequently used in the summer months to allow a higher height of cut for improved stress tolerance while increasing 1 green speeds. However, recent research has shown it can be overdone. Rolling more often than • once or twice a week can lead to excess wear and compaction. t 5.3 BASIC ANNUAL MAINTENANCE GUIDE FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE , The following remarks supplement the Basic Annual Maintenance Guide on the following pages. ' It should be noted that this basic program•is adjusted and fine tuned by the superintendent based on specific situations encountered at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. Months given for specific ' practices must be adjusted based on climatic conditions and plant growth responses. 1. Soil Analysis. Sample representative greens, tees, fairways and roughs for analysis ' and recommendations. The primary purpose of soil testing is to insure a sound lime and fertilizer program based on nutrient availability and balance for good growth of the grass. A healthy plant is less susceptible to disease and other pests. 2. Plant Tissue Analysis. Sample representative greens, tees, fairways and roughs for • . nutrient levels. Fertilization types and rates will be adjusted based on results and anticipated climatic conditions. 3. Calibration of Equipment. All spreaders and sprayers must be repaired, if needed, • and calibrated for proper distribution of fertilizers and pesticides. 4. Mowing. Mowing is the most important and time consuming maintenance operation on a golf course. Without regular mowing at the appropriate heights.of cut, the course would become unplayable. With good mowing practices, density, .texture, color, root development, wear tolerance and other aspects of turf quality are enhanced. 5. Fertilizing. The fertilizer program will be based on soil test results for pH, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and potassium and plant tissue analysis.. Nitrogen 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -15 • 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course fertilization will also be determined by color, density and the rate of growth (clipping 1 I yields) of the grass as well as soil nitrogen reserves (as determined from testing). 1 6. Irrigation Program. Is based on ET as determined by the weather station and prevailing climatic conditions. • 7. Spiking. This procedure is needed to relieve surface compaction and insure good gas 1 exchange (oxygen and carbon dioxide). , 8. Vertical Mowing. During the growing season, this operation is needed to reduce 1 , mower induced grain and thatch buildup, and to provide a smoother, faster putting surface. 1 9. Aerifying. Aerifying surfaces relieves compaction, increases soil and surface air 1 exchange and improves fertilizer and water movement into the soil. 10. Topdressing. Topdressing should be applied once or twice per month during the • growing season at the rate of one - quarter cubic yard per 1000 square feet. This practice not only helps control thatch, but also helps provide a smooth, true surface 1 for mowing and accurate ball roll. 1 11. Liming. Apply dolomitic limestone to any area where soil test results indicate a need. 1 12. Wetting.Agent Applications. If localized dry spots appear on the greens, apply a good quality wetting agent and water immediately to prevent yellowing of the grass. 13. Raking and Edging Bunkers. Bunkers need to be raked daily and edged a minimum 1 of once per month. • 14. Weed Control. Monitor for the presence of weeds. If the population becomes so large that it effects the playing surface, use the appropriate herbicide. Also see Section 5.5.3 on weed control in 'Specific Local Problems'. 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -16 I - Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course r 15. Insect Control. Monitor daily for beetles, grubs, caterpillars and other insect pests. However, do not treat unless the pest is found, identified and present in damaging 1 numbers. Also see Section 5.5.2 on insect control in 'Specific Local Problems'. 16. Disease Control. During periods when disease or conditions favoring a disease r outbreak are prevalent, inspect the surfaces daily and treat only as necessary. Also see ' Section 5.5.1 on disease control in 'Specific Local Problems'. i o o 4 t xn e nan, a d $ ifaiagfitirseseeen s' 4 m¢ # e:u, General , Soil Analysis X X 1 Tissue Analysis X X X X X X 2 ' Calibrate Equipment X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 Greens ' Mowing X X X X X X X 4 Fertilizing X X X X X X 5 r Irrigating X X X X X X X 6 Spiking - X X X X X X 7 ' Vertical Mowing X X X X X X X . 8 Aerifying X X X X - 9 1 Topdressing X X X X 10 Liming X X 11 1 Disease Control X X X X X X X 17 Weed Control X X X X X X 15 1 Insect Control X X X X 16 Wetting Agents X X X X 13 • ' Tees Mowing X X X X X X X X 4 1 Fertilizing X X X X X X 5 I Audubon International Institute • • Page 5 -17 I 4 . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course .°» fG1 B ' . 101 ® a 5 A e w Ir X X X X X X 6 1 Spiking . X X X X X X 7 Vertical Mowing X X X 8 1 Aerifying X X X 9 Topdressing X. X . X 10 1 Disease Control X X X X X X X X 17 Weed Control X X X X X X 15 1 Insect Control X X X 16 Liming 1 X X 11 1 Fairways Mowing X X X X X X X X 4 Fertilizing X X X X 5 Irrigating X X X X X X 6. 1 Aerifying X X 9 Disease Control X X X X 17 1 Weed Control X X X X X X 15 Insect Control X X X X X 16 1 Liming X X 11 Roughs Mowing X X X X X X X q Fertilizing X X 5 1 Irrigating X X X X X 6 Liming 1 X 11 i 1 Bunkers Raking & Edging X X X X X X X X 1: . a t — Audubon International Institute Page 5 -18 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 5.4 PESTICIDE SELECTION 1. The objectives of pesticide selection are to: • 1 1. Identify those pesticides (fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides) which, when • applied to the Gray's Crossing golf course in accordance with label specifications, will pose only negligible risk to human health or the environment, 1 2. Establish'a list 'of pesticides for use at the golf course restricted, to the maximum extent practical, to only those pesticides determined to pose negligible risk to human 1 health and the environment, and. 1 3. Identify special restrictions for the limited use of specific pesticides when their use, m the absence of such restrictions, could pose more than a negligible risk to human health and/or the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a procedure for assessing the 1 / risk of pesticide use to human health and the environment (Urban and Cook, 1986 and Touart, 1995). The risk assessment procedure is designed to provide a comparison of maximum anticipated pesticide concentrations in ground and surface waters against specific standards defining toxicity (i.e., effects criteria). If the maximum anticipated concentration of a given 1 pesticide exceeds the effects criteria for that pesticide, it is presumed that a risk of impact exists. Likewise, if the maximum anticipated concentration of agiven pesticide is less than the effects 1 criteria for that pesticide, it is presumed that only a negligible risk of impact exists. The sensitivity of the assessment depends on the assumptions used in estimating maximum anticipated concentration and the setting of the effects criteria. A high sensitivity assessment (i.e., one which produces a conservative or "worst case ". risk designation) is one which is based on "worst case" assumptions with regard to application rates and environmental conditions and incorporates low effects criteria. A less sensitive assessment is one which is based on less than "worst case" assumptions with regard to application rates and/or environmental conditions and incorporates higher effects criteria. This procedure represents a rational approach to assessing the risks associated with pesticide use in that it is based on both sound science concerning 1 toxicity and reality conceming actual use practices and environmental conditions. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -19 1 i Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course The EPA supports the use of a risk assessment which is moderate in its level of sensitivity — a tiered risk assessment (EPA, 1992). Under a tiered assessment, a suite of pesticides is assessed 1 first (Tier 1) by assuming "worst case" application and environmental conditions and comparing the resulting maximum anticipated concentrations against such effects criteria as the EPA - established Health Advisory Limit (HAL) for human risk assessment and the LC toxicity level 1 of the most sensitive aquatic organism for environmental risk assessment. If the maximum anticipated concentration of a given pesticide under these "worst case" assumptions exceeds either of its effects criteria, that pesticide is singled out for further analysis under Tier 2. The Tier 2 analysis utilizes site-specific soils and hydrologic data to refine the estimate of maximum anticipated concentration. Use, of such site - specific data in the assessment always produces estimates of maximum anticipated concentration which are lower (thus, less likely to exceed effects criteria) than those produced assuming "worst case" conditions. If the Tier 2 estimate of I maximum anticipated concentration exceeds either of the effects criteria, the pesticide is analyzed further under Tier 3. The Tier 3 analysis incorporates more specific information concerning site soils than the Tier 2 analysis, resulting in a still more refined estimate of 1 maximum anticipated concentration. As with Tier 2 compared to Tier 1, the Tier 3 estimates of maximum anticipated concentration are always lower (again, less likely to exceed effects criteria) than the Tier 2 estimates. This tiered approach, then, produces a more refined, but substantially less conservative, estimate of risk associated with the use of pesticides than an approach which is 1 single -step and based on " worst case" assumptions. • ' In selecting pesticides for use at the Gray's Crossing Golf Course, a high sensitivity, single -step risk assessment was conducted. This single -step assessment was conducted using the "worst 1 case" assumptions used under Tier 1 of the EPA - supported assessment procedure, and the effects criteria) were conservatively set to evaluate the acute and chronic aquatic toxicity and human health toxicity. Toxicity was evaluated with US EPA approved screening models for pesticides 1 (GEENEC and SCI -GROW; EPA 1995; see Appendix I for details). Exposure concentrations (model output) generated from each of these models are considered by EPA to be reasonable, conservative estimates of pesticide concentrations. Once exposure concentrations (model output) were determined, acute and chronic aquatic toxicity and human health toxicity were evaluated as follows: 1 1. Acute Aquatic = Peak runoff / LC 2. Chronic Aquatic = (Avg 21 -day runoff)'/ (LC * 0.1) where: 1 Audubon International Institute - Page 5 -20 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course a peak runoff and average 21 -day runoff are from "worst case" expected concentrations as determined by the US EPA model GEENEC b the chronic toxicity is estimated using LC *0.1; this is a conservative factor that estimates chronic values (Suter et al., 1981; Warren-Hicks et al., 1989, 1995) 3. Human Health = model output ` HAL d where: the model output is from the US EPA model SCI -GROW 1 d HALs are the US EPA Health Advisory Levels for each chemical. Negligible risk is assumed if the quotients for the equations are less than 1. If the quotient for expected risk (i.e., results for equations 1, 2, & 3 above) is greater than 1, then potential for risk is assumed; Pesticides selected for use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course had quotients less than 1.0. Only those pesticides found to have a negligible risk associated with their use on the golf course (i.e., the maximum anticipated concentration is less than the effects criteria), were selected for use on the course, unless no other pesticide is currently available (i.e., legally registered) to control the target pest. Pesticides which were determined to have more than negligible risk but were selected for use on the golf course because no substitute pesticide is available are to be used subject to specific restrictions designed to minimize the risk. The results of the risk assessment 1 are summarized in Table 5 -9 and supporting data are presented in Appendix I. The results of the risk assessment indicate that the insecticide trichlorfon has more than negligible risk associated with their use on the Gray's Crossing golf course. Alternative pesticides with negligible risk are available to control the target pests of trichlorfon; therefore, this pesticide had not been selected for use on the Gray's Crossing golf course. In addition, any pesticide listed on the California Proposition 65 list (July 11, 2003 update) was excluded from consideration for use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. The specific pesticides selected for use at the Gray's Crossing Golf Course are listed in 1 Tables 5 -11 (fungicides), 5 -13 (insecticides), and 5 -15 (herbicides). These tables identify the selected pesticide by target pest and for fungicides and insecticides, define a use hierarchy based on an Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ). The EIQ represents a pesticide ranking based on • factors which define impact potential relative to other pesticides and pest control strategies. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -21 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 The EIQ is described in Kovach et al. (1992). Within the tables, pesticides are ranked for use according to their EIQ wherever an EIQ has been determined. Those with a lower EIQ are preferred over those with a higher EIQ. Note that the EIQ neither replaces nor supersedes the 1 results of the risk assessment, it merely supplements those results for the purpose of ranking preferences. A use hierarchy based on the EIQ analysis was not conducted for herbicides because EIQ's for many herbicides are not available. 1 5.4.1 Pesticide Use Restrictions Specific restrictions to be implemented in the use of the selected pesticides on the Gray's ' Crossing Golf Course are listed in Table 5 -10. These restrictions supplement the basic ' restrictions specified on manufactures' labels. The use of any pesticide with a HAL or with a LC of less than 50 ppb is to be prohibited within the Management Zones defined under Section 4.2 (i.e., within 75 feet of a wetland or watercourse). 1 e e .• nn � . a ' r e re 54' CI D ' r m sc'o d • t i a ' a t ct ■ ° ' : "d 1 f jS tl. w •t 9 11: '' e.. 1 9,441:,!,...1 ' , # 3 S s a e f t ' ^ f• i s +Ci'�; -w ' 1v, tI d t s.§ � t W rea er .111)1' 1n o., ?: is s u milt a -pe tctd 1 ` 1 . :,g a ow: io e t't 0 „- „itc y pu a t C1ftQ a 1 * a . � pf't e ft ea -nt 'n g .�^ ' y v 1 t 1 e s a a. 1 Fungicides azoxystrobin* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk 1 fenamirol* fludioxinil* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk fosetyl -AI* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk metalaxyllmefenoxam* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk PCNB negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk propiconazole negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk trifloxystrobin negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk ii` Herbicides 1 2,4 -D amine negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -22 I Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 ) ' lie men._ [ d et r on " fie a a -' : <� < + a .i y 4 n° f Q '4 41 . IV .. i � A j S t ; t'i• 4 . l i'. l TI :.: : ��yyy . ;i t Ye 'S-�ry ms e.`s 5 �. ' . $ 6 fit:ne a J, i i: . • itepwtP'•e o.'• r rt N b r " 8 ,,, ,,.. : i o 8 Y B . f vd 1 � c i ,> s `O r A . at c ° o n I� � benefin* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk ' bensulide negligible risk . negligible risk negligible risk bentazon negligible risk negligible rik negligible risk clopyralid* negligible risk negl risk negligible risk dicamba* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk ' dithiopyr negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk ethofumesate* negligible risk negligible risk risk , fenarimol* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk glyphosate* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk halosulfuron* negligible risk negligible risk negligible le ris risk , negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk MSMA negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk , oryzalin* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk ' prodiamine negligible risk negligible risk pendimethalin negligible risk negligible risk triclopyr negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk Insecticides - acephate negligible risk negligible risk negligible le risk halofenozide* carbaryl* negligible risk negligible • risk negligib risk negligible risk negligible risk ligibi imidacloprid* negligible risk negligible risk n n le risk sk spinosyn* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk trichlorfon potential risk potential r potential risk 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -23 1 I .. . ' Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 r > o h t :; s : t e' m en t 1 tw a , „i" c' 1 1 i t 1 1 • : : r• w a • •4 w t o 0 w ww 'r y � , e ° • r • r w w I wr w ' ww r w 3' w r - : r e i ;` ' 93 Rb ° ,S, • 44 - t�R' r y c , QU' 1 ," we Y h ♦ - uO aSySak r I Plant Growth Regulators • paclobutrazol* negligible risk negligible risk negligible risk I triexapac -ethyl negligible risk negligible risk ND ' See Tables I and 1 - for additional model results and data, but note that if the quotient for the Expected Risk is greater than 1 (one) the potential for risk is assumed (Expected Risk = Maximum Expected Concentration / Effects I Criteria; see footnote b). Restrictions for use are given in Table 5 -10. The * indicates that the material can be used in the Limited Spray, Zone as defined in Section 4.2.2. b ExpectedRisk = Maximum Expected Concentration / Effects Criteria; therefore, for Acute Aquatic = GEENEC (Peak Runoff)/LC„, Chronic Aquatic = GEENEC (Avg 21 day runoff)/(LC„ * 0.1) ` Human Health = SCI -GROW output/HAL 4: . d ND meanss data ? t 4,i °.es .4 rt „„4,4:,,,,,, 1 `ei ,, I ar _. G u se e P3 M, " t r x 1 ;axi. w .a t t o 4 tj ca t i ” 1 ' AYtalo AKA* Fungic • PCNB i 2 Not used in Management Zones. r. trifloxytrobin .- 2 Netused,in • Management Zones. Herbic des 1 bensulide • 2 Not used in Management Zones. bentazoh 2 Not used in Management Zones. - 1 dithioppr 2 Not used in Management Zones. mecoprop • 2 Not used in Management Zones. ' prodiaruine 2 Not used in Management Zones. Insecticides acephate 2 Not used in the Management Zones. trichlorfon 0 Not for use on the golf course. 1 • Audubon International Institute Page 5 -24 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 i 5.5 SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS 1 As a component of IPM, the golf course superintendent must make decisions about pest problems and develop control recommendations including the judicious use of pesticides. 1 Figure 5 -1 is the suggested flow : chactfot decision making at Gray's Crossing Golf Course based on IPM strategies. Strategies include identifying an anticipated pest complex, the ' interrelationship of disease infection and expression of symptoms, noting temperature ranges when diseases most prevalent on cool - season grasses are active, and identifying timing for optimum insect and weed control. As part of the strategy, pesticides approved based on the pesticide analysis previously noted in this plan are suggested for use with each specific pest. 1 5.5.1 Disease Control • 1 Disease control is discussed in terms of control and then guidelines for disease management are given. Disease incidence is closely linked to environmental factors, primarily temperature, humidity, and amount of sunshine. The temperature ranges which favor development and growth of turfgrass pathogens are given in Figure 5 -2. As part of IPM strategies, logging of daily 1 temperature information is critical to observe when disease development is favored. While this • approach is helpful for many.diseases, there are several in which infection and expresthon of 1 symptoms are distinctly different (Figure 5 -3). For these specific pests, a preventative approach is suggested. Fungicides which are recommended for use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course are , listed in Table 5 -11. Selection is by the risk assessment process that is detailed in Section 5.4. • t e 4il ti �i �i �Xl'�t s' vti `Q _ + 9 3 , .'e Y a e. : « e b i et: 0 i ie .. to r � Gray Snow Mold OO fenarimol, propiconazole OO fenarimol, propiconazole ©PCNB ©PCNB 1 Pink Snow Mold OO fenarimol, propiconazole, . ®fenarimol, propiconazole, mefanoxam mefanoxam 1 ©PCNB ©PCNB No EIQ: azoxystrobin No EIQ: azoxystrobin 1 i . 1, Audubon International Institute Page 5 - 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course � "` - mo w _, • '�' y 1 f' e Y I e A B tl 1 f i 8 !'�" 1 . }�: 9 ' Pythium Blight Or mefanoxam/metalaxyl rOmefanoxam/metalaxyl ®fosetyl -Al ©fosetyl -Al I No EIQ: azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin No EIQ: azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin Pythium Root Rot OO metalaxyl Ometalaxyl ®fosetyl -Al ®fosetyl -Al Take All Patch OO fenarimol, propiconazole Or fenarimol, propiconazole No EIQ: azoxystrobin , No EIQ: azoxystrobin t All materials must be applied at rates and under conditions prescribed by the label. Ecological risk assessment protocols were used to select pesticides, see Section 5.4. 1 ' Gray Snow Mold - Gray snow mold appears as roughly circular bleached patches up to 60 cm in diameter. Soon after snow melts, the infected grass may be matted and surrounded by a white to gray halo or fluffy fungal growth. The severity of the disease will vary. It is particularly severe when turf has been subjected to a prolonged, deep, ' compacted snow cover. Fungicide applications should be made in late fall prior to the first snowfall. Pink Snow Mold - This is most prevalent during cold temperatures (32 to 40 °F) and wet conditions. Avoiding late fall nitrogen applications can reduce the severity. This disease is also favored by freeze -thaw cycles during the spring and fall. Preventative fungicide applications at those times may be necessary to preclude disease incidence. Pythium Blight - This is a rapidly developing and devastating disease. It is favored by excessive nitrogen fertilization and very wet and hot weather. An attack can result in the death of an entire green, tee or fairway in a matter of hours. Because of the severity, a preventative approach is taken during weather conditions which favor disease development, r • s Audubon International Institute Page 5 -26 1 1 Necrotic ring spot Summer patch Brown patch �.. Yellow patch . Pythium root rot ■■ Pythium blight -- i =.. .... Bipolaris leaf spot _ Dreschlera leaf spot Gray snow mold Pink snow mold Dollar spot Stripped smut Red thread Powdery mildew. ' • • • • • 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Figure 5 -2. Turf Disease Pathogens Growth Temperature Ranges (° F) ..Solid lines note when disease is most active. OM NM art as we __ s s! n ma se so an EN me as NM MI I• S Si 1• SIM i• O I ., l• — — s flab I• I• MI I• S f P Leaf diseases r r - Leaf spot, Red thread " 1 Root diseases ( I I I n Pythium root rot Necrotic ring spot a N t, ; c Leaf diseases I I S Dollar spot, U Brown patch, Pythium blight ; " fi Ill `' > � m I e Root disease I Pythium root rot r Summar patch Mar May July Sep Nov Jan Infection 1 1 - Symptom Figure 5 -3. Interrelationship Between Turfgrass Disease Infection and Symptom Development. 1 • ..Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course l 5.5.1.1. Guidelines for Disease Management. No annual fungicide program can, nor should, be developed for Gray's Crossing Golf Course. Under the IPM approach, many diseases are treated ' • • . curatively and not on a preventative basis. However, under some conditions and for specific diseases, preventative applications are more environmentally sensitive. These diseases have been identif ed below. The need for excessive preventive and curative applications is minimized by • sound cultural programs, practicing routine scouting and monitoring of turf and environmental • conditions. • The following guidelines under which disease management by use of fungicides may be initiated • are provided for each area of the golf course, for specific diseases: . • • Gray Snow Mold - Although this disease rarely kills the turf, it is extremely unsightly. A• • . preventative fungicide application should be made in the fall prior to first snowfall. . Pink Snow Mold - On all areas, curative upon detection of any incidence prior to any • ' snowfall. Preventative prior to snowfall or freeze- thaw.cycles which wilIprovide • conditions for disease development. • f Pythium Root Rot and Pythium Blight - Upon detection of any incidence•on any area This disease is easily spread if in the blight stage. The root rot form is exceptionally damaging since it requires long recovery periods, often during summer months when temperature conditions are not favorable for root growth. • Take -All Patch - Preventative under cool (night temperatures < 50 °F), wet soil conditions • with the pH above 5.5, especially in areas which have had a previous history of the disease. Do not lime infected areas. • 5.5.2 Insect Control • • • Insect problems at this course will be minimal and will include, primarily, root feeding grubs and some lepidopteran larvae. Routine scouting and sampling of turf for adults, grubs 'and caterpillars can isolate areas of concern and target control measures. While nonchemical treatments such as parasitic nematodes and bacteria for insect control are available, they do not • 1 Audubon International Institute - - Page 5 -29 • .1 I Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course give the degree of consistency, reliability and versatility and are proven ineffective in many circumstances (Potter 1993). Suggested thresholds before chemical treatment is necessary given in Table 5 -12 have been adapted from Hellman (1992), Bhowmik et al. (1991) and Villani ' (1992).. I „ ?.. d.@ . 4 � ' - 3 ry s d , '� ''4 d1 i I 7@ r , • t y 3. T SB ' ' '6".7,1F, -+ „a fi 1 Grubs 4 4 to 6 Cutworms 1 1 1 Webworms 2 2 I Insecticides which are recommended and approved based on the selection guidelines previously noted are listed in Table 5 -13, . e d c:• � ' �m ullee s * od�'�e e• a 1 e e atxsv m¢ a: 1 White grubs and CI imidacloprid i CO imidacloprid chafers CO carbaryl ®cazbaryl No EIQ: halofenozide No EIQ: halofenozide 1 Biologicals: Biologicals: Steinernema glaseri, Steinernema glaseri, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (biologicals) 1 Webworms and CO acephate, carbaryl Cr acephate, carbaryl cutworms Biologicals: Biologicals: Steinernema glaseri, Steinernema glaseri, I Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (biologicals) (biologicals) 1 tAll materials must be applied at rates and under conditions prescribed by the label. Ecological risk assessment protocols were used to select pesticides, see Section 5.4. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -30 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - 1 j White Grubs and Chafers - Several species insects have larval forms as white grubs that feed on the turfgrass roots at the soil/thatch interface. They can be extremely destructive, 1 especially in the advanced larval stage. The key to successful control is identifying threshold levels and treating when larvae are in the earliest stages, July for May or June beetles, and August or September for most others including chafers. Chafers have been one of the most severe problems at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. Control options include the following: 1 • Cultural _ withhold irrigation if possible during the summer when eggs are subject to dessication injury. • Biological - none is considered adequate • Chemical - early instar stages are best, August is usually the time when they are most susceptible. Timing of insecticide application should be when larvae are still active at the soil surface. 1 Webworms - These are caterpillar larvae of several species of moths. They can be very 1 destructive if not diagnosed and treated early. The adult moths are inactive in the daytime and can be observed resting on the turfgrass, weeds, or on the leaves and stems,of trees or shrubs. - Likewise; the larvae are night feeders on the leaves of the grass. Scouting for both adults and larvae burrowed down in the grass can determine if damaging numbers are present. While summer months are when the moth activity is most active, several species have 2 or 3 life cycles per year. Monitoring is critical to ensuring timely treatment. Evening • treatment is required since that is when the larvae are active. 5.53 Weed Control The most effective weed control is a dense healthy turf. Therefore; after the first year of turf establishment weed problems are minimal. Paying strict attention to optimum cultural practices to maintain an aggressive turf is the first requisite in weed control. Table 5 -14 provides 1 guidelines under which weed management by use of herbicides are initiated for each area of the golf course. '. 1 Audubon International Institute Pages -31 1 1 1 - Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ( 1 1 1 I la I ,I 4:4170 1 - 1� iI" t � , ai r ;1/2 HIV ;;;Wa 14 *pi c hi ren aity . 46.1 i fogs Greens 0 -1 0 -1 1 Tees 2-6 1 -4 Fairways 3 -8 2 -7 Roughs 7 -12 8 -13 Annual Bluegrass - While the common name implies this is an annual weed problem, the sub- specie (Poa annua spp. reptans) of this pest problem is actually a perennial. Growth and persistence of annual bluegrass is favored by compacted and/or wet soils, high soil pH, and high soil phosphorus levels. Keeping cultural practices current to prevent these conditions and favor the growth of the preferred grasses minimizes the competition. • Clover and Other Broadleaf Weeds - Clover can be a problem in any area because of its ' aggressive nature. Other broadleaf weeds will only invade weakened or thin turf, 1 especially if they are annuals. Depending on the severity, they may be handled preemergent or postemergent. 1 Annual Grasses - They normally invade thin turf. Some species, such as crabgrass seed require light for germination. Thus an effective control is to maintain a dense stand of grass. These are best handled with a preemergent herbicide application rather than repeated postemergent applications. A number of excellent preemergent materials are available which will control annual grasses. Herbicides which are recommended and approved based on the selection guidelines previously noted are listed in Table 5 -15. M 1 1. Audubon International Institute _ Page 5 -32 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course M M 1 W W II ., a eo f • n + Ore) n't =� t 1 :ern s 6;. d "" vb- Annual bensulide bensulide, pendimethalin, prodiamine 1 bluegrass (Pre- emergent) Annual cimectacarb, ethofumesate I bluegrass paclobutrazol (Post - ernergent) 1 Broadleaf none bensulide, isoxaben,oryzalin, (Pre- emergent) pendimethalin, prodiamine, benefin ± oryzalin II Broadleaf 2,4 -D+ mecoprop + dicamba, mecoprop, triclopyr, 2,4 -D, (Post- emergent) dicamba 2,4 -D + dicamba + MCPP, 2,4 -D + ill (bentgrass formulation) triclopyr, triclopyr + clopyralid Grassy bensulide benefin, bensulide, dithiopyr, oryzalin, (Pre- emergent) pendimethalin, prodiamine, benefin + oryzalin ' Grassy dithiopyr (check current dithiopyr, MSMA ■,; (Post- emergent) labeling) Sedges none bentazon (Pre- emergent) Sedges none bentazon, halosulfuron, MSMA (Post-emergent) . j' All materials must be applied at rates and under conditions prescribed by the label. Ecological risk assessment protocols were used to select pesticides, see Section 5.4. 5.6 SCOUTING PROGRAM FOR GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE ' The IPM scouting plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course relies on the following tenants. In developing the program, there are specific items which were addressed in order to ensure the program is successful. The superintendent must ensure that the following steps are followed: 1. Assign individuals to conduct the scouting, record the results, evaluate the I/ information and make the decisions once the information is recorded. This may be , Audubon International Institute . Page 5 - ' 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course done in a team approach with the scout consulting with specific members of the staff, 1 or it may be an individual. 2.. Provide proper education and training to all involved in any aspect of the IPM program. This should include formal seminars, workshops, conferences, short 1 courses, and training for the superintendent and assistant superintendent. State, regional, and national conferences are excellent formats from which to obtain these I types of programs. In- house training sessions for the maintenance crew should be • held to inform them of IPM strategies. 3. Review, at least annually, the complete program and evaluate its effectiveness. I Changes will constantly be made as the golf course matures, changes in design are made, or as new information concerning handling of turf management or pest problems becomes available. 1' Tools necessary to conduct the scouting program will be determined by the level of intensity of the scouting. At a minimum the following items are required: hand lens (10x), collection vials, soil probe, paper bags, pocket knife, small ruler, small spade, notebook, cup cutter, field • 1 identification guides, tweezers, and small camera. 1 5.6.1 Scouting Program for Gray's. Crossing Golf Course 1 5.6.1.1. Daily. General 1 • Record data from weather station. Greens and Tees - • Quality of cut -while this is dependent on species and cultivars of grass, cutting height, mowing speeds, clips per inch and type of mower, it is an excellent indicator of the overall health of the turf. Additionally, since mowing creates an open wound, I it is desirable it heal quickly, and torn or ragged edge is indicative of poor cutting quality which will need to be addressed. Audubon International Institute Page 5 -34 1 . 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - 1 • Soil moisture - whether using a soil moisture meter, simply pulling a core with a probe, the soil moisture should be wet, but not saturated, to prevent moisture stress. 1 This is a gauge form which to help guide the irrigation program. Diseases - this is especially critical during periods of wane, moist weather as•these 1 are importantrequisites for disease development. Early morning is the best time for walking the green by separating paths into six foot segments to any small spots or white threads of fungal hyphae. A closer examination with the hand lens or a sample to take to the field laboratory for microscopic analysis can be collected to Confirm disease presence. • Weeds - similar to inspection for disease problems, look for any differences in color or texture of leaves, particularly in thin turf areas or where ball marks have damaged • the turf. With this approach, many weeds can be hand picked or mechanically controlled before they become mature enough to create a problem. • 1 • • Insects - leaf eating insects should be detectable in the same manner as looking for an weed problems. On closely d t, scouting of face and 1 th disease atch layer should be sufficient. Specific insect problems urfa as noted the in the surface Section 5.5.2 should be intensively scouted during the peak activity periods noted. f • 5.6.1.2. Weekly or Bimonthly. • • • All Areas . • • Soil temperature - root growth, seed germination (including weeds), disease and insect activity and other factors which impact turf growth are tied closely to soil • temperatures. • Plant tissue analysis - will help guide fertilization programs. • Ponds and Lakes • Identify aquatic growth that is over - abundant or a nuisance. Scouting should begin in the spring (when water temperatures warm) and end in fall (when water temperatures decrease). Early detection will allow appropriate treatment. Biological.controls are a • good alternative to chemical treatment of submerged aquatic plants: If chemicals are required, treat only one -third of the lake /pond at a time. • Should plant problems continue and recur each year, steps should be taken to determine the reason for the nuisance conditions. Once determined, then effective solutions can be implemented. • •1 Audubon International Institute • Page 5 -35 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Greens and Tees • • Scout for signs of algae, molds or moss. They can be observed growing in the mat layer on the soil surface or in the soil profile. Their growth is encouraged by soil acidity and saturated soil profiles. When this scum appears, a light dusting of hydrated lime at 2 to 5 pounds per 1000 sq.ft. will kill the algae. Plugging or sodding ' along with topdressing can be done if necessary as soon as the soil dries out. Vertical mowing can also be performed to break up the scum formed once it dried if it has formed a thick layer. • Check for hydrophobic soil conditions by inspecting for areas that turn blue or gray. t This condition maybe caused by excessive surface compaction or because of the coating of the sand soil particles with a hydrophobic layer of organic matter. A soil probe can be used to extract a column of soil and water droplets can be placed at t 2 -inch increments along the soil column. If the water beads and does not infiltrate into the soil, a true hydrophobic condition exists. Spot aerification; along with lime and fertilizer and use of a wetting agent can help rectify this problem. Fairways 1r • Scout for visual signs of disease, weed and insect problems at least weekly. Dividing 1 the fairways into 15 to 20 foot strips and observing while riding in a golf cart or utility vehicle, scout for signs of pest problems. If symptoms are present, use the thresholds predetermined for a decision on whether to treat with a pesticide. • Mapping of the pest problems observed should be done on a grid system of specific locations on the course to develop a history of pest infestation. This will be useful for future control options. ' 5.6.1.3. Monthly. 2411 Areas Sample the soil profile to check for layering. Examine the condition of the roots (should be white and fibrous), smell for indications of anaerobic conditions, probe to 1 check for soil compaction, and measure thatch amounts. A soil analysis in areas where the turf is not performing well for pH and soluble salts can be useful. • Spot check irrigation system uniformity on at least 4 to 5 greens. Use containers spaced two feet apart from sprinkler head -to -head in a straight line. Operate the system for 15 minutes and check volumes in each container. Multiply by 4 to gauge 1 111 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -36 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course b the irrigation system inches per hour and determine if it is within specification guidelines. 1 5.6.1.4. Semi- Annual. • 1 All Areas . • Scout for drainage and seepage problems. Presence of moss or algae is a certain sign of poor drainage. Puddled.soil and signs of scald note excessive soil wetness. If seepage is suspected, dig a hole two feet deep with a spade or post hole digger and allow 24 hours for it to refill. If it does so it indicates seepage from below ground either vertically or laterally. Installation of drainage lines may be a way to resolve this problem. • Monitoring in both mornings and afternoons will determine if tree shade azimuths are creating low light conditions for grass growth and the need to thin trees. This could also help determine wind movement patterns which are important in drying turf areas and preventing disease problems. 5.6.1.5. Annual. 1: • , Soil test for nutrient levels including macro nutrients, micro nutrients, pH and soluble salts. 1 • 5.6.2 Record Keeping 1 Recording the information collected during the scouting on forms such as those which are in Appendix II will help build a record for each area on the course. This will be useful in determining if certain pest problems are recurring. This approach will allow subsequent "fine- 1 tuning" of the IPM program as the course matures. 5.7 MANAGING THE PROGRAM - PERSONNEL The success of this golf course Integrated Pest Management plan depends, to a large extent, on the manner in which the program is carried out. Since Gray's Crossing Golf Course is located in a locale that has environmentally sensitive areas, it is imperative that the selection of personnel 1 ' Audubon International Institute Page 5 - 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course be made very carefully. The golf course will need a cadre of highly qualified key people to see that daily operations are carried out properly and in a timely manner. r 5.7.1 Superintendent Because turfgrass management has become more scientific in the past few years, it is desirable for the superintendent to have a degree in agronomy, horticulture, plant or soil sciences, as well I as experience in all phases of . golf course management. Since it is their management ability and day -to -day decisions based on sound agronomic principles and practices that make a successful ' program, they should have a thorough knowledge of Best Management Practices (BMP), exhibit an understanding of the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and have a license to apply restricted use pesticides. A participating knowledge of the game of golf and the ability to train and effectively supervise employees are also important. 5.7.2 Assistant Superintendent Similarly, the assistant should also have a degree in agronomy, horticulture, plant or soil sciences. They should be licensed in pesticide usage, have a working knowledge of golf course maintenance practices and the ability to schedule and supervise work to achieve the most efficient utilization of employees and equipment. 1. 5.7.3 Irrigation Technician 1 Because of the highly sophisticated irrigation system to be used on the course and the importance of proper monitoring of water usage, the selection of this technician is critical. The person employed must have a working knowledge of computerized control systems as well as basic electricity, hydraulics, valves, pumps, sprinkler heads, etc. Since efficient water use and conservation of irrigation water are the responsibility of the system operator, a knowledge of turfgrass water requirements and the capabilities of the irrigation system will be needed, also. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 5 -38 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - 1 5:7.4 Pesticide Technician 1 Because the appropriate use of pesticides depends not only on proper selection, but also on proper equipment maintenance and calibration and application techniques, it is strongly 1 • recommended that this person is licensed in restricted pesticide usage and experienced in handling pesticides. 5.7.5 Mechanic 1 • The success of all cultural practices is dependent to a large degree, on the condition of the equipment and tools used. Therefore, it is essential to have a person knowledgeable and capable in the maintenance and repair of the various types of equipment used on golf courses. Their responsibilities include not only keeping all equipment in operational condition at all times, but also includes keeping the service area and maintenance building clean and in accordance with all environmental regulations. 5.8 PESTICIDE SAFETY '. An important part of pesticide safety is the maintenance facility that includes appropriate storage, 1 handling, washing and mixing areas. See Section 8.0 for more information about the maintenance facility and pesticides. 1 5.8.1 Storage 1 Pesticides will need to be stored in a separate room designated for these materials only and 1 located away from water sources (ponds, streams). The room Will be kept locked and posted as • required bylaw, including the courses, 'Hazard Communication Program' (See samples_in Appendix III). All pesticides will be stored in their original containers with visible labels. To be prepared for spills and/or leaks, absorbent floor -sweep materials, sawdust or cat litter and activated charcoal will be kept on hand. An inventory of pesticides and other chemicals will be kept, and MSDS and labels for each pesticide used will be readily accessible. A fire extinguisher, protective clothing, respirator and first aid supplies will be kept in an attainable Audubon International Institute Page 5 -39 t 1 • I�. Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course I • place and in ready condition. Water will be available for both routine and emergency chemical removal, including showers and eye wash facilities. 5.8.2 Handling and Application When handling pesticides, special attention will be given to warnings and precautions on the label. Applicators should always wear personal protective gear which includes: rubber gloves, goggles or face shields, respirators, protective clothing, and rubber boots when mixing and applying pesticides. Mixing and loading will be done in a designated area so that any spills can 1 be handled effectively. 1 Chemicals should always be measured out below eye level; and applicators should not stand directly over the tank when adding chemicals, as they frequently splash and emit dusts. Before mixing chemicals together, their compatibility will be checked as chemical incompatibility could result in reduced effectiveness, increased toxicity to the applicator, or g•k, phytotoxicity to the turfgrass. The "quart jar method" should be used to determine compatibility. ' Spray adjuvants (such as wetting agents, emulsifiers, foaming agents and stickers) should be used in accordance with label recommendations. ' • 5.8.3 Disposal 1 • Empty bottles, drums or cans will be disposed of according to the label which usually states to triple rinse and recycle, recondition or puncture and dispose. Containers should be rinsed before ' spraying so that the rinsate can be put into the spray tank. When a container has an expired shelf life or is damaged, the manufacturer, supplier or local state agency will be contacted for ' assistance in disposal. 5.8.4 Pesticide Record Keeping Proper records of all pesticide applications will be kept according to government requirements. These records will help establish proof of proper use, facilitate comparison of results of different applications and/or find cause of an error. Records should include the following information: Audubon International Institute Page 5 -40 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course , 1. Data and time of application. 2. Name of applicator. 1, 3. Person directing or authorizing the application. 4. Weather conditions. 5. Target pest. 6. Pesticide Used (trade name, active ingredient, amount of formulation, amount of water). 7. Adjuvant/Surfactant and amount applied, if used. 8. The area of golf course ornamental plantings number of acres or square feet treated. 9. Total amount of pesticide used. 10. Application equipment. 11. Additional remarks, such as severity of the infestation. A sample pesticide use record is included in Appendix II. 1 5.8.5 Spill Prevention and Response �. 5.8.5.1. Prevention. • Mixing of chemicals occurs only at the designated chemical mixing area that is 1 designed to contain any spillage until it is properly treated with the filtration unit. • Prescribed routes for the transport of mixed, diluted chemicals. Routes are chosen to minimize the likelihood of spills (e.g., steep slopes are avoided) and to avoid ' sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands), and the routes are known to the applicators. • Chemicals used on the course are dilute. The only concentrated chemicals at the 1 course are stored in a locked storage facility, and are mixed only in a specially designed mixing area. 1 . • The least toxic materials with the shortest half -life and greatest affinity for soils are • used at the course. Thus the affect from any release is minimized. I • 5.8.5.2. Training. • Current pesticide operators license will be maintained by the Golf Course Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, and the Pesticide Spray Technician. Audubon International Institute Page 5 -41 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Safety plans including proper handling and storage as indicated on Material Safety ' Data Sheets (MSDS) will be followed. • Training in proper storage, handling, mixing and containment of spills of chemicals t will be conducted. • 1 5.8.5.3. Containment. • Spill containment materials are readily available: Commercially available spill 1 containment kits (containing for example, foam pillows and absorbent material) are kept readily available in the chemical mixing area and in the chemical storage area. Any used kits are correctly disposed of based on the type of chemical. • • A spill or hose leak on the course will result in the following actions. — spray technician contacts the superintendent or assistant superintendent. — appropriate containment measures are immediately instituted; e.g., use 1 containment kit, create a berm with a shovel, and isolate the area. — contact appropriate local and state officials. • Based on the amount of dilute (mixed) chemical released the following will occur: - < 10 gallons. Follow actions as listed above. ' — 10 - 50 gallons. Follow actions as listed above. Additional actions will depend on the chemical's toxicity and location of release. ' - > 50 gallons. Follow actions listed above. Monitor down- gradient and in potentially affected waters. Monitoring duration will depend on degradation , properties of the chemical, but will include sampling at the time of release, and at appropriate intervals. Results of the monitoring will dictate future actions. • • r Audubon International Institute Page 5-42 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 6.0. WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT 1 6.1 . IRRIGATION • Lack of adequate moisture can result in three possible consequences for the turf as follows: 1 1) stress; 2) dormancy; or 3) death. Since the_golf course as a recreational facility must provide reasonable quality for the condition of the playing surface, in this location irrigation is one of the 1 primary cultural practices which will be used and irrigation management must include water conservation practices. 1 Irrigation is normally used to supplement, not substitute, for rainfall. However, in this location, 1 little to no rainfall occurs during the peak demand months in the summer. Thus, irrigation is critical to growing turf for golf course conditions. In order to maximize the efficiency of 1 irrigation, there will be recording of climatic conditions so that determination can be made if soil moisture reserves are adequate or if an irrigation event should be scheduled. • • 6.2 IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT Because of the many variables to consider, i.e., slope, soil types, rooting depth, etc., even with 1 the most sophisticated irrigation system available, experience has proven, fine - tutting of the irrigation program by the golf course superintendent and irrigation technician is essential. 1 Knowledge of the water reserve in the root zone is a key input required for determining irrigation needs. On greens, approximately 75% of the root system may occur in the top four inches of soil. On tees, fairways and roughs the depth of rooting can vary from six to twelve inches, depending on how these surfaces are managed. Therefore, with knowledge of soil water storage, actual . 1 daily rainfall and calculated daily evapotranspiration (ET) information it is possible to determine when the available soil moisture is depleted and irrigation required. A weather station located at the maintenance facility records information necessary to calculate the daily ET. The amount of irrigation plus rainfall necessary to sustain the turf in an actively growing condition for most of the golf course is approximately 80% of evaporation from an open pan of water. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 6 -1 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - The average annual rainfall-for the Truckee area is only 32 inches. Therefore, a deficit does occur during the summer months when Evapotranspiration (ET) exceeds rainfall (Tables 6 -1 and 6 -2). Based on average rainfall, supplemental irrigation will be needed for 9 months from March through November:. To insure there id always adequate moisture for growth and development, the aniountof water to apply at each irrigation should be the depth required to replace that extracted by the turf since the 1 last irrigation or rainfall. This is based on 50% depletion of the soil water holding capacity in the irrigated zone. However, the amount of water to apply per irrigation must be increased because of irrigation application efficiency losses, Any additional irrigation would be a waste of water and could move nutrients and pesticides past the grass root zone. The average monthly irrigation requirements for the course are calculated in Table 6 -3. 1 Given the imperfect nature of any irrigation system, there is the possibility of different areas of 1 the course being over watered, correctly watered and under watered. Therefore, only through careful study and trial and error can the superintendent and irrigation technician achieve the most 1 < appropriate balance, preferably on the drier side. - The best method of determining whether the proper amount of water has been applied is to determine the depth of water penetration following irrigation by coring with a soils tube. If water ' has not penetrated to the desired depth by six to eight hours after an irrigation, then the irrigation time should be increased. If water has moved well beyond the desired irrigation depth, then the irrigation time should be decreased. Probing of the soil profile after irrigation is conducted to aid in adjusting the sprinkler run times. To avoid runoff, the application rate must not exceed the soil infiltration rate. If necessary, the irrigation system can be cycled to ensure proper infiltration. In addition, one of the primary responsibilities of the golf course superintendent and irrigation technician is to monitor the heads frequently to be sure all heads are operating properly and that no head is inadvertently applying water to an environmentally sensitive area. These conditions apply for what is the largest acreage, fairways, roughs, and nonplay irrigated areas. For greens and tees, irrigation must preclude any deficits which would place the turf under 1 Audubon International Institute - Page 6 -2 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 . ) any stress, since these are heavily trafficked areas and optimum recovery is necessary. For this reason they are only deficit irrigated during the fall as temperatures and daylengths change. 1 iv s i ga - C it • c4 eaR if,I. - F Aa ' E roil* eashganc rivinct. Ape 1,... vs..„ 1212,$ 0-04,1 pi- r ' 1D ± I0 Inches per Month Jan 6.1 0.0 3.0 0 - 0 Feb 4.9 0.4 2.5 0 - 0 1 Mar 4.2 0.9 2.1 0.0 100 0 Apr .. 2.2 . 1.9 1.1 0.8 100 1.1 1 May 1.4 33 0.7 2.6 100 • 3.5 Jun 0.7 4.5 0.4 4.1 125 6.8 1 Jul 0.4 6.2 0.2 6.0 125 10.0 Aug 0.4 5.4 0.2 5.2 125 8.7 Sep 0.7 3.4 0.4 3.0 100 . 4.0 Oct 1.6 1.8 0.8 1.0 100 1.3 Nov 4.0 0.6 2.0 0 - 0 1 Dec 5.4 0,3 0 - 0 Total 32.0 28.7 - - - . 35.4 I (a) Based on weather records from Truckee Ranger Station, CA , (b) Evapotranspiration rates from Toro Evapotranspiration Data for Reno, NV (c) Based on an allowable depletion of 50% of precipitation (d) Based on 75% Application Efficiency 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 6 -3 1 1 • 1r. . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course . t "alt.: , c Pin' eine , ` o a� , o : , 1 e' a 4 iil; bI Ci' -0 i a o ,. ag '` 1 a k g an . e . A 4,41. 4ti $4: 44 .al ' Ilitiner,i00:441‘ 447,, t I ° Dist 'A a i 1 Pt 1 Sr '„ MP 4, „ „`li •.u 4 � } -, � 4 ,u a ea' a,le �. e 1 + � ,),, . 6ee f` 'n c Inches per Month 1 Jan 6.1 0.0 3.0 0 - 0 Feb 4.9 0.4 2.5 0 - 0 1 Mar 4.2 0.9 2.1 0 - 0 1 Apr 2.2 1.9 1.1 1.8 80 1.9 May 1.4 13 0.7 2.8 80 3.0 I Jun 0.7 4.5 0.4 4.1 80 4.4 Jul 0.4 6.2 0.2 6.0 80 6.4 1 4 Aug 0.4 5.4 0.2 5.2 80 5.5 Sep 0.7. 3.4 0.4 3.0 80 3.2 1 Oct L6 1.8 0.8 1.0 80 1.1 Nov 4.0 0.6 2.0 0 0 1 Dec 5.4 0.3 2.7 0 - 0 1 Total 32.0 28.7 - 25.5 (a) Based on weather records from Truckee Ranger Station, CA 1 (b) Evapotranspiration rates from Toro Evapotranspiration Data for Reno, NV (c) Based on an allowable depletion of 50% of precipitation (d) Based on 75% Application Efficiency 1 1 1_ 1 Audubon International Institute Page 6 -4 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 63 WEATHER STATION • • 1 The weather station is a valuable tool in calculating ET by monitoring and recording the following parameters: 1) air temperature; 2) soil temperature; 3) wind speed; 4) wind direction; 1 5) barometric pressure; 6) rainfall; 7) humidity; and 8) solar radiation. These are linked with a • computer programmed to calculate irrigation requirements based on these parameters. This information is used by the superintendent and irrigation technician . to determine irrigation system operation to apply the amount necessary to replace soil moisture. _ In addition to the weather station being used in irrigation water management, the system records information which can be used in other parts of the IPM program. Information is used in predicting disease development and in determining windows of timing for preemergence 1 herbicide application. 6.4 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY - 1 Irrigation system design and operational strategy fulfills all environmental requirements for - protecting surface water and groundwater on and around the golf courses. In addition, the irrigation system is designed to meet the water requirements of the turf by supplementing natural i rainfall. Irrigation is managed with a computer controlled system utilizing all valve -in -head designs with individual head control. i Irrigation is based on measuring weather conditions as described in Section 6.2, Irrigation Water Management. Irrigation frequency is a factor of soil moisture holding capacity, rooting depth and plant water use (evapotranspiration). A water budget method of approach is used as follows: water available /ft (in inches) x root depth (in feet) = soil water reservoir. • By determining the daily water use, an irrigation frequency can be calculated. Average monthly irrigation scheduling for greens /tees is shown in Table 6 -3. This schedule assumes a worst -case condition of no rainfall. For the greens and tees which will be constructed to USGA specifications, the water holding capacity will be an improvement of available soil Audubon International Institute Page 6 -5 1 1 1 .- Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course '' -, moisture compared to the native sandy soil condition. The irrigation frequency for greens and tees will probably be less than for the fairways and roughs. No schedule was calculated for fairways /roughs since there is uncertainty about the plating of the native soil with a different 1 material. Therefore to conserve water, irrigation management and system operation must be constantly monitored. Adjustments to the programs must be made based on monitoring of the 1 turf conditions, 1 � s i g i e 1. • r,,,4_,,,,,v1/4„,,,,..,„„.,.,„,,,,.„. of z gat i� Q ! • • . D UI sel t I. '' H he is e Apr 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.06 15 1 May L8 0.5 0.9 0.11 8 Jun 1.8 0.33 0.6 0.15 4 Jul 1.8 0.33 0.6 0.2 3 1 Aug 1.8 0.33 0.6 0.17 3 Sep 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.11 8 1 Oct 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.06 15 Nov 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.02 45 1 (a) Based on 50% allowable depletion 1 1 . 1 1 1 111 Audubon International Institute Page 6 -6 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 7.0. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 1 • Maintaining water quality at Gray's Crossing Golf Course is important. BMP `Trains' for 1 surface water protection are designed to provide maximum protection to surface waters, and to groundwater. BMPs coupled with management zones and careful selection of materials for use on the golf course provide protection to waters from unwanted chemical loadings and maintain the habitat potential for wildlife. A review of scientific studies of nutrients and pesticides in 1 surface and groundwater is presented in Appendix IV. Education and notification of golfers of environmentally sensitive areas is also an important part of the overall management strategy for the surface waters. Appropriate signs will identify areas that are ecologically. sensitive; or that golfers should not enter. The scorecard will also identify these areas, and the starter will notify golfers of the sensitive areas. Information will be posted in the clubhouse and locker rooms. 7.1 SURFACE WATER AND GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION AND GROW -IN 1 Managing surface runoff is critical during construction and during the "grow -in" period when the 1 bare soil and thin turf cover makes the site most vulnerable. 1 7.1.1 Construction 1 Golf course clearing for Gray's Crossing Golf Course will include installation of erosion control barriers between the areas being cleared for fairways and the streams and ponds. These will include silt fencing, and sedimentation ponds, and locations will be determined and shown in the - erosion control plan for the project. These will remain in place after turf buffer strips are established and until all cleared areas have adequate turf cover to prevent erosion. As discussed previously, the effectiveness of turf as a buffer is related to the fibrous nature of the turf root 1 system and the architecture of the turf canopy. Buffer strips should be fully established with a one -inch height of cut before removal of erosion ban As the turf matures, potential runoff problems will diminish. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -1 • 1 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course During future construction projects at Gray's Crossing Golf Course, installation of erosion barriers described above should be standard practice. Studies at the Pennsylvania State University and the University of Maryland have shown that for • significant runoff to occur on turf areas with slopes up to 14 %, rainfall or simulated rainfall had to exceed 3 inches/hour. Grassed areas are extremely effective in reducing soil losses compared to other cropping systems with measured soil losses of only 0.03 tons /acre on grassed areas with ' a slope of 16% on a silt loam soil. Additionally, any runoff from turf areas will be d into a buffer area, vegetated sale, or other BMP for filtration, therefore there should be no negative impact on water quality in the wetlands areas. • 7.1.2 Grow -In Controls put in place during golf course clearing should remain in place after turf buffer strips are established and until all cleared areas have adequate turf cover to prevent erosion. Turf buffer strips are an integral part of maintenance of surface water quality (American Water Works Association, 1991; Eaker, 1994). Care will have to be taken during the grow -in phase with irrigation management to'prevent runoff and sediment movement into wetlands areas and allow the buffer areas to adequately filter any possible surface nutrient/sediment movement. 7.2 GOLF COURSE AND POST CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS • • The main concerns with surface water, groundwater and golf courses are that transport of sediments, nutrients and pesticides from more intensively maintained turf areas will impact water quality. The proposed Gray's Crossing Golf Course design with the BMPs and management zones makes it difficult for runoff contaminants to adversely affect surface water quality or II associated wildlife because all runoff from impervious surfaces will be filtered through areas which have 'a vegetative cover. Additionally, established management zones prohibit or limit the use of pesticides and fertilizers adjacent to sensitive ecological resources. Thus providing protection to these resources. 1 • Audubon Inteinational Institute Page 7 -2 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 f • 7.3 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER The factors that protect surface water also form the basis for protection of subsurface waters. Design factors will ensure that there is adequate on -site retention. Subsurface drainage is 1 • directed into buffer areas for filtration purposes. This is most critical with putting green.drainage .lines which may contain trace amounts of nutrients and pesticides. 1 Careful management of nitrate, as described in the Agronomic Considerations (Section 5.1) of this document, will be required. Management along with effective implementation of Best • Management Practices can effectively eliminate problems associated with nutrient loss during runoff or leaching. Careful management of materials (as indicated in this management document) will also reduce the losses of pesticides and nutrients to groundwater. 7.4 LAKES AND WATERCOURSE MANAGEMENT An active management program for lakes and watercourses will be in place at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. This management program will be incorporated into the overall maintenance 1- program for the golf course to ensure that course maintenance activities focus not only on maintaining golf turf quality and course playability but also on maintaining the health and 1 functional characteristics of the existing watercourses and lakes, plantings, and the associated buffer filter strips. Critical elements of the management plan include periodic monitoring, maintenance of proposed vegetative conditions, restoration or repair of damaged areas, and record keeping. 1 7.4.1 Inspections • All lakes and watercourse areas on the site which are located adjacent to the course facilities will be inspected twice annually: one in the spring and once in the autumn. .Inspections will focus on examining the condition of vegetation, the color and clarity of surface waters, and the condition of ground cover. In conjunction with the inspections, the condition of vegetated buffer • strips will be inspected for the presence of debris, the integrity of vegetative cover, and the existence of channels or other indicators of concentrated stormwater flow. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -3 1 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 7.4.2 Maintenance of Vegetative Conditions 1 Vegetative conditions, established during construction are to be maintained in the future. These conditions include.the littoral shelves around the lakes and ponds and the herbaceous • composition of the buffer filter strips. Cut material will be hand removed from these areas. No machinery will be used at any time within the lakes and watercourses on the site. The herbaceous cover of the buffer filter strips will be maintained by mowing at a frequency of twice 1 . per year. 7.4.3 .Restoration and Repair of Damaged Areas • ' Observed damage to existing lake and watercourse topography and ground cover conditions will be remedied immediately. Such damage may include, such things as siltation, erosion, and . compaction or trampling by golfers. Accumulated silts will be removed, eroded channels will be filled, and compacted areas will be raked. All such repairs will be conducted using hand tools only unless a mechanical tool `arm' can reach into the wetland to perform a task. Damaged ground cover vegetation will be restored by seeding or planting depending on the vegetation damaged. Channels which form within the buffer filter strips•will be filled and immediately reseeded. If additional grading is necessary to prevent the reformation of the channel, such grade adjustments will be implemented•to restore sheet flows. Additional level spreaders will be ' installed as necessary. Trash, golf balls, and other debris will be removed from these areas when observed. • 7.4.4 Record Keeping • An annual record of all lake and watercourse and filter strip inspections and remedial actions will • be maintained as part of the maintenance records for. the golf course. These records will include 1 the dates of inspection; inspection findings for each filter strip location, a description of each • remedial action taken, and.the dates of such actions. • • • 1 Audubon International Institute • • Page 7 -4 1 11 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • - 1 7.5 LAKE AND POND WEED MANAGEMENT • • B Aquatic sites are dynamic and responsive and as the availability and nature of the resources change, so will the species diversity and/or amounts of aquatic vegetation. However, at some • point a healthy aquatic plant population may actually become an aquatic weed situation detrimental to the lake or pond's ecosystem balance. The physical environment of lakes coupled with water quality will determine the response of the aquatic ecosystem and influence whether or not aquatic plants will become weed problems. The primary involved at Gray's Crossing Golf Course are the following: 1 1. Light - the quality and amount of light is an most important physical requirement for all aquatic plants. Water clarity will be an important, influencing factor for growth of algae and submerged vegetation; 2. Nutrients -- while aquatic plants have the same nutrient requirements as land plants, • • many species can absorb nutrients directly from the water. This means lakes can be 1 used as aquatic filters in certain instances. Freshwater lakes and ponds are particularly sensitive to phosphorus, as indicated above; 1 3. Gases - both oxygen and carbon dioxide are vital to aquatic plants. Daily fluctuations 1 may occur in water oxygen levels in response to photosynthesis. Dissolved oxygen levels at night can be low enough to cause fish kills and extremely low oxygen levels can occur in lakes with extraordinarily dense aquatic vegetation. Low oxygen levels may also occur with decomposition of dead plants by bacteria and fungi, especially after treatment with a herbicide; and 4. Temperature - water serves as an excellent buffer against rapid temperature changes and plants growing under water are insulated from the shocks of extreme temperature changes. Aquatic plants are of four main types including algae, floating weeds, emergent weeds, and 6 submergent weeds. Each has distinct growth characteristics resulting in varying control Audubon International Institute Page 7 -5 1 • 1�. Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course techniques. However; additional factors besides growth habit must be considered in control I practices. Besides proper identification of the weed species, the relative abundance, location with the lake, and age of infestation are important, since these may determine the . extent of the 1 problem and how and when to proceed with control measure. Use of the site and fate of the water will determine : the appropriate control. Time of year will determine how effective different treatment approaches will be. There are a number of distinct strategies for aquatic weed control. 1 These are summarized in Table 7 -1. Prevention Eliminate nutrient loading. Install aerators to increase water movement I and oxygen. Physical Removal Hand harvest aquatic vegetation by raking, pulling. rolling, cutting, or 1 digging. Mechanical Use specialized mechanical equipment to cut and harvest aquatic weeds. Removal le Environmental Controls Bottom Barriers Made of plastic, rubber, or fiberglass, these can be used to inhibit or I prevent rooted growth in selected areas. Shading Use of black plastic, soluble dyes, or artificial structures will inhibit or 1 shade out aquatic plant growth. Trees can be used to permanently shade certain areas. Drawdown Periodic lowering of water levels will expose bottom sediments; can 1 control some weeds by desiccating or freezing. Dredging Remove existing rooted plants and nutrient rich sediments to reduce 1 nutrient accumulations and create greater water depth to control aquatic growth. Biological Controls 1 Insects Adults and/or larvae of certain moths and weevils have been introduced to selectively eat plant populations. This method has worked for water 1 hyacinth and alligator weed. Plana Diseases Introduction of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other micfo- organisms is a new approach that is working on many courses. 1 I Audubon International Institute Page 7 -6 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course r t lik h� tr sU54� R'nt �1ttCe�I t .a ?v c a ,c4�R` x � a Chemical Controls Chemical Controls . The use of chemicals is the most common and versatile management strategy for controlling nuisance aquatic plant populations. However, chemical management often treats the symptom and not causes of weed 1 and algae populations. Chemical controls will be used in conjunction with strategies to control the problem. Chemical control of aquatic weeds can be considered for certain weed species under specific 1 conditions. Chemical treatment is a last resort, and will not be used until all other management options have been attempted. Information on the effectiveness of herbicides for aquatic weed 1 control is included in Table 7 -2. While each of the materials listed is legally labeled as an aquatic herbicide, specific restrictions may be imposed on each chemical or even by manufacturers on specific brand names. At all times, the label must be rigidly followed when using these materials. Additionally, even under specifically allowed and controlled conditions for application, restrictions on use of the water subsequent to application may apply. Examples of these restrictions are given in Table 7 -3. Additional or more specific information may be 1 given on the product label. . These materials have been shown not to accumulate in living organism nor concentrate in the 1 food chain (SJRWMD 1989). Dissipation of these materials from photochemical reaction, microbial breakdown, and dilution is rapid. 1 The application rate of each of the herbicides used for aquatic weed control will vary depending 1 on the amount of active ingredient required to effectively control the targeted weeds and the - -- formulation. Lake volume is also another consideration. With each herbicide information is available about use precautions and toxicological properties. Of primary concern is the effect of these materials on nontarget plants which may have been intentionally planted as wildlife habitat and the effect on nontarget wildlife. Effects on nontarget plants must be evaluated by a specialist in lake management who can accurately identify the vegetation and mechanism of action of the specific herbicide in question. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 - 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course g , E r , ,� ytP t 'r� i't , �,r- " r A i ® Y i I Bjc A ; .�' b , f. fd , b B i Q i A ' ar4E t i f RP ■ , ;16 advoir;Wv FLOATING PLANTS Duckweed * E * 1 Watermeal G * Alligatorweed * F G I SUBMERGED PLANTS Bladderwort * G * Brazilian elodea F G * 1 Coontail * E * IIydrilla F E * 1 Parrotsfeather * F * Pondweed, * F * Slender naiad * E * 1 Southern naiad * G * Spikerush * G * I Variable leaf milfoil * G s i EMERGED PLANTS American lotus * G G I , Cattail * F E Fragrant waterlily * G E Rush * * G 1 Spadderdock * G E Waterpennywort * * E 1 FILAMENTOUS ALGAE G * * Effectiveness of control is as follows: * = Not recommended; F = Fair; G = Good; E = Excellent 1 1 Each material listed in Table 7 -2 is discussed below for effects on wildlife which inhabits or contact the aquatic environment. Data has been taken from a variety of sources. Values are either for LD - the dose (quantity) of a substance that will be lethal to 50% of the organisms in a 1 specific test situation expressed in weight of the chemical (mg) per unit of body weight (kg); or for LC - the concentration of a substance in water that will be lethal to 50% of the organisms in l e a specific test situation. • Audubon International Institute Page 7 -8 1- 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 Fluridone. At recommended application rates concentrations in the water would range from 0.08 to 0.5 ppm. This material has been shown to be non - hazardous to birds 1 (bobwhite oral LD >2000 mg/kg; bobwhite and mallard duck acute LC50 values are both >5000 mg/kg of diet). have excellent tolerance at these concentration with an LC of 11.7 ppm for rainbow trout, 14.3 ppm for bluegill, and 10 ppm for channel catfish. Aquatic invertebrates also exhibit tolerances above these levels with values for daphnids at 6.3 ppm and midges at 1.3 ppm. No observed effect concentrations (NOEC) are 0.5 ppm for catfish and 0.48 ppm for fathead minnows. Communities of phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrate organisms, and fish are unaffected at sites treated with these formulations. • 1 Glyphosate. At t .�e u.1;11-19-:P411)! B i t I • a 1 recommended p z : "on e �oT • s 4 e, � i � application rates the ; a: concentrations in the - orr +i 0„! nam rag t tlony ns p � r i u _ , lake water would range Copper NR' NR NR from 0.36 to 1.8 ppm. compounds This material has been Fluridone" 7 -30 NR NR shown to be extremely Glyphosate NR NR NR safe to wildlife. The * NR = No restrictions; LD50 for bobwhite * * See label for specific information . quail is > 3850 mg/kg. 1 The tolerance levels as LC for aquatic species are as follows: trout, 86 ppm; bluegill, 120 ppm; Daphnia magna, 780 ppm; harlequin fish, 168 ppm. Copper sulfate. Calculated concentrations of copper in the water range from 0.155 to 0.4 ppm depending on the formulation. Environmental guidelines list the hazard to fish 1 at > 1 ppm for rainbow trout and 0.884 ppm for bluegills and > 1000 ppm for pheasant. Project plans include lakes, streams and new small ponds to be created. Proliferation of even favorable species can occur in relatively short time periods. The complexity of each aquatic site requires that the design (depth, water circulation, littoral shelves, etc), management, and controls must be determined specifically for each pond. Maintenance of proper conditions which will • 1 favor desired species will potentially preempt many aquatic weed problems. Likewise, . 1 Audubon International Institute • Page 7 -9 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course recognizing potential weed problems early is a critical part of an IPM program for lake 1 management. • • 7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM The Environmental Monitoring Program at Gray's Crossing Golf Course will include monitoring of surface water, wetland sediments, and ground water. The monitoring plan, based on sound, 1 scientific principles: will: 1. Establish a baseline of water and sediment quality prior to construction, ' 2. Provide data that will establish environmental conditions, thus providing a basis for measuring compliance with environmental regulations, and 3. Ensure that Integrated Pest Management is functioning properly. ' An adaptation from a model proposed by Madhun and Freed (1990) notes that there are four basic types of monitoring which can occur: 1). Reconnaissance - periodic observation to disclose changes or trends. With IPM employed this is an integral part of this program; 2) Surveillance - r - -= to comply with an enforcement program. Pesticide application licensing programs require • • record - keeping which may be monitored at any time. This will be required by law and serves as a record of a part of the cultural program; 3) Subjective - spot- checking for broad or open -ended exploration of problems. A superintendent with training and experience in the golf course management industry has the background and resources to investigate problems and make intelligent decisions; and 4) Objective - to provide data for use in developing or confirming the 1 results of on -going programs. Monitoring operations at Gray's Crossing Golf Course should focus on maintaining environmental quality and obtaining information on which to make adjustments in cultural programs using all of these approaches. 1 Results of the Environmental Monitoring Program provide feedback to the golf course superintendent, and thus provide a useful management tool. For example, the results of the program are used in determining the correct application rates and timing of pesticides and fertilizers, and the optimum operation of irrigation programs. Table 7 -4 is a summary of the - monitoring program. • Q Audubon International Institute Page 7 -10 a 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 ) " Oa i 6 a N aS U 4 a ' e to ` t 1 anateR Air � . � itt PIM. e a p • n c . , WfI Phase I SW -1,2,3 Spring, Summer, Field and Lab as Pesticides analyzed one (pre- Autumn; non -rain period given in Table 7 -5 time only ' construction, GW -1,2, 3 Spring, Summer, Field and Lab as Pesticides analyzed one construction) Autumn; non -rain period given in Table 7 -5 time only S -I annually (Spring), non- Field and Lab as Pesticides analyzed one 1 rain .eriod Liven in Table 7 -5 time onl Phase H SW -1,2,3 Spring, Summer, Field and Lab as analyze only pesticides ' (operations) Autumn; non -rain period given in Table 7 -5 that are used GW -1,2, 3 Spring, Summer, Field and Lab as analyze only pesticides • Autumn; non -rain period given in Table 7 -5 that are used 1 S -1 annually, non -rain period Field and Lab as analyze only pesticides given in Table 7 -5 that are used ' • The Environmental Monitoring Program is established in phases that coincide with golf course I development. Phase I defines the construction and development phase and immediate post- development time -frame, and Phase II is the post - development, operational golf course. Even 1 though construction will be occurring, Phase II will begin with golf course grow -in of turf because that is when fertilizers will begin being used at the golf course. 1 7.6.1 Phase I: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Sediment Quality during Construction 1 and Immediate Post - Construction Period The goal of Phase I is to assess construction and immediate post - construction activities on 1 _. surface water, groundwater and sediment quality. Pesticides and fertilizers are not applied to the course during this Phase of monitoring. • 7.6.1.1. Sample Locations. 1 Surface Water. Surface water will be sampled at the locations described below and shown on Figure 7-1 (SW means surface water): 1 • Sample Station SW -1. Intermittent steam upstream of golf hole No. 5. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -11 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ( ' • Sample Station SW -2.- Intermittent steam downstream of golf hole No 7 and 8. 1 • Sample Station SW -3. Intermittent steam downstream of golf hole No. 17. • Sample Station SW -4. Lake between golf hole number 13 and 14, nearest the green at, No. 13.' 1 Obtaining water samples from the same location is important so that comparisons can be made. Sample stations will be located and identified on maps, and photographed so that n stations are easily located during subsequent sampling efforts. U Groundwater. Groundwater will be sampled at the locations that are described below and . shown on Figure 7 -1 (GW means groundwater): • Sample Station GW -1. Intermittent steam upstream of golf hole No. 5; near SW-1. 1 • Sample Station GW -2. Intermittent steam downstream of golf hole No. 7 and 8; near SW -2: • 'Sample Station GW -3. Near the green at golf hole 3 and near S -1. Groundwater sample stations will be field marked, identified on maps, and photographed. Sediment. Sediment will be sampled at the locations that are described below and shown 1 on Figure 7 -1 (S means sediment): • Sample Station S -1. Sediment from the wetland near the green at golf hole 3. Near GW -3. 1 Sample locations will be photographed and marked on maps. 1 7.6.1.2. Sample Frequency. 1 Surface Water: Surface water samples will be collected three times per year. One sample event will be in Spring (March, April, May), one in Summer (June, July, August), and 1 one in Autumn (September, October, November) during/immediately after a rain event. The sampling should coincide with the intermittent streams having water. Should water not be available on a given sample date, two additional attempts will be made to obtain a 1 sample within the time period. If early snows shut down operations for the year, the monitoring program will be terminated for the year. Pesticides will be analyzed once 1. during a sample event in this phase of the monitoring program. Audubon Intemational Institute Page 7 -12 1 1 • ( 1 .. Y t l l }; V f i1 ) } 3" 1 A t t Y 1 re ow* * air # ' 2 yi viral. A r 416/4 _ • 4 .k. _______ /' 'w 1 r r. £j'' "MV YY -3 _ adromu:vi.....L__ ii, if, , / ...--; A -Les",94473 - • GW 1 I „. ' a ' ri t SW '1 F fr � � • � f ' /t vf r C�a' r +, II (�:- Lo 4 4; 4 ..tp. s 4' -� -- 1 <- w - 1 "_ ,' . Alternate Locations for • ' t��j1 °, �. Q �p n „ � leerc � x Northern Connections >\\ �/l � / \ ♦♦♦♦°'�.� � / (g) Critter Untlerpass �` Nh itti . - \7� V \\ � dl -.-+ Passible Corridors / ^ _ `\. 0 : \�, 0 •/ c Legend � 8 i��� / 7 i 250 Acre Preserve (OR Site) 1 �(O 1 *ZS / - Alder Creek /Prosser Hill Preserve C.p ; r 0 \ � �� SW -4 MN Gott 8 Wash Preserve V • • � ) . , II / /ii k .' I Northern Ponderosa Pine Preserve Figure 7 -1. Map of Gray's Crossing Golf Course Showing Sampling Locations for Surface Water (SW), Ground Water (GW), and Sediment (S). Map Scale: 1:11,214 I Projection: State Plane 1983 N Zone: California Zone II • Datum: NAD 1983 0.031975 0.15 0.225 0.3 • A r1UDrnoNC 1 Units: US Survey Feet Miles inrcanenanai Q Page 7 - 13 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ( . Groundwater: Groundwater samples will be collected three times per year, once in 1 Spring, once in Summer, and once in Autunm. Pesticides will be analyzed once during a sample event in this phase of the monitoring program. Sediment. Sediment will be sampled once during this period. Pesticides will be 1 analyzed once in this phase of the monitoring program at S -1. I This phase of the monitoring program will be terminated when turf grow -in begins. I 7.6.1.3. Sample Variables. Surface water, groundwater and sediments will be analyzed for the variables listed in Table 7 -5. Pesticides are included in the monitoring program if their "risk I ratio" exceeds 0.1. The "risk ratio" is the quotient of the maximum anticipated concentration of the pesticide divided by its effects criteria (see Section 5.4 for a description of the maximum anticipated concentration and effects criteria). A risk ratio of a given pesticide which is greater 1 than 1.0 indicates that the maximum anticipated concentration exceeds the effects criteria; meaning that the use of that pesticide at Gray's Crossing Golf Course represents more than a t negligible risk. A risk ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the use of that pesticide at Gray's. Crossing Golf Course represents only negligible risk. By including as analytes all pesticides' I whose risk ratio is greater than one -tenth the point at which risk is presumed to be more than negligible, the monitoring program design ensures that all potentially risky pesticides are 1 monitored for. ¢ 1 11 .t.faStfr. +a ¢� ryp { 1 B f L , t v 1 1 i j e 1 =t A Y " • a ek E o :„ItivalicittengilvatIntstbittei I . t j, 1 11 0 H ' ill .t II, [.. 1 Ip I Field Analyses 1 pA X X X X Water X X X X Temperature Specific f Conductance X X X X 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -14 1 1 Natural Resource Management g$ Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course . 1 1 �4 1* i a m its ac cr : o •t r ns mel� r - 1 , ^. i ._ fit 3 s ' ° i t *nu it of Q i war. i of a :f . rairm 4:44 Ir..4p t4i,faiwc.frer) =IN !..e114.14:tv.„„.219..ti,pg...t54.w:.. , J.4.e.---siv ainmagre m " s rtierati,,,,afte Sit a � � is rrfa � 0. Dissolved X X Oxygen Laboratory Analyses 1 Nitrate- Nitrite X X X X , Nitrogen 1 Total X X X X X X Phosphorus Chloride X X X X ., • 1 Total Dissolved X X X X . Solids 1 Turbidity. X X X X _. Pesticides' bentazon X X X clopyralid X X dithiopyr X X 1 fenarimol X X hal X X X , PCNB X X X oryzalin X X . 1 pendimethalin X X " 'Pesticides will be analyzed for once during a rain event in Phase I of the monitoring progra 1 'Pesticides will be included in the monitoring program for a specific sample event only if they have been used at • the golf course within'one year prior t the ,sampling event. - 1 7.6.1.4. Field Methods. Variables, container type, preservation and holding times for water 1 samples are given in Table 7 =6, and for sediment samples in Table 7 -7. Surface Water. A number of variables will be measured on -site, including pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance. pH will be measured with a pH 1 Audubon International Institute • Page 7 -15 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course probe that has been calibrated just prior to use. Specific conductance will be measured 1 with a calibrated specific conductance meter. Dissolved oxygen will be measured with a dissolved oxygen probe adjusted for altitude. Water temperature will be measured with a temperature probe attached to the specific conductance meter or to the dissolved oxygen meter. • • • Lake water will be sampled by obtaining `discrete' grab samples of water. Discrete I samples will be taken from approximately 6 inches below the surface. Water is transferred to sample containers that include proper preservatives and labels. The sample • containers•are immediately placed in a cooler with ice and are taken to a laboratory for analysis. 1 A chain -of- custody program is followed to assure that proper transportation and storage practices are documented and that the appropriate analyses are being conducted. 1 • A field sampling log of surface water sampling and observations will be maintained. The • log book documents site conditions, including stream water depth, observations, weather conditions, and field measurements. An example of a page from a field log is given in 1 Appendix H. ' Groundwater. Groundwater elevation is determined for each well on each sampling date. After measuring water elevation, the standing water in the well is removed, and replaced 1 by fresh formation water. The quantity of water removed is determined from the well • volume and recharge rate. In general, high -yield wells are purged of three well casing • volumes of water and low -yield wells are pumped to dryness. Each well is purged using a 1 portable pump that is cleaned between well samplings. Water is suitable for. sampling when three consecutive measures of water have stable pH, temperature and specific 1 conductance readings. ' Wells are allowed to recharge after purging to allow the system to equilibrate. Depth to • the water table is remeasured, recorded and water samples are extracted. Extraction occurs with a pump, or a dedicated Teflon® bailer. Water temperature, pH, and specific conductance are measured in water that will not be used for laboratory analyses. Water samples are taken and decanted or drained into an appropriate sample container that has • • Audubon International Institute Page 7 -16 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 the proper preservatives and is labeled. Samples are transferred from the sample device to the sample container in a manner that will minimize turbulence and the Loss of volatile 1 compounds. Samples are immediately placed in a cooler with ice and transported to the analytical laboratory. Whenever non - dedicated equipment is used, cleaning procedures , outlined by the USEPA (1986) will be instituted. .Special attention will be given to thoroughly cleaning samplers, tubing, and other equipment. And, to ensure that the sample is not contaminated, blanks will be collected and analyzed. A chain -of- custody program is followed to assure that proper transportation and storage 1 practices are documented and that the appropriate analyses are being conducted. ' A field sampling log on groundwater sampling and observations will be maintained. The log book documents site conditions, including water depth, observations, weather 1 "conditions, and field measurements. An example of a page from a field log is given in Appendix II. 1 1 1 .. 1 t 11 e , e r - eserva n n 1 d i m 1. n , £@ c e a 1 �o t � a a b ra +" r os rfi Can ` 3,511-1 s,.y .da »y m. u fr � a �- ss,.m,+.. -r x94_ p� �r ��" v4 � - 5. t v . , �aln� _� II t . x1 - era, P on t;,.. ,„Tun , e th<g lv lrJ ete c1y n 4 i n tl ll; ati :. pH not not applicable not EPA 150.1 , applicable applicable Water not not applicable not EPA 170.1 Temperature . applicable applicable ' Dissolved Oxygen not not applicable not EPA 360.1 applicable applicable ' Specific . not not applicable not EPA 120.1, Conductance applicable applicable Nitrate- Nitrite -N P,G Cool, 4 °C 48 h EPA 353.1, 353.2 1 Total Phosphorus P.G Cool, 4° C, 28 d EPA 365.4 H to pH <2 Chloride P,G Cool, 4 °C 28 d EPA 325.3 Total Dissolved P,G Cool, 4 °C 7 d EPA 160.1 Solids 1 Turbidity P,G Cool, 4 °C 48 h EPA 180.1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -17 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 0 1 . W B 1 If i ` 1 t i i i . i i ' i gr.-44 a :„ w Pesticides I bentazon G Cool, 4 °C 7 d Target detection limit = l0 pie c lopyralid G Cool, 4 °C 7 d Target detection limit = 103.5 µg/Q I dithiopyr G Cool, 4 °C 7 d Target detection limit = 12.5 µg/Q fenarimol G Cool, 4 °C 7 d Target detection limit = 90 µg/i2 halofenozide G Cool, 4 °C 7 d . Target detection limit =.11 µg,4 PCNB G Cool, 4 °C . 7 d Target detection limit = 10.5 µg/Q oryzalin G Cool, 4°C 7 d Target detection limit = 200 µg/Q 1 pendimethalin G Cool, 4 °C 7 d Target detection limit = 13.8 µg/Q From: USEPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA- 600/4 -79 -020, updated 1983. I USEPA, Analytical Support Branch, Operations and Quality Control Manual, June 1985. USEPA, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW -846, 1986, updated in 1987. USGS. Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis. s r IN- 40 CFR Part 136 Table II: Required Containers, Preservation Techniques and Holding Times (Water/Wastewater Samples), 1988. note that container types are `G' for glass and 'P' for plastic. 1 Sediment. Sediment will be collected with a gravity type sediment coring device or by hand. Three cores or grab samples will betaken and composited to yield one sample on 1 which analyses will be performed. The approximate top 10 -cm of the sediment will retained and analyzed for the variables listed in Table 7 -5. 1 A chain-of-custody program is followed to assure that proper transportation and storage 1 practices are documented and that the appropriate analyses are being conducted. I A field sampling log on sediment sampling and observations will be maintained. The log book documents site conditions, including water depth, sediment texture, observations, and weather conditions. An example of a page from a field log is given in Appendix II. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -18 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course e ta , r • e a Ion =an ° o fl ° ° • ° „ •illP e . 1 'WC e - ° ! � ,... ° :. ° t @ ° e II' . u ,. bentazon • - Glass Jar . Cool, 4 ° C 14 d _ 1 halofenozide Glass Jar Cool, 4 °C 14 d PCNB Glass Jar Cool, 4 °C 14 d total phosphorus P,G Cool, 4 °C 14 d From: USEPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA - 600/4 -79 -020, updated 1983. USEPA, Analytical Support Branch, Operations and Quality Control Manual, June 1985. USEPA, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW -846, 1986, updated in 1987. USGS. Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis. 40 CFR Part 136 Table It Required Containers, Preservation Techniques and Holding Times (Water/Wastewater Samples), 1988. 1 7.6.1.5. Laboratory Methods. The Laboratory used for sample analysis must retain certification r by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or its designated State Agency to conduct chemical analyses on surface water and drinking water. Certification of the laboratory is maintained by successful performance of the EPA Water Pollution Study and EPA Water Supply Study. Sample analyses will follow accepted, standard methods as defined in the laboratories accreditation and detailed in their Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures. Sample containers, properly cleaned and containing the proper preservative, . will be supplied by the analytical laboratory. . In cases where standard methods are not available, the Laboratory will execute method 1 development and follow closely related standard practices, and demonstrate accuracy and precision of the method with at least a 5 -point standard curve, sample spikes, and duplicate 1 • analyses. 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -19 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course X . 7.6.2 Phase II: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Sediment Quality during Golf Course 1 Operations The goal of Phase II is to monitor surface water, groundwater and sediment quality during the operation of Gray's Crossing Golf Course. 7.6.2.1. Sample Locations. • Surface Water. Surface water will be sampled at locations described in Phase I monitoring program. Locations on the property are given in Figure 7 -1. Groundwater. Groundwater will be sampled at the locations that are identified in the Phase I monitoring program. Locations of groundwater wells are shown on Figure 7 -1. ' Sediment. Sediment will be sampled from one location described in Phase I. Sample location is shown on Figure 7 -1 and is the same as in Phase I. 7.6.2.2. Sample Frequency. Surface Water. Surface water samples will be collected three times per year. One surface sample will be taken in the Spring, one in the Summer, and one in the Autumn during/immediately after rain events. The sampling event should coincide with the intermittent streams having water. Should water not be available on a given sample date, two additional attempts will be made to obtain a sample within the time period (Spring, 1 Summer, Autumn). Groundwater. Groundwater samples will be collected three times per year during Spring, Summer and Autumn. 1 • Sediment. A sediment sample will be collected one time per year at the time of surface water sampling in the Spring. • Sample Frequency in Future Years. Sampling will be reduced to Spring and Autumn events after three years of operation, provided that no detections or changes in water quality triggering a management response (see Section 7.6.5) have occurred. Audubon International Institute - Page 7 -20 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 7.6.2.3. Sample Variables. Surface water, groundwater and sediments will be analyzed for the , variables listed in Table 7 -5. 1 7.6.2.4. Field Methods. Variables, container type, preservation and holding times for water • samples are given in Table 7 -6, and for sediment samples in Table 7 -7. Surface Water. Surface water sampling will follow the protocols outlined in Phase I. Groundwater. Groundwater sampling will follow the protocols outlined in Phase I. 1 Sediment. Sediment will be sampled following the protocols outlined in Phase I. 1 7.6.2.5. Laboratory Methods. Laboratories used for sample analysis will follow the protocols outlined in Phase I. 1 7.6.3 Data Storage 1 Data generated from this monitoring program will be maintained by the superintendent along 1 with other course records and data on pesticide and fertilizer use, personnel, and training. This information will be provided annually to the Signature Program Office of Audubon International. 1 Monitoring data from field sampling and from laboratory analyses will be entered into a computer spreadsheet (e.g., EXCEL, QuattroPro). Data analyses will be performed with this data set. The data set will be printed after each update and the printed data will be stored in a notebook. A backup of the computer spreadsheet data will be maintained. Field data sheets will be maintained in a notebook. A summary of the results of the surface, groundwater and sediment samples, with a list of any remedial actions that were taken will be kept. The golf course superintendent will maintain records of cultural activities at the course. Items 1 will include application schedules of all pesticides and fertilizers applied to the golf course as outlined in the Pesticide section of this Plan. Information will include the date of application, 1 rate of application, product used, and specific location where the material was applied. Scouting records as part of the IPM program will also be kept. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -21 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ' 7.6.4 Data Analysis 1 Data generated in the monitoring program will be compared to background concentrations and 1 State surface water and groundwater standards. Pesticide analysis data will be compared with toxicological triggers as specified in Table 7 -8. In Phase lI, concentrations of water and sediment variables will be compared with background • 1 concentrations to determine changes from background conditions. Data will also be compared with State water quality criteria and the USEPA pesticide Health Advisories Limits (HAL's, given in Appendix I, Table I -1) that have been reduced by a factor of I 0.5. This is a very conservative factor given that HALs have a margin of safety of 100 to 1000 already built into the HAL number. , Protection of aquatic life will be evaluated by comparing measured concentrations against LCso data (Appendix I, Table I -1) that have been reduced by a factor of 10. LC so data exist for most of the chemicals, and the lowest LC obtained for the pesticide was divided by a correction factor of 10 to obtain a screening criteria (Suter et al., 1989; Warren -Hicks et al., 1989, 1995). This is a conservative factor that serves as an estimate for chronic values. 7.6.5 Criteria for Management Response • 1 Criteria for management response are summarized in Table 7 -8. ' 7.6.5.1. Non - Pesticide Analyzes. If concentrations of non - pesticide variables exceed Applicable State Water Quality Criteria, or if measured concentrations of nutrients exceed the standard 1 deviation of background levels by more than two - times, then the media will be resampled and a review of management practices, site conditions and weather conditions will be implemented to I determine reasons for increased concentrations. The immediate action will also include a reduction in fertilizer use and/or an increased proportion of slow - release fertilizers. Following 1 the review cited above, these immediate restrictions may be lifted or modified, as appropriate. Records of all actions taken will be maintained by the superintendent. • • Audubon International Institute • Page 7 -22 1 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ' 7.6.5.2. Pesticide Concentration below a Toxicologically Significant Level. If a pesticide listed in Table 7 -5 is detected in samples at concentrations below a toxicologically significant level 1 [i.e., one -half the USEPA Health Advisory Limits (HAL x 0.5) or one -tenth the LC for the most sensitive aquatic organism (LC x 0.1), whichever is lower] the following responses will be implemented: • 1. The sample station from which the detection was obtained will be resampled immediately upon receipt of the data from the laboratory and reanalyzed for the pesticide. 2.. If the results of the resampling indicate a detection of the pesticide, a review of the application, weather conditions after its application, and possible alternative control measures will be conducted and adjustments to the application protocol will be made based on the results of this review. Also, management responses 3 and 4 below will be implemented. If the results of the resampling indicate no detection of the pesticide, no further management response will be implemented. 3. The sample station from which the detection was obtained will be resampled and analyzed for all pesticides applied to the golf course within one year prior to the • sampling event. ' 4. All samples collected from the sampling station from which the detection was obtained, for a period of one year from the date of the detection, will be analyzed for all pesticides applied to the golf course within one year prior to the sampling event. 7.6.5.3. Pesticide Concentration above a Toxicologically Significant Level. If a pesticide listed in Table 7 -5 is detected in samples at concentration above a toxicologically significant level as determined by the USEPA Health Advisories Limits (HAL x 0.5) or by the aquatic toxicity as measured by LC x 0.1, whichever is lower, the following responses will result: 1 1. The pesticide immediately will be removed from the list of recommended pesticides and its use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course will be terminated. 2. The sample station from which the toxicologically significant detection was obtained 1 will be resampled twice (once immediately upon receipt of the data from the laboratory and once approximately ten days after receipt of the data) and reanalyzed for the detected pesticide. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -23 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 3. If the results of the resampling indicate a detection of the pesticide but at a 1 concentration below the toxicologically significant level, a review of the application, weather conditions after its application, and possible alternative control measures will I be conducted; use of the pesticide at the golf course may be reinstated, with adjustments in the application protocol being made based on the results of this I review; and management responses 4 and 5 below will be implemented. If the results of the resampling indicate no detection of the pesticide, use of the pesticide at the golf 1 course maybe reinstated and no further management response will be implemented. 4. The sample station from which the detection was obtained will be resampled and analyzed for all pesticides applied to the golf course within one year prior to the ' sampling event. 5. All samples collected from the sampling station from which the detection was 1 obtained, for a period of one year from the date of the detection, will be analyzed for all pesticides applied to the golf course within one year prior to the sampling event. I 6. If the results of the resampling indicate a detection of the pesticide at a concentration above the toxicologically significant level, use of the pesticide at Gray's Crossing Golf Course will be terminated permanently. Y P' ds r� cb s & N s' ,m u..iw� .x 3�.R a'� ; x i�`3'aa,w . n � $ � iQ . �'. 1 �� ,� � W a c ..u.1 , _ . . ... 0 rt r-4 1 ∎U pH Outside of 6.5 to 8.5 Outside of 6.5 to 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen above 4 mg/L NA' 1 Nitrate- Nitrogen California water standard or two 5 ppm or two standard deviations standard deviations above the above the baseline mean, ' baseline mean, whichever is lower. whichever is lower.- Total Phosphorus California water standard or two California standard or two standard deviations above the standard deviations above the baseline mean, whichever is lower. baseline mean, whichever is lower. 1 Chloride two standard deviations above the 250 ppm baseline mean Total Dissolved 500 ppm NA ' Solids ks Turbidity no increase from baseline NA 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -24 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 5 e e0i 't it o e e ra a ae sa o ,, ,, t X1 #0 a y< ' ` e t,� e fe .:., Pesticides bentazon HAL x 0.5 = 10 pg/Q HAL x 0.5 = 10 pg/Q clopyralid LC x 0.1 = .103.5 µg/Q LC x 0.1 = 103.5 gg/Q dithiopyr HAL x 0.5 = 12.5 pg/Q . HAL x 0.5 = 12.5 pg/Q fenarimol LC x, 0.i = 90 pg/Q LC x 0.1 = 90 pg/Q halofenozide LC x.0.1 = 11 pg/Q LC x 0.1 = 11,gg/Q I oryzalin HAL x 0.5 = 200 pg/Q HAL x 0.5 = 200 pg/Q PCNB HAL x 0.5 = 10.5 pg/Q HAL x 0.5 =10.5 pg/Q 1 pendimethalin LC x 0.1 = 13.8 pg/Q LC x 0.1 = 13.8 pg/Q ' NA means not applicable because the variables are not analyzed as per the Environmental Management Plan. " Levels are either the USEPA Health Advisories Limits (HAL x 0.5) or the aquatic toxicity (LC x ' OA), whichever is lower. The HAL. and LC concentrations are in Appendix I. 1 7.6.6 Field Quality Control and General Water and Sediment Sampling Considerations The field quality assurance program for Gray's Crossing Golf Course is a systematic process which, together with the laboratory quality assurance programs, ensures a specified degree of confidence in the data collected for an environmental survey. The field quality assurance program involves a series of steps, procedures and practices which are described below. 1 7.6.6.1. General Measures. 1 a. All equipment, apparatus and instruments should be kept clean and in good working condition. 1 b. Records should be kept of all repairs to the instruments and apparatus and of any irregular incidents or experiences which may affect the measures taken. • 1 c. It is essential that standardized and approved methodologies be used by field personnel. , 1 Audubon International Institute Page 7 -25 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 7.6.6.2. Prevention of Sample Contamination. The quality of data generated in a laboratory 1 depends primarily on the integrity of the samples that arrive at the laboratory, Consequently, the field personnel must take appropriate measures to protect samples from deterioration and 1 contamination. a. Field measurements should always be made on a separate sub- sample, which is then I discarded once the measurements have been made. They should never be made on the same water sample which is returned to the analytical laboratory for chemical 1 analysis. . b. Sample bottles, new or used, must be cleaned according to recommended procedures. • ' c. Only the recommended type of sample bottle for each parameter should be used. d. Water sample bottles should be employed for water samples only. 1 e. Recommended preservation methods must be used.. All preservatives must be of an analytical grade. ' f. Solvent -rinsed Teflon liners can be used to prevent contamination from the bottle caps of water samples which are to be analyzed for organic compounds. g. The inner portion of sample bottles and caps should not be touched with bare hands, 11:, , gloves, mitts, etc. h. Sample bottles must be kept in a clean environment, away from dust, dirt, fumes, and grime. Vehicle cleanliness is important. • i. All foreign and especially metal objects must be kept out of contact with acids and 1 water samples. Petroleum products and exhaust fumes should be kept away from samples. j. Specific conductance should never be measured in sample water that was first used for pli measurements. Potassium chloride diffusing from the pH probe alters the • 1 conductivity of the sample. k. Samples must never be permitted to stand in the sun; they should be stored in an ice I chest. 1. Samples must be shipped to the laboratory without delay. 1 m. The sample collector should keep their hands clean and refrain from smoking while working with water samples. 1 7.6.6.3. Field Quality Control. Quality control is an essential element of a field quality assurance program. In addition to standardized field procedures, field quality control requires the _. Audubon International Institute Page 7 -26 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 } submission of blank and duplicate samples to check contamination, sample containers, or any equipment that is used in sample collection or handling, and to detect other systematic and 1 random errors occurring from the time of sampling to the time of analysis. Replicate samples must also be collected to check the reproducibility of the sampling. The timing and the frequency of blank, duplicate, and replicate samples are listed in Table 7 -9. Sample Blanks. A daily "sample blank" is prepared in the field at the end of each day's sampling. One blank is prepared for every 12 water samples. A sample blank is prepared by filling appropriate sample bottles with ultrapure distilled water using field sampling equipment, adding preservative in the same manner as it was added to the water samples, capping the bottles tightly, and transporting them to the laboratory in the same manner as the water samples. 1 Duplicates. Duplicate samples (splits) are obtained by dividing one sample into two sub - samples. One sample in every 12 water samples is split. Splits are done periodically to obtain the magnitude of errors owing to contamination, random and systematic errors, and any other variabilities which are introduced from the time of sampling until the 1 samples arrive at the laboratory. Replicates. Two samples are taken simultaneously in a given location. The samples are taken to measure the cross - sectional variations in the concentration of the parameters of interest in the system. One sample per environmental medium per quarter will be replicated. e °F i r' m it . f {, ..$ . ✓ .. `ATS.. . ai. • .ISO Sample Blank 1 per 12 samples Duplicate 1 per 12 samples Replicate 1 per quarter per medium 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute " Page 7 -27 1 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Y ' 8.0. MAINTENANCE FACILITY The maintenance department is responsible for irrigation, mowing, fertilization, pesticide application and general upkeep of the golf course grounds. The maintenance area is where 1 pesticides are loaded into application equipment, mowers and other pieces of equipment are serviced, and pesticides, fuel, fertilizer, and cleaning solvents are stored. This is where there is I potential for pollution of soil, surface water, or ground water. Contamination can occur when pesticides are spilled, containers or equipment cleaned and the rinse water dumped on the ground or discharged into surface water, or improperly cleaned containers are stockpiled or buried. Proper management of the maintenance area is an important part of responsible chemical and pesticide use. Appendix V identifies Best Management Practices for the Natural Resource 1 Management Center. Management practices should be implemented at these maintenance areas that will prevent the _contamination of natural resources by the materials that are stored or handled at these sites. The general approach to management of golf course maintenance facilities involves three principles that are: • Isolate all potential contaminants from soil and water. ' • Do not discharge any material other than clean stormwater.onto the ground or into surface water bodies. • Minimize irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticide use requirements through use of Integrated Pest Management an d native or naturalized vegetation wherever 1 practicable. • The first principle involves identifying all the materials stored or handled in a golf course maintenance area along with current practices that could cause environmental contamination. The next step is to develop management practices which isolate those materials from soil and water during storage, handling, and disposal. Storing these materials in covered, lockable storage areas, handling them over impermeable surfaces, cleaning up spills.promptly and properly, . recycling these materials where possible, and otherwise properly managing wastes will keep these materials from contaminating soil or water. Audubon International Institute - Page 8-1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 The second principle is an extension of the first. It includes preventing contamination of stormwater and eliminating the discharge of materials such as equipment wash water to ground 1 or surface waters. Discharges to surface or ground water should be eliminated through the containment and collection of equipment wash waters and proper management of collected material. • • • The third principle, that of minimizing fertilizer, pesticide and irrigation use through use of native vegetation and Integrated Pest Management directly impacts the amount of material handled annually, reduces the annual maintenance budget and encourages good environmental stewardship. 1 8.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT GRAY'S CROSSING GOLF COURSE 1 The maintenance facility should incorporate the following to be as environmentally compatible 1 as possible. 1 8.1.1 Pesticide Storage and Mixing Pesticide storage and mixing are in a separate room or building designated for these materials only, and it is located away from water sources (wells, ponds, streams). The building should 1 have a concrete floor with a poured concrete lip extending upward into the concrete block walls. The center of the building should be the lowest, and the floor should be slope to the center. A 1 concrete sump should be located at the low point. This area is for mixing and should provide excellent containment for any inadvertent spills. The building is kept locked and posted as 1 required by law, including the courses "Hazard Communication Program" (See samples in Appendix III). Good ventilation should be provided by continuous circulation fans and chemicals should be kept away from direct contact with the concrete floor. Storage is on non- 1 • wooden shelving. Other features to include are switches for lights and the fuse box on the outside, explosion proof lights and fans, and a "lip" at the entrance that moves rainwater away from the interior of the facility. All pesticides will be stored in their original containers with visible labels. 1 1 Audubon International Institute • Page 8 -2 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ( To be prepared for spills and/or leaks, absorbent floor -sweep materials, sawdust or cat litter and activated charcoal will be kept on hand. An inventory of pesticides and other chemicals will be kept, and MSDS and labels for each pesticide used will be readily accessible. An emergency equipment box is located on the outside of the building. Typically this is a wooden box (perhaps 3 ft by 3 ft with a sloping roof) that stores items for emergency use. Such things as a fire extinguisher, respirator, first• aid supplies, goggles, respirators, gloves, rubber boots, and a coverall (perhaps a tyvek suit). These items are placed in the locked box on the outside of the building so they are available in case they are needed. 1 Water should be available for both routine and emergency chemical removal, including showers and eye wash facilities. 1 Mixing and loading will be done in the pesticide storage building near the center area where the sloping concrete should provide excellent containment for any inadvertent spills. A sump is I located at the base of the sloped area, thus facilitating clean -up of spills or overfill. A system of rinse water tanks will be used to store excess water from the filling or rinsing of sprayers. This is an effective way to deal with the rinse water. The rinse water is pumped into the holding tanks and reused as make -up water the next time that type of material is applied. Three different tanks ' are used, one for herbicides, one for insecticides and one for fungicides. The rinse water from herbicide applications is pumped to the herbicide tank, rinse water from insecticide applications 1 is pumped to the insecticide tank, and rinse water from fungicide applications is pumped to the fungicide tank. The tanks are located above the mixing/wash area on metal or non - absorbent shelves. • 1 Before mixing chemicals together, their compatibility will be checked as chemical • 1 , incompatibility could result in reduced effectiveness, increased toxicity to the applicator, or phytotoxicity to the turfgrass. The "quart jar method" should be used to determine compatibility. Spray adjuvants (such as wetting agents, emulsifiers, foaming agents and stickers) should be used in accordance with label recommendations. Care will be taken to mix only the amount of pesticide needed for the application. As soon as pesticides are loaded, all equipment and apparel used will be washed, rinsed and air dried. Water used in the cleaning process will be dumped into the spray tank. k 1 Audubon International Institute - Page 8 -3 1. • 1 Natural Respuice Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course After the pesticide is applied, the sprayer tank, boom and nozzles will be washed in the • designated area where the tank will be refilled with water; and this material (which will have an extremely low concentration of pesticide) will be stored in the holding tanks as described above. 1 8.1.1.1. General Considerations. ▪ The pesticide storage facility should have a complete alarm system, with battery 1 backup, for burglary and fire: • Locks and bolts used at the control center should be of the highest quality materials 1 available. • • Materials used inside the control center are comprised of high quality durable plastic, aluminum or concrete to avoid absorption of chemical residues or vapors. • Install an explosion proof fan and explosion proof light. • A ventilation design must be an integral part of the control center. • All pesticides stored on non = absorbent shelving are located at least'6" off the floor. • All pesticides are segregated by liquid, powder or granular class. • All powders and granules are stored above liquids. • All shelving must be sturdy and secured to avoid sagging and falling. • The entire floor of the control center should be sloped to the center of the room with a recessed sump located at its center. • A light and fan switch should be located outside of the door entering the control center. • A sink with potable water and spigot and hand blower (not paper towels) with the drainage funneled .back into the sump. • A mixing table should be attached to the sink at a slightly higher elevation to allow overspill to be washed into the sink. • A portable eye wash bottle will be located over the sink; • immediately outside an eye wash/shower station supplied by potable water should be installed. 1 • A refill hose should be located above the sump to allow proper and timely filling of spray tanks with water. 1 • Only qualified personnel will be allowed access to the control center. .1 i Audubon International Institute Page 8-4 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • (- 8.1.2 Wash Pad 1 • III Equipment wash areas have the potential to cause environmental problems; pai the runoff associated with wash water arid debris. Pesticides can be a serious concern to the . . environment, and by washing the pesticide spray equipment in the pesticide storage building 1 . Gray's Crossing Golf Course will avoid many of the concerns. 1 Washing equipment other than pesticide application equipment will take place at a specially constructed wash pad. The Wash pad is a concrete pad that is covered and sloped to a center I collection area. Grass clippings and sediments are collected in the central collection area. Water is then recycled or discharged to an area for appropriate treatment. 1 . 8.1.2.1. General Considerations. • I • All water used to wash equipment is to be recycled and contaminating materials such as grease, oil and gasoline will be filtered from this recycled water. . Only water recycle systems with a proven track record will be utilized. • Pesticide equipment will not be'washed off in this area (done at the IPM Control II Center). • • A roof should cover the wash -down area to keep rain off the pad and prevent excessive water from going into the recycling system. • 1 • The pad should be elevated along the outer edges to direct rain water away from the area, but the center area should be recessed from normat ground level to allow for 1 wash water to be collected for recycling and the roof should be high enough to allow • _ golf course equipment the proper amount of clearance, yet low enough to meet any . 1 aesthetic requirements (visibility to homeowners, etc.). • • Several air hoses attached to posts prior to the wash -down pad can be used to remove 1 excessive grass residue off equipment prior t� moving onto the wash -down pad which will reduce the amount of grass clippings /debris entering the water recycle system. 1 • The pad should have triple screen baskets, weighing Less than 40 pounds each, to prevent an excess of grass clippings and debris from entering the recycling system. ' • ' Grass clippings will be composted and recycled on the golf course. • Audubon International Institute Page 8 -5 1 :e Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Hoses with attachable spray bottles of liquid wax at the wash -down pad can be utilized so valuable equipment can receive a brief application of liquid wax (cut with water) after each use. • Concrete in the pad should be impermeable to prevent leaching of any contaminates. 1 • Installing lightning protection in this area is vital for worker and equipment protection. 8.13 Fuel Island • Cover the fuel island to minimize the effect of sunlight on the equipment as well as possible increased evaporation of fuel . and provide protection for employees. The roof should be high enough to allow golf course equipment the proper amount of clearance, yet low enough to meet any aesthetic requirements (visibility to homeowners, etc.). • Install adequate lighting around and beneath the roof to allow for operation during periods of darkness or inadequate light. • Install lightning protection on the fuel island roof. • If possible, all fuel storage and carrying mechanisms should be above ground devices. �- • Fuel should be stored in above ground, double vaulted tanks from a reputable manufacturer. • The pad should be elevated along the outer edges to direct rain water away from the area, but the center area should be recessed from normal ground level to allow for ' containment in the event of a fuel spill; the recession should be deep enough to contain a few hunched gallons of spillage but not so severe that it presents difficulty 1 for equipment entering and leaving the fuel island. • Concrete in the pad should be impermeable to prevent leaching of any contaminates. 1 • Prior to construction of the fuel island the Fire Marshall and other appropriate • authorities should review the specifications . ' • • 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 8 -6 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 9.0. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY PLANNING 9.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 In order to facilitate a decision - making process relative to waste management planning, developmental areas contained within the project site that will have waste issues connected with their design, development, and management are identified In addition, a Sustainable Development Decision - Making Process can be utilized that will lead to the most sustainable purchases being made over the life of the project. This section includes such a decision process. • Waste management is a key consideration in the Audubon Signature Program. The guiding philosophy for waste management consideration should be: Reduction, Reuse, Recycling. Reduction will not only benefit the environment, but the economic bottom -line as well. Audubon International promotes the concept of establishing water and wildlife as the "litmus paper" test for waste management planning -- water, because it is on the receiving end of every human activity, and wildlife because they are indicators of the overall health of the environment. 1 In addition, possible water and wildlife impacts should be considered both on and off the site, thus truly making the project a nationally significant sustainable development model. 1 The following twelve step decision - making process should be followed when making decisions • about the design, construction or product use at the property site. When going through the 12 -step process keep in mind the overall consideration for this process which is: 1. • Will the decision you are about to make relative to the siting, design, construction or ' product acquisition and use effect either water (quantity or quality) or wildlife (food, cover, water, space) on or off the project site. If the answer is yes, -and it has potential t negative impact, what alternatives have you considered to reduce those impacts? (It would be a rare occurrence if the answer was ever no). 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -1 1 .. _ Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 9.1.1 Product Use Considerations 1 Two of the most significant sources of environmental impact from building materials are energy use in the building and possible impacts on occupant health. Considerations of impacts of product use depend not only on the materials in question, but also on the application of the material. • 9.1.1.1. Step 1: Energy Use. Will the material in question (i.e., glazing, insulations, mechanical 1 systems) have a measurable impact on building energy use? If not, proceed to Step 2. 1 If yes, avoid options that do not minimize energy use. Also take care to design the application to minimize energy use. For materials that can be used in an energy- efficient manner only with the addition of other components; the impact of including those additional components must be factored in. Examples include glazing systems that require exterior shading systems for efficiency, and light gage steel framing that requires foam sheathing to prevent thermal bridging. 9.1.1.2. Step 2: Occupant Health. Might products in the application (i.e., interior furnishings, interior finishes, mechanical systems) affect the health of building occupants? If not, proceed to • , Step 3. If yes, avoid materials that are likely to adversely affect occupant health, and design systems to minimize any possible adverse effects when sources of indoor pollution cannot be avoided. 1 9.1.1.3. Step 3: Durability and Maintenance. Are products in this application likely to need replacement, special treatment, or repair multiple times during the life of the structure (i.e., roofing, coating, sealants)? If not, proceed to Step 4. 1 If yes, avoid products with short life spans (unless they are made from low-impact, renewable materials and are easily recycled), or products that require frequent, high impact maintenance procedures. Also, design the structure for flexibility so that materials that might become obsolete before they wear out (such as wiring) and can be replaced with minimal disruption and cost. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -2 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 9.1.2 Product Manufacturing Considerations 1 The next steps pertain less to the application (how a material or product is used) and more to the material itself. They require knowledge of the raw materials that go into each product. 1 9.1.2.1. Step 4: Hazardous By- Products. Are significant toxic or hazardous intermediaries or by- products created during manufacture, and if so, how significant is the risk of their release to • the environment or risk of hazard to worker health? If these are not significant, proceed to • Step 5. • 1 Where toxic by- products are either generated in large quantities or in small, but uncontrolled quantities (smelting of zinc, production of petrochemicals), the building material in question should be avoided if possible, or source from a company with strong environmental standards. 9.1.2.2. Step 5: Energy Use. Ho w energy-intensive gy gy- intensive is the manufacturing process? If not very intensive, proceed to Step 6. ' If the manufacture of a building material is very energy - intensive compared to the alternatives (i.e., aluminum, plastics, etc.), its use should be maximized. It is not the energy use' itself that is of concern, however, but the pollution from its generation and use; industries using clean- burning or renewable energy sources have lower burdens than those relying on coal or petroleum. 1 9.1.2.3. Step 6: Waste From Manufacturing. How much solid waste is generated in the manufacturing process? If not much relative to the quantity of product manufactured, proceed to 1 Step 7. 1 If significant amounts of solid waste are generated and are not readily usable for other purposes (tailings from mining of copper and other metals), seek alternative materials, or materials from companies with progressive recycling programs. 1 1 'Audubon International Institute • Page 9 -3 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 9.1.3 Raw Materials Considerations • 1 9.1.3.1. Step 7: Resource Limitations. Are any of the component materials from rare or endangered resources? If not, proceed to Step 8. • 1 If yes (endangered or threatened tree species), avoid these products, unless they can be source 1 from recycled material. 9.1.3.2. Step 8: Impacts of Resource Extraction. Are there significant ecological impacts from the process of mining or harvesting the raw materials? If not proceed to Step 9. 1 If yes (damage to rainforests from bauxite mining for aluminum, or from certain timber 1 harvesting practices), seek suppliers of material from recycled stock, or those with credible third - party verification of environmentally sound harvesting methods. • 9.1.3.3. Step 9: Transportation. Are the primary raw materials located a great distance from your site (i.e., Italian marble, tropical timber, New Zealand Wool)? If not proceed to Step 10. If yes, seek appropriate alternative materials from more local sources. '. 9.1.4 Disposal and Reuse Considerations ' 9.1.4.1. Step 10 :. Demolition Waste. Can the material be easily separated out for reuse or recycling after its useful life in the structure is over? If yes, proceed to Step 11. While most materials that are used in large quantities in building construction (i.e., steel, concrete, etc.) can be at least partially recycled, others are less recyclable and may become a disposal problem in the future. Examples include products that combine different materials (such as fiberglass composites) or undergo a fundamental chemical change during manufacture 1 (thermoset plastics such as polyurethane foams). Consider the future recyclability of products chosen. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 - 4 1 1 - Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ' , 9.1.4.2. Step 11: Hazardous Materials From Demolition. Might the material become a toxic or - 1 hazardous waste problem after the end of its useful life (i.e., preservative- treated wood)? If not, proceed to Step 12. 1. If yes, seek alternative products or construction systems that require less of the material in' ' question. 1 9.1.4.3. Step 12: Review the Results. Go over any concerns that have been raised about the products under consideration, and look for other Life -cycle impacts that might be specific to a ' particular material. For example, with drywall and spray -in open cell polyurethane foam insulation, waste generated at the site is a potential problem that should be considered. • 9.2 CONSERVING ENERGY ' You know that energy expenses are part of the cost of doing business. But by choosing low -cost or no -cost energy- efficient measures that fit your situation, you can easily save hundreds or even 1 ' thousands of dollars annually in energy costs while. protecting the environment. Plus, your company's reputation for wise energy use can lead to even greater customer appeal. 1 9.2.1 Background Information 1 . 9.2.1.1. Evaluate Energy Use. To discover where you can save energy, you'll first need to look ' at your energy profile —how much energy you use, where you use it, and how much it costs; or how much you expect to use. Maybe you use energy for space heating or cooling or water 1 heating. What about lighting or running office equipment or production machines? Does fuel for transportation make up part of your energy picture? ' Next, add all our energy gy expenses together. You may be surprised to find that the total amounts I to several thousand dollars. This section will help you learn about equipment and techniques that can save you 20% or more on energy costs (From: Hands -On Solutions to Improve Your Profits & Productivity, U.S. Department of Energy.) 1 . Audubon International Institute Page 9 -5 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 fr 9.2.1.2. Six Major Areas for Savings. Look for ways to save in six major areas: • Lighting • Buildings • . HVAC and Solar • Equipment & Machines • Motors • • Vehicles . The following sections provide details on each of these areas for improving energy conservation in your organization. Additional resources and funding options are included at the end to help you get started. 9.2.2 Lighting • Lighting is the largest user of electricity and the easiest area in which to save in commercial buildings. Many businesses and homes are lowering their lighting bills by installing energy- efficient equipment such as fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps, task lighting; and lighting controls. 1 Using energy - efficient equipment also reduces the incidence of eyestrain and headaches among employees, actually improving worker productivity. Energy- saving retrofits also can raise the market value of a building and provide an edge in competitive leasing markets. 1 9.2.2.1. Lighting Options. • Energy - Efficient Fluorescent Lamps. These save about 35% of the wattage used by standard fluorescents and last just as long. Although the energy - efficient lamps are more costly than standard bulbs, the energy savings more than compensates for the extra cost. . Many utilities are helping their customers buy and install efficient lighting equipment. A rebate from your utility can further cut the already short payback periods for investing in energy- efficient lighting. Your local utility can also be a good source of information on designing and purchasing lighting retrofits. 6 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -6 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 17 • Electronic Ballasts. When replacing standard fluorescents lights with energy-efficient g lamps, it's necessary to replace the existing ballasts. When doing so, be sure to specify electronic ballasts. They operate 75% more quietly than conventional ballasts, ' eliminating the familiar flicker and hum of older fluorescent lights. Simple payback periods on these improvements can be as short as 1 to 2 years. • Task Lighting. Task lighting is simple – uniformly light the areas where you actually • need the light, rather than the entire area. In other words, use smaller, more efficient lights that bring the light source closer to the work area requiring illumination. This concept applies to such areas as offices, workrooms, and garages. 1 • Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Compact fluorescents are a good alternative to incandescent light bulbs. They last about 10 times longer than incandescent lamps. Lights that operate much of the time, such as in hallways or stairwells, are popular applications for compact fluorescent lamps. • Lighting Controls. Manual controls can be used in spaces that accommodate different tasks or that have access to daylight. In this way, occupants can manually shut lights ' off when they aren't needed. Automatic controls such as occupancy sensors are convenient for turning lights off when certain areas– such as conference rooms, ' storage rooms, and restrooms —are unoccupied. Autodimrning controls are available that automatically adjust light levels according to existing daylight. 1 • . Reflectors. Reflectors dan increase the effectiveness of a fluorescent lighting fixture by about 10% in some situations by reflecting additional light on the work space. Reflectors installed with energy - efficient fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts can reduce lighting energy costs by as much as 70 %. 1 1 1, • Audubon International Institute Page 9 -7 • 1 11 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course S 9.2.3 Buildings Your building or home probably has room for low -cost energy efficiencyimprovements; or you 1 can build them in if you are buildinga new facility. Besides saving you money, these improvements lead to greater comfort for staff and customers. When you evaluate how your building is. using energy, you may find many opportunities for efficiency improvements..Q 9.2.3.1. Better Buildings.. • Isolate Unused Spaces. Often, your building contains space that isn't used by people and may not require space conditioning. Isolate these areas by closing heating and 1 cooling vents and covering exteriorwindows. Sealing unused exterior windows and doors can represent a valuable security benefit, too. . 1 • Stop Leaks. One of the easiest and quickest dollar- saving techniques is caulking leaks B • in your building. Heat always flows from a warmer environment to a cooler one- when it's cold outside, heat tends to leak outward. Eliminating leaks in your building exterior (like walls, windows, doors, ceilings, and floors) works to your advantage for • both heating and cooling. When it's windy outside, your ears or sense of touch may guide you to substantial leaks. 1 • Check Doors, Windows, and Other. Openings. A few simple measures can really help ' prevent leakage. For example, replace any broken or cracked glass. Use automatic door closers, be sure they're adjusted for proper operation, and replace them when 1 • necessary. Use an exterior insulating cover on window- mounted or above-door air conditioners during winter. Finally, make certain the space around your air . . conditioner is thoroughly sealed. 9.2.4 HVAC and Solar • You probably spend many energy dollars on heating and cooling your buildings. Employee comfort is a high priority and product quality may dictate certain temperature requirements. • Installing the programmable thermostats and energy- efficient boilers and water heaters described • in this section is an easy way to start saving energy; proper maintenance is equally important. Audubon International Institute • Page 9 -8 • 1 ii Natural Resource Management Plan for dray's Crossing Golf Course • " S . You may also be able to save energy by managing the sunlight that falls on your building. Solar ` 1 / hot water systems and solar heating systems are two potentially economical solar energy technologies you might want to consider. 1 • 9.2.4.1. Heating, Ventilating and Air- Conditioning (HVAC). Businesses have found that the 1 following basic steps can save energy, increase comfort, and enhance equipment operation. • '. • Programmable Thermostats. These simple microprocessor -based products offer as . much as a 50% rate of return on energy dollars. In addition, these devices will • ' maintain system start -up and set -back schedules for optimum comfort. They can also eliminate unnecessary HVAC use during unoccupied hours. • • Furnace Maintenance and Repair. An easy first step is to establish a regime for 1111 replacing dirty air filters. The uses of your building or home, as well as location, will dictate how often changing is required. It's often well worth the expense to have a trained specialist inspect and perform needed maintenance on your furnace and cooling system. Also, simple maintenance such as cleaning intake screens, condenser coils, supply registers, and return grills can make a difference in your energy bills. 1 • • • Duct Maintenance and Repair. Typical duct systems lose energy from your heating 1 and air - conditioning equipment. Use duct tape to seal duct joints and elbows where accessible. Insulate any duct work in unconditioned space, such as roofs, attics, crawl 1 spaces, and basements. Identify and repair damaged or disconnected ducts while you • . check the system. • 1 • Boilers. If your building uses a boiler for heating, follow the factory maintenance 1 schedule and procedures. If you are using a fuel other than natural gas, consider • switching to natural gas, which is less expensive. If maintenance costs for your existing boiler have become excessive or you need to replace your boiler, replace it 1 with a high - efficiency model. • • • Ventilation Rate. Building ventilation is necessary so that your building has a reasonable supply of fresh air. However, excessive ventilation rates increase your Audubon International Institute Page 9 -9 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 heating and cooling costs dramatically. Have a professional engineer or trained specialist optimize your system's ventilation rate. • Hot Water Supply. Your hot water temperature is often set higher than you really 1 need. Gradually set the temperature downward until you reach an optimum. You can also install flow restrictors and self - closing faucets; they will reduce your hot water use. Finally, check your entire system for leaks and repair them. • Water Heater. One of the most effective measures you can use is an insulating jacket for the water heater. These jackets are easily found at large convenience, building, ' and hardware supply stores. A simple electronic time -of -use controller will ensure that your electric water heater is off when not needed. 9.2.4.2. Solar Energy. You can use the sun's energy to maximize natural lighting and heating, which will decrease costs for artificial lighting and space heating. On the other hand, you may live in a very warm, sunny climate where air- conditioning is your building's greatest energy expense. In that case, you'll want to minimize the effects of the sun's energy. 1 • Direct Sunlight: Enhancement or Control. Sunlight striking your building can work for you or against you. When you are trying to cool your building, you don't want sunlight pouring in through windows, doors, and skylights, adding considerably to 1 your air - conditioning bills. However, when you are heating your building, you want the sunlight to enter your building. 1 During the air - conditioning season, provide shading to windows, doors, and skylights. This can be done effectively with awnings, sunscreens, shade trees, and shrubbery. During the heating season, you can save money by permitting sunlight to enter the building through windows and other openings. • • Solar Hot Water Systems. Many small businesses (for example, restaurants, bars, and 1 dry cleaners) have large water - heating needs that can be economically and reliably met by solar energy. Depending on the cost of your current water - heating system and its energy source (oil, electricity, natural gas, or propane), basic solar water heating or preheating may make economic sense. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -10 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 • Solar Heating Systems as Supplements to HVAC Systems. Most commercial/industrial warehouses in cold - weather states are heavy users of thermal energy—heat In most areas, an all- electric heating system will be expensive to operate 1 and will leave you vulnerable to power outages and ever - increasing energy rates. 1 Supplemental space heating is efficiently provided by the transpired solar collector, a type of solar collector that heats air for the building. In 1994, this new collector 1 received a "Best of What's New" award from Popular Science (February 1994, page 20). This system has been effectively demonstrated, meeting winter head -on in 1 Canada. Check with local or state energy offices, local utilities, energy businesses, universities, or your accountant for the availability of state tax incentives or technical assistance to businesses using solar water heating systems. 1 9.2.5 Equipment and Machines Electricity use for office equipment is growing faster than any other category of electricity use in the commercial sector: This category includes computers, monitors, printers, facsimile machines, and copiers: Energy use by office equipment is expected to grow by as much as 500% in the next 1 decade. 1 It takes less electricity to run energy- efficient office equipment; using energy- saving equipment also saves on air - conditioning costs because the equipment produces less waste heat. More ' efficient equipment can also increase occupant comfort by cooling areas more uniformly and ' reducing HVAC system noise. • Turn off Equipment. About 30% to 40% of personal computers and printers are left 1 running at night and on weekends, and these machines are idle as much as 90% of their workday on time. 1 Don't be confused by so- called "screen savers." They do not save electricity in computer monitors; they are meant to prevent phosphor "burn-in" on the screen. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -11 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Cycling power on and off to your computer will not harm late -model niachines. Energy Star computers, monitors, and printers can automatically power down to save electricity when not being used. Don't forget to consider sharing printers and copiers; this will decrease their idle time and provide for more cost - effective use of the 1 • equipment. • Buy Energy - Efficient Equipment. Specify energy efficiency as a purchasing criteria to help you select equipment in a sometimes confusing marketplace. 1 Also, check your other appliances for energy- saving opportunities. For example, businesses such as restaurants and other food service providers rely heavily on refrigeration equipment and freezers. Refrigeration equipment can be include such efficiency options as hot - gas defrost and evaporative condensers. These options can easily yield a return -on- investment of as much as 50 %. High - efficiency, cost - effective equipment is now readily available, so be sure to ask for it when you're shopping. 1 9.2.6 Motors 1 Electric motors supply most of the so- called "drive energy" in the United States and consume 1 more than half of the nation's electricity. Electric motors are used in pumps, fans, and compressors, and for materials processing and handling. 1 A typical industrial motor operating a Large percentage of the time consumes five to ten times its 1 capital cost in electricity every year. That is like spending $100,000.00 a year on gas for a $10,000.00 car. This also means that small gains in efficiency translate into big gains in savings. 1 • Install Efficient Motors. Energy- efficient motors are available that use less energy to accomplish the same amount of work. Depending on the size, type, and manufacturer, energy- efficient motors typically cost 10% to 30% more than standard models. Because of superior design and higher quality production, these motors tend to be more reliable, produce less waste heat, and run more quickly than standard models. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -12 1 • r Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Downsize Oversized Motors. Unfortunately, it has been common practice for many 1 year to oversize motors. But because motors are inefficient when running at less than 50% of rated load, oversized and under loaded motors can waste energy and money. 1 This problem is extensive; audits indicate that about 30% of all industrial and commercial motors operate at less than 50% of dull load, resulting in substantial • inefficiency costs. r • Install Variable -Speed Drives. In applications in which loads fluctuate, replace single -speed motors with variable -speed drives. A variable -speed drive allows • equipment output to more exactly match demand. Depending on your circumstances, variable -speed drive can reduce motor energy use by 10% to 70 %. • Adhere to Proper Maintenance Schedules. Careful monitoring and maintenance are necessary to keep a high - efficiency motor system operating properly, and the energy 1 savings from good maintenance is significant. Additional benefits include more reliable, trouble -free operation, and extended equipment life. 1. 9.2.7 Vehicles • If your business maintains a vehicle fleet or provides delivery services, you will want to 1 investigate how you can save money on fuel. Businesses such as florists, office supplies, travel agencies, auto parts, plumbing, heating, and electrical contractors, lawn and pool maintenance r services, and carpet and drapery cleaning services are good candidates for fuel savings. In addition to achieving money and energy savings, these measures will help lesson transportation- related air pollution. 1 1 • Conventional Fuels. Each year the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) publishes a Fuel Economy Guide, which lists the miles per gallon (mpg) ratings for all vehicles are likely to save your company money through lower fuel costs. 1 Your drivers can also be made more aware of ways in which they can drive more 1 effectively to save on fuel. Combining errands into one trip, turning an engine off rather than letting it idle for more than a minute, getting a tune -up regularly, avoiding r jackrabbit starts, and not carrying unnecessary weight in vehicles are all ways to save Audubon International Institute Page 9 -13 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course on gasoline. The Guide provides these and other driving hints. The Fuel Economy Guide is available through your automobile dealer, or it can be ordered free of charge 1 from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Phone: (800) DOE -EREC 1 Energy Clearinghouse (EREC) Fax (703) 893 -0400 P.O. Box 3048 Menifield, VA 22116 • • • Alternative Fuels. If you have a fleet of 10 or more vehicles, it is possible that you may be required to comply with either the Clean Air Act or the Energy Policy Act requirements for fleets. These requirements have been put in place to help increase • U.S. energy security through increased use of alternative fuels, or to improve our country's air quality. 1 The Energy Policy Act requires the use of alternatives fuels such as natural gas, 1 electricity, methanol, ethanol, or propane in certain percentages for some fleets. The Clean Air Act requires that you vehicles meet certain emissions standards through the use of alternative fuels or reformulated gasoline and clean diesel fuel. To find out more about these fuels and to determine whether your fleet must comply, you can call • the DOE Alternative Fuels Hotline at (800) 423 -1363. • Other Transportation Options. Other transportation options maybe worth evaluating 1 for use in your business. Helping employees take advantage of mass transit, ride sharing, and alternative work schedules often increases employee morale and loyalty. 1 These options may also translate to good community relations because your are supporting efforts to reduce pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and traffic 1 congestion. • Mass Transit. Encouraging your employees to use rail and bus mass transit is the most effective means of alleviating urban gridlock and air pollution from private vehicles. • 1 i Audubon International Institute Page 9 -14 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Ride Sharing. Car or van pooling can be an effective transportation. measure. Check with your local mass transit agency,. or your local or state energy office, for information about ride - sharing programs in your area. 1 • Alternative Work Schedules. Continuing to grow in popularity, alternative work 1 schedules shift work hours away from peak traffic -flow times, which decreases traffic congestion, commuting time, and driver anxiety. Depending on your type of business, 1 this measure may be appropriate for you. 9.2.8 Getting Organized Now that you have some idea of how to proceed with energy efficiency improvements, use the following list to aid your planning. Remember, you can use this for a new or existing building: . 1. Gather and total all your energy costs. Pull together your past year's bills (or anticipated bills) and total these costs. Be sure you are adding all the bills from different energy sources (utilities, vendors, and service stations). You may want to keep your heating and cooling costs separate from your transportation- related costs. ' 2. Get a professional energy audit or do a self - audit. Contact your local utility, municipal services department or local university for technical or financial assistance. Or, based on the information presented here, perform your own assessment of your energy use and areas for improvement. The Energy Conservation Survey at the end of this section will help you get started in finding out what basic conservation measures are in place. 1 3. Enlist the aid of staff members. They may prove to be your best asset. You can offer ' employee incentives for substantial savings if you have high energy use or if your operation is large. 4. Develop a List of best options. Assemble a list of options based on the information provided in this book and your investigation of your energy use situation. Use cost and ease of implementation to rank choices. If appropriate, get staff input on selection of action items. Audubon International Institute Page 9 -15 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course , 1 5. Implement your plan and take action. Carry out the action plan and start saving money for an improved bottom line. 1 6. Track savings and energy use. 1)0 NOT forget this step! Evidence of tangible rewards 1 can help improve staff morale and encourage cooperation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -16 i I I. _ <. Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Energy Conservation Survey • Use this survey to quickly and easily audit • energy conservation measures in place at your business 1 Or, use this audit to help direct your energy conservation measures at your new building. I 'Energy Efficiency Check all that you•have installed, or will install: 1 0 compact fluorescent lights ❑ 10% ❑ 25% 0 50% ❑ 75% ❑ Other ❑ . energy - efficient or Energy Star appliances I ❑ 10% ❑ 25% ❑ 50% ❑ 75% ❑ ` Other ❑ energy efficient or Energy Star computers I ❑ 10% ❑ 25% ❑ 50% ❑ 75% ❑ _Other ❑ LED exit signs ,1 Energy Conservation • Check all that you have implemented, or will implement: ❑ • Hot water thermostat turned down to 120 °F �" ❑ Hot water tank and pipes insulated 1 ❑ Thermostat turned down at night to 55 °F. ❑ Thermostat set for day -time temperatures of 65° to 68 °F ❑ Central air thermostat set at 78 °F 1 ❑ Lights turned off when not in use ❑ Task lighting used in place of overhead lighting when possible • ❑ Equipment turned off when not in use ❑ Water heater turned off overnight and on weekends Insulation Check features where you have upgraded insulation to eliminate drafts or will upgrade: I ❑ Windows Exterior walls ❑ • Doors ❑ Outlet and switch plates . 1 ❑ Wall Joints • ❑ Floors • ❑ Attic or roofing 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 9 -17 I Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - Conservation Maintenance Check all that are, or will be, part of your regular routine: 1 ❑ Heating pipes and ducts kept in good repair ❑ Appliances cleaned annually as appropriate O Oil or gas burner tuned up annually ❑ Air filters cleaned monthly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute - Page 9 -18 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 10.0. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 1 This Section of the draft management plan will be completed over the next several months and included in the NRMP at that time. 1 • 1 • • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute - Page 10-1 1. 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 11.0. REFERENCES ' Agricultural Research Service. 2000. Pesticide properties database. http://www.arsusda. gov /rsml /ppdb2.html. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Inc. 1991. Documentation of the 1 Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, Sixth Edition. Cincinnati, OH, (as updated).10 -18 American Water Works Association. 1991. Effective Watershed Management for Surface Water Supplies. Denver, CO. 401 p. 1 Anonymous. 1989. Protecting'groundwater. Florida Turf Digest. Vol. 6, No.2. Arnold, J.G. and J.R. Williams. 1994. SWRRB -WQ - A watershed scale model for soil and water resources management. USDA, Agricultural Research Service. i Arnold, J.G. , J.R. Williams,.A.D. Nicks, and N.B. Sammons. 1989. SWRRB - A basin scale simulation model for soil and water management. Texas A &M University Press. Balogh, J.C. and J.L. Anderson. 1992. Environmental impacts of turfgrass pesticides. In Balogh and Walker (eds.) Golf Course Management and Construction: Environmental Issues. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. pp. 221 -353. Bailey, E.H. (Ed.). 1966. Geology of Northern California. Bulletin 190. Sacramento, Calif: California Division of Mines and Geology. Baird, J. H. 1996.(In Press). Evaluation of Best Management Practices to Protect Surface Water quality from pesticides and fertilizer applied. to Bermudagrass fairways. J. Environ. Qual. - Barrett, M. 1997. The Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI- GROW). EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. • Beard, J.B. 1980. Turf Management for Golf Courses. Burgess Pub. Co., Minneapolis, MN. 1 Beditz, J.F. 1994. The development and growth of the US golf market. Science and Golf 1I:546- 553. Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, E&FN Spon, London. Audubon Intemational Institute Page 11 -1 • 1 I 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Becton, A.M. 1961. Changes in the environment and biota of the Great Lakes. Pages 150 -187 in Eutrophication: causes, consequences, corrections. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. • Bottcher, 'A.B. and L.B. Baldwin. 1986. General guide for selecting agricultural water quality • practices. Publication SP -15, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, and J.L Laake. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildl. Monogra. 72:1 -202. • Carroll, M. J., Hill, R. L., Raturi, S., Hemer, A. E., Pfeil, E. 2000. Dicamba transport in turfgrass 1 thatch and foliage. In: Clark, J. M, Kenna, M. P. (ed.): Fate and Management of Turfgrass Chemicals. ACS Symposium Series 743. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. pp. 228 -242. Califomia Department of Water Resources. California's Groundwater. Bulletin No. 188. ' Sacramento, Calif.: Resources Agency. 1978. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources, Sacramento Valley. Bulletin No. 118 -6. Sacramento, Calif.: Resources Agency. Cisar, J. L., Snyder, G. H. 1996. Mobility and persistence of pesticides applied to a USGA green. III. Organophosphate recovery in clippings, thatch, soil and percolate. Crop Science 36:1433 -1438. • Cole, , J. T., Baird, J. H., Basta, N. T., Huhnke, R. L., Storm, D. E., Johnson, G. V., Payton, M. E., Smolen, M. D., Martin, D. L., Cole, J. C. 1997. Influence of buffers on pesticide and nutrient runoff from bermudagrass turf. Journal of Environmental Quality 26:1589 -1598. Dell, C. J., Throssell, C. S., Bischoff, M.; Turco, R. F. 1994. Estimation of sorption coefficients for fungicides in soil and turfgrass thatch. Journal of Environmental Quality 23(1):92 -96. Deubert, K.H. 1990. Environmental fate of common turf pesticides - factors leading to leaching. 1 USGA Green Section Record. Vol. 28, No. 4:5 -8. ' Dillaha, TA, J.H. Sherrard and D. Lee. 1989. Long term effectiveness of Vegetative Filter Strips. Water Environment and Technology, November:419 -421. • t Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton and D.C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of forest and grass buffer strips • in improving the water quality of manure polluted runoff. Proceedings of the 1977 • Winter Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 77 -2501. Audubon International Institute Page 11 -2 N 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course - 1 ; j Dunigan, E.P., R.A. Phelan and C.L. Mondart, Jr. 1976. Surface runoff losses of fertilizer elements. J. Environ. Qual. 5(3):339 -342. 1 Eaker, W.M. 1994. Stormwater.Management in North Carolina. A guide for local officials. Land of Sky Regional Council, Asheville, NC. Farm Chemicals Handbook. 2002. Meister Publishing Co., Willoughby, OH. 1 Ferrentino, G.W. 1990. Starting an Integrated Pest Management program. Cornell University 1 Turfgrass Times. Vol. 1 (1):6 -8. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1995. Best Management Practices for Golf 1 Course Maintenance Departments. Agricultural Source and Water Well Management Section. 18 p. Gilliam, J.W. 1988. Nitrate in North Carolina ground water. Proc. Soil Science Society of North Carolina. Soil Science Society of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 1 Gold, A.J., W.M. Sullivan and R.J. Hull. 1989. Influence of fertilization and irrigation practices on waterborne nitrogen losses from turfgrasses. In Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass and Ornamentals (ed. by Leslie and Metcalf). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Gold, A.J., T.G. Morton, W.M. Sullivan and J. McClory. 1988. Leaching of 2,4 -D and dicamba from home lawns. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, Vol. 37:121 -129. 1 Goss, D. 1991. Screening procedure for soils and pesticides relative to potential water quality impacts. In Using computer Simulation Models in Pesticide Registration Decision Making. A Symposium/Workshop, Weed Sci. Soc., Loiusville, KY. Gross, C.M., J.S. Angle, R.L. Hill and M.S. Welterlen. 1987. Natural and simulated runoff from turfgrass. Agronomy Abstracts 79:135. Gross, C.M., J.S. Angle and M.S. Welterlen. 1990. 'Nutrient and sediment losses from turfgrasses. J. Environ. Qual. 19:663-668. Gustafson, D.I. 1989. Groundwater ubiquity score: A simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environ. Toxicol..Chem. 8:339 -357. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Champaign; IL. Audubon International Institute Page 11 -3 1 r 1v- Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course . Hong, S., Smith, A. E. 1997. Potential movement of dithiopyr following application to golf ' courses. Journal of Environmental Quality 26(2)179 -386. • Horst, G. L., Shea, P. J., Christians, N., Miller, D. R., Stuefer - Powell, C., Starrett, S. K. 1996. Pesticide dissipation under golf course fairway conditions. Crop Science 36:362 -370. ' Hornsby, A.G...1990. Managing pesticides for crop production and water quality. Florida Grower and Rancher, Feb., 1990: 19 -24; May, 1990:34 -39. Hurto, K.A. 1991.,.Dislodgeable pesticide residues. Grounds. Maintenance. p.36,38,42 -43. April, 1991. ' Jarrell, M. 1991. Personal communication. • Jarrett, A.R. 1985. Golf Course and Grounds Irrigation and Drainage. Reston Pub.' Co., Inc. Reston, VA p. 159 -171. Jones, J.R. and R.W. Bachmann. 1976. Prediction of phosphorus and chlorophyll levels in Lakes. J Water Pollution Control Federation 48:21767 -2182. Kahler, K.E. 1990. Golf courses' groundwater passes testing for pesticides. Golf Course Management. Vol. 58; No. 12:42 -47. 1 Kammal, D.W. 1995. Pesticide and fertilizer storage. Pp 18 - 10, In D.W. Kammal, R.T. Noyas, G.L Riskowski, and V.L. Hofman, Designing Facilities for Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment, Midwest Plan Service, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department, Iowa State University. Kenaga, E.E. 1979. Acute and chronic toxicity of 75 pesticides to various animal species. Down to Earth, Vol. 35, No.2:25 -31. • Kenna, M. 1994. Pesticide fate model may be inaccurate. Golf Course News 5(5):1,28. Kidd, H. and James, D. R., Eds. 1991..The Agrochemicals Handbook, Third Edition. Royal Society of Chemistry Information Services, Cambridge, UK, (As Updated).10 -2 Kovach, J., C. Petzoldt, J. Degni and J. Tette. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. NY State Agricultural Experiment Station, Number 139. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 1 1 -4 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Lickfeldt, D. W., Branham, B. E. 1995. Sorption of nonionic organic compounds by Kentucky bluegrass leaves and thatch. Journal of Environmental Quality 24(5):980 -985. Linde, D. T., Watschke, T. L., Jarrett, A. R., Borger, J. A. 1995. Surface runoff assessment from • creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass turf. Agronomy Journal 87:176-182. 1 Linde, D.T., T.L. Watschke and J.A. Borger. 1994. Nutrient transport in runoff from two • turfgrass species. Science and Golf 11:489 -496. Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, E &FN Spon, London. Livingston, E.H. and E. McCarron. 1991. Storm Management: A Guide for Floridians. Stormwater/Nonpoint Source Management. FDER, Tallahassee, FL. Madhun, Y.A. and V.H. Freed. 1990. Impact of pesticides on the environment. In Pesticide in the Soil Environment. pp. 429 -466. (ed. H.H. Cheng). Soil Science Society of America,. • Inc., Madison, WI. Meisinger, J.J. and G.W. Randall. 1991. Estimating nitrogen budgets for soil -crop systems. p. 85 -124. In R.F. Follett, D.R. Keeney and R.M. Cruse (ed.) Managing Nitrogen for . Groundwater Quality and Farm Profitability.Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Mitchell, W.H., A.L. Morehart, L.J. Cotnoir, B.B. Hesseltine and D.N.-Langston,. HI.. 1976. 1 Effect of soil mixtures and irrigation methods on leaching of N in golf greens. Agron. J. 70:29 -35. Morton, T.G., A.J. Gold and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of overwatering and fertilization on nitrogen losses from home lawns. J. Environ. Qual. 17:124 -130. 1 Nesheim, N. 1986. Groundwater contamination by agrichemicals. Oklahoma Turf. Vol. 4, No. • 1 NYSDEC. 1993. Reducing the impacts from storm water runoff from new development. Second edition. Niemczyk, H.D., Z. Filary and H. Krueger. 1988. Movement of insecticides and residues in 1 . turfgrass thatch and soil. Golf Course Management. Vol. 56, No. 2:22 -23. • Nofziger, D.L. and A.G. Hornsby. 1987. Chemical Movement in Layered Soils. Circular 780, 1FAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Audubon International Institute Page 11 -5 • 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course North Carolina Interagency Task Force. 1996. The Interagency Study of the Impact of Pesticide ' Use on Ground Water in North Carolina. Prepared for the NC Pesticide Board by the NC Interagency Work Group. 115 p. Owensby, C.E. 1973. Modified step -point system for botanical composition and basal cover estimates. J. Range Manage. 26:302 -303. • Pacific Municipal Consultants. 2000. The Planned. Community -2 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Volume 1, SCH No. 99012032. Prepared for Town of Truckee. April. Parker, R.D. and D. Rieder. 1997. The Generic Expected Environmental Concentration Program, GENEEC: Users Manual. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. Parkhurst, B., W. Warren- Hicks, R. Cardwell, J. Volosin, T. Etchison, J. Butcher, and S. 1 Covington. 1995. Risk Managing Methods - Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment Aids Decision Making. Water Environment & Technology 7:39 - 43. I Peacock, C.H. 1994. Environmental quality: how do golf courses fit into The Big Picture? North Carolina Turfgrass 12(2):21,23,26. • Peacock, C.H., A.H. Bruneau and S.P. Spak. 1990. Wetlands - protecting valuable resource. Golf Course Management. Vol. 58, No. 11:6 -16. Peacock, C$. and M.M. Smart. 1995. IPM, Monitoring, and Management Plans - A Mandate for the Future. USGA Green Section Record 33:10 -14. Peacock, C.H., M.M. Smart, and W.H. Warren- Hicks. 1996. Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest Management Strategies for Protection of Natural Resources on Golf . Course Watersheds. Pages 335 -338, In Watershed '96, Proceedings of the Conference for Watershed Protection, Baltimore. June 1996. • Penfound, W.T. 1964. The relation of grazing to plant succession in the tall grass prairie. Range Manage. 17:256 -260. Petrovic, A.M. 1990. The fate of nitrogenous fertilizers applied to turfgrass. J. Environ. Qual., Vol. 19:1 -14. Audubon International Institute Page 11 -6 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Pimentel, D. 1971. Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Nontarget Species. Executive Office of the President's Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 0 -29 • Rao, P.S.C., M.P. Rao, and B.S. Anderson. 1988. Organic pollutants in groundwater: risk assessment. Soil Science Fact Sheet SL -55. 1FAS, University of Florida. Sartain, J.B. 1989. Fertility requirements of turfgrasses. Proc. Florida Turfgrass Conference. p. • 1 131 -135. Florida Turfgrass Association, Orlando, FL. SCO Planning and Engineering, Inc. 2002. Gray's Crossing Specific Plan. Prepared for East West Partners. September. Shephard - Wesnitzer, Inc. 1999. Preliminary Stomiwater Report for Gray's Crossing Golf Course. Job #98376.002. December 10. 1 Shueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A practical manual for planning and designing urban BMP's. Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Clark. 1994. Califomia Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and • Endangered Vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Fifth ed. Smart, M.M., J.R. Jones and J.L. Sebaugh. 1985. Stream- watershed relations in the Missouri Ozark Plateau Province. J. Environ. Qual. 14:77 - 82. Smart, M.M. and C.H. Peacock. 1996. Maintaining Water Quality Onsite. Irrigation Business 1 • and Technology:12 -18. Smart, M.M. and C.H. Peacock. 2002. Chapter 5, Best Management Practices for Golf Courses 1 located on Sprinngsheds, in DCA/DEP BMP Manual to Protect Florida's Springs. Snyder, G.H., B.J. Augustin and J.L. Cisar. 1989. Fertigation for stabilizing nitrogen nutrition. Proc. 6th Int. Turf Research Conf., Tokyo, Japan, July 31- August 5, 1989. Japanese Soc. Turfgrass Science. Snyder, G.H., B.J. Augustin and J.M. Davidson. 1984. Moisture sensor - controlled irrigation for reducing N leaching in bermudagrass turf. Agron. J. 76:964 -969. Audubon International Institute Page 11-7 1 r Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Snyder, G.H., E.O. Burt and J.M. Davidson. 1981. Nitrogen leaching in bermudagrass turf:effect of nitrogen sources and rates. Proc. 4th Int. Turf Research Conf., Guelph, Ontario, Canada, July 19 -23, 1981. Int. Turfgrass Society. • Soil Survey Laboratory Staff. 1996. Soil survey laboratory methods manual. Soil Surv. Invet. Rep, No. 42, ver. 3. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil • Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Soil Survey Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Agri gric. Handb. 18: USDA Soil Conservation 1 Serice, Washington. • Suter, G.W., D.S. Vaughn and R.H. Gardner. 1983. Risk assessment by analysis of • extrapolation error: a demonstration for effects of pollutants on fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2:369 -378. • Suter, G.W. 1989. Ecological end points. PP 1 -2 -- 2 -28. In W. Warren- Hicks, B.R. Parkhurst and S.S. Baker, (eds) Ecological Assessment of Hazardous. Waste Sites:- A field and laboratory reference. EPA/600 /3- 89.013. Suter, G.W. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environ. Manag. 14:19- • 23. Suter, G.W. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Chelsea, MI. Lewis Publishers. ' Suter, G.W., J.W. Gilett, S.B. Norton. 1994. Issue paper on characterization of exposure. For the US Environmental Protection Agency. Ecological risk assessment issue papers. Washington, DC. EPA • Thompson, D.G., G.R. Stephenson and M.K. Sears. 1984. Persistence and dislodgeable residues ' of 2,4 -D following its application to turfgrass. Pesticide Science 15:353 -360. • Urbonas, B. and P. Stahre. 1993. Stormwater: Best Management Practices and Detention for Water Quality, Drainage and CSO Management. PTR- Prentice Hall, Inc. r 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of California, Department of Water Resources. 1998. Draft Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report, Truckee River Operating Agreement. Carson City, Nevada: Bureau of Reclamation.. • Audubon International Institute Paget 1 -8 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. 1941. Climate and Man. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 1 USEPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA - 600/4 -79 -020, updated 1983. USEPA. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program- Volume I -Final Report. NTIS PB 84- 18552. USEPA. 1985. Analytical Support Branch, Operations and Quality Control Manual, June 1985. USEPA.1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW -846, 1986, updated in.1987. . 1 USEPA. 1988. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual. EPA 440/5 -88 -002. Washington, DC. • USEPA. 1992. Report on a Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment ..EPA 625/3 - 91/022. Washington. 27 pages plus appendices. USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution 1 in Coastal Waters. EPA 840 -B -92 -002. Washington, DC. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat as a basis for environmental assessments. 101 ESM. US Fish Wildl. Serv., Div. Ecol. Serv., Washington. U S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Draft Recovery Plan for marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) and Gambel's watercress (Rorippa gambelii), prepared by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Field Office. USGA Green Section. 1993. Specifications for a Method of Putting Green Construction. • • 1 United States Golf Association, Far Hills, NJ. USGA Green Section. 1995. Summary of Environmental Research. USGA Green Section, 56 p. 1 USGS, Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis. Book 5, Chapter Cl, 1969 1 USGS. General Procedure for Gaging Streams, Book 3, Chapter A8. 1968. USGS. Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations. Book 3, Chapter A10. 1968 Audubon Intemational Institute Page 11 - 1 • 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ,, USGS. 1996. Water Quality, Pesticide Occurrence, and Effects of Irrigation with Reclaimed I Water at Golf Courses in Florida. USGS Water - Resources Investigations Report 95 -4250. USGS, Tallahassee, FL 1 • U.S. National Library of Medicine. 1995. Hazardous Substances Databank. Bethesda, MD, 10 -9 I Vollenweider, R.A. 1971. Fundamentals of the eutrophication of lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. Organisation • for Economic Co- Operation and Development, Paris. 159 pages, 34 figures and 1 appendix. I . Walker, W.J. 1990. Environmental issues related to golf course construction and management: A literature search and review. USGA Green Section Report. US Golf Association, Far Hills, NJ. - 111 Wanielista, M.P., Y.A. Yousef and W.M. McLellan. 1977. Nonpoint source effects on water quality. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. Part 3:441 -451. • Warren, R.L. and J.B. Weber. 1994. Evaluating pesticide movement in North Carolina soils. Soil Science Society Proceedings, North Carolina 37:32 -35. 1 Warren- Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst and S.S. Baker, (eds). 1989. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A field and laboratory reference. EPA/600 /3- 89.013. Warren- Hicks, W.H., MM Smart and C.H. Peacock. 1996. Evaluation and use of fertilizer and • pesticide fate and transport models at golf courses. In Watershed `96- Proceedings of the Conference for Watershed Protection, Baltimore. June 1996. Watschke, T. L., Mumma, R. 0., Linde, D. T., Borger, J. A., Harrison, S. A. 2000. Surface runoff of selected pesticides applied to turf. In: Clark, J. M, Kenna, M. P. (ed.). Fate and • Management of Turfgrass Chemicals. ACS Symposium Series 743. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. pp. 94 -105. Watschke, T.L. an d R. Mumma. 1989. The effect of nutrients and pesticides applied to turf on the quality of runoff and percolating water. Environmental Resources Research I Institute Report ER 8904. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. Watschke, T.L., S. Harrison and G.W. Hamilton. 1989. Does fertilizer /pesticide use on a golf I. course put water resources in peril? USGA Green Section Record. 27(3):5 -8. . 1 . Audubon International Institute Page 11 -10 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • • Wauchope, R.D. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 7:459 -472. Wauchope, R.D., T.M Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.W.M. Augustijn Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Springer Verlag, New York 1 Weber, J.B. 1990. Potential problems for North Carolina ground water from herbicides: a ranking index. Proc. Eighth Annual Meeting of the Weed Science Society of North • Carolina. (ed. A.D. Worsham). WSSNC, Box 8604, Raleigh, NC 27695. Weber, J.B. and K.E. Keller. 1989. Mobility of metolachlor in field lysimeters. Agronomy Abstracts, page 47. Welterlen, M.S., C.M. Gross, J.S. Angle and R.L. Hill. 1989. Surface runoff from turf.. p. 153- 160. In A.R. Leslie and R.L. Metcalf (ed.) Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass and Ornamentals. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. - Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. Second edition. Saunders and Co. 763 p. 1 Weins, J.A. 1989. The ecology of bird communities, foundations, and patterns (Vol. 1). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. 539 pp.. Williams, J.R., A.D. Nicks, and J.G. Arnold. 1985. Simulator for water resources in rural 1 basins. J Hydraulic Eng, ACSE 111:970 -986. Young, R.D., D,G: Westfall and G.W. Colliver. 1985. Production, marketing, and use of phosphorous fertilizers. In O.M. Englestad (ed.).Fertilizer Technology and Use. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. 1 • • 1 1 Audubon International Institute . Page 11 -11 . 1 1 ' Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course { APPENDIX I 1 Analysis of Pesticides for Use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course Table I -1. Characteristics of Pesticides Evaluated for Use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course Table I -2. Results of the Tier 1 Modeling for Selection of Pesticides for Use at Gray's Crossing i • Golf Course Table I -3. Environmental Impact Quotients for Pesticides Evaluated for Use at Gray's Crossing I Golf Course - I 1 1 1 1 . 1 Audubon International Institute - r_ / _-_ ! ._ MO OS AB ate+ a P a a a a. MB IS ...-11111 O Table IL, characteristics of Pesticides Evaluated for Use at Gray's Cro Golf Course Maximum Maximum Area of interval soil Is pesticide Buffer method of Water Soil use rate Health Applicationb Number of course between metabolic wetted • width application Solubility' Adsorption for year Advisory Pesticide Applications treated applications half life Level (Ibs ai /acre) (yr) (acres) (days)c (days) (Y /N) . (ft) (as /gs /g)d mg /I Koc . (Ibs ai /acre)e ppb Fungicides - azoxystrobin' 1.1 5 70 14 15 n ' 25 gs 6 300. 385260 • fenarimol 2.72 10 70 30 360 n 25 - gs 14 600 1904 500 fludioxinil 0.25 10 70 25 25 n - 25 gs 1.83 ' 23.62 175 850 fosetyl -Al 17.4 10 70 14 0.1 n 25 gs 120000 20 12180 21000 metalaxyl /mefenoxam 1.36 10 . 70 14 16 n 25 gs 8400 50 952 420 PCNB 21.78 10 70 21 21 n 25 gs 0.44 5000 15246 21 propiconazole 1 10 70 14 110 n 25 gs 110 650 700 91 trifloxystrobin" 0.1 10 70 24 24 n 25 gs 0.61 2709 70 350 Herbicides 2,4 -D amine 0.22 4' 70. 15 10 n 25 gs 796000 20 61.6 70 benefin 3 5 70 20 40 n 25 gs 0.1 9000 1050 2100 bensulide 10 3 70 120 120 n 25 gs 5.6 1000 2100 50 bentazon 2 5 . 70 30 - 30 • n 25 gs 2300000 34 - 700 20 clopyralid 2 - 4 70 40 40 n 25 gs 300000 6 560 - 4000 dicamba 0.1 4 70 , 15 14 n 25 gs 2300000 2 28 200 dithiopyr 0.5 1 70 150 17 n 25 gs 1.38 1638 35 25 ethofumesate 1.5 , 4 70 30 30 n 25 gs 50 340 420 2800 fenarimol 2 - 3 40 100 360 n 25 gs 14 600 240 500 glyphosate 4 . - 4 70 24 47 n 25 gs 900000 24000 1120 700 halosulfuron 4.2 . 4 70 30 30 - n 25 gs 0.15 120 1176 350 isoxabep 0.75 4 70 45 45 n 25 gs 2 . .1400 210 400 mecoprop (MCPP) 1.75 • 4 70 11 - 21 n 25 gs ' 660000 20 490 35 MSMA 6 4 70 25 25 n 25 gs 1600 7000 1680 _70 oryzalin 4. 4 70 20 20 n 25 gs 2.5 600 1120 400 pendimethalin _ 3 4 70 6 12 n 25 gs 0.275 5000 840 280 prodiamine 1 1 70 360 60 n . 25 gs 16 200 70 50 triclopyr 2 4 70 46 46 ' n 25 gs 23 780 560 200 • Insecticides - ro . w acephate 3 5 70 . 7 3 n 25 gs 818000 2 1050 30 is carbaryl 8 2 .70 5 '10 n 25 gs 120 300 1120 700 halofenozide 1 2 ' 70 71 71 n - 25 gs 12.3 149 140 990 imidadoprid 0.4 4 70. 51 101 n 25 gs 510. 200 112 400 spinosyn" 0.25 2 70 . 17 17 n 25 gs 235 323 35 140 • • • 1 . Table 1 -1. Characteristics of Pesticides Evaluated for Use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course . • Maximum Maximum Area of interval soil. Is pesticide Buffer method of Water Soil use rate Health . Applicationb Number of course between metabolic wetted width application Solubility Adsorption for year Advisory Pesticide Applications treated applications half life Level (Ibs ai /acre) (yr) (acres) (days)c (days) (Y /N) (ft) (as /qs /g)d mq /I Koc (Ibs ai /acre)e ppb trichlorfon 0.185 2 70 5 10 n 25 gs 120000 10 25.9 • - 1250 Plant Growth Regulators . padobutrazol 0.5 10 90 50 49 n 25 . gs 35 400 450 460 triexapac -ethyl 0.5 10 90 2 2 n 25 gs • 1100 213 450 nd . a We assume normal weather conditions and player traffic. • • -_ b Maximum recommended application rate (lb al /acre) c means that the shortest time between applications was used. d as is aerial spray, gs is ground spray, g is granular e total yearly use was calculated by Application rate x Area Treated x number of applications. ' indicates reduced risk pesticide. EPA gives priority in its registration program for conventional chemical pesticides to pesticides thatmeet reduced risk criteria; low- impact on human health, low toxicity to non - target organisms (birds, fish, and plants),low potential for groundwater contamination, lower use . rates, low pest resistance•potential, and compatibility with Integrated Pest Management. • • • • • • • b iii C . • ac • m It.) . • A a CIS NEI NM ail MS MI Mt TO M • at a OM s s s• a a r - • 1_ gm • as we sus ow we ss ,�i! aim. ,le 1 -2. Results of the Tier 1 Modeling for Selection of Pesticioca for Use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Health LC50 GEENEC Output Output Tier 1: Tier 1: Tier1: Advisory Peak Avg 4 day Avg 21 day Avg 56 day Drinking H2O Acute Aquatic Chronic Health Pesticide Level Runnoff Runnoff Runnoff Runnoff . Aquatic • ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb Fungicides ' azoxystrobin` 1260 259 366 227 0.74 0.47 0.265 - 0.01 0.03 0.00 fenarimol 500 900 28.39 12.67 3.5 2.1 12.27 0.03 0.04 0.02 fludioxlnil 850 235 12.54 6.83 2.11 1.2 • 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.00 fosetyl-Al 21000 75800 53.03 51.83 41.69 • 30.6 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 metalaxyl /mefenoxam 420 12500 15.050 13.770 8.920 5.870 2.120 0.00 0.01 0.01 PCNB 21 770 29.26 7.71 1/4 0.86 2.06 0.04 0.02 0.10 propiconazole • 91 3600 9.03 3.89 1.06 0.63 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.02 trifloxystrobin* 350 15 0.98 0.267 0.058 0.022 2.598 0.07 0.04 0.01 Herbicides 2,4-D amine 70 1100 2.69 2.58 2.11 1.61 0.065 0.00 0.02 0.00 benefin 2100 800 3.08 0.79 0.16 0.07 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 bensulide 50 379 20.93 7.46 . 1.9 1.08 3.09 0.06 ' 0.05 0.06 bentazon 20 635000 17.050 15.950 11.650 8.220 2.600 0.00 0.00 0.13 clopyralid 4000 1035 12.36 11.953 10.653 8.115 2.361 0.01 0.10 0.00 dicamba 200 28000 5.72 5.69 5.54 5.31 0.157 0.00 0.00 0.00 dithiopyr 25 480 36.486 22.325 11.532 17.94 0.009 0.08 0.24 0.00 • ethofumesate 2800 180000 6.856 5.446 3.481 3.142 1.254 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 fenarimol 500 900 31.030 13.800 3.790 2.260 490.660 .0.03 0.04 0.98 ' glyphosate 700 86000 3.89 0.99 0.2 0.09 0.006 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 halosulfuron 350 680 4.73 3.59 2.26 1.4 0.097 0.01 - 0.03 0.00 - isoxaben 400 1000000 12.787 9.557 6.284 4.314 0.025 • - 0.00. 0.00 0.00 mecoprop (MCPP) 35 124000 36.34 34.88 28.46 21.81 3.27 0.00 • 0.00 0.09 MSMA 70 12000 21.334 16.238 12.684 10.668 1.694 0.00 0.01 0.02 oryzalin 400 3260 5.641 4.395 - 3.098 2.125 38.541 0.00 0.01 0.10 pendimethalin - • 280 138 15.87 .1.28 0.28 0.13 0.098 0.12 0.02 0.00 prodiamine 50 72000 1.94 . 1.37 0.51 . 0.32 0.356 0.00 0.00 0.01 triclopyr 200 138 - 0.624 0.583 0.552 0.513 0.012 0.00 0.04 0.00 Insecticides ' ro are c acephate - 30 - 730000 85.34 84.91 82.68 79.13 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 r • carbaryl 700 '2328 20.17 12.31 4.02 - 2.51 0.406: 0.01 0.02 0.00 u ' • halofenozide - 990 110 9.65 5.22 2.47 . 2.01 0.014 0.09 0.22 0.00 imidacloprid • 400 - 105000 0.025 0.014 . 0.006 0.006 0.124 0.00 0.00 0.02 spinosyn` 140 1400 2.58 .2.056 1.554 1.387 -0:542 ' - 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00 . • Table 1 -2. Results of the Tier 1 Modeling for Selection of• Pesticides for Use at Grays Crossing Golf Course • Health LC50 GEENEC Output Output Tier 1: Tier 1: Tier1: Advisory . Peak Avg 4 day Avg 21 day Avg 56 day Drinking H2O Acute Aquatic Chronic Health Pesticide Level Runnoff Runnoff Runnoff - Runnoff - Aquatic ppb ppb ppb ppb • ppb ppb ppb trichlorton 1250 18 6.57 • 6.42 5.73 4.83 0.084 0.37 3.18 0.00 Plant Growth Regulators • - . padobutrazol 460 23600 25.36 20.11 14.65 11.52 3.54 0.00 0.01 . 0.01 triexapac -ethyl nd 6500 38.65 31.47 • 22:16 18,99 1.26 0.00 0.00 nd a We assume normal weather conditions and player traffic. • • b Maximum recommended application rate (lb al /acre) c means that the Shortest time between applications was used. d as is aerial spray, gs is ground spray, g is granular e total yearly use was calculated by Application rate x Area Treated x number of applications. indicates reduced risk pesticide. EPA gives priority in its registration program for conventional chemical pesticides to pestiddes thatmeet reduced risk criteria: low- impact on human health, low toxicity to • non - target organisms (birds, fish, and plants),low potential for groundwater contamination, lower use rates, low pest resistance potential, and compatibility with Integrated Pest Management. • • • • • • • • . CD • • • 0 va an r se ® Imo ,® ® ism s am a ® a an ® t in — II . . Table 1 -3. Environmental Impact Quotients for Pesticides Evaluated for Use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course . EIQ EIQ Pesticide FUR • I - Fungicides . azoxystrobin* nd fenarimol 27.33 743 I .. fludioxinil foseryl -A 13,7 2384 metalaxyl /mefenoxam 29.17 397 • 1 PCNB 21.84 4757 propiconazole 26.1 261 • • trifloxystrobin' - Herbicides . ' 2,4 -D amine 56.3 50 benefin 32.2 483 bensulide 26.5 795 bentazon 38.7 387 clopyralid -nd I . dicamba 30 12 dithiopyr nd ethofumesate fenarimol 27.33 164 ' glyphosate 32.4 518 . • . halosulfuron • nd • . isoxaben • nd mecoprop (MCPP) 31.7 222 MSMA nd oryzalin 17.7 283 • 1 pendimethalin 25.8 25.8 prodiamine nd triclopyr 31.2 31.2 • ' Insecticides ' acephate 17.9 269 I carbaryl 22.6 362 halofenozide nd imidacloprid 37.2 60 • • spinosyn" nd nd trichlorfon 31.2 12 • • r Plant Growth Regulators I paclobutrazol nd • triexapac -ethyl nd I . EIQ is the Environmental Impact Quotient EIQ -FUR is the EIQ Field Use Rating • 1 Page I -5 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACHES AND FINDINGS Pesticides were evaluated for use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course using standard risk assessment techniques that were developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Through this risk assessment process, pesticides with the least potential for toxic effects were selected for use at Gray's Crossing Golf Course. The EPA endorses a tiered approach to risk assessment, In this assessment, only a Tier 1 1 assessment was performed. Any chemicals showing the potential for toxic effects in the Tier I assessment were rejected for use at the golf course. A description of the Tier I method follows. 1 Tier 1, the screening level risk assessment, incorporates conservative estimates of pesticide application rates, along with conservative exposure and risk characterization methods, to provide estimates of the potential of chemical risk. The Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI - GROW) and the Generic Expected Environmental Concentration Program (GENEEC) was used to estimate exposure concentrations of the pesticides. These models were developed by EPA's Office of Pesticides and are considered the current best models for screening pesticides impacts to the environment (Parker and Rieder 1997, Barrett, 1997). Exposure concentration estimates were compared with ecological (LC and human health indicators of risk. For those pesticides shown to have a potential for effect in the Tier 1 assessment, a Tier 2 risk assessment may be implemented, or the pesticide was dropped and will not be used at the golf course. Tier 2 uses high quality data and more accurate methods to generate estimates of pesticide risk. If further evaluation is needed, a Tier 3 assessment is conducted. In Tier 3, site - specific data for use in the exposure models is generated. Typically, this equates to site surveys, collection of soil and water samples, and possible toxicity testing of site - specific materials. Tier 3 analyses are expensive and generally not conducted in the selection process. Rather than conduct a Tier 3 risk assessment, a pesticide would simply not be used at the golf course. The major components (see Figure I -1) of a pesticide risk assessment are described below • (problem formulation, exposure assessment, effects assessment, and risk characterization). Each of these components is implemented within each tier of the risk assessment process. However, the methods, data requirements, and interpretation of the risk process is tier specific. After an initial description of the risk assessment components, the specific methods appropriate to each tier are described. The Planning Stage: Problem Formulation The objective of a pesticide risk assessment is to provide rigorous scientific information about 1 the potential toxic effects of pesticides. Using the outputs from the assessment pesticides were selected that will minimize any potential environmental or human health impacts of pesticides that may runoff into drinking water sources or water bodies containing aquatic life. Audubon International Institute Page I -6 1 = � � NM .R MI M — MI r 1 111 11 1 .11. M I 1.11 _ Sri Mal •Problem Formulation . ► Tier 1 Analysis • • candidate pesticides __ -- - - - - -- __ • • site conditions - - " • • potential receptors ' • . Exposure Analysis EPA Models Effects Characterization • • GENEEC • • Conservative Values . - _ • SCI -GROW 1 Tier 2 Analysis ' • ,, .r risk Risk Characterization -- - No Risk Exposure Analysis Stoo Analysis, Models - pesticide OK for use . •SWRRB -WQ or Effects Characterization - - SWAT or PRIZM2 • site specific data - - - - "" Risk Characterization • H ' B ► Potential for Risk • • Hypothesis Testing Ti 3 _ A na l ys i s • N isk " - Stop Analysis, pesticide Exposure Analysis Stop Analysis, pesticide OK for not for use Models use - - t •SWRRB -WQ or SWAT Effects Characterization • PRIZM2 • site survey data •Detailed, specific characterization of site , Risk Characterization WERF . • ' _ • Hypothesis Testing No isk Pote 1 for Risk Figure 1 -1. Pesticide Selection Process for IPM at m Gray's Crossing Golf Course. • • Stop Analysis, pesticide OK for Pesticide not for oci 0 - use use at the golf course • • V - • • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ' In addition, the assessment will provide golf course superintendents with information useful for • selecting effective pesticide application rates and practices, while minimizing any adverse 1 impacts to human or environmental health. The problem formulation stage is the general planning stage for the assessment. The major information gathered in this stage includes the following: 1. A list of candidate pesticides for use at a specific golf course - these pesticides will be evaluated in the tiered risk assessment process described below. . 2. A detailed description of the golf course site and surrounding areas, including topography, drinking water supplies and water bodies potentially receiving runoff from the site. 3. A list of potential receptors (e.g., those animals or human communities potentially impacted from pesticide runoff or ground water flow). Information should include routes of exposure for specific chemicals and information on the signs and symptoms • of pesticide toxicity. A literature review of the concentrations of specific pesticides 1 shown to cause toxicity to humans and biota is also required. 4. A chemical description of the candidate pesticides including chemical structure, ' I. partition coefficients (Koc), half life, degradation rate, and volatility. 5. Supporting information useful for evaluating the exposure concentrations of the • pesticide and risk of the pesticide to human and environmental health. Typical information includes representative meteorological data, health affects levels (HAL), 1 and environmental screening criteria (e.g., LC of a sensitive local species). • • During this stage, a list of pesticides that are candidates for use at a specific golf course was 1 selected and all relevant information required to successfully conduct the risk assessment (see above) was gathered. In addition, the criteria used to judge the potential risks posed by the pesticides under consideration were defined. The criteria generally represent a concentration in the drinking water supplies or surrounding water bodies that pose a risk to human or ecological health. Selection of specific criteria are dependent upon the risk tiers (described below). More conservative criteria are used in the early tiers. Exposure Assessment 1 The exposure assessment provides information on the concentration of pesticide in drinking 1 water and surface water that results from application of pesticide at the golf course. These expected concentrations are used to judge the relative risk of the pesticide to human and 1 Audubon Intemational Institute Page 1 -8 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course F' environmental health. The objective of the exposure assessment is to (1) quantify the amount and timing of pesticide release into the environment, (2) estimate the fate and transport of the pesticide within the golf course boundary and onto surrounding areas, and (3) quantify the exposure of individuals and biota to the resulting concentrations of pesticides in drinking water 1 supplies and receiving water bodies. The specific methods used to •generate the exposure concentrations are dependent upon the risk assessment tier under evaluation. In Tier 1, the exposure concentrations are generated in a manner that provides the most conservative !. concentration estimate (the highest concentration) that could reasonably be thought to occur. In • Tier 2 and Tier 3, more accurate estimates of the exposure concentration are generated using 1 detailed site•specific information in the exposure estimates. • Background concentrations of pesticides in groundwater and surface waters are checked (see 1 Environmental Monitoring section). These background concentrations allow separation of the relative pesticide risk caused by those pesticides used at the golf course from other sources of .. ' pesticides. • Prior to golf course construction and operation, exposure concentrations can only be calculated ' with the use of ground water flow and surface water runoff models. After golf course operation has begun, water samples from groundwater and surface receiving waters can be obtained from laboratory chemical analysis. • Ecological considerations of pesticide exposure.include bioaccumulation of pesticides up the food chain to higher trophic levels. In this context, the potential exposure of carnivores such as birds and foxes to magnified pesticide concentrations are also be considered: Effects Characterization 1 Effects characterization involves generating a list of all organisms that may be exposed to pesticide concentrations resulting from golf course application. In addition, a review of the literature to establish toxic pesticide concentrations for each organism is conducted. For biota, LC IC or EC values generated from laboratory bioassay tests are recorded. For humans, health effects criteria, including drinking water and fish consumption levels, are generated. These data are used in•combination with the exposure levels to generate estimates of risk. In 1 addition, information gathered in the literature reviews provides a scientific basis for any potential risk to human health or the environment that may found as a result of the risk assessment. Audubon International Institute • Page 1 -9 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1.. Risk Characterization Information on exposure levels and effects are combined in the risk characterization stage to generate estimates of the potential risk of pesticide application to the golf course. The methods used in this stage are dependent upon the risk assessment tier under consideration. In Tier 1, ' conservative assumptions are used that effectively generate the highest probability of finding pesticide risk. If, using these .conservative assumptions a pesticide is shown.to have negligible 1 risk levels, the risk assessment is ended. However, if the pesticide is shown to have the potential for environmental or human health risk we have options. First, if surrogate pesticides are available the pesticide under evaluation could be dropped from further consideration. Or, the- 1 team could elect to proceed to Tier 2. The Tier 2 methods provide more accurate estimates of pesticide risk, but are more costly and require higher quality data to generate the risk estimates. • At the end of the Tier 2 assessment, the golf course team faces a similar decision. Again, the 1 pesticide could be shown to have negligible risk or to have the potential for environmental or human health risk. If the potential for effects is present, two choices exist, elect to drop the pesticide from further consideration or proceed to Tier 3. Unlike the prior tiers, Tier 3 requires ' that extensive site - specific data be generated for use in the risk methodology. These site surveys are generally expensive. The screening level risk assessment generates the highest risk levels possible for a specific pesticide. A quotient is calculated that compares the maximum expected exposure concentration of the pesticide in the media of interest (drinking water, fish tissue, sediments, surface water) to a conservative benchmark dose representing a threshold for effect (i.e., EPA's water quality criteria, HAL, etc.). If the quotient is greater than 1 (one) the potential for risk is assumed. 1 Expected Risk = Maximum Expected Concentration / Effects Criteria 1 In a Tier 1 assessment, the maximum expected concentration of the pesticide and conservative estimates of effects are combined to generate the risk estimates. The tier 1 results are used for 1 screening those pesticides with no obvious human or environmental risk from those that require further study. - The effects.criteria represent a value that is protective of human or environmental health on a broad scale. Effects are evaluated for acute aquatic, chronic aquatic and human health. Expected Risk was calculated as follows for each effects criteria: r • Acute Aquatic = GEENEC (Peak Runoff)/LC5.0, 1 Chronic Aquatic = GEENEC (Avg 21 day runoff) /(LC * 0.1) Human Health. = SCI -GROW output/HAL ' For exposure estimation at Tier 1, conservative screening models to generate the maximum expected pesticide concentration in drinking water or surface water at golf courses were used. These models are SCI -GROW (ground water) and GENEEC (surface water). These models were • developed by EPA's Office of Pesticides and are considered the current best models for screening ' Audubon International Institute • - - Page I -10 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course pesticides impacts to the environment (Parker and Rieder 1997, Barrett, 1997). Also, these ' models have been adopted by the joint EPA task group on pesticide exposure modeling (for more detail on the models or the joint task group see http: //www.femvtf.com on the world wide web). This task group is made up of EPA and industry personnel. The SCI -GROW estimates are based on environmental fate properties of the pesticide, the ' application rate, and the existing body of data from EPA - required small -scale prospective ground water monitoring studies for all pesticides. Site - specific soil properties can be added to the model to increase the relevance of the model predictions. GENEEC assumes that runoff is ' sufficient to remove 10% of the dissolved pesticide from a 10 hectare field. The required inputs. include application rate (lbs active ingredient. /acre), the maximum number of applications per year, absorption rate of dissolved pesticide to soil organic matter, and others. Tier 2: Risk Assessment For those pesticides shown to have a potential for effect in the Tier 1 assessment, a Tier 2 risk assessment may be implemented. Tier 2 uses high quality data and more accurate methods to generate estimates of pesticide risk.. In addition, uncertainty analysis of both the model' predictions of pesticide concentrations and effects criteria are used in the analysis to provide a scientifically valid method for assessing pesticide risk. Tier 2 exposure models include PRZM2 (ground water, EPA 1993) and the Simulator for Water ' Resources in Rural Basins -Water Quality (SWRRBWQ surface water runoff, Arnold and Williams 1994; Arnold et al. 1989; Williams et al., 1985). SWRRBWQ is a model that uses GLEAMS pesticide fate component, CREAMS daily rainfall hydrology model, and SCS ' technology for estimating peak runoff rates and newly developed sediment yield equations to simulate hydrologic and related processes in rural basins (Williams et al 1985; Arnold and Williams 1994). The objective of the model is to predict the effect of management decisions on I .water, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide yields at the outlet of a sub -basin or basin. SWRRBWQ is a comprehensive, continuous simulation model covering aspects of the hydrologic cycle, pond and reservoir storage, sedimentation, crop growth, nutrient cycling, and pesticide fate. This ' model was developed for row crop agricultural and has recently been evaluated for turf situations (Smart and Warren -Hicks 1996; Warren -Hicks et at 1996). Although other models are available for use, PRZM2 has become the model of choice for the EPA's Office of Pesticides for predicting transport and transformation of pesticides throughout ' the crop root and unsaturated zones. The model has a built -in Monte Carlo simulator for conducting an uncertainty analysis of sensitive model input parameters. Exposure models in Tier 2 require a great deal more data to implement than the screening level models of Tier 1. For example, PRZM2 requires over 100 input parameters, including site - specific meteorological data, for successful implementation. Of course, many times the input Audubon Intemational Institute Page I -11 i t Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course values for a specific golf course are not available. At Tier 2, when input parameters are uncertain we employ generic values for the soil systems under evaluation. [note: Tier 3 requires site - specific studies to generate accurate input parameters]. , • Exposure estimates at Tier 2 are generated taking into account the uncertainty in the model inputs and the generic inaccuracy of the model. An uncertainty analysis that propagates the uncertainty of the model inputs into the expected error in prediction is called a Monte Carlo analysis. PRZM2 has a built -in algorithm for implementing the Monte Carlo analysis. The model allows a 1 Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis to be implemented on those parameters that have the most influence on the predicted exposure concentrations. Therefore, the expected exposure concentration generated by the model (the mean value) and the uncertainty in the predictions (represented by a prediction interval or standard deviation) in the risk estimation procedure can be used. Unfortunately, SWRRBWQ does not have a built -in Monte Carlo procedure. Therefore, a prediction uncertainty must be generated manually by running the model several times using different values of sensitive input parameters. The range of model predictions are used to generate a prediction interval of the exposure estimates. Prior work with SWRRBWQ 11 (Smart and Warren -Hicks 1996; Warren -Hicks et al. 1996) has shown that SWRRBWQ produces realistic.predictions of pesticides in surface water runoff and that the described method of generating prediction intervals is sufficient in most applications. Estimates of risk at Tier 2 can be evaluated using the following procedures: 1. For ecological risk, community level risk curves can be generated using the Water Environment Research Foundation's (WERF's) Aquatic Ecological Risk Procedures 1 and Software (Parkhurst et al. 1995, Warren -Hicks and Parkhurst 1995). This method combines the distribution of exposure concentrations with a community level risk curve developed from laboratory toxicity test data to generate the probability of impact of one or more pesticides to the environment. This method is appropriate when sufficient laboratory toxicity data are available for a specific pesticide. In many cases, both acute and chronic community curves can be generated. 2. For both human health and environmental criteria, hypothesis testing can be employed. Here, we use the uncertainty in the exposure concentrations and risk criteria to statistically evaluate if a potential for risk is apparent. We test the hypothesis: 1 H exposure concentration > risk criterion H exposure concentration <risk criterion The test is a one - tailed evaluation of risk. The only concern is if the exposure criterion is greater than the risk criterion. 1 Audubon International Institute Page 1 -12 1 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course t • , In this approach, an attempt is made to use more realistic risk criterion than employed in Tier 1. The WERF method provides methods for generating realistic criterion for environmental impacts. For human health impacts, the geometric mean of the health effects criterion published for a particular pesticide is used. • Tier 3: Assessment • The Tier 3 methods are identical to the Tier 2 methods. However, at Tier 3 an attempt to I generate excellent site - specific data for use in the exposure models is used. Typically, this equates to site surveys, collection of soil and water samples, and possible toxicity testing of site - specific materials. The risk characterization methods are identical, but the confidence in the • ' analytical results is increased over the Tier 1 and Tier 2 results. These surveys are typically very time consuming and expensive, and we often exclude the pesticide from further consideration rather than attempt to gather the data needed for a Tier 3 analysis. 1 1 • 1 • • • 1 1 1 1 1 • • Audubon International Institute Page I -13 • 1 ' - Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 1 • APPENDIX II • 1 • IPM and Scouting Report Forms • and ' Data Reporting Forms • • 11-` 1 • 1 1 • • • • Audubon International Institute 1 1 1- Surface Water Sampling Data General Information 1 1. Sample Station ID 2. Station Description. 3. Date Collected ' 4. Time Collected . . 5. Collector 6. Weather 7. Rain within past 3 days? (circle one) heavy medium light dry 8. Observations (turbidity, algae, fish, wildlife, odor, etc.) 1 Field Analyses Air Temperature (F) 1 2. Water Temperature (F) • 3. DO (mg /I) . 3. Conductivity (mS /cm) 1 4.pH 5. TDS (mg /I) 1 11111111 411111111 MN N INS — I n Ilia O• MI I s NM !•M • MB r Turf IPM Field History Report Form Hole Number Scout . Date: Site Turf Mowing Soil Analysis Soil Fertilization (N /1000 sq.ft.) Irrigation Species Area Schedule pH P K Drainage Spring Summer Fall Winter Schedule Green Tee Fairway Rough Driving range Nursery green Practice green 1 Comments on specific topics such as shade, weather, irrigation, etc. • • • Turf IPM Field Infestation Report Hole Scout Date Site, Mowing Soil Weeds Diseases Insects Nematodes (turf species) Height Moisture Species No. or % Kind % Species No. or % Species No. or % Green Tee Fairway Rough 1. Crabgrass 1. Dollar spot 1. Sod webworms 1. Sting 2. Other grasses 2. Brown patch 2. Grubs 2. Lance 3. Broadleaves 3. Pythium 3. Hyperodes Weevils 3. Ring. 4. Sedges 4. Leaf spot 4. Stubby -root • 5. Others 5. Other 5. Others • • ® ® 1N IS ® a ! s 11111111 OW MI r r Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 4 r r r APPENDIX III 1 Example of a Hazardous Communication Program r • r r • • r 1 • • r r r r r Audubon International Institute 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 • HAZARD COMMUNICATION PROGRAM • • • 1 (NAME OR COMPANY) (LOCATION- DIVISION) 1 It is the intent of (Name of Company) (Address- Location - Division) • • to comply with the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard in our continuing effort 1 .to provide a healthy and safe workplace for our employees. This program is designed to provide employee information and training (1) the hazardous chemicals known to be in the workplace, (2) the methods that will be employed to protect workers, (3) the precautionary methods employees must follow to protect themselves from hazardous chemicals, (4) the detection of a release of hazardous chemicals and (5) emergency '. procedures to follow should there be a release of hazardous chemicals and/or employee exposure to them. • • 1, WRITTEN HAZARD COMMUNICATION PROGRAM: Copies of the written Hazard . Communication Program are available from the office of (Name of Office or Person) • program is reviewed annually and is updated as needed. All present or new employees will be given .a copy of the program. Employees and/or their authorized representative may obtain an additional copy of the program during normal working ours at a cost of $0.10 per page. . MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS: Following is a listing of all hazardous 1 chemicals known to be in the workplace; the location(s) of the chemical are also provided: HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL LOCATION USE 1. • 2. (List all known or suspected hazardous chemicals.) 3. (If you do not have copies or all MSDS's, you will need to contact your suppliers 1 for the necessary copies). • 1 • • 1 Audubon International Institute Page III - 1 • !� Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ' - A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and/or label of each hazardous chemical is filed in the office of . Employees (Name of Office or Person) I and/or their representative may obtain a single copy of an MSDS and/or label during normal working hours at a cost of $0.10 per page. The relevant information on the MSDS will be shared with employees during the hazard communication training program. The MSDS will be M available in the workplace to all employees who are urged to review them whenever they have a question regarding the chemical. 1 . NOTIFICATION OF OTHER EMPLOYERS: When other employers bring a work crew onto our property they will be supplied with a copy of the Hazard Communication Program and • 1 with copies of the MSDS for hazardous chemicals which could be encountered in their work area. It shall be their; responsibility to train'their employees, provide personal protective equipment and handle employee emergencies. Any releases or spills of hazardous chemicals shall within minutes, be brought to the immediate attention of • (Name of Office, Person or Position Title) • • USE OF LABELS: Whenever possible hazardous chemicals will be kept in their original containers. Should an original container ever become defective (leak) the chemical will be transferred to a similar type container. The label will be transferred to the replacement container and be securely attached. If the label is non - transferrable, a replacement label with all significant information will be prepared and be securely and prominently placed on the new container. This container of a chemical will be used for its intended use as soon as possible. • ' Placards will be placed on all containers in which hazardous chemicals are used, such as storage tanks for chemicals, solvent tanks for cleaning parts, etc. • ' EMPLOYEE INFORMATION AND TRAINING:. All . employees will be provided with information and training on hazardous chemicals in their workplace: • • ✓ At the time of their initial employment. ✓ Whenever a new hazardous 'chemical is brought into their workplace. 1 ✓ At least annually. All affected employees are required to participate in this training. The training will be I provided or arranged by (Name of Office or Person or Position Title) • j. • • Audubon International Institute Page III -2 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 The employees will be provided with the following information: ✓ The requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard. 1 ✓ Operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present, used or stored. Location and availability of the written Hazard Communication Program and MSDS files. Employee training will include: ✓ Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical in the work area (such as monitoring conducted by the employer, continuous monitoring devices, visual appearance or odor of hazardous chemicals when being released, etc.) ✓ The physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area. ✓ The measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, • emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used and ✓ The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, including an explanation of the labeling system and the Material Safety Data Sheet, and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information. HAZARD CHEMICAL RELEASE, SPILL OR EXPOSURE Employees will immediately, within minutes, notify their immediate supervisor of any release, spill or human exposure to a hazardous chemical. If it is a significant release into the atmosphere, a spill on non -owned property or into a surface or ground water supply, notify the local emergency service agency and/or fire department (telephone 91 1) and/or the State Emergency Response Commission. If a person or persons are exposed to a hazardous chemical, emergency treatment as specified by the MSDS or label will be immediately applied and whenever a question of further medical treatment may be required, the individual(s) will be transported to (Name of Doctor or Emergency Treatment Center) A copy of the MSDS and/or label will be transmitted with the exposed individual(s). The supervisor of an area in which a hazardous chemical release, spill or exposure occurs will, immediately after emergency action, notify of the event. (Name of Office or Person) 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page III -3 1 1 . : Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS: Employees are required to follow all standard 1 operating procedures in the handling of hazardous chemicals, including the use of protective equipment. Failure to do so shall provide sufficient reason for reprimands, suspension or • termination of employment. INFORMING OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS 1 • There may be instances where tasks will be performed by contractors that are not company employees. Should there be a hazardous substance in the work area, it is the obligation or our company to make the contractor aware of the situation. This may be accomplished by: 1. A list hazardous substances in the work area. • 2. A diagram of the work area with the locations designated where hazardous substances . are used and/or stored. The contractor will be advised that MSDS are on file and available upon request. The 1 contractor will sign an acknowledgment of receipt of information. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT 1�r.. DATE: I ON THE ABOVE DATE, I ' (CONTRACTORS NAME) RECEIVED A LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES USED AND /OR STORED IN THE WORK AREA FROM I UNDERSTAND THAT MSDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL SUBSTANCES LISTED, UPON REQUEST. I ALSO MAY OBTAIN A DIAGRAM OF THE WORK AREA . DESIGNATION USE'AND /OR STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. . (CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE) • • 1 1. Audubon International Institute Page III-4 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 HAZARDS OF NON - ROUTINE TASKS A non - routine task is defined as one or more of the following: 1. A task not done frequently 2. A task not listed on your job description 1 3. A task for which you are not trained 1 Should your Supervisor/Foreman call upon you to perform a non - routine task involving hazardous chemical handling or working in an area where hazardous chemicals are used or stored,' the following steps will be taken by the him\her: 1. Give the employee a complete description of the task 2. Brief on hazardous chemicals in the work place 1 3. Brief on the effects the chemicals may have on the person 1 • 4. Determine if the employee is allergic to the chemicals present 5. Brief on proper handling of the chemicals 6. Brief an first aid procedures to take concerning the chemicals 7. State that there will be mandatory use of safety equipment 8. The Supervisor/Foremen will closely monitor the employee while working in the area 1 of hazardous chemicals 1 1 • 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page III -5 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course RECOMMENDED POSTERS AND RECORDS 1 IN MAINTENANCE AREA 1. OSHA JOB SAFETY AND PROTECTION POSTER U.S. Depat t,nent of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration ' 2. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POSTER ' Equal.Employment Opportunity Commission 3. WORKERS' COMPENSATION POSTER Obtain from Insurance carrier 4. BE SAGE WITH PESTICIDES POSTER Environmental Protection Agency • ' • 5. RIGHT -TO -KNOW LAW POSTER Toxic Substances Information Center • I : 6. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDS) Obtain from distributor for each hazardous chemical used and/or stored. 1 7. PESTICIDE LABELS • Obtain from distributor of each pesticide used and/or stored. 8. HAZARD COMMUNICATION PROGRAM 1 A written program prepared by the course. • 9. RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD ' Date and location of application. Product name and quantity (pounds or gallons) of pesticide applied I Area treated and application rate method of application • 10. RESTRICTED PESTICIDE CERTIFICATION LICENSE I Test is given at the County Cooperative Extension service. Required only for individuals purchasing and.using restricted pesticides. • 1 Audubon International Institute Page III -6 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course ' • 1 APPENDIX IV 1 Summary of Studies on Water Quality and Nutrients and Pesticides 1 1 • 1 • 1. 1 Audubon International Institute 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course 1 gg �° E Surface Water. Nutrients and Pesticides — "Review of Scientific Studies. The major concern over contamination of surface waters from runoff at golf courses, including Gray's Crossing Golf Course, focuses on nutrients and pesticides. From turf areas, the major concern over contamination of surface waters from runoff containing nutrients is for phosphorus and nitrate 1 nitrogen: ' Phosphorus. Phosphorus is unlikely to create problems at the golf course except under very specialized conditions in ponds and streams. Excessive phosphorus in surface waters may cause unwanted algal blooms and deteriorate water quality. Even though the granular phosphorus fertilizer carriers are greater than 88% water soluble and totally water soluble forms exist for • liquid application, the phosphorus becomes rapidly fixed within the soil profile and vertical movement in most soils is only 0.3 to 1.2 inches /year (Young et al., 1985). Possible phosphate . movement due to soil erosion could be a point source of pollution in turf systems (Walker, 1990). However, these instances would be very site specific and nonexistent where BMPs are employed and runoff is retained to be filtered within the golf course. Also, by matching the nutrient I requirements of the turf with applications of fertilizer, the probabilities for runoff are reduced. Besides the work previously discussed, recent research at Pennsylvania State University by Watschke and Mumma (1989) found no sediment loss associated with runoff from turfed plots and observed phosphate losses which averaged only 0.5 lb/acre when runoff did occur. Their study was conducted on slopes ranging from 9 to 14% under intense precipitation simulations. Total phosphorus loss in surface runoff for the entire growing season from a tall fescue/Kentucky • bluegrass turf was only 0.0178 lbs /acre (Gross et al., 1990). More recent work at Pennsylvania State University found that in runoff from creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass turf conditions phosphate loss was reduced compared to the initial concentrations in the irrigation water by up to 94 %. Similarly, phosphate concentration in leachate from the same turf areas found up to a 77% reduction (Linde et al., 1994). This indicates the turf is acting as a filter to remove nutrients from the water source prior to runoff or leaching occurring. The most vulnerable time for phosphate to be lost is immediately following fertilization when excess irrigation or heavy rainfall would cause movement. This occurrence can be avoided by 1) not I fertilizing when rain is predicted; and 2) making certain that fertilizer is irrigated to remove the material - from the leaves into the soil immediately following application. 1 Nitrogen. Nitrate - nitrogen (NO -N) movement in surface runoff can also be minimized by management decisions.. Research has shown that the total nitrogen loss from a fertilizer application can be reduced from 9.5% of the total amount applied using urea as the nitrogen carver to 0.26% by changing to a slowly available carrier such as sulfur coated urea (Dunigan et al., 1976). In evaluations of the loss of nitrogen in surface runoff under nominal environmental conditions, • Morton et al :(1988) found that surface runoff occurred on only two storm events on a Kentucky bluegrass turf in Rhode Island during 2 years of monitoring. Previous environmental factors Audubon International Institute Page IV -1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course (rainfall on frozen ground with snow cover and saturated soils from prior rainfall) helped generate the runoff. Nitrogen losses from these events were 0.089 and 0.356 lbs./acre or only 0.16% of that applied. Gross et al. (1990) observed that the loss of nitrogen in the surface runoff from a tall fescue/Kentucky bluegrass turf was only 0.12 lbs /acre for an entire growing season (0.05% of that applied) compared to 10.4 lbs /acre for tobacco, almost 90 times greater. Meisinger and Randall (1991) noted that nitrogen losses in surface runoff are usually small and depend on degree of soil cover, source of nitrogen applied, rainfall intensity immediately after application and soil properties. They also noted that the largest losses will occur when a soluble nitrogen source is applied to a bare soil and a significant runoff event occurs within one day of application. Linde et al. (1994) found that nitrate -N in concentrated runoff from experimental turfgrass plots never exceeded the drinking water standard of 10 ppm and there was actually a • decrease of up to 96% in the nitrate -N found in runoff compared to nitrate -N found in the irrigation water. Similar results were found in the leachate with up to 80% of the nitrogen removed compared to amounts found in the irrigation water. Best Management Practices if implemented effectively can effectively eliminate problems associated with nutrient loss during runoff or leaching. Although less than drinking water standards, nitrate concentrations greater than approximately 0.5 mg/1 are of concern to the ecological health of an ecosystem (Wetzel 1982). Pesticides — Review of Scientific Studies. Movement of pesticides into surface water during runoff events at Gray's Crossing Golf Course depends on the following: 1) pesticide characteristics such as solubility, adsorption, and persistence; 2) soil characteristics such as soil texture, permeability, water holding capacity, pH, organic matter; 3) site conditions including depth to groundwater, slopes, distance to environmental features, and climate; and 4) management practices such as selection of pesticide, application methods, pesticide rates, timing, and inrgation management. Watschke and Mumma (1989) reported on the potential for surface movement of selected pesticides in undiluted runoff on research plots under an extremely high irrigation rate of 6 inches/hour. They monitored for pendimethalin (a commonly used preemergence herbicide); 2,4 -D, 2,4 -DP, and dicamba (commonly used postemergence herbicides); and chlorpyrifos (an insecticide). For pendimethalin and chlorpyrifos, no chemical was detected in any of the runoff on all 24 sample dates. These materials based on their chemistry become fixed in the soil after application and do not move. For 2,4 -D and dicamba, the amounts in the concentrated runoff exceeded federal water standards on 4 sample dates (2,4- D), and 1 sample date (dicamba) out of 24 sample events, despite these materials being more water soluble and made as foliar applications. However, these levels were only found when runoff occurred within 2 days after application. They noted that under natural storm water runoff conditions and subsequent dilution outfall concentrations would be considerably less. Similar findings with 2,4 -D applications were noted by Thompson et at. (1984). Under field conditions • the greatest dislodgeable leaf residues of 2,4 -D on Kentucky bluegrass were less than 4.5% of the total applied at time 0, immediately after application, indicating very rapid adsorption to the leaf surface and a strong affinity for adsorption. No dislodgeable residues were detected at 3 days 1 after application. Hurto (1991) noted that the dissipation rate of foliarly applied pesticides depends on volatilization, plant absorption and photodecomposition. He summarized that research has found that less than 10% of the applied rate amount can be found as foliar residue Audubon International Institute Page 1V -2 1 • Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course the day after application and-that within 1 to 3 days after application levels drop to between 1 and I 3 %. Careful attention to application timing with respect to rainfall and irrigation management can minimize removal of materials which could become nonpoint pollutants. Smith (1995) found that approximately 8% of the applied amount of a 2,4- D +mecoprop +dicamba herbicide I application Left treated plots due to runoff over a 25 -day collection period. Eighty percent of this amount moved during the first irrigation event following application. Since only 6 hours are I required after treatment, for maximum efficacy, it was suggested that an irrigation 6 to 12 hours • after application to wash the excess pesticide from the foliage into the thatch and/or soil would negate the possibility of runoff. Watschke and Mumma (1989). concluded that nutrient and/or ' pesticide concentrations in storm water and the impact on surface water would be considerably less than other urban pollutants not associated with well managed turfgrass areas. 1 Groundwater 1 The major concern over contamination of groundwater from infiltration also focuses on nutrients and pesticides. From turf areas, the major concern over contamination of ground waters from leaching is for nitrates and pesticides. I Nitrates — Review of Scientific Studies. Most of the significance associated with nutrient leaching is focused on nitrate nitrogen (NO Because nitrates are anions, they do not respond to the exchange capacity of the soil. Consequently, if not taken up by the plant, or fixed in the soil organic fraction through microbial, activity, they can become a potential pollution problem in I the percolating water. Reviews of the currently published research on nitrogen fertilizers applied to turfgrasses (Balogh and Walker, 1992; Petrovic, 1990) has determined that nitrate- nitrogen concentrations in soil water leaching through the surface soil exceeds drinking water standards of I 10 ppm on sandy soils when one of the following conditions exist: 1) high levels of soluble nitrogen are applied, greater than 3 lbs. N /1000 sq.ft. at one time; or 2) very frequent (daily) irrigation is practiced coupledwith application of large concentrations of water soluble nitrogen' I sources. Petrovic further noted that the degree of nitrate leaching is influenced by soil type, irrigation practices, nitrogen source and rate, and season of application. Gilliam (1988) noted that if all of the nitrogen applied to crops in North Carolina in one year went into groundwater, I then based' on percolating water volumes, the nitrate -N concentration would only be 4 ppm, far below the World Health Organization drinking water standard of 10 ppm. Although less than drinking water standards, nitrate concentrations greater than approximately 0.5mg/1 are of 1 concem to the ecological health of an ecosystem. . • I Anderson et al. (1981) demonstrated that a soil -turf filter can remove applied nitrogen from municipal wastewater at a very efficient level (> 52 % on a 95 % sand: 1 % silt: 4 % clay mix • and > 64 % on a 89 % sand: 5 % silt: 4 % clay: 2 % organic matter mix). Minimizing nitrate . movement is directly related to best management practices by efficiency in rate and timing of -(1. nitrogen inputs through choice of materials and efficiency in rate and timing of irrigation. 1 . Audubon International Institute Page IV -3 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course All of these factors when addressed should reduce or eliminate nonpoint source losses of nutrients from golf course areas at Gray's Crossing Golf Course as a direct result of management by the golf course superintendent. Pesticides - Review of Scientific Studies. Pesticide contamination concerns are based on 1 findings of several surveys which were conducted in the mid -1980s on drinking water wells and ground water sources which identified agricultural pesticides in the water (Nesheim, 1986; Rao et al., 1988). A number of factors determine the potential for pesticide movement and ground water contamination. Pesticide factors include reactivity with the soil, half -life, and time and rate of application. Soil factors also influence vulnerability with sandy soils low inorganic matter having a greater tendency for problems. Soil pH and the presence of channels which may provide macropore flow also are factors influencing movement. The application site itself is also more vulnerable if it has a shallow depth to the ground water table, is in a particularly wet climate or extensive irrigation is practiced or if the pesticides are injected into the soil through the turf canopy (Anonymous, 1989). As part of the overall interaction of management practices, Weber and Keller (1989) have shown that plant water use will slow the leaching of pesticides and allow for more•interaction within the root zone where material degradation is faster. A review of specific studies which have investigated turf application of materials and monitoring • for surface and ground water problems have found that the majority of research from currently labeled materials have not exceeded acceptable limits. A recent US Geological Survey study in Florida documented several pesticides that exceeded the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) or guidance concentration (USGS, 1996). Findings from other studies have indicated concentrations below regulatory levels. A study by Mitchell et al. (1976) in Delaware found that dicamba (a commonly .used postemergence herbicide) leached in putting green soils, but only at a 100 parts per billion (ppb) maximum concentration which did not exceed drinking water standards of 210 ppb. A similar study by Gold et al. (1988) in Rhode Island showed that under home lawn application conditions, dicamba concentrations in the soil water exceeded 1 ppb in less than 10 % of the samples and were in the 5 to 10 ppb range in only 4 % of the samples.. In this same study, concentrations of 2,4 -D (also a postemergence herbicide) exceeded 1 ppb in only 1 4 % of the samples and in 83 % of the samples it was below detection limits: , The conclusions from these studies were that the turf, due to its dense thatch layer and high soil organic matter content attenuated herbicide movement. The Rhode Island study concluded that the herbicide 1 concentrations did not exceed drinking water standards at any time during the growing season. • In a Florida study, ground water test wells on two golf courses in Palm Beach county were tested 1 for 37 different pesticides. One of these wells was located between two putting greens where the highest incidence of pesticide use on golf courses occurs. Test results indicated that none of the 1 chemicals targeted for detection were found in the water samples from the two .golf courses (Kahler, 1990). Additional sampling has also found that no chemicals were detected in any of the water samples from the test wells (Jarrell, 1991, personal comrnunication). Additionally, the 1 EPA has released results of a well water survey conducted over a period of two years. They tested 1,347 randomly selected wells for 126 pesticides and their metabolites. Among the Audubon International Institute Page IV -4 1 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • • 9 materials used on turf, only atrazine, bentazon, simazine, and dacthal were found and only atrazine was occasionally found at levels above those considered minimal to protect human health (Kahler, 1990). 1 A study conducted in Florida on 8 golf courses found nutrients and traces of pesticides in ground water, surface water and irrigation ponds (USGS, 1996). This is in a sensitive ecosystem where ' sandy soils, high rainfall and heavy uses of pesticides and fertilizers occurs. From an ecological view, the majority of the detection were below 1 ppb, and those which were higher were mostly for pesticides that are not toxic to aquatic organisms. However, human health standards were ' violated when Acephate and Simazine in surface waters, and Bentazon, Arsenic, Atrazine and Acephate exceeded the MCL (maximum contaminant levels) or a guidance concentration. Another recent study in North Carolina also found pesticides in groundwater from a golf course operation. Simazine was found at concentrations of 1.6, 3.1 and 7.4 ppb on three different sample dates (NC Interagency Task Force, 1996). These studies point out the need for judicious use of ' pesticides, correct selection of pesticides, and for an IPM program. • Balogh and Anderson (1992), in a literature review, summarized results of pesticide studies and indicated that the rate and timing of pesticide application in relation to precipitation/irrigation that produces runoff or leaching episodes is a critical management consideration. No pesticide application should be made when the possibility of rain is imminent. Materials which require water for activation are best watered into the soil with controlled irrigation. Based on this �` -- assessment, a well developed management plan, properly implemented, should provide the environmental protection and enhancement desired with golf course development. • • • • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute 1 Page IV -5 • 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • 1 1 i. • APPENDIX V Maintenance Facility Best Management Practices 1 • • • • • • • • r 1 i Audubon International Institute 1 • 1 M W PS -37 Designing Facilities for Pesticide 1 and Fertilizer Containment Revised First Edition 1 1 1 David W. Kammel Ronald T. Noyes Gerald L. Riskowski Vernon L. Hofman 1 I Midwest Plan Service Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department 122 Davidson Hall Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 -3080 1 1 • • • • 1 18 1 . 6. PESTICIDE.AND FERTILIZER STORAGES / } . • • 1 Pesticide and fertilizer sto facilities serve s ev- are easier to clean in the event of spill. Paint wooden . eral functions. A well designed and managed storage shelves with a chemically resistant epoxy paint or • facility protects human health, wildlife, the surface similar finish that is easier to clean. Store: containers environment and groundwater from accidental and • within easy reach and protect them from damage.by I . working .exposure • to • pesticides Segregate dry and sharp objects. A shelf height of 60" allows for lifting liquid pesticides and fertilizers in the storage area. containers while standing on the floor. Do not use step The primary design objective is to prevent spills or stools, ladders or boxes to stand on to reach shelves. • I . contaminated water f om entering groundwater and Store herbicides, fungicides and insecticides in . surface water and.guard human safety.. The type and . separate locations of the storage a - ea'te. prevent cross , size of a storage. facility depends on•the size of the contamination. Store dry:bagged pesticides: on present (and future planned) operation and the type . shelves orpallets oft' the floor to keep them dry. To • I and amounts o f pesticides and fertilizers used prevent leaking liquid pesticides from contaminating dry bagged product, store dry pesticides in.a separate Pesticide . Storage a Safet area and/or above liquid pesticide containers. . I y . Several manufacturers package pesticides in re- Federal law, implemented by EPA Regulation fellable or returnable containers (small volume re - 40CFlt, r equires full strength pesticides be stored in gables; bulk containers ens range from 60 -30Q gal. Using ranging in size from 15 -30 gal. Mini- a se facility to provide. human safety,' reduce u n - 1 vandalism and theft, and to protect groundwater and ue d pesticide containers reduces the prt of r is the surface environment (surface willing to t water, ground cover usSe g to take c con us e d Yri d if the dealer is and airspace), and. neighboring communities from ake back unused product: • leak and spill pollution and floor pallets, allowing for easy trans poison crises. Pesticide . Store 55 gal drums and y t r a ns lk containers on ecunty can range from hen a , ; minimum_ port to and from v g storage buildings: Provide - adequate space for • h - eight chain -linked steel security fences fences with locked gates, to heated, locked, steel cargo containers, modu- forklifts v e:for move mi l ia - storage area. One ]ar transportable pesticide and fertilizer storage Crete curbed m ilk k s stt oragg e i s to provide a 'don- I buildings or custom designed pesticide storage build- Crete curbed containment pad large enough to hold ou • ings. In s or ces, lockable storage and containment , the entire contenta of the largest Chapter 7, Secondary Containment, give container. for liquid leaks /spills are required. s areas re ' quired for containment of •minibulk co Tanks. storing pesticides and rinsates must be Packaged.Product Pe Storage compatible with the product. Some pesticides may • Keep pesticides dry, cool and out of direct :sun_ attack the material in the tank causing it to soften, 1 . light. Some pesticides require protection from freez- weaken and eventually cnd pesticides fail. Check with the t t yp e ing and temperature .extremes. Check the labels for ofta of a te ri and t s for a determine the type of tank m ace r e qu i r e suited for e s pesticides spends. shelf life. The temperature range recommended for most liquid pesticides is 40 F -100 F. The space required to store pesticides depends on Pesticide containers used once and then disposed, the type of materials stored and the number. and t ype 'or one -way containers, are the most'common types of. of containers ufed. Table s shse.t the dimensions o • pesticide containers. Inspect r several types • of containers. r this information required or I leakin containers. nort packages for broken.o • o urcchaseandimmediatel determine the amount of storage space required for g p p immediately the facility. • after delivery. Store only clean, unopened 'packages or containers with no exterior residues tolessen the danger ofcontamination through. the skin. Wear the Planning and Layout recommended PPE even while handling clean, unbro- • Build the pesticide storage facility as a separate,, ken pesticide packages to reduce the chance of acci- isolated structure used only for pesticide storage t • dental contact. • prevent accidental` contamination of feed, seed•and Store boxes, jugs and, other small packages of . fertilizers. Do not store pesticides near food, feed, I pesticides on shelves sized for the appropriate con- fertilizers, seed, veterinary supplies and o *airier, usually 12 wide and approximately 18" ucts. Store pesticides only. in on ar flier In I :•art Lips on shelf perimeters prevent containers chide an area for storin n container - om accidentally sliding off the shelf. Steel shelves tainers until di sposal. g properly rinsed; empty con - i 0) . 6 David W. Kammel, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, Madison. • 19 , Table 2. Pesticide container sizes. ledge. Provide locks on storage buildings or locked 1 • . . Container • • Size' storage`cabinets for small quantities of pesticide. Do not install door locks that must be unlocked from the • One way containers . inside. Also; store rinsate •storage tanks and empty 6 1 ggaljug • • 4'x7542' containers in asecure area. 2.5 galiug 6 x17718' 25Ib bags 2 710'x15' Post signs on buildings or fences stating 'Danger- . 50 Ib bags • 4' c155i25' • Pesticides ", "Seep Out!", "No 'Smoking Area ". • 5 al can's • • 12 dia. x 14' high • Signs should be legible at least 50' from the building , 55 gal drums 20' dia. x30' high. • . . . and located at each entrance to the pesticide storage • Retitlable containers area These signs should be visible from all access • 15 gal SVR° ,: t W dia. x 2T high . points to the storage area. -Post• yellow, orange or red 10 gal mm RIbUI 3 d x3" signs at roximatel e e level container words I 11 Q gal mmlbulk 36 dia: x 30' high � a PP X Y g 140 gal mnibulk 50"x3Tz36' • "Pesticide Storage Area" in black letters at least 3" 200 gal minibulk 43 dia z 53' high . high, The state pesticide coordinator can also provide 300,gai mintiulk 44' dia x.73' high • • 500 gal bulk 48 dia. x75' high . . information on signing requirements. Use exterior 1 , 1400 gat bulk • 64 dia. x 87" high lights to illuminate warning. signs and identify the • 2,500 gal bulk . . 95' diax117'high • building at night. A motion sensor. or light sensor. • Container dimensions are LxWxH: L.Iength; W- width; H3heighL -. - • turns lighting on automatically and saves electricity.. S nafl vo ume returnable. ' . . . • Management • . � s' -8• • A management plan combined with facility design ensures a safe total system that provides proper F � n storage, plus disposal of empty containers, unused product and rinsates. A well designed and managed pQioaioiai�o //oiiaiiaiaoiaiaiaia storage and handling d be a factor can-be consi " • % st orage Pesticide lves • facility is less than the potential costs associated r i with' cleanup of a large spill or fire, or with litigation • - D o ll Bogs ' Louver • • - and emergenc action plans 'are' all part of the man-, ' Dry . , _ age plan. G SmokeONarm : . Siting and Setbacks ' • . s� - Setbacks of pesticide storage- buildingstoproperty ' CFCI • lines or to other buildings on the site should provide • 1 /i/// / / / /.O / / //ti _` . 4- H® i_ i oaaoi Pr GEC' , . 0uuet • as much separation from other use areas as can be ' � •e ® 0 Fire reasonably allowed. Locate the storage building (with • Extinguisher 1 -hr fire wall) at least '50' from other buildings -or • Emergency Eyewash Exterior, Light • - .property lines. For a 2 -hr fire wall with no. doors; the • and Shower Fan —Light Switches setback Can .he 25' from, the adjoining building or with indicator , light - - , proper For a 4 fire wall with no doors, there Fig 11. Plan view of small pesticide storage building. .. . is no•minimum : setback distance Locate a'storage building on a well drained site When siting a building, consider:. elevated appro%imately 12" above surrounding soil Prevailing wind directions ' elevation. An example .of a small storage building •' Residential. area proximity and exposure. • Commercial area proximity and exposure. • • layout is shown in Fig 11. . Environmentarekposure. .. . Security •,Fire hazard to surroundings. Emergency response services. • Security is required to prevent accidental poison- • Provide access to the storage building sitefrem all • . • ing. of. children, .livestock and wildlife' Security also , directions, if Possible, far emergency and fire fighting I . minimizes unauthorized access to pesticides.and•fer- equipment. A 12' wide road accommodates ether- . • . tilizers, reducing the potential for accidental spills, gency and fire fighting equipment. vandalism and/or theft. Install a 12- gauge, chain -link fence; a minimum of 6' high, around an open storage_ . area such as pesticide secondary containment. Ifthe Building .Design and ' • fence is on top of a concrete wall, erect the fence :so . .. ' there are no ledges on the outside to allow someone . The storage facility design should consider both to climb over the fence. If a concrete ledge is available the potential for fire from flammable•vapors and the - -' at the base of the fence, install .6' fence above the toxicity to humans from contact with pesticides. or 1 • I ' zo . ; vapors. Select construction materials that are chemi- tion Association (NFPA) 30 "Flammable and Com- rt cally resistant to the products stored. Ventilate areas bustible Liquids Code, NFPA 395 "Storage of Flam- to prevent vapor buildup. • mable and Combustible Liquids on•Farms and.Iso- • lated Construction Projects', and NFPA43D "Storage ' General Construction 1 of Pesticides in Portable Containers' au cover build . Building construction depends on the . types of ing construction requirements applicable to Roman- pesticides and fertilizer st ored. Steel frame, post ble and combustible pesticide storage and handling . . • p P buildings. The National Electric Code (NEC) also • frame, stud frame, concrete 'and masonry can all be covers electrical design for these. facilities. See Ap- used. Design roof and walls for local snow and wind loads and any other loadsapplied to the building such on A for e list of other codes that r a g be consulted as shelving loads and support of equipment. Check on fl liquid storage. I with insurance carriers for insurance requirements Code Compliance M • id fire officials on the building code requirements . for constnictionofthe storage facility. Many local codes reference or adopt certain na- • Floor and Wafl.Surfaces tional codes, Appendix A, as the on, but may also I • impose stricter requirements. Choose interior floor and wall surfaces that are Commercial facilities usually fall under local zon- impervious to pesticides and easily cleaned and de- u and building codes. On -farm storage of agricul I contaminated. Painted steel, aluminum, fiberglass or tural Pesticides maybe technically exempt from sat : high density plastic reinforced plywood panels are all l ine e code requirements, but following these guide good choices for wall liners. Storage building floors lines ensures a safer facility. co Always check should also be watertight; chemically impervious and with local zoning and building code officials to deter ' skid resistant. Concrete floors with an impervious mine requirements for siting and constructing "a pes- sealant or an equivalent material that provides tici I or fertilizer storage facility. strength and impermeability must be used. n general, codes require certain standards for building construction and electrical design to reduce I ' k Secondary Containment . the risk of accidentalfire resulting from the storage For inside storage rooms, secondary containment of flammable and combustible liquids; Proper build - ` consists of a raised sill or ramp at least 4". the entire 4 ", high. An mg construction• rapid spread of fire: Proper 11' I alternative is an. open grate trench acros temperatures system design reduces the source of high m the trench to a sump temperatures or sparks that could ignite a flammable width of the door opening. Drain where liquids can be temporarily collected and trans- vapor or Building materials. I ferred to storage for reuse or disposal. Buildings can Codes deal with e• al *ay of storage for flam- have a curb around their perimeter to prevent spills mable pesticides in several ways. One way is to limit the amounts of pesticides stored and fire fighting water from entering or leaving the in a room or building; area. Do not connect drains or sumps to a sewer or the larger the amount stored, the higher the risk and septic system or other open discharge. See Chapter 7, the more requirements on fire rated construction: I Secondary Containment, for more detail: Another way. to reduce the fire hazard is to provide, automatic fire suppression systems. Automatic dry Fire Safety Design chemical 'or similar systems are recommended for pesticide storage. Water sprinkler systems could pose . ' Fire prevention is the first and most cost effective more of a cleanup problem than the fire itself because • way of limiting, fire hazard. A properly designed pesticide contaminated water would have to be building with proper storage of flammables, a man -. cleaned up after the fire.• ' agement plan and good housekeeping minimizes fire potential. Area Classification Design the storage building to protect against Another way codes deal with the hazards of pesti- 1 potential fire caused by the storage of flammable and . cide storage is to classify the use of the buildin g. combustible liquids inside the building and from fire Generally, storage buildings that contain closed con- in adjacent buildings. Many factors determine. the , tamers have less risk from fire than miaing/loading, ' • advisability and use of fire walls; check your local fire areas where pesticide containers are open and vapors I codes for design requirements. Facility design can are present. reduce the need for fire walls. Separate areas of high The fire rating of the building Brisk (warehouse) from other areas (office, retail c onstruction she ( electrical design is based on the classificatioon of the pace). • area by NFPA and NEC. Area classification depends Codes and Regulations on the amount and type of stored material and the g 1 use of the area (i.e. storage or dispensing). Container V • Design requirements for the safe storage and han - size and classification of liquids influence the quan- dling of flammable and combustible liquids are coy- tity of material that can be safely stored in a specific ' ered by several different codes. National Fire Protec size of building. • i . • 2111 4 Building Use Classification • lure if they become mixed accidentally. This poses as • 1 Storage, building construction •and electrical de- human safety hazard in the event of a fire or spill. sign depends on the use of the building. Buildings Explosion Venting • 1 from which flammable or combustible liquids are • . disp are classified differently than buildings Where class IA or IB liquids' are dispensed or.. • that store flammable or combustible liquids. Dispens- where Class IA liquids are•stored in containers larger ing areas are more likely to have ignitable vapors than 1 gal, an exterior wall or roof construction • than storage areas, thus more stringent fire safety should provide explosion venting design such as light design is required`. • weight roof assemblies, roof hatches or windows. NFPA has more information on requirements for . Classification of Liquids explosion venting. Most pesticides are not flammable The risk of fire from •a stored liquid pesticide is according to NFPA definitions, but always verify the . • • based on the liquid's flash point: Flash point is :the flashpoint and class of each pesticide. at a facility. • minimum temperature at which a pesticide gives off • • sufficient vapor to form an ignitable mixture within . Storage Areas the air near the surface of the liquid or 'within the Storage Container _ ize container. Liquids. are classified as flammable or com- • bustible according to the following NFPA definitions. Sizes of containers stored are considered in. the Flammable liquid safe design of the storage area. NFPA defines several I. A liquid having a flash point below 100 F and d sizes of cont iners and the corresponding safe storage having a vapor pressure not point below 100 F practices for those containers. Containers are defined absolute at 100 F is a Class I liquid. _ as �Y vessel .containing 60 gal or less. A portable • Class 'I liquids are subdivided as follows: tank is a vessel with a capacity of 60 -660 gal and,' . Class IA. liquids include those having flash designed to b movable. A tank is a vessel with a oints below 73' F and Navin capacity greater than 60 gal designed for permanent a below g a boiling point placement. below 100 F. . • Class lB liquids include those having flash Pesticide Storage • points below 73 F and having a boiling point at Provide se orate areas for the different classes of or above 100 F. P • Class IC - liquids include . hose having flash pesticides: For example, a. small separate storae • points at or above 73 F and below 100-F. area for flammable pesticides may be, incorporates into a large warehouse for pesticides that are •not • Combustible liquid • • flammable. . A liquid having a flash point at or above 100 F. Do not store pesticides below grade or in base- a • Combustible Liquids are subdivided as follows ments: Many flammable vapors are heavier than air, • . Class II liquids include those having flash points The vapors can accumulate to a concentration that at or above 100 F and below 140 F. could be ignited by a spark or other source of ignition. 0 •_ Class IIIA liquids include 'these having flash The storage arrangement offlammable/combusti- . points at or above 140 F and below 200. F. ble liquids affects facility design. Consider: . • Class IIIB liquids include those having flash • Aisle width(36 "'minimum). ' . points at or above 200 F. • . Height' of shelves (60" maximum). • • Width of shelves (18" maximum): . Some agricultural pesticides may have low flash . • Separation of different classes of materials. and boiling points classifying them as flammable or • Individual containment tub for each pesticide. 0 . combustible liquids. NOTE: Always check the label Store a Cabinets or MSDS of the pesticide to determine its flashpoint. g Separate liquids by class so that only certain areas According to NFPA guidelines, when storing flam- require the class - specific design. suggested by codes. . mable and combustible liquids, size storage cabinets • For example, flammable materials require certain to store ne more thap 120 gal of Class I, II, and IIIA 1� fire rated construction while nonflammable products liquids combined. Of this 120 gal, not more. than 60 do not. If flammable pesticides are stored with non - • gal may be of Class I and II ligiiids.•Locateno more flammable pesticides, the building construction and than three cabinets in a single storage area: Maintain electrical design'must still consider the fire hazard of • a 100' separation between :three - cabinet groupings. the flammable pesticide. The storage building con- Use storage cabinets with metal or wood shelves struction recommendations relative to a fire hazard designed with 2 high door sill to contain spilled do not have to be followed if the pesticides stored are liquid. Construct wooden cabinets from 1" thick exte- not flammable or are stored at temperatures below rior grade plywood and finish with a chemically resis -- their flashpoint. tent product that permits easy cleanup. See Fig 1: . • Some pesticides' may be incompatible with one for a small wood cabinet design. Choose metal cabi I another producing toxic fumes or a flammable mix- nets constructed from No. 18 gauge sheet metal with 11 • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • �. z2 double walls spaced 1.5" apart. Several safety supply . Fire Rated Constructlo ' rr .companies manufacture metal cabinets. Shelving can • be metal or 1" nominal thickness wood. Fn walls or partitions separate areas of different uses and fire hazards. A fire wall slows the spread of fire from one area to another • area. For example, ' 40' mixing/loading areas may be separated from retail areas or office with a fire wall. All construction mate -. Hats for walls, floors, roof, doors and partitions of a • •pesticide storage area should be constructed of fine / . resistant materials that meet or exceed local building " • and fire codes for a ininimum of .1-hr.fire resistant ' construction. Provide a. parapet which extends .at,. " • a ,. • least 3• above the roof line on exterior walls.within 10' FLA lit e of a property line or other building. • . • , P 36 EP F I' • . Concrete, masonry, and steel or wooden stud walls • ..1 with Type X gypsum wallboard are commonly used types of building' construction' that have specific fire • ratings. Fig 13 shows several :ross sections of differ- ' ent fire rated wall construction. . 1 o I Door Construction . 18" A 36" wide exterior. door opening to the outside ' with aself- closing exit lock allows safe exit and secu Fig 12. Cabinet for storing,flammable liquids: rity. Select doors that do not have to be unlocked from or } '5 -2x4 Wood Studs, r. 21/2' Steel Studs, 2C o.c. • I I) X Gypsum (� Wallboard,- 1 ®5 Type X Gypsum /9 - Wallboard, .1 ® /a both sides • both sides ' • Type X Gypsum . • Wallboard, 2 ®5 /g Type X Gypsum Wallboard, 2 ® /g' both sides both sides • • • • • 1 Hour Rated -2 Hour Roted 1 Hour Rated - 2 Hour: Rated • Hollow Masonry Definition: Hollow Masonry Solid Masonry Unreinforced orReinforced'Concrete • • <75Z solid x- section • 0 • -!- - or 3" Solid Concrete, • >25S void 0 3" Wall; 4" Wall, 0 1 Hour Rated 1 Hour Roted 1 Hour.Raled 1 Hollow. Masory Block _ �- Cored Brick Q .. 4' Wall, Block Tile : 2 "Wull, O 2 Hour Rated 4' Solid Concrete, 2 Hour Rated • �. - - 2 Hour Roted ' —. Solid Masonry Definition: ( - - • • , .' . 11 1 —5" Wall, • —u Wall, _ >75Z solid x -section 3 Hour Rated 5' Solid Concrete, z - or 3 Rated 3 Hour Rated <257. void k ' Solid Masonry brick 1 6' Wall, 0 10� Wall, . � 4 Hour Rated .I 8" Solid Concrete, Solid Mbsonry block t 1 4 Hour Rdled 4 Hour Rated Cloy Tile .- Fig 13. Fire ratings for various types and thicknesses of interior walls. 23 a inside. A metal solid core door with metal jamb and cutoff storage room has at least one exterior wall. An 4 weather seal is recommended. Select a U.L. listed fire attached storage building shares a common wall with rated door according to Table 3. an adjacent building. with a different use (e.g. office). For inside storage rooms. with no automatic fire a Table 3. Selecting fire rated doors.. protection system and an area of up to 150 ft a 1 -hr It fire wall rated Choose fire fire rated construction is recommended. For an inside construction is: rated door of: storage room with no automatic fire protection sys • 4-hr . 3 tern and an area greater than 150 ft but less than I 500 ft2, a 2 =hr fire rated construction is recommended. 2-hr 1.5 fir A maximum total quantity of liquids stored in these 1-hr • 0.75 hr areas is also suggested; consult NFPA 30 for specific` i Use exit doors with panic hardware such as a push recommendations For cutoff storage rooms and attached storage bar or plate. Hold-open hardware for the door pro- ft2 vides easy access while carrying pesticide containers. ton is of 300 n od Cu a 1 fire rated construe In the event . of a fire; doors should close automat - ton is recommended. Cutoff storage rooms and at- r eally. Install an automatic self closing device such as ta ed have e buildings of areas greater than 300 ft en door hardware: In should have a 2 -hr fire rated construction. The wall a fusible link on the hold-open separating a cutoff storage room or attached storage large buildings space exit doors no more than 75' building and another use area (e.g. office) should have I' app.. a 2 - hr fire rated construction. A maximun total quan- Separate Inside Storage tity of liquids stored in these -areas is also suggested; • consult NFPA 30 for specific recommendations. NFPA 30 defuses several different categories of separate inside storage. Fig 14 shows a schematic of General Purpose Warehouse Storage how these areas are defused and Table 4 lists specific requirements that must be met according to NFPA According to NFPA, a general purpose warehouse a 30: Inside storage rooms have no exterior walls. A can be a separate, single story, detached building, or a portion of a building used for storage only, Fig 14 . and Table 4: Separate the pesticide storage area from amoo sty age eaaalag other storage areas such as fertilizer and feed storage i —, and office or retail s • ,' 1 t NFPA 30 recommends limiting the total quantity area of flammable liquids stored in a general purpose Sto rage . Warehouse for warehouse and also recommends the fire construction I Room Cutoff Storage Room Liquid Storage • classification. Refer to 'NFPA 30 for more specific General - Purpose quantity recommendations. Warehouse' 1 Warehouse for Liquid Product Storage 11 Inside Storage Room According to NFPA, a liquid warehouse can be a separate, single story, detached building or an at - tached building used for storage of liquids only, Fig II At t ached Building - . - - 14 and Table 4. NFPA does not restrict the total quantity of liquids stored in a liquid warehouse, but. Fig 14. Storage areas for flammable /combustible pesti- does recommend limiting height and. quantity per sides - 30. . stack. 11 Table 4. Storage area checklist. . - See NFPA 30 for specific requirements on the items fisted below. - '■ Cutoff room and Warehouse t attached buildings Inside room Liquid General purpose • Access openings . x x - Fire ratings x x x Explosion !tenting x Containment x x Quantity ' of storage • x x Drainage x in Square footage x Venting x' II t . Aisle width x ) Distance separation x Attached liquid warehouse x Separation of liquids - x Restrictions • x II I . • 24 . If a liquid warehouse is located less than 10' from a building or a property line, the exposed switches, fan blades and motors are all potential Q g xposed wall should sources of sparks. Use U.L. and NEMA listed anti- be a 4 -hr fire wall with' a U.L, listed 3 -hr fire door. If .a liquid warehouse is located more than 10' but spark equipment. ' less than 50' from a building or property line, the Area Classification exposed wall should be a 2 -hr fire .wall with a U.L. listed 1.5 -hr fire door Chapter 5.artide 500 of NEC defines a s e.area classification for hazardous locations such as pesti I Portable Storage Lockers cide storage/handling facilities. The hazard classifi- . NFPA defines a hazardous material stora' a cation used by NEC depends on the type of material g handled (material classification) and the use of the, locker as a relocatable prefabricated structure that is area (storage vs. dispensing). • transported assembled or ready to assemble at the A stored liquid; conlidered flammable, requir es' a final location.. The design and construction of the. Class . designation. If a stored hgmd is considered storage lockers should meet all applicable local, state combustible, 'a Class I determination is required only and federal regulations. The floor area of the locker if the liquid is stored or handled at temperatures I should not be greater than,1,500 ft The secondary above its flash point. If combustible liquids are stored . containment system built into the structure should at temperatures below their' flash points, no area hold 10% of the total volume of containers or the classification is necessary and the electrical design I volume of the largest container in storage, whichever and installation require no special provisions. is greater. Consult NFPA for recommended separa- tion distances for these buildings. Degrees of Hazard- Division Classification • ' Mixing /Loading Area • The NEC recognizes two degrees of hazard: Class I, Division 1 has more restrictive electrical design Mixing/loading areas are a higher risk "for poten requirements than Class I, Division 2 because there tial fire than pesticide storage areas. Building, con- is a higher risk of an ignitable air /fuel mixture pre struction, electrical design and setbacks from prop- . sent in the area Class I, Division 1 wiring is usually erty lines and other buildings , are more restrictive. referred to as explosion proof Class I, Division 2 does - According to NFPA, mixing/loading areas where not require explosion proof wiring and equipment. flammable liquids are dispensed from open contain- • Article 500 -5 of NEC lists the following definitions of ers'should be separated from other use areas greater Division 1 and Division 2. than 150 ft by a 2 -hr fire rated wall. Use automat- ically closing, U.L. listed 1.5-hr doors. Do not mix or In pr esent s Division u an ignitable. intermittently mixture is d r likely to normal be handle flammable liquids: in. a basement or below conditions ion, r m pai t nune leak ' grade. cons of operation, or leak - age. A Class 1, Division 1 locatioii is a location in • which: Electrical Design • • Ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or • • vapors can exist under normal operating condi - Electrical design a storagwhandlingbuilding tions; or is covered under the NEC also referred to as NFPA • Ignitable concentrations of such gases or vapors . 70 and is typically incorporated into many state and may exist frequently because of leakage; or I local codes. Size the electrical system to accommodate • Breakdown or faulty operation of equipment or the load from all lighting, heating and ventilating processes might release ignitable concentrations systems, and other installed equipment for the facil- of flammable gases or vapors, • and might also I ity.,Include starting demand or motor in - rush current cause simultaneous failure of electric equip from pumps, mixing equipment and other processing meat: • • equipment when sizing the electrical systems. Pro- In Division 2, an ignitable mixture is likely to be • vide • an exterior electrical service disconnect in a locked, NEMA rated, weather proof cabinet. Provide present only under abnormal conditions; such as fail- duplex outlets with ground -fault circuit-interrupters tiro i s process equipment. A Class I, Division 21oca= P lion is a location in which; ' (GFCI) and locate them outside flammable storage Volatile flammable or fl liquids . areas. Use vapor proof fluorescent or incandescent q amiable h aws are I lighting fixtures. On small buildings, provide an ex - liquids, vapors, processed or used, but'in which the terior switch to control both the ventilation fan and fined pors, er gases will s normally be e the lights. An exterior operation light that indicates h ey can ntaine a o ly or in ca softens • d /hen the lights and fan are on is a convenient feature. from which rupture eo e or breakdown dow o case to ae rs Choose electric equipment and' wiring designed to or dntal systems, of such containers nit, or in case of abnormal operation of prevent aspark from. igniting a flammable vapor. equipment; or Avoid sources of high temperature and sparks in . Ignitable concentrations of gases or vapors are • . storage and dispensing areas. Duplex outlets, normally prevented by positive mechanical ven- • 25 I tilation, and which might become hazardous Explcaion -Proof Electrical Systems 11 through failure or abnormal operation of the ventilating equipment; or Article 501, NEC, describes the requirements for A Class I, Division 1 location is adjacent, and to explosion -proof electrical installations in Class I, Di- 1 which ignitable concentrations of gases or vapors vision 1 areas. Explosion -proof equipment is designed might occasionally be communicated finless such to withstand an internal explosion while not allowing ' communication is prevented by adequate'posi_ ignition of surrounding gas or vapor through the tive- pressure ventilation from a source of clean release of hot gases or sparks or by an external M ai and effective safeguards against ventilation temperature that would' ignite the surrounding at- • failure are provided. • • • .. mosphere. In general a Division 1 area requires: .Threaded steel conduit (or mineral- insulated m metallic sheathed cable). • Clas of Storage Areas Explosion -proof enclosures. Conduit seals at any .enclosure containing a NFPA 30, Chapter 4, Flammable and Combusti- sparking device or surface temperatures: n ble Liquids Code also addresses container and port- . Conduit seals at, the boundary between a Divi -. u able . tank storage area classification for electrical sion 1 and Division 2 area . design: Where the room or facility is used only for : Approved or U L. •fisted lighting and other elec- storage of Class I pesticides in sealed containers— triad fixtures. - 0 that. is, no opening of containers —the only special Requirements for Division 2 areas are relaxed to requirement is that inside rooms (with no exterior the extent that explosion -proof enclosures are only walls) contain electrical wiring and equipment clas- required for devices that have hot surfaces or gener- sified Class I, Division 2. ate sparks during normal operation. Additional types Electrical wiring and equipment for indoor stor- of electrical cable are also allowed for wiring in a • age areas in separate or attached buildings, rooms Division 2 area with exterior walls,. rooms for storage of Class II and Equipment approved for use in Class I area must '■ Class III liquids and outdoor drum storage is nor- be marked to show the Class, Division and operating 1 1.. mally classified as general use temperature of the piece of equipment.' U.L. listed A muang/handling area where flammable liquid equipment has such markings: All electrical equip - pesticides are used could be considered Class I, Divi- went installed in other classified areas must be ap- D !` , sion 2, if in the judgement of the authority involved, proved or listed for the appropriate Class and Divi- the location would become hazardous only in the sion. event of an accident or emergency other than normal - ' •operatingprocedures. The quantity of flammable ma- Sources Of Ignition terial that could escape in an accident, the adequacy of ventilation; the size of the building, and the record In areas where flammable vapors may be present, , of the industry with respect to explosions or fires, are take precautions to prevent sources of ignition such all factors considered in determining the e1assifica as open flame, smoking, hot surfaces, sparks, friction Ill tion of the area. heat, radiant heat, cutting and welding, spontaneous A mixing/loading area where flammable pesti- ignition, lightning, static electricity, ovens, furnaces tides are transferred from one container to another or heaters. In addition, the surface temperature' of I might be classified as Class I, Division 1 if the local equipment installed in Class I areas must not have authority considers it to be a special hazard. an exposed surface temperature in excess of the igni -. Areas adjoining a classified area, but separated by tion temperature of the surrounding gas or vapor. Use • a wall with. openings `is classified under the more aluminum, bronze or plastic fan blades to reduce the a restrictive requirements, as if the wall did not exist possibility of sparks. Where the areas are separated by a. solid wall, the . _classified area does not extend beyond the wall. Con- Fl re Safety ' suit an engineer or code official to help determine the , . (' classification of the designed facility, and the extent place clearly visible exit signs above all points of of classified areas: exit. A red, illuminated, translucent sign with "EXIT" If the area is not adequately ventilated," the cies• in plain letters not less than 5" high is common in d sification of the electrical design will be more restric- commercial facilities. five. For example an adequately ventilated storage Make fire and spill control equipment readily area may be classified as Class I, Division 2. An available, including: ' inadequately ventilated storage area would be classi- . Fire extinguisher. I fied as Class I, Division 1. . . First-aid kit. MI Install a lightning protection system to - prevent a . Spill clean-up kit. potential ignition source. Consult NFPA 78 Light- Locate a portable multi-purpose dry chemical fire ring Protection Code for specific design information. extinguisher, having a rating not less than 20 -B, on I' . 11 I . 26 the outside and not less than 10' from the storage mixing areas, size natural ventilation openings I. ft to : • I . j entrance door. provide 1 ft2/20 2 of floor area. Include a non -spark type fire and/or smoke detec- . . tor with audible alarm in the design. If possible, equip Mechanical Ventilation '' - the alarm to sound at a remote site as well as the p facility site: - Mechanical ventilation allows more control of the • air quality and temperature in storage. and handling • Fire $UppCeSS10C1 facilities, especially in heated storage areas. Locate the fan on the east or south side of the .room if I • . In lar a facilities, automatic. fire suppressionsys- Possible. If the fan is placed high on the wall duct it • g to within 12" of the floor. Position air inlets opposite . terns may be a viable fire safety option. Types of fire protection systems include: the fan and within 12" of the floor to remove heavier - ' • Water sprinkler. than -air vapors. 1 • Foams. . Useaexplosionproof rated mechanical ventilation Dry chemical, in areas whe Class I liquids are dispensed from Inert gas.' open containers. Use either natural or mechanical 111 . • Carbon dioxide.: ventilation in other storage and miring areas; • Halon. • Nitrogen. Mechanical Ventilation Rates Design fire suppression systems to be area specific When mechanically ventilating pesticide storage so water is not spread across the entire facility due to areas during occupancy provide at least 1 cf n/ft of • a small fire in an isolated area More damage may floor area or provide 6 air changes/hr. NFPA30 result from deluge type sprinkler systems than the than a minimum of 150 clai for any .size facility. When facilities are unoccupied, provide 1 fire itself. Cleanup of a contaminated site from a fire air • and the contaminated fire fighting water may be change/hr. (NFPA gives no recommendations for un- more costly than allowing the building to burn itself occupied storage areas.) Table 5 shows the required • I out. NOTE: Discuss the proper way to deal with . fire ventilation for various sizes of storage and handling with the local fire official, emergency responders and areas. If a mechanical exhaust system is used, control the insurance carrier for each Facility based on the . it with a switch located outside of the storage area • types and volumes of products handled. The ventilation rate for larger buildings can be calcu- ' ' lated using the following equation: Ventilation 6 air changes/hr x Building volume, ft /60 min Ventilation Tate, cfm Ventilation minimizes a fire or explosion hazard by reducing the accumulation of significant quanti- Table 5. Mechanical ventilation rates and inlet size for ties of ignitable or explosive vapors; Also, ventilation pesticide storage and handling areas during occupancy. reduces worker - exposure to a hazardous level of • fumes or dust from the pesticides during handling_ Building' Six air cllan esibr NFPA recommendation g R ' Provide ventilation at all times by natural or volume, N° Rate, tiro Inlet sire, in elm ate of 1. nlet size; (n • mechanical means. Warm- weather ventilation re- 1,000 150° 30 150 duces temperature: extremes and vapor buildup. Do 2,000 200 40 250 5 ' I . , not store pesticides in basements or below grade level 4,000 400 500 50 where vapory might accumulate. 500' 25 5,000 500 100 1 125 Natural Ventilation 7000 ,loo 120 40 750 150 ' 8,00 800 - 180 ' . .1,000 105 200 Natural ventilation results from a combination of 9 000 900 180. 1,125 10;000 1,000 200 1,250. 250 wind and the natural buoyancy of warm air. 'Assumes a ceiling height of 8% I Two or more vents positioned on opposite ° 150 dm mirimum rewminended for any size fadity, NPPA 30. walls allows cross ventilation. In unheated storage areas, natural: ventilation may be the best alterna- Multiple fans and inlets spaced at intervals along . tive: In heated storage areas, natural ventilation is walls provide uniform air movement th stir- more difficult to control and heating costs may be • age and handling areas. high because of over ventilation. The NFPA 30 recommendation for ventilation of • Provide a minimum of two vents, each 8 "x8" (64 mixing and handling areas using Class I liquids (or in on opposite sides of the building and within 12" Class II or In liquids above their flash points) is not I ' "" of the floor because most flammable vapors are heav- Less. than 1 cfin/ft of floor area. A higher ventilation ier than air. For larger buildings, design the size of rate may be required to limit flammable vapor -air 4 the inlet/outlet vents to allow 6 air changes/hr. For mixtures during normal operating conditions. I 27 11 Provide at least 25 cfra/occupant from an outside Liquid Fertilizer Storage and Han- I' air source in pesticide storage areas where there are Eli l in g workers. Install a dedicated exhaust over work areas - to minimize worker exposure to fumes. Consider a. Liquid fertilizer storage tanks must be inside a N fume hood over work areas or sinks for worker safety; properly sized walled or bermed leak -proof secondary I, use a dedicated exhaust providing fresh air at a containment structure. Although it is not mandatory, velocity of 80 -100 fpm blowing at the face level. liquid fertilizer storage should 'have locked security ' In mixing and handling areas, equip ventilation fencing to avoid vandalism damage. Keep tank drain I, systems with an alarm that sounds automatically in valves locked except during transfers. See Chapter 7, 1 � the event of a failure of the ventilation system. Fro- Secondary' Containment. vide a' manual shutoff control for the ventilation I' system outside the room or building entrance: Use a. time delay switch toturn the fan and lights Impregnation • of Pest on Dry on but does not allow the door to be opened until the Fertilizer I room has been ventilated. adequately (at least one air change). Large dry bulk fertilizer storages are popular in Duct exhaust away from work areas, offices or the Midwest. Design for ease of customer access and public areas to prevent human exposure to the ex- . to keep precipitation away from the structure and haust air. Do not recirculate exhaust in the room or area. Locate the building on elevated ground with all I building, otherwise vapors and fumes can build up. rain; snow melt or flood water' diverted away. Con- sider railroad access when planning a facility, as it Air Inlets provides an economical means of transporting incom- I' frig dry fertilizer. Also, special handling .equipment Locate air makeup inlets on the opposite side of must be used due to the corrosiveness of the material. the room from the fan and also within 12" of the floor. Fertilizer must be kept dry until used to' avoid raking. If makeup air is taken from within the building, equip Impregnation of dry fertilizer with liquid herbi- I' the inlet with a listed fire door or damper to prevent • cities has been done in fertilizer plants for a number . the spread of fire. of years. In the past, pesticides have usually been The air makeup inlet should provide 20 . in2/100 added to the fertilizer mix while in the blender. This cfm capacity. Table 5 shows the area required for creates problems with contamination of the blender. II different ventilation system capacities. The inlet area and the immediate area, creating human safety prob- can also be calculated using the following equation: lems. 1 Some problems that exist with impregnating pes- I' Ventilation rate, cfm + 720 fpm = Inlet area, ft ticide on fertilizer granules are: Operator may be exposed to pesticide dust and , Heated Storage fumes. 9 • Fertilizer with pesticide requires special han- I' An insulated, heated building_ may be . needed if . dling after it leaves the blender.. pesticides are subject to freezing. Some pesticides can • The blender, elevating equipment and applicat- freeze and remain viable while others may be ren- ing equipment require special cleaning. dered useless if frozen. NOTE: Read the label to . Adding pesticide to dry fertilizermay require the I determine the storage temperatures required for the use of drying agents to reduce the problem of 'products stored. In some areas, the storage building fertilizer caking. . may require ventilation or even air conditioning in One new method developed to impregnate pesti- the summer to prevent pesticides from volatilizing tide on fertilizer is an impregnator that mounts on I and creating a safety hazard. A storage temperature the blender unloading elevator. It adds the pesticide range of 40 F -90 F for environmentally controlled as it is being loaded into the applicator or service - storage is recommended. • • _ truck, eliminating .contamination of the blender and I' Insulate the walls and ceiling and provide a con- . elevator. The applicator or service tank must still be tinuous 6 mil vapor barrier on the warm side of the cleaned. • building; usually the inside wall. Minimum recom- A newer impregnation method involves injecting mended insulation levels are R-11' for, walls and R-19 pesticide into the fertilizer delivery tubes on pneu- H for ceilings. • - matic fertilizer applicators or the feed augers on other Do not place packages close to or in direct contact models. These systems use a.peristaltic or variable with heaters. Provide heat by low pressure steam; hot displacement piston pump to continuously meter pes- water or electric heaters that are U.L. listed for Class ticide into each air delivery tube or feed auger on an I' II I hazardous locations. Never use or allow open flames - applicator. This method helps reduce the equipment. C . or smoking in storage or handling areas. that comes in contact with the pesticide and must be I' 11 1 r .. cleaned. Some pesticides work well with this method' If impregnation of fertilizer is done at the blending . • of impregnation while others do not. Impregnation of plant, a catch/containment area must be provided to pesticides on the applicator is relatively new and has clean up spilled fertilizer. Alternatively tau areas ' several. advantages. Less equipment comes in contact under impregnating equipment and conveyors allows with pesticides, the amount of fertilizer with pesticide easy cleanup of dry impregnated fertilizer. Excess impregnated on it at one time is reduced, and the pesticide impregnated fertilizer must be stored sepa- ' impregnation takes place away from the storage and rately from fertilizer for later use because it is consid- blending plant. eyed a. pesticide.' 1 • 1 1 1 47 • 8. MIXING /LOADING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT Surface water undwater and soil can be con- gro Mg/loading facilities are recommended in all areas of taiiiinated in areas where pesticides and fertilizers the U.S. to minimize disposal of potentially large • are stored, mixed and loaded into applicator tanks, or volumes of contaminated precipitation which might • I unloaded from sprayers and transferred into rinsate be considered hazardous waste. Complete buildings holding tanks: If not contained, accidental spills or with hangar- or garage -type drive- through doors pro- overflows, unused mixtures and flush.water for ap- vide the maximum protection against having to han- plicator tanks, plumbing and booms; create a pesti- dle large volumes of precipitation that might contain cide and fertilizer build -up in surrounding soil that dilute solutions of pesticides. 1 . can amine serious, contamination. The pesticides and local weather factors in each eo a hic location - fertilizers used and the mixture:charactenstics deter- g p mine. if water used to rinse sprayer tanks and plumb- affect structural as well as functional designs. Non- roofed. facilities in southwestern climates like . ing is a hazardous waste, Operators are .liable for Arizona may need a ntainment holding volume of expensive cleanup; even long after selling the Prof); 125% of the largest pesticide or liquid fertilizer tank. erty, if . mishandling of pesticides and fertilizers re sults in environmental contamination: Concrete facilitie§ in warm high - precipitation ar- gas, like .the southeastern and south central U:S., Facility Planning and :Layout may only require open- sided`reofed structures with • large'roof overhangs over concrete pads to keep pre - To protect surface environments and groundwa- cipitation out of containment and loading pads. Op- 1 ter, install .permanent concrete pads (or equivalent) erators in central and northern U.S. should install at mixing/loading facilities. Plan for present and fu- open -front or fully enclosed containment facilities to time .storage, security and mixing/loading functions minimize precipitation handling and provide indoor . when planning, renovating or retrofitting liquid fer- storage of spray equipment in the off - season. Open- 111 tilizzer and/or pesticide handling and storage facili- sided -roof overhangs should be at least a• 306 angle ties. Personnel and environmental safety, as well as from vertical from the edge of the mixing/loading state and federal regulations must be taken into pad(s) in all directions; Fig 36, to minimize precipita- account as facilities are designed. lion blow -in. Saving one or two large pesticide him- - Precipitation is a major. concern when using open ardour waste disposal bills can pay fora major part concrete mixing/loading. pads. Transfer of precipita- of roof construction or even the cost of a complete • tion may create a future :legal 'problem. Roofed mix- building. . . 1 Roof Roof Overhang O . . 1 .fir'' ` � r ® Minimum overhang ` ,' . Preferred Overhang / i .. IMMO i 1 .`� 45' Mixing/ /!� . Loading . �� Pad `„ 30' 90' • .` Slope . Slope i • iir ll��� Stainle . • Lined Sump Pod Width Fig 36.- Open•stded roof structure over mixing/loading pad. • ._ 8 Ronald T. Noyes; Agricultural Engineering Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 1 i 4 8 " . 1 • MiXing /Loading Pad Layout • • • , containment stirnp. Rinsate holding and minibullt I. The layout. of mixing/loading pads can. improve tanks are located n the other side of the containment . operational and worker efficiency while reducing per- . sump. sonnet and • .environmental safety risks. Incorporate • The loading pad area is designed so aircraft or • D the following. features into a minng/loading.pad:. mound. sprayers can enter from either side o; enter Sealed; ligtud tight, reinforced. concrete pad to the pad from the front. The loading pad floor has a form an'iinpervious barrier between the.pesti- v ariable slope that increases uniformly froth .a level ctde or ligmd fertilizer handling area, and the surface along the outer edges to a maximum slope at 0 suntunduig earth. Slope mixingfoading pads to the sump against the containment divider wall. The dram liquids to shallow pump recovery sumps, centerli valley has a constant slope tow ard the • ... Sloped pad surfaces plus watertight walls and' P' Q curbs around the perimeter form shallow depres- . L'evel outer edges along the sides and front of the • lions to temporarily contain • pesticides and far- loading pad are designed for attaching.building wall tilizers, . rinsate, washwater and precipitation sills or to seal against large overhead or sliding doors. that leak.or fall on the pad: . Slope approach ramps or drives away from the pad to Independent shallow 'sumps' in each functional ensure that surrounding watershed storm drainage stays containment area for cro1':.cting liquids for pump- outside the mixing/loading pad. Roofed loading . . ing: Thus, different types of pesticide or liquid pads are highly recommended. fertilizer leaks can be handled without cross-con- ' , .tamination. If properly filtered and- managed, .Single Sump Concrete Mixing /Loading liquids recovered from each sump: may be tensed Pad Facility • • . ins subsequent, appropriate field , applications. • ' For smaller or less complex n Liquid level alarms may be installed to • alert P pesticide or liquid U fertilizer facilities, a simple concrete pad that drains operator when liquid enters a sump. Concrete pads designed and constructed to facili - to a single sump in the center. of the pad, Figs 38 and tate.the addition of open sidc fs or com late 39, may meet the containment needs. Such pads can P incorporate a small pesticide storage building on; or R bulb: inge over part' or all of the concrete pad. adjacent to them. These buildings, when connected Q' • Design the' outer three sides of the pad to have elan extension to the pad with its own containment, . 4 " ee -6" of level concrete surface before floor s10 - x P provide needed storage without increasing the pad start for ease in installing wall sills or for good • size, Fig 39. door seals. . A small (10'x12') pesticide storage building can be Roof structures and pad sites, surface dikes and located on one corner of a 30'x40' or larger -pad, Fig • • drainage to -keep storm water from entering the 38, or placed in optional positions adjacent to the III p rete padad and from collecting under con- loading pad, Fig 39. A fenced area for mixing/loading equipment and rinsate tanks can be located close to :Approach ramps to minimize dust and trash . th storage building. Rectangular pads can be ar- • .accumulation on pad (especially important for ranged with the storage building and aircraft taxiing). • and r tan oadin a area plus pesticide anrinsate storage ge tanks in a fenced off section acrossone end of the elongated pad. Functional Organization This provides similar function with-les•forming ex- - - • • , pease as the two -sump' pad shown in Fig 37. Mixing; loading. and secondary containment pad . • - sizes and shapes depend on the functions performed, Sumps .and Drainage and the orientation and boom width of the equipment:. Design pads to extend at least beyond the edges of , Some state regulations 5'- do not allow underground . I sprayer equipment's extended boom on each side to storage of. pesticides or.rinsates, Shallow sumps are catch any splashed water or boom sprays. Consider, not considered underground 'storages as they are • • -space needed for workers to get-around and between designed with small holding volumes (usually about ' . pieces of easily. Fig 37 illustrates a 45'x70' 15 -50 gal) to be used for immediate liquid recovery aerial applicator concrete..mixing/ioading pad' with and transfer, not storage. Some states require sumps security fence. This facility has aircraft tie downs and to be stainless steel fined. California requires double . asphalt approach and departure ramps to minimize walled stainless steel sumps with inspection ports, , dustblowing during taxi operations. Mixing/loading that are to be checked daily for leaks when the facility equipment plus pesticide and rinsate storage tanks • is handling pesticides.. • \ are:secured by a chain-link fence .and automatically - • Some states require that all sumps be drained activated security lights at night. - • • with an operator controlled pump to. guard against Fig. 37 also shows a' miring/loading ng/loang pad system contaminated water inadvertently entering ground- &) w • with a secondary pesticide containment area. Pesti- . water or surface water channels. Other states do not tide storage is located on one side of themixing/lead- allow discharge of liquids at any time from ,contain-' 'ing equipment station, positioned near the secondary ment pads. All liquids have to be recovered and con- • • 49 1 Slope 1 C 1. Slopel I . Cantal Joint Concrete • 0 Asphalt Apron Variable Variable Slope \ Slope • • ' Slope i MIMNG/t0ADING PAD Slope - Slope Slpe Variable Slope \ Slopel- / Slope • Security Fence + Premade CylindricoI Variable Stales sumps Varia:i: Slope .7 Slope • • e Slope RINSATE STORAGE AND L ) Mixing /I p pope I CONTAINMENT :loading: IIII • r15� r ,1 r ,� r, l r ;� ~ u S ORAGE II Pesticide/ I f 1 f . 11' f I I f I I f 1 SECURITY I' St orage Fertilizer • I I 11 I.I 11 I I I . . 1 1 I I I I I1 11 I !Slope 11 aaae g • � L_JL_JL_JL_JL_J JJ c .. i I Fig 37. Plan view of aerial applicator concrete pad. 40' I • Y ' I w ater tallied in ' holding tanks or be allowed to evaporate. • Roofed or completely enclosed concrete pads greatly minimize non- process liquid handling at facilities: • o Pesticide \ <D _ . Storage r — � St oo l e The secon sump recovers leaks • I M;, / g� secondary containment sum Load 4� _�' and 'spills and is used to pump out accumulated -__..1-- liquids such. as rainwater. Cover the sump with a structural grate for safety; a dust cover over'the grate I minimizes dust and debris blowing in. Choose load pad sump grates that can support vehicle wheel load ' • ing. Keep sumps covered and cleaned out, especially I during spraying seasons. Soil and debris in sumps . create a serious' disposal problem of potentially haz- -ardous waste. This problem reinforces the value of enclosing the mixing/loading pad area to avoid solid hazardous waste problems resulting from blowing '. soil and. debris. According to EPA regulation, trans- > porting pesticide contaminated soil for disposal re- t -N,, qu a licensed hauler of hazardous materials, re- ' gardless of whether the pesticide applicator is private Fig 38. Rectangular single sump mixing /loading pad with or commercial. storage building and fenced pesticide security area. I • 50 : _, . — 1 I 10':12' I Fence 1 I I Budding N Area I ' I - or I \ Fenced MixAood /Storage Area .. I Fenced 1 • I . I Area I • 3' Dice . • ; T •. 10 • • ` . • o • - Pesticide �/- i . Storage , • .. 'guiding • 1 ,i • - Traffic.Flow_ • j_ • I . • n. 12• 1 .• ' I .. • u • • • . .1' 's ., 1 ,,: Il i • II • I I III J . Fig 39. Modular mixing /loading.pad with offset pesticide storage building abutting comer of pad. • • Containment Area . - . Loading Pad Areo II To Transfer . Pump Suction Roised Diverter Curb , - f Sand Trap (10 -14' Low Level wide a 1• -r deep Dram Valve for tot shovd - cleanout.) Suction - Overflow Notch m p Sloped Grote Hou CZ . Pipe between Sumps PO d Slope Stainless, . Containment • Clear Liquid Steel-Sump Sump Pump SumpII Mud Sump `Optional sloped bottom. Liner £ II - i - for raking out mud D . is and trash. • r ' Stainless Steel ' • . ' Coned Bottom Raised Diverter Curb • • Low Level "...- Shallow (1' -2' deep) -- Dram Valve -, . Sand Trap Depression (optional) . r igaM M .. r V: / • f • • oa>I�� / .� / / • Fig 40. Multiple mixing /loading sump detail for sediment control. 1 • • • • • 51 • • • ,_' . Sump Designs • sump. Locate these containers in a sump pit or sec- , • There are several sum ondary containment area. This design allows easy j p designs that can be used removal of the sump liner containers when they need • in the mixing/loading pad. A single sump is the sim- to be cleaned out or decontaminated. In this design, - plest.and can either be placed monolithically with the mixing/loading pad or;a precast concrete or prefabri- by extending the pit design to hold additional remov- ' Gated stainless steel sump.could -be installed before able sump liners, different types of pesticide rinsate . the.concrete pad is placed. To reduce sludge problems. can be segregated by diverting to selected •sumps in mixiiig/loading pad sumps where applicator vela- NOTE: The secondary sump pit concrete must be carefull Glee are washed; some faeilities may need two sumps y sealed. in series, Fig 40. NOTE: Washing sprayers in the [ 1 • ' field is recommended, but avoid `repeated washing in 1 r - • the same location `and stay clear of wells, surface • • water. bodies and field.tiles and inlets? 4 _ L, � Use of a double sump allows segregation of p e s ti- • I 4111-1 (I 7 11 J • Lilting R l s er an solids. contaminated lids. The first sump • acts as a sediment trap or settling basin where larger .104 Stainless Steel • ` •- :.solids settle out .before the liquids overflow into the . • • Removable Trough,. I . :second sump. Design the first sump for easy sludge: • • sized to lit cleanout. Water drains around the raised concrete MI • diverter curb into the first sum then is decanted off • 304 Stair. Cast Steel Wall; :, 6A1111�1■ hr Trough Casl in 1; I the first sump and flows into the second sump. The sized to lit sump pump or suction hose is placed in the'secend sump. This water is filtered and_ transferred into a I rinsate storage or waste water holding .tank. A double lined stainless steel sump design is Plan View • • shown in Fig 41. This design allows monitoring of - • potential leaks from the sump by inspectuog the outer 1 sump through the port between inner and outer sump Loading Pad"'' liners. This sump can -be fabricated in range of sizes 0 0e1 or dimensions. Install a " stand pipe riser' in the inspection port of a double waged sump so that it can 304 stainless Steel • I Settling Sump, • be inspected when liquid covers the sump grate. hock sized to / to prevent vandalism. or accidental.,liquid entry --------- through the unsecured port. Secondary sump, sized to fit Lock Lockable, Weather Redd - Section • �S �^ Stand t Pipe P Riser P Fig 42. Multiple sump pit with removable stainless sump I� containers. Inspection Port, 1 IN S 4• 11 s /4 NPT x 304 stainless $ • steel holf caupting e with plug Mixing /Loading Equipment Area • If —_ 4 1 _ - r- . - -- I Locate batch mixing. tanks, water and pumps anpesticide .transfer mps d plumbing in the mixing/loading n ga 3oa • ;j area ;Fig -37. Closed mixing system components like Stainless Steel pesticide • metering tanks, punch/drain/rinse/crush • I - - units, rinsing vacuum probes and pesticide container holding, rinsing and drainage equipment, adjuvant shallow Cone venturi eductor and venturi injector plumbing are • Bottom for • components that should be considered in planning an • ' Cleanout one Suction efficient, safe mixing /Ioading system. I'ositionmixing • �_ equipment near the containment sump as shown in 1 Fig 43. • • 3 . fit' -s' dia . ' 3 - Pu and Pump Containment z' -o' dio In.bulk handling systems, install transfer pumps j . Fig 41. Stainless steel double walled sump liner. inside their. own individual containment dike areas, ' Fig-44. If a seal in the pump leaks, only the small An alternative sump design is. shown n -in Fig 42. A pump containment area .becomes Contaminated and � pair of prefabricated stainless steel containers act as requires cleanup. Mount the pump motor base at primary settling sump and a secondary pump -off containment wall height or higher to prevent flooding ' .52 1 Pesticid ill Storage • Securit • Fence Fertilizer ■ ..�:0b;. Storage ' {. . . , .....: \SI Ia.. --2 oii' . III • Mixing /Loading • Pad `� �j+�� I , • �•, '� 1 ,t y a ;! a p4 ���� ei.: a�e I .a i 41 f p .Clalaf y.:J \� 1 1p� „'� , F� .a a inlet :Si! sy,r.t • . Slope ' t 0 m9- Hose 1S �� VI.* Sprayer Storage Storage Mixing Equipment and Containment Area ,.Fig 43. Medium sized pesticide /fertilizer storage, containment, mixing /loading pad.. '(or level with top or Plumbing Components and Seals r • i � secondary containment wall.) ' An important part of designing a bulk handling . 1 ►`' system is selecting metal parts, gaskets and hoses I ; . that resist corrosion Ex' p ect high initial cost if low �� � Pum Base . Motor B Height • � maintenance costs, long life and excellent perform- Secondary ante are required. Using the highest quality, most Containment E . corrosive resistant material is usually the best Icing- Wall term investment. ® Pesticide formulations often contain solvents and 11 surfactants that cause some seal and gasket materi als to swell, shrink, soften or dissolve with continuous �r contact over time. Deterioration is often accelerated ■1 I Pump Containment I 4 • - 6• by elevated temperatures; this is' especially critical ,I Area when the component is subject to mechanical stress. rronsrer Pump con— Select the most chemically resistant materials,. such " tainment wou Curb as Teflon, for seals or gaskets that come in direct • Fig 44. Separate pump containment with.elevated pump contact with concentrated pesticides. NOTE: Teflon mount. may be incompatible with some :pesticides, such as the pump, damaging motor windings , and creating an "Prowl" and "Treflan'. III electrocution hazard for workers. A disadvantage of Hoses must also be compatible with the pesticides elevating pumps is that higher levels of liquid are being handled.. Hoses. manufactured with an inside needed in water supply tanks to prime pumps. Layer of across- linked high - density polyethylene ma- .- . An alternative to 'separate pump containment is .terial usually are chemically compatible. Flush hoses ' . to place chemical resistant rubber, plastic or stainless . and piping after use to extend service life and' mini - steel "drip" pans or tubs under elevated pumps to mize cross- contamination. Suction hoses must be re- catch intermittentdrips that often occur from pump inforced for negative pressure or vacuum operation.. ' seals or plumbing connections, especially when Collapsed suction hoses can cause cavitation damage switching transfer hoses from suction to discharge to pumps. . connections periodically. Use "dry -break hose connec- Select stainless steel or polypropylene quick -re- tors to minimize drips during frequent hose changes. lease, dry-break couplers or air =break connectors for Install shutoff valves and unions on each side of plumbing that must be connected on a regular basis, o � ' pumps so they can be easily drained for minimum such as hose couplings connecting to pumps, applies- leakage and removed for repairs. These equipment, tor vehicles, bulk tanksor'mix tanks. Fit couplings components help reduce pesticide contamination on with pesticide or fertilizer resistant "0" rings, seals , floors. or gaskets manufactured from Teflon; stainless steel 1 . . 53 springs or other chemically resistant material. Check leak or.spill, or unusually heavy thunderstorms (25 -. pesticide and fertilizer, resistance. charts to select yr, 24-hr storm) where accumulated rainwater causes appropriate materials, Appendices H, I and J. liquid fertilizer or rinsate tank flotation, rigid PVC, ,' Valves polypropylene or steel .piping manifolds could frac- ture, causing massive, releases and co- mingling of • ' Use ri corrosion resistant valves made from stain- liquid fertilizers or nsates. Even with a valve di- less , steel, polypropylene or 'Caviar. Minimize the rectly.connected to,each tank base outlet, leverage on number ofvalves'to operate the system to reduce cost connected plumbing manifolds could cause pipe nip - and potential Leaks: Mount; them:in'easy- to-reach ..pies to break between the tank wall and the valve: I locations for operator convenience.' Use quick shutoff • . Anchoring tanks and using flexible plumbing are ball valves or plug valves. Provide lockable. shutoff major design requirements. valves on outlets . of. all bulk liquid fertilizer and : :Keep mixin j/loading equipment inside a security pesticide storage tanks Toiviectuity. Use detachable fence..Secutityfences, walls, buildings or other safety : hoses instead of hard plumbing to isolate storage, measures are needed to keep unauthorized person- ' tanks from other plumbing. nel; children or•aniinals from.pesticide and fertilizer • Rlnsate'Storage and Handling storage areas. Operators are - responsible for contami- I nation and injury caused •by vandals, even if a reason- • Mark or color -code individually dedicated hoses able level of security is provided, but lockedtank base by the pesticide handled for transfer of rinsates into shutoffvalves and fences can help minimize legal risk and out of each individual rinsate holding tank. If and possibly reduce insurance rates. dedicated hoses are not used, flush hoses with clean Closed Mixing S stems =CMS • water immediately after handling each pesticide rin- y sate to avoid cross- contamination of non - compatible . Closed mixing systems (CMS) greatly minimize pesticides: NOTE: Plain water may not clean plumb- human exposure to concentrated pesticides. Ideally; I ing satisfactorily. Check• product label for proper closed system transfer is accomplished by vacuum. cleaning and neutralizing procedures. With vacuum transfer, hose or plumbing leaks allow . Do not "hard plumb" or rigidly manifold pesticide air into the system, which slows handling rates; but • ... rinsate transfer pumps directly to the inlets or outlets does not result in spray or rupture -type failures of of rinsate storage tanks. When using permanent pipe pressurized handling systems. True closed systems: • ma rinsate from one tank can accidentally mix . A low removal of pesticides from sealed contain - • . • with rinsate from other tanks in the collecting mani- fold. Cross - contamination with rinsate from several ere I tanks could cause .serious damage to non - targeted Allow measuring -and transferring pesticides to crops or sites. Use hoses with quick release dry-break mixing or sprayer tanks and rinsing empty con- connectors; cam- lock or other suitable quick tainers. I couplers so that operators have to make specific deci- Allow handling of system plumbing and hoses sions and choices when connecting hoses to pump without exposing personnel to pesticide vapors, rinsate into and out of each tank. This deliberate mists, splashes or spills. process provides more•opportunity to evaluate each • Provide improved accuracy in pesticide measur- I separate management • decision than if complex m g' 'plumbing manifolds with several valves are used. • Reduce t mixing/loading risk bc site contamination. Fit rinsate tanks with quick release dry -break • Reduce the risk of back siphonage of pesticides • and/or cam -lock type fittings for filling .into the top into water supplies. • I. • •and withdrawing from the bottom. Select'and' posi- • Reduce the'need for full protective suits. and glean tion (slope) tanks so that bottom outlets drain the five gloves, full face shield or goggles and clean entire tank. Each time a tank is emptied, immedi -• clothes are still recommended. • ' ately and thoroughly flush it out to prevent pesticides Fig 45 is a diagram of a modular vacuum powered from drying on tank walls and to wash bottom sedi- . "pesticide CMS. It uses a venturi injector mounted on ment out. Permanently mount 360^ rotating rinsing the pressure side of the pump to develop vacuum. • nozzles in the top of each tank for thorough rinsing This ventari design has a high -flow bypass. When. ' . and worker safety. Dedicate each tank to only •one pesticide measuring • and • transfer is complete, . the pesticide or one crop: Cone or hopper bottom tanks ' by -pass valve provides a much higher: handling rate make management simplerby improving drainage of (2 -3 times increase) for rapid completion of sprayer . all products, including particles that settle out. Hop- ' tank filling. • per bottom tank rinsing and cleanout are easier, Where small mixtures are needed, use a supple - compared to flat bottom or horizontal cylindrical mental vacuum pump to evacuate the metering tank tanks. Select tanks with large top access openings for and draw pesticides into the tank pump to keep from ease of cleanout and inspection. having to pump•excessive water through the vehturi. . Use individualhoses to pumps or flexible mani fold • Then use the vehturi injector with by - pass valve for systems for liquid fertilizer-tanks. In case of a ma transfer and mixing/loading operations, Fig 45. 1. - • • • cn Fr= -0 rl r-- =7r-+ 11 1 Rinse Water Line II - . 11 L 1�. Optional i i l ne I 1 , ) 1 ' \1 Pump I rJ < �� ®�, el ms Vocuum'Metering Tank SSA {{ Rinsing / Nozzle Sealed _ Punch/Drain /Rinse -(POR) } 5 -30 Sight Units Recycling water tank I . gal . Gauge - to de -air water �.( 3 -Way. 1 -5 during vacuum Vent v gal _ transfer. (alterna- Pump Suction- - Valve — g live to optional Return. Water Line= . Venturi - \:, / � Sight Tube irri vacuum pump) _ .. Injector Air L High Flow mE- Q Exhaust S 1 Venturi Byp ss 1 Vacuum .. S , 5 ,,,, 0 „ Valve . l - f 1 - Gauge Rinse Water Line ;. -- Dry Break • Break '' � Che I —y_ Connector I( If .. a .o:.,.;. ck _ : : .;, x: ,. , Partial j Valves 1 v • - 4 '' °.... ? lotion u- on le - Built -in I 1 Cycle 1 Rinsing Probe - Dry Suction Ell . . Water Check 1 I • Powder Probe Tanply Valve - �- -- - - J - Mix Tank " V ..�. r � Check.. � l e' Returnable • Valve Minibulk `J — Tank Potable Centrifugal i G'7 ■ (15-200 gal) +— Water . Pump - • 55 Callon Non- Mixing • Supply - - ' , Returnable Container Pump Fig 45: Modular vacuum powered (venturi`injector) closed liquid pesticide mixing system flow diagram. • . • 1 . . .. • • , 55 • . . . . • • . An alternative is M pump makeup water . it a, ticides are draivrifrom containers by vacuuin or sue- ,- closed loop from and back to a small enclosed water . lion. Then, pesticides are inbred with water in the 1,/, . holding de an-mg tank that is vented to the atmos- injector, so a dilute strength pesticide/water mixture phere, and dedicated for vacumn•trarisfer Use. Thus, is transferred under low pressure into applicator the amount•of water initially pumped into the appli- tanks. cator tank is significantly redueed. This is v _ ery im- • . • Metering tanks . portant 'Where total transfer volume and available • . • ' tanks measure I • tran ii Sfer time is limited When making.p sniall batch Vacuum metering •or meter the amount of pesticide needed for sprayer tank mix- . . .mixes and pesticide must be transferred initiallY tures. Metering tank sizing. dependa. OIS the amount -- from shipping or mioibulk containers.to the meteri lank. Plumb this "de-airing" tank to use this water of pesticide to be transfetied.from shipping contain- . n f sprayer ... • I . first • When filling the applicator era as Well as the amout needed for a ull r tank as pesticide •. load..Pesticide is .evacuated from one-way, vapors may be abSorbed.by thecloaed loop water,.so ers with ' self- ' in probes, or. fra contain- or .g 1 , this water nuist be used immediately to finish Making th • • minibulk returnable.tanks With non-rinsinginternal un that load I . 146TE: If a de-airing • • suction probes connected by dry break connectors to , , tank bypass plumbing loop suction hoses. , . . . . is Useclas part of the CMS, the. discharge hose valve - . • the in • . ' . to e spraytank or aircraft hopper iiiay still to Punch/drain/rinse (PDR).centaMers as ,need ' . be . partially open so that 1/3-1/2 of the liquid flow the upper right hand corner of Fig 45 are ns.hown on-pres- t, ' contin th ues to the applicator tank. Complete recycling sunned metering tank systems.These units allow 1, 2.5 or 5 gal plastic Or metal containers to be set inside, - • of water through the return loop air separator-J and the cover latched and sealed.. The side lever (discharge hose valve completely closed)•maY cause operates a sharp probe that punches a hole in • • . the return line water to be partially aerated (partially container bottom. The pesticide drains into.the base filled with air bubbles) from the vacuum tank if the . of the stainless steel tank. A sight tube is, used for • • air separator tank volume - is marginal. Ifthis 'occurs, • 'ileasur*the pesticide.. . , . - . . . pump pressure:wilt droji, piimp cavitation may occur and venturi vacuum level may remain low, slowing After- the pesticide has been. d . rained from • • clean water , either to the metering tank or the apPlicater or stalling evacuation of the Metering PDR -tank. . • H .) Venturi injectors ' C. . • . • . tank, the container is.power-rinsedwith . forced through the side lever pivoting hole punch - - ' Venturi injectors, Fig 46, are static devices that niechanisra; which is rotated during container rins- . . ..- create a vacuum to pull liquid pesticides from con- mg, and the rinsate is transferred directly to . the ; I Miners. The venturi is placed on the outlet (pressure) sprayer. The empty power-rinsed container is rer side of - a pump and as the motive liquid (Usually moved and the next pesticide container is setinto the makeup water) flows through the venturi restriction, unit for draining. Because holes are punched in the . • line pressure drops, creating a vacuum that evacu- bottom of each container, PDR unit use is Minted to I , . • ates air from piping and the metering tanks. With completely draining'and transferring the liquid from .appropriate valve.settings, pesticides and rinse water each container. are also transferred by the .venturi suction. . An area thatneeds additional operator attention ' • Venturi injector systems are simple, economical and maintenance on .metering tanks are metering' ' I and can rapidly transfer relatively low viscosity pes- • sight tubes or sight glasses. These devices arensually licides effectively. They are easily incorporated into clear or.opague.plastic or glass tubes about 3/8"-5/fr existing pesticide handling systems. Choose venturi . T.D. that are externally Mounted to the top 'and hot- I injectors constructed of polypropylene, stainless steel tom of metering tanks to alloW•a indication . or other corrosion resistant-material. Flush injectors internal fluid levels:With some pesticides or fertiliz, • . (with clean water after each use) to•mininize cross- , • era; sight tithes often quickly "cloud up" due to contamination of pesticides. .CAUTION: Plumbing . peated:dried residue layers. Connect a power-rinsed I . • connected to plastic venturi injector side inlets water line to the top oteach metering tank sight tube must . be flexible or carefully braced because to flush it out each thee the tank is rinsed se pesticide • side inlet's are structurally weak and break eas- layers do not obscure the visual tank•lictuid levels :and ' .. ilY. . to.ininimi!e cross-contamMation.of peaticides. 1 . - . .. Pesticide . - Rinsing probes/internal probes • • ■1 ' m - . Self probes ate used to • withdraw pesti- • . , ' • tides from shipping conMiners. When containers are ••._s —. ___,; pesticide empty, rinse, water is sprayed iiiside, washing down . ... . Water I ±,c — and Water pesticide residues that remain.as film inside on the . -. Fig 46. Cross-section of venturtiniector: . top and wall of containers, plus few ounces of I t .... . . a. . a a 111 pesticide in the bottom: Rinsewater is evacuated out Venturi injector systems are naturally safer than Of the. container 'and transferred directly into the . . Pressu transfer systems because full strength. pes- sprayer, Fig 47. . . • . . . . 1' • 56 I • To the ' tions. Periodic stopping of suction or rinsing .� 1 Mix. Tank operations may be required if the vent relief • volume is marginal. If vent air flow is blade-. guide or. not provided; it is safer guide to leave the • / probe disconnected from the container open. - • _ _ tlo" e i to allow vent air moveme ovee thr Vent • enl Air ugh:the —Rinse connector. o during suction and rinsing ' Water operation. . . net s Another safety hazard that must be consid- • • - • •ered when using rinsing probes to rinse • empty S akly . Spray Shield • (or •partially empty) containers • is. over fil l in g . • . containers and flushing rinsate out through the n open container inlet Op. Common. practice is N • DO NOT SEAL to.operate suction valves -and rinse- water line PROBE TO • valves simultaneously so initial highly concen- • . j. '. CONTAINER! • trated rinsate is sucked'out immediately. Usu- 0 1 ally 3045 sec is adequate for power rinsing at • f / rinse water flow rates 0( .5-3 gpm. U ili f , Refillable bulk containers Re Sy - . P ° 9 0 ; ---- EPA i s encoura the p esticide in- - i Bing agricultural K . 1 .); . dustry to use'two-way or refillable containers and to adopt.two or three common fittings for shipping con- n \ l tainers. Pesticide and fertilizer companies and asso- • • ciations are moving toward standardizing• bulk 11 i and/or minibulk shipping container fitting designs. . • Minibulk or refillable containers have built -inin- I ternal suction probes with dry- break connecters to 1 prevent external drips on and around the container. v �. / Some companies supply these containers with a • • Extended Position for / pump. and meter: At least one repackaging company Rinse Operation . is using tanks connected .to minibulk Fig.47. Suction probe with transfer and rinse systems. or SVR containers to transfer pesticides by'pressure. Refillable containers are - permanently Marked for use O External rinsing suction probes - are not "true" with only one type -of pesticide and are not rinsed by • closed mixing system components because containers the' applicator or dealer. They -are returned to the • must be opened and the probe inserted. Some probes manufacturer or repackaging. agent and repeatedly . ' are screwed to the container threaded pour spout refilled with the same pesticide on a continuous recy- i . creating a seal while others have an air gap between cling basis. Refillable containers comprise true closed . 'the. container opening and probe tube through which system components when- used with a vacuum/suc- vapors can escape and air can enter to ventilate the • tion type pressure tank transfer system orCMS. • - • container volume above the liquid level during with- . - • •dtawal of pesticide. Thus; even though rinsing probes Mechanical Trans /Open Mixing Systems are used with "closed mixing systems", workers are . - Dry pesticides are mixed with water in batch mix at some risk while using most external probes.. tanks by adding part of therequi.red water; pouring . Care must be_used with all probes when removing in the dry pesticide stirring into a slurry; adding the pesticides, during rinsing and during probe insertion balance of the mix water, then recirculating the mix -. • . and removal. In • cases where the probe .body. is tore in the tank for-thorough mixing, Batch mixtures . screwed to the container threaded pour spout, high are then transferred into applicator tanks, mix tanks ' vacuum build - can collapse the . container . sides are rinsed and the rinsate transferred to the applica- ' inward if probe suction air venting is inad equate. for tanks. Although batchmixers.vary from fully open ' This may cause the container sides to crack and leak. topped tanks to units with full hinged covers, they are 'Another hazard may occur while rinsing the con- not sealed and therefore are considered open mixing tainer at water line. or pump pressure (30 -60 psi). systems and should be in well ventilated areas. Pro - Without adequate container venting, the internal tective clothing and- full face respirator with appro- ' Ny pressure can cause the container to rupture, with the priate canisters for the pesticides being mixed . are potential of spraying.pesticide or rinsate on workers. recommended when using open mixing systems.. CAUTION: Before using probes that seal to .. Liquid pesticides are often mixed with the carrier 'containers, be sure the probe has adequate vent before they are added to an applicator tank; A simple • air flow for positive and suction pressure relief, method is shown in Fig 43. In this system, the liquid , during both withdrawing and rinsing opera - pesticide is removed from a container with a suction 57' Sight tubes on measuring colirmng are simple and K( Check Fresh • Valve • Water easy to use but are only accurate if the container is ( • > ,..— level. Small diameter sight tubes (1/4 " -3/8" LD.) may - .indicate adifferent level than what is in'the container ' due to viscosity and surface tension of .the liquid °� ® T ,, uir' or against the tube wall. Larger tubes (1/2 " -5/8`' I.D.) "1° Meter 1 Spr rank provide faster, more accurate metering response..A' sma m ll = diaeter, tail container improves metering ac- • • curacy for a given volute metering tank. Use side; guards to protect external glass tubes or plastic tub - f o . Probe ing &nm breakage or damage to reduce the hazard of contact a concentrated pesticide. All sight tubes ii To sprayer m us t h ave a valve at.the base of the column tbat,can be closed for emergencies incase the tube is leaking Pesticide . or lastic or Container en. Tygon sight tubes 'cloud over require periodic replacement, but are safer than glass ' FIg.48. Mechanical pump -type closed handling system • tubes from. a breakage standpoint. Where plastic with mixing tank. sight tubes are desired, choose nylon or polypropylene • materials. Power - rinsed water lines.connected.at the • • top of sight tubes may eliminate or reduce the - fre- • probe using the pump suction and is pumped through gaency of replacement. Select tubes for rinsing and II a meter into a mix tank. Then the mixture is recircu- easy replacement: lated from the tank through the pump and anagitator Metering tanks made of stainless steel with one nozzle in the .bottom of the tank for mixing. When or.more glass windows mounted in theside are•avail- I completely mixed, the pesticide is transferred to the able commercially. These must also be kept level to sprayer.. Variations of this system, such as the useof be accurate. Measuring tanks with windows have an • .different- probes for removing the •material from the advantage over tanks with only sight tubes, as the I container, measuring. col» mn5 metering tanks' or.... liquid level is directly visible; and the viscosity of the' measuring probes in place in -line flow meters, and • pesticide and liquid. surface tension does not affect venturi injector§ can be incorporated. Batch miffing measurement as much as sight tubes. But tanks with tanks are usually designed with jet agitators on 300- • glass windows are usually more and win- 600gal tanks or mechanical miring paddles on, larger dews are su - to leakage: All. measuring or meter - mixing tanks:(500 -1,000 gal). ing tanks must be equipped with internal rinsing Pesticide measurement nozzle provisions. Rinse tanks and sight glasses im- mediately after use before pesticides dry on inside Accurate methods of pesticide measurement.are surfaces to avoid cross- contamination problems. essential to good pesticide application management. .Pesticide liquid meters similar to those used on fuel Pesticides are also measured or metered by pumps are fast, easy-to use and operate on the prin. weight. The unit weight of the active ingredient (Al) ' ciple ofpositive displacement. However, accuracy.and is listed on the pesticide container as a ratio or per- repeatability may be a problem on -less expensive cent-of the .pesticid p weight. A pm aform or rotary vane. or " turbo" meters. All rotary vane meters container can be mounted on a scale platform or a • • n. dis are inaccurate' when used on the vacuum side of suspended on a load cell and filled by vacuum or • pumps or venturi injectors - because of air entrained' pressure transfer to the desired eight.T a fill and during suction hoses must be flexible on these mts to For pressure systems, more expensive meters are 711 n'mi 7 e measurement inaccuracies. Fig 49 shows a • .usnally the most accurate and 'provide the best cent- platf °rm load cell type scale. Fig 50 aliows a single - it . sion resistance. Mechanical or electronic digital read_ load cell suspension or tension mounting system: For out meters are available that indicate volumes . in fez' facilities, load -cells � or strain 'gauges can be tenths or hundredths of a gal. Meters must be certi placed on the mixing tank to eliminate the need for u fl; that are intermediate weighing equipment. On portable load- • ed when they are used to measure products to beseld and require retesting or calibration at least COI measuring, syatets; lock load -cells rigidly and :yearly by state' government testing and measures remove load, while transporting. Moving this type of . ' departments. Because the specific gravity of products system may require frequent 'calibration of load -cell If k, varies with. temperature; it is sometimes necessary to readout units: li 'used outdoors, wind shields and recahbrate meters to control accuracy, but meters horizontal stability brackets must be used to mini - that require m calibration are usually' the best type. mize wind pressur c o ing effects. Load -cells, con - loe meters require recalibration byreferring to the trol/readout units and nd connnecting electrical or control '/ ~ operator s manual for each significant change of vis- � �' wiring cables - Mast be designed for use in cosity used. pesticide and outdoor environments. • • • 1 • 58 I • Flexibl a NOTE: Use 'rocking', twisting, or 'wobbling Inlet - - motion to make sure spray hits bottom of Hose .. container: or pierce side of container instead of the bottom. Stainless � � . • .Steel \ Electric • Tank Container t . . Solenoid Rinser - • ' Valve , - • - .. \\ Load -Cell _ ' Rj � • Water Line - Flexible \ . Readout ' Ou tiel .'Hose ". I ® Replaceable Tips • j { 1 -5 Callon r Pesticide Con toiner • Scale Base ,[Contains Lood Cells] - " Fig 49. A load -cell type platform metering scale. • Tension ® Lood -Cell Sprayer Tank • load -Cell -- _ • Readout Mounting -Fig 51. Pressurized water container rinse nozzle. • plastic or metal containers (5 gal or less). The probe f I S contains a series of holes around the nozzle shaft that • . must be inside the container. With the container • . Flexible inverted over -the spray tank fill water is turned . rinse C -� .- Inlet on to nse the container:. Flush the container for . / Hose • 3 0 -45 sec as soon as it is emptied to soak and remove • l • - residues from container. Avoid letting products dry • j • • out before rinsing. When rinsing with hand held • V pressure rinse nozzles, piercing the side of the in- • verted container allows better flushing of container bottom. the 'a rocking, twisting and wobbling motion . 1 le 1 • 1010 • TanWerd during rinsing to direct waterjet impact to • all interior I 111 Stabilizer surfaces. Electric The rinsing probe transfer system shown in.Fig 47 • Solenoid is not a pressure rinse system. It is designed to drain �� Valve • the container of pesticide, then disrhsrge clear water • . Flexible from the rinsing probe water through.-a • . . outlet • • series of holes directly-below the fill cap. At the same • Hose time the probe evacuates the rinsate out and trans -. • Fig 50. A tension -type Toad- ceIImetering scale. fers it into the spray tank. One -way pesticide.contain- • ers.are not designed to withstand vacuum br pres- • sure. Caution niust.be used to .prevent collapse. or . Container Rinsing for Disposal • • - ruptui eof the containerifadegiiate venting air relief .. . . One -way containers must be pressure=rinsed or is not provided when the probe:body is sealed to the • "triple hand - rinsed" prior to disposal- Pressure -rips- container opening. mg for 30 -45 sec immediately after_imtial draining is • Invert freshly rinsedcontamers on a draining rack . usually far more • effective than •triple hand - rinsing. in a rinsate drain tank, Fig 52a,- to allow all .rinsate Fig 51 illustrates a method that can be used for to drain from containers for easier. rinsate recovery pressure- rinsing pesticide containers. Fig 47 illus- and reuse. Power rinse nozzles can be added to rin- ' trates.a rinsing probe transfer' system. A disadvan- sate drain tanks, Fig 52b. Seve : companies have . tage of both rinsing. methods is that container caps developed portable hose mounted rinse nozzles (util- 1 are not rinsed during. container rinsing. A bucket ity and commercial models) that pierce the side of. . ' with:detergent can be "used - with a screen basket to plastic or metal containers for pressure rinsing and rinse one -way pesticide container caps.. draining.. For heavy use, .commercial versions are . I The pressure -rinse system shown in Fig 51 is more rugged and last longer than utility models, and - designed to rinse containers inverted over a pesticide are better' suited for metal containers. Most nozzles Mixing tank fill opening. This rinser co n ntais a sharp have replaceable steel piercing probe tips. Make sure 1 . • probe that can punch through the bottom of small nozzle probe tip holes direct spray back toward the 1 • • • • 59 . .Hinged Covers . rug. Type 304 or 306 stainless steel tanks are suitable, • / . ) but are more expensive. Mount pesticide, rinsate and n fertilizer storage tanks 3 " -6" above the concrete floor o o_ I I n . n for easy location and identification 'of leaks. Motint J f the tanks high enough to allow full operation of valves • a �,' Perforated Drain Rack, stainless steel - and other equipment. Some operators elevate rinsate . ^� Slope 'unsettle. holding tanks so they can gravity -flow into mix tanks' Stainless.Steel Milk Tank (Salvage) `�� uct a cost/benefit analysis, • . . • • . Rinsed pesticide container drain rack. paring gravity flow to pumping.. . ' shutoft Valve Water Supply Tanks Water Line • Place water storage tanks close to Mixing/loading 1 _ equipment, outside and adjacent to primary and sec - ( • ondary containment pads. Water tanks do not require I� r. 1 1 containment space, but may be stored inside fenced ' m I N l / 1 :\ I _ j, /. 1 containment to minimize varidahsm if space is avail- . 1- ) JJ , - _LLB J able and containment volume is properly sized. How -. • . ever, containment volume must be sized for the water Slope • �� tank if it is the largest tank. Stainless Steel Milk Tank (Salvage) `]. - Air Gaps, Check Valves and Reduced Pressure 52b. Pesticide rinsate drain tank with power - rinsing Backflow Prevention Devices • nozzles. Fig 52. Pesticide container rinse /drain tank with rack. Water lines connected to pesticide mixing and rinsate storage tank systems are vulnerable to back- . flow.of pesticides and fertilizers into the water sys- • part of the container that is pierced for complete tem. Mall positive back -flow or anti- siphon protec- �t, rinsing. Some early models use only four holes drilled lion on water systems that provide water to.agricul- • ■ ° perpendicularly to the probe tube, which provides.an tural pesticide and fertilizer storage and handling inadequate spray pattern. An pressure rinsers must operations. iii be. equipped with a backflow prevention'device. Two accepted methods of backflow protection are the air -break separation and an approved backflow Rinsate Storage Tanks prevention assembly. Individual conventional. check • valves will not provide reliable backfow protection of • I Rinsate tanks are used for temporary separation water supply lines. . and holding of diluted pesticide field mixture rinsate An air -break separation is a vertical air gap be- (typically 10:1 dilution ratio from field mixtures). tween the free flowing.discharge end of a water sup - After using each rinsate, wash the inside of the tank ply line and the fill opening 'of a water storage tank. ' and -transfer that • liquid to the' sprayer tank as This Method requires removal and replacement ofthe_ makeup water along, with the field mix rinsate as a tank opening 'cover each time the tank is filled. An continuing management process throughout the approved separation should be at least 17 or two times ' • I spraying season. Strategies to minimize rinsate stor- the diameter of the supply line measured vertically • - age, handling and disposal are discussed in Chapter above the overflow rim of the tank: The supplyhne is 11,' Rinsate Management and Waste Disposal. • ' usually. fitted with a float controlled shutoff. ' When selecting storage tanks, check with both the A reduced pressure principle backflow:prevention pesticide manufacturer and tank manufacturer to be assembly is usually.'approved for use between the . sure the tank is resistant to corrosion from the pesti- water supply line and the pesticide handling facility. . tide being stored. Cross - linked, high density polyeth - • Check local regulations to be sure they are permitted.. . .. . ylene or fiberglass tanks of 200 -600 gal volumes are Install check valves,, Figs. 53 and 54, in all rinse ' usually a good economical selection for rinsate star- ' water or mixture handling lines. Valves for horizon= age. The ability to view liquid levels through plastic tal piping must be spring loaded, Fig 54. Valves in ' or fiberglass tank walls improves management. In- vertical-piping can be gravity activated valves such . spect polyethylene tanks annually for signs' of aging as pump type.foot valves, Fig 53. The spring- loaded and deterioration to avoid a structural failure. Tanks . valve can be used in any position. Check valvesusu- that are under -roof and protected from direct sun - ally work well but are known to failoccasionallydue •ht and weather usually have a longer service life to dirt particles or. rust scale wedged between the an those stored in the open. valve and the seat. Check for good operating and ' Galvanized or standard mild steel tanks are not proper back flow sealing prior to operating the com- a recommended because they corrode quickly causing . plete system. Provide shutoff valves to'isolate system mat and metal scalings to plug strainers and- plumb- components for maintenance or emergencies. • . 60 ,.. terials) depending on the type of pesticide and fertil- n)1 izer, the use of the construction material and the II�A facility use. Temporary/transportable synthetic facilities Several manufacturers market portable; flexible r or inflatable walled, synthetic, drive over mix- ingAoading pads that fold up for transport Use these amts only at remote or satellite operations for tem- a _ 1 porary field mixing/loading to catch drips and spills, not for permanent mixing/loading facilities. Use 'small AC or. DC powered sump pumps to recover i diluted pesticide spills and rinsate. There - are also several types. of shallow, rigid- walled :plastic or fiberglass trays on the market, ap- proximately 8x16 and 6" high, with elevated vehicle 111 tracks or ramps that allow truck or field sprayers to u be driven into the containment for loading. These are Flow • , . also suitable for temporary use only. There may be Fig 53. Gravity type backflow check: valve. more development anduse of portable mixing/loading III systems as applicators try to reduce the risk of field spills. Boll check Deeper (18" -24') fiberglass containment units are n Orifice Seat available that can be transported to permanent facil- ,II ity sites in sections for on -site assembly. They are er 1111 field "seamed" or joined together to use for pesticide rinsate recycling and containment of mirng/loading 1 equipment. Multiple units can also be incorporated / 1 for liquid fertilizer tank, pesticide storage and rinsate tank secondary containment. i Bulk Unloading Facility Large liquid fertilizer outlets may need a separate Fig 54. Spring - loaded ball check valve: area for receiving bulk truck shipments while the primary load -out pad is in use, Fig 7. For bulk unload facilities, use a drive pad with level side curbs or walls Alternative Mixing /Loading Facilities and floors that slope to a shallow trough at the center Watertight, high - strength, reinforced concrete is . (6 deep) which drains to a small, shallow sump to 1 the preferred material for constructing pesticide and provide the required containment volume. Locate it fertilizer mixing/loading pads. Reinforced concrete along one side of the liquid fertilizer bulk storage with flexible chemical resistant surface sealers for containment pad. The bulk truck unloading pad pesticide and fertilizer containment, with surface should contain more holding volume than the largest :sealed asphalt drives and approach ramps are suit . transport load plus the storm water level from at least II able for use with liquid pesticid and fertilizers. a 25-yr, 24-hr storm.. Engineering designs in special circumstances may One company is nowprefabncafting three -section ' incorporate alternative materials such as pre modular concrete containments for field assembly Stressed ' or post - stressed transportable or in -place that are connected and seams are sealed on site This _ concrete modules, asphalt, 'steel, plastics (polyure- maybe a suitable solution for loading /unloading bulk thane, polyurea; advanced technology synthetic ma- transport trucks or liquid fertilizer applicator trucks. 1 1 `S 1 1 \, PRO TELi10 s .- " Q � d ) A ti W ie r 1 Best Management Practices for. 1 Golf Course Maintenance Departments i ori I Vii, 1 . 1 . 1 1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1 Agricultural Source and Water Well Management Section May, 1995 r , 1 1 i • Best Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments 1 • Introduction • ' The maintenance department is responsible for irrigation, mowing, fertilization, pesticide application and general.upkeep of the golf course grounds. The maintenance area is where pesticides are loaded into application equipment, mowers and other pieces of equipment are serviced, and pesticides, fuel, fertilizer, and cleaning solvents are stored. This is where pollution of.scii, surface water, or ground water is most likely to occur. Contamination.canoccur when pesticides are spilled, containers or equipment cleaned and the rinsewater dumped on the ground or discharged into surface water, or improperly cleaned containers are stockpiled or buried. Proper management of the maintenance area is an important part of responsible chemical and pesticide use. Poor , handling and disposal practices at these sites can lead to serious environmental I problems, expose the ownership to extensive legal liability for contamination and cleanup, including penalties and fines, and can create a poor public image for the golf course. Management practices should be:implemented at these maintenance areas that will prevent the contamination of soil, surface water, and ground water by the materials stored and handled at these sites. This document describes a number of "Best 6, Management Practices ", or BMPs, which can be put into practice through proper design ' and operation of the golf course maintenance facilities and equipment. Best Management Practice Principles The general approach to best management practices for golf course maintenance departments involves three principles : • ■ Isolate all potential contaminants from soil and water, and, ' • Do not discharge any material other than clean stormwater onto the ground or into surface water bodies. • Minimize irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticide use requirements through use of Integrated Pest Management and native or naturalized vegetation wherever ' practicable. The first principle involves identifying all the materials stored or handled in a golf course maintenance area along with current practices that could cause environmental contamination. The next step is to develop management practices which isolate those materials from soil and water during storage, handling, and disposal. Materials that r 2 1 1 may contaminate soil and water include pesticides, fuels, solvents, fertilizers, paints, etc. Storing these materials in covered, lockable storage areas, handling them over impermeable surfaces, cleaning up spills promptly and properly, recycling these 1 materials where possible, and otherwise properly managing wastes will keep these materials from contaminating soil or water. The second principle is an extension of the first. It includes preventing contamination of stormwater and,eliminating the discharge of materials such as equipment wash water to a °ground or surface,waters. Discharge to surface waters can occur directly through dumping to a lake or canal, or indirectly through discharge to a ditch, storm drain or swale. Discharge to ground water may occur by percolation through highly permeable soils, such as the fine sandy soils found in much of Florida, or by flowing into sinkholes, improperly constructed wells or other direct conduits to ground water. Discharges to surface or ground water should be eliminated through the.containment and collection of 11 equipment washwaters and proper management of the collected material. Where . allowed by the local Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) District office or local authorities, stormwater, and washwater other than that from pesticide application 1 equipment, may be discharged to a swale or retention area that does not connect to a surface water body or provide a direct conduit to the ground water. U Several specific BMPs for golf course maintenance areas are described below which. comply with these two general principles. If a material handled or a maintenance practice employed at a golf course maintenance area is not addressed below, golf course managers can use these principles to devise their own BMP for-that activity or material. n The third principle, that of minimizing fertilizer, pesticide and irrigation use through use of native vegetation and Integrated Pest Management directly impacts the amount of materials handled annually, reduces the annual maintenance budget, and encourages good environmental stewardship. An example of how a golf course owner or operator can obtain assistance in this area is through the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary 1 Program (ACSP), a progam of the Audubon Society of New York State; Inc., sponsored • by the the United States Golf Association. This voluntary program offers extensive planning, guidance, and technical assistance while requiring no restrictions on the property. All decisions to act on ACSP suggestions are made by the golf course superintendent and course officials. Specific Best Management Practices 1 Specific BMPs for golf course maintenance areas are listed below by the type of material handled or the maintenance activity conducted. These are summarized at the 3 1 1 I - t end of this section. Sources for the references provided in each section are detailed at '! the end of the document. I 1.0 Pesticides I 1.1. Storage Storage of pesticides should be in I a lockable concrete or metal _ " ' I 3 f r building, located at least 50 feet M I from other types of structures to ff t tt ; ° ' I allow fire department access. The S' 1 , ,, ; l pesticide storage area should be M- %, , [41 I 'u '= r ! I • r i3' 1;4;1 1 I Y F /I h ` 10.1 l F separate from other buildings or at .,1 ' 4; n j = K� t � i n o ; � '" r - . 1 least separate from areas used to l ' r` fir x store other materials, especially ; " - 5 t i k 4 # �� ` r k t l fertilizers. Shelving should be � � � � � , - �sr, plastic or reinforced metal. Metal 's ry 111 ! 3 1 . j� i� �;: I :? s should be kept.painted to t ' Tr, a avoid corrosion Wood Shelving , I should never be used because it may absorb spilled pesticide Figure _1. Storage and Mix/load facility. Courtesy of coulees ' materials. , Reserve Country Club, Naples, FL. Floors should be seamless metal I or concrete and sealed with a chemical- resistant paint. The floor should have a continuous sill to retain spilled materials and it should have no drains, although a sump may be included. Sloped ramps should be provided at the entrance to allow wheeled I handcarts to move material in and out of the storage area safely. Automatic exhaust fans and an emergency wash area should be provided. Explosion proof lighting may be required. It is recommended that the light/fan switch be located outside the building so 1 that both are on when entering or leaving the building. Personal protective equipment should be easily accessible and stored immediately outside of the pesticide storage ' area. An inventory of the pesticides kept in the storage building and the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the chemicals used in the operation should be accessible on the premises, but not kept in the pesticide storage room itself (since that would make I them unavailable in time of emergency). Flammable pesticides should be separated from non- flammable. Dry bags should be il raised on pallets to ensure that they do not get wet. Liquid materials should always be stored below dry materials, never above them. Labels should be clearly legible. Herbicides, insecticides and fungicides should be separated to prevent cross 4 1 contamination and minimize the potential for misapplication: (Since cross contaminated pesticides often cannot be applied in accordance with the labels, this makes it necessary to dispose of the contaminated materials as wastes. This may require the services of a consultant and hazardous waste contractor, depending on the materials involved.) Storage building plans are available from several sources, including the Midwest Plan Service, the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), and the United States Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service (SCS). If 1.2 Mixing and Loading • Loading of pesticides and mixing , with water oil dilutentsshould r ¢ .41 4 be done over an impermeable � '� r ", 44%. surface (such as Tined or sealed „ � yi � 3 z . � s � concrete) so that spills'can be. ,.,:adra C.l �3x�J4 collected and managed Refer to r' _ a 3: the DEP publication D.E.P.. - a Minimum Construction and S 9r Operation Standards for Chemical 4 r d a g Mixing Centers used for Pesticide 1 ; Mixing and Loading. Although — 4 mss; �r use of a chemical mixing center ' (CMC) is not mandatory, adherence to the standards in the n above publication is strongly . Figure 2 Typical golf course mix /load facility. courtesy of � encouraged. John's Island west, Sebastian, FL. 1 5 1 1.- . 't The purpose of a CMC is to provide a place where the operator can perform all operations where pesticides are 1 likely to be spilled in concentrated form, or where even dilute z _. ,. I formulations may be repeatedly spilled in the same area, over an ,,__.:. =* - impermeable surface. Such a / I surface should provide for easy a cleaning and recovery of spilled f ' ' `$ materials. In its most basic form, 'Tf `mo t ; , a CMC is merely a concrete pad 4 , treated with a sealant and sloped 1'� u � r. �,: I to a liquid -tight sump where all of r� " '" ' `r the spilled liquids can be . „ ,t 'g„...j-i pl ! ' ,, , ,. 1. ? :: � "� 1 , rtea .�i, ' t4V, $ 1, recovered. For smalls ills, -. 4y .3 r x =* i- - I absorbents such as cat litter or ` L° ' k'' ):fi sand may be used for clean up of Figure � � ap� �a ` w . to sump not onto the ground. the spill and then applied as a top I dressing in accordance with the label rates, or disposed of as a waste. Solid materials, of course, can be swept up and reused. �” Materials other than concrete, such as tough synthetics, may also be used in some cases. These materials are often used for portable CMCs where a permanent facility is not practicable. I Figures 1 through 4 depict some actual CMCs used at golf courses in Florida. Designs for CMCs are available from several sources including , t 'r - - i Il i "1- 1*• fi x ` �' : ' ' z T t l l t M ..w I fl o- 1 f '� the Midwest Plan Service, USDA -SCS, and IFAS. z ; a TI The first principle of CMC x ' I management is that any , h w ' ' material that collects on the i " 1 pad must be applied as a rm May !', N a( kr) r T 'r rt ‘.4.."'t.,,:, ' 1, , • pesticide or disposed of as a { yi '0,4 1 . ? T 4 r ' . \i 1 waste. Since an water YYY , j lo- � /r as a including rain, that collects on , / r ,' l `(1 r . 4 ; the pad must be used as a ,�," , ' 4 , d = s y r r i ,� , Via, pesticide or disposed of as a 3 t t ��i "( t ,1•',,,, .4.s .% • . (.# , „ I.'.sk�! . lir e • w. tsf4 1. waste, a roof with a substantial Figure 4 Tanks are used to hold rinsewater until reuse. overhang (minimum 30 degrees) Note separate H, I, and F tanks. courtesy or John's Island West. 1 6 • 1 1 • on all sides is strongly recommended to protect against windblown rainfall: In addition, most CMCs will have a provision for pumping out the sump to storage tanks, one for each general type of pesticide (ie. herbicide, insecticide, or fungicide). In this way, 11 spills and rinsate can be saved and used as make -up water for the next time that type of material is applied All spills should be, cleaned up immediately, and the sump should • be pumped dry at the end.of each day, or more frequently when materials are changed to sornething which'is incompatible with that previously used. Provisions should be made to clean the tires and particularly dirty areas of the equipment exterior prior to bringing' it into the pad area to minimize.a build up of sediment in the sump. Sediments should be removed from the sump any time materials are changed to. incompatible types so that the sediments can be applied as a pesticide to the turf at less than the a label rate; instead of requiring disposal al 'a (possibly hazardous) waste. It is extremely important to pump out the sump and remove all sediments when changing pesticides in order to avoid disposal problems due to cross - contamination. Small spills may also be cleaned up by using an absorbent such as cat litter and then applying the absorbent to the turf as a pesticide in accordance with the label instructions, for example, by mixing with dry fertilizer where permitted by the label. .Very small operations may find this method preferable at small mixing areas where hand . sprayers are loaded. Pesticide containers should be cleaned immediately upon emptying. Containers O) should be properly cleaned by pressure- rinsing or triple- rinsing and the rinse water dumped into the sprayer as part of the make -up water. Non -rigid bags be shaken clean so that all dust and material falls into the application equipment. The clean containers should be stored in a clean area, out of the rain and weather, until they can be disposed of or recycled. Storing the containers in large plastic bags is one Q popular option to protect the containers from collecting rainwater. The cleaned � containers should be recycled in counties where such a program is available, or they may be taken to a landfill for disposal..Ifyou are unable to locate information about pesticide container recycling programs in your area, you may contact the University of Florida - Pesticide Information Office at (904) - 392 -4721. - 1.3 Pesticide Application - Equipment Washwater Washwater from pesticide application equipment must be managed properly since this washwater.will contain-pesticide The best management practice for this . materiat is to.bollect it and use it as a pesticide in accordance with label instructions for that pesticide. This applies to washwater from both the inside and outside of the application equipment. Often, the easiest way to do this is to wash the equipment in the CMC. the pad should be flushed with clean water after washing equipment, and 7 • • I 1, the captured washwater should be pumped into the rinsate storage tank for use in the next application, or it may be applied to the labeled site as a dilute pesticide. The applicator,is allowed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) .section,2(ee) to apply a pesticide at less than the labeled rate. The sump 1 should then be cleaned of any sediment before another type of pesticide is handled. I 1.4 Pesticide Management Summary " 'The appro practice for the management of pesticide materials depends on the ' • type of material. The proper practice for each type of pesticide material is listed below. 1 Empty containers Transport to an approved pesticide container recycling facility after proper I cleaning (pressure rinsing or triple rinsing). If no recycling facility is available, after proper cleaning dispose I of as solid waste. Excess formulation Return to manufacturer, use as .:a pesticide in accordance with the label, use a hazardous waste contractor to ' remove and dispose. , Excess mixture Use as a pesticide in accordance with 1 label. Material used to contain or collect spills Use as a pesticide by applying to a - 1 or leaks labeled site at or below application rate in accordance with label directions for use. If is it necessary to dispose of the I material as a waste, contact the DEP District office for information. 1 1 . 1 . 8 1 ..a Application • equipment washwater Reuse as a dilutant in subsequent applications. Use as a pesticide by applying to a labeled site at or below application rate in accordance with label • • directions for use. Alternatively, treat in a 'permitted treatment facility, such as an evaporation/degradation system. This requires a DEP industrial wastewater �. permit. Contact the DEP District office for more information. 2.0 Solvents and Degreasers d 2.1. Storage 4 Solvents and degreasers are generally flammable and toxic and should be stored in 1� lockable metal cabinets in an area away from ignition sources and with adequate ventilation. Do not store near an area where welding or other similar activities are performed. Neverstore with pesticides or fertilizers. An inventory of the' solvents fl stored and the MSDS sheets for these materials should be kept on the premises, but not in the solvent storage area. Any emergency response equipment recommended by the manufacturer of the solvent should be kept accessible to the storage area, but not inside the area itself. 2.2. Use 11 Solvents and degreasers should be used over a collection basin or pad that can collect a `:all used material. The collected material should be stored in marked containers until it can be recycled or legally disposed of. There are a number of private firms that provide a service that includes solvent wash basins that drain into recovery drums. These drums are then picked up and the contents recycled or properly disposed of. Solvents should never be allowed to drain onto pavement or soil, or discharged into storm drains, sewers or septic systems, even in small amounts. Routine discharge of even small 1 amounts of solvents can result in the accumulation of contaminants in soil or ground water over time, with serious environmental and liability consequences. D 9 11 11 • 1 • . • 4 2.3. Disposal 11 ' Used solvents and degreasers should be collected, placed into containers marked with the contents and the date and then picked up by a service that will properly recycle or 1 dispose of these materials. An IFAS publication, DSP -2, has more information on this. • • • • I. 1 3.0 Fertilizers • 1 3.1. Storage • ,Fertilizers should be stored separately from solvents, fuels, and pesticides since many ' fertilizers are oxidants and can accelerate a fire. Ideally, fertilizer should be stored in a concrete building with a metal or other -flame resistant roof. I Care must be taken when storing fertilizer to prevent contamination of nearby ground and surface water. Fertilizers should always be stored in an area that is protected from rainfall. Storage of dry bulk materials on a concrete or asphalt pad may be acceptable if the pad is adequately protected from rainfall and from water flowing across the pad. '` Secondary containment of liquid fertilizer tanks larger than 550 gallons is addressed in 62 -762 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Even where not required, the use of secondary containment is a best management practice. 3.2. Loading Areas where fertilizers are loaded into application equipment should be protected from rainfall and spilled material cleaned up immediately. Collected material can be applied to the golf course as :a fertilizer. If rainfall protection is not available or practical for the loading area, thorough. cleaning is essential. Cleaning of the area can be through dry ' collection methods such as sweeping or vacuuming, or washing down the loading. area Any washwater generated would have to be collected and applied to the course. Discharge of this washwater to storm drains or septic systems is illegal. 1 ' 4.0 Grass Clippings Grass clippings removed from mowers should be handled separately from other waste . materials and equipment washwater. Many manufacturers now recommend the use of compressed air to blow off equipment. This is more protective, of hydraulic seals on the equipment, eliminates the washwater, and produces dry clippings that are easy to 1 • 10 1 11 handle. Another method is to clean mowers over a separate concrete or asphalt pad that allows water to run off onto turf or soil, but not into a surface water body or canal. The CMC should not be used for this purpose, in order to keep clippings and other 11 debris from becoming contaminated with pesticide residue. The grass clippings will collect on the pad. After drying on the pad, the clippings can be collected and :composted or spread in a•wooded area or rough. +` 5.0. Used oil, antifreeze, and lead -acid batteries Used oil and antifreeze should be collected in marked containers and offered for recycling. In Florida, recycling is the only legal option for handling used oil. Antifreeze must be recycled or disposed of as a hazardous waste. There are commercial services that will collect this material. The IFAS publication DSP -2 has information on this subject. IL Lead -acid storage batteries, such as used in golf carts and for starting other equipment, ,L are classified as special wastes and must be recycled. All lead -acid battery . retailers 'I are required by law to accept returned batteries for recycling. Used acid from these batteries contains high levels of lead and must be disposed of as hazardous waste, unless contained within a battery being recycled. 6.0. Gasoline, Diesel fuel Fuel storage tanks should be in compliance with DEP storage tank regulations (Chapter 62 -761 F.A.C. for underground tanks and 62 -762 F.A.C. for aboveground tanks). Call '1 the nearest DEP District office Uj for information on these ...,} requirements. In general, underground tanks with volumes over 110 gallons and ri above - ground tanks with 1' volumes over 550 gallons must fi ,^ fi ` • be registered and located L within secondary containment "` , ph .n.r"u@ systems. sXi >a� • 5.:, Ms d yzx' .4 ' � .'� Ca T Fuel dispensing areas should ;r ',, l is ' 3 , ,> ; " tri g ,,„. be designed and managed to Figure 5 Fueling area. Note the continuous curb. courtesy or prevent soil and water John's Island West. contamination. Concrete or 11 11 11 1 '( asphalt surfaces should be provided near the fuel pumps. The pumps should not be located where a spill or leak would cause fuel to flow onto the ground or into a storm drain or surface water body. ' Secondary containment structures are required for above - ground fuel tanks over 550 gallons. The best practice is for these structures to be roofed to keep out rainfall. Building the containment structure so that it is tall rather than wide will also help with 1 minimizing rainfall accumulation by reducing the amount of surface area of the structure. If the structure is not roofed, then water that accumulates must be managed properly. If the structure has a discharge port, make certain that it is closed and locked except when uncontaminated rain water is to be. drained. The best option is to have no discharge port and to use a portable sump pump to remove water when it is necessary. ' A discharge port invites the possibility that it may be left open when a leak occurs. The first line of management is to minimize the need to discharge. If the containment .1 volume is adequate; evaporation of accumulated rainfall will often be sufficient. Critical levels at which discharge is considered should be established for each facility and the levels marked on the containment wall. This will prevent frequent and unnecesary 1 discharge of small volumes. The water to be discharged must always be checked for contamination. � ' t.t.$0 { ' J a} < F This can be done. by looking for an oil .%._ � ,? SE24 c i - � , .; sheen, observing any smell of fuel or � r�� s fr oil, or through the use of cs • cx - afi : s commercially available test kits. s.,r r. ;. ' P Never discharge any water that is q� T. contaminated. Contaminated water tr. must be treated on site using _ __ VP ' commercially available treatment Y g stems, or discharged to an off -site �.„' „_al`° systems, . <�� "tea � t, �' treatment system directly or by being F. ,, .zi3 aJ ' transported by tanker truck to a g ling and treatment facility. Never discharge to Fi Co urtesy o f Collie Resery general equipment wash station: e. a sewer system without written permission from the utility. For more information on treatment options, contact the appropriate DEP District office. If the water is not contaminated, it can be discharged to a stormwater system, retention area, or grassed swale. Do not discharge it during a rain event, since the added flow may cause it to run -off to a sensitive area. '.;. 12 • 11 7.0. General Equipment Washing Washwater generated from the cleaning of equipment other than pesticide application equipment does not have to be collected and applied to the course. This washwater must not, however, be discharged to surface water either directly or through ditches, storm drains or canals.. Equipment washwater can contain soaps, fertilizer residues, solids, and lubricating oil residues. This washwater should not contain solvents and degreasers. These materials should be used in a separate operation. See section 2.0 above for information on solvents and degreasers. BMPs for washwater from other than < pesticide application equipment 4 � u' f ,� depend on the quantity generated. If � � �.4 y • quantities less than 500 gallons per ` '4=1 fi day are generated, the DEP District � 4t" I- a office may allow the washwater to . r : - � drain to a grassed retention area or 5 t swale, as long as no direct contact F" with a surface water body occurs. e Discharge to a septic system is not -n.. SA • legal. _....._ i Figure 7 Wash water recycling system. courtesy of For larger quantities, the options are: Collier's Reserve. • use of a washwater recycling system, or • discharge to a treatment system that has been permitted under DEP industrial wastewater rules, or • discharge to a domestic sewer system (with written permission from the utility). If you decide to use .a wash water recycling system, care must be taken to operate it 11 properly. Do not clean pesticide application equipment using these systems. The introduction of pesticide residues into these systems can result in contamination of the systems and high costs for disposal of contaminated filters and sludges. If you generate more than 100 gallons per day, you should contact the DEP District Office that is responsible for your area. In many cases, the District office'will allow discharges up to 500 gallons per day without a permit provided that the washwater is not going to a surface water body or other sensitive area. For all quantities generated, the amount of detergents used should be minimized. The amount of water used to clean equipment can be minimized by using spray nozzles that generate high pressure streams of water using low volumes. 13 11 1 Oil /water separators can be used, but must be managed properly to avoid p roblems. First, do not wash equipment used to apply pesticides on pads using oil /water separators, since the pesticide residues will contaminate the oil that is salvaged. Second, be aware that the oil, collected in these systems may be classified as a I hazardous waste, depending on its composition, making disposal expensive. Oil water separators are not necessary unless the water from the system is to be reclaimed for some particular end use, or Iarge volumes .of water are generated and the industrial 1 wastewater permit or receiving utility requires such a system. 8.0 Equipment Storage ' Equipment used to apply pesticides and fertilizers should be stored in an area protected from rainfall. Rain can wash pesticide and fertilizer residues from the exterior of this equipment and these.residues can contaminate soil or water. Pesticide application equipment can be stored in the Chemical Mixing Center, but fertilizer application equipment should be stored separately.. 1 o -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 11 ' 9.0 Summary .- Material or Activity to`be'Managed Best Management Practice 11 Pesticide. Mixing and Loading • - Chemical Mixing Center and proper operation and maintenance. See summary in section 1.4. Solvents from equipment washing . Separate solvent collection systems such as solvent wash baths. Soaps, other non - solvent materials used For less than.500 gallons per day - to wash equipment, oils washed off of. Washwater areas that allow water to vehicles . seep into grassed retention areas or swales not connected to surface water. For more than 500 gallons per day - Industrial wastewater treatment system, water recycling - systems (provided no 0 pesticide residues enter system), or, with written permission, hook -ups to waste water treatment plants. Fertilizer storage Covered fertilizer storage areas with curbs or berms to prevent water from entering. Secondary contaiment should - be used even where not required. Pesticide storage Covered, locking concrete or steel 0 buildings with adequate ventilation and metal shelving, no floor drains, and a a berm or sill to contain spills. Used oil, antifreeze Collection and recycling. Gasoline, diesel fuel Compliance with DEP regulations for above- ground and below - ground tanks, closing of stormwater drains in immediate vicinity of fueling point. 11 11 .11 15 • 1 1 • 1 1 Additional Sources of Information Agricultural Engineering Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 1 University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611. Phone: (904)- 392 -2468. • Audubon Society of New York State, Inc. 46 Rarick Road, Selkirk, NY 12158. Phone: • (518)- 767 -9051 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Agricultural Source and Water Well Management Section, MS -3515, 2600 Blair Stone Rd., Tallahassee, Florida, 32399- 2400. Phone: (904) - 488 - 3601. . 1 Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. 1421 Research Park Drive, Lawrence,: KS 66049 Phone: (913)- 841 -2240. Midwest Plan Service, 122 Davidson Hall, Iowa State University, Ames Iowa 50011- 3080. Phone: (515)- 294 -4337. Pesticide Information Office, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, 32611. Phone (904)- 392 -4721 University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Palm Beach County Cooperative Extension Service. 2976 State Road 15, Belle Glade, FI. 33430. Phone: (407)- 996 -1655. United States Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service. P.O. Box 141510, ' Gainesville, FL 32605. Phone: (904)- 338 -9555. ' United States Golf Association, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931. • Phone: (908)- 234 -2300 . 1 • 1 • 1 • 1. • A 16 1 11 Publications Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses. Audubon Society of New , York State, Inc. 46 Rarick Road, Selkirk, NY 12158. Phone: (518)- 767 -9051 Designing Facilities for. Pesticide. and Fertilizer Containment. MWPS -37. MidWest Plan Service. Disposal Options for Agricultural Wastes. DSP -2. IFAS Palm Beach County Cooperative Extension Service. ' Conference Proceedings from the National Symposium on Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment: Design and Management. MWPS -C1. MidWest Plan Service. 0 Conference Proceedings from the National Symposium on Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment: Design and Management 2. MWPS -C2. MidWest Plan Service. Minimum Construction and Operation Standards for Chemical Centers used for Pesticide Mixing and Loading. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Agricultural Source and Water Well Management Section o- FDEP District Offices • 0 Northwest (Pensacola) (904)- 444 -8300 11 Northeast (Jacksonville) (904) - 448 -4300 Central (Orlando) (407)- 325 -2290 Southeast (W. Palm Beach) (407)- 433 -2650 - Southwest (Tampa) (813)- 744 -6100 • m South (Ft. Myers) (813)- 332 -6975 FDEP Agricultural Source and Water Well Management Section (Tallahassee) (904) -488 -3601 1 17 1 • 1 1 -- " Acknowledgements I ' The Florida Department of Environmental Protection extends its gratitude to the following for their assistance and advice in producing this document. The staff and 1 management of Collier's Reserve and St. John's Island West golf courses, the Audubon Society of New York State, Inc., the United States Golf Association, the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, and the Florida Department of 1 Agriculture and Consumer Services. 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 . 1 1 18 1 1 I Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course i 1 1 1 APPENDIX VI r . Wildlife and Habitat Enhancement Information (Will be included in the next draft) r 1 r r ` r r r r r r -- Audubon International Institute 1 . Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • • 1 APPENDIX VII The Audubon International Signature Program 1 • 1 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • Audubon International Institute 1 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course • Audubon International Signature Program • Late in the 1980s, Audubon International created the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System, a program for schools, backyards, corporate and business properties, and golf courses. As ' enthusiasm, support, and visibility increased for these programs, requests for environmental assistance surfaced from a different area -- landowners of properties that were in the planning and development. stages. In response to that need, The Audubon Signature Program was created to provide a comprehensive, integrated approach to environmental planning for proposed developments. • We recognize that working with nature, and not against it, makes both environmental and economic sense. Working with nature means making sound decisions about how to manage the land. It means finding out what will work with the land given its physical and chemical 1 characteristics. It also means weaving nature into our vision of a landscape. ' In order to attain our mission, Audubon International has created and manages programs that promote biological diversity, ecosystem management, ecological restoration, and sustainability. Through policy development and implementation, environmental education, conservation assistance, research, and environmental planning, Audubon International promotes stewardship action and positive environmental change. 1 Audubon International works with people in all walks•of life and with all types ofproperties -- backyards, a variety of corporate and business properties, school properties, golf courses, and ' other types of managed lands, as well as land that is targeted for development - -to search for • continuous environmental improvement in economically feasible ways. 1 Principles of Sustainability ' The essence of the Audubon Signature Program is sustainability — using natural resources, without depleting them, in ways that will support human activity. Audubon International believes that progress must be redefined and become synonymous with sustainable. To that end, ' Audubon International created a set of principles to guide land management toward better compatibility and harmony with the environment. This guidance document is called the Audubon Principles for Sustainable Resource Management. In addition, the Landscape Restoration Handbook, written under the direction of Audubon International, includes the "Principles for Ecological Restoration" and "Principles for Natural Landscaping." These three documents provide the foundation for Audubon's philosophy of sustainable development and sustainable 1 resource management. • Audubon International Institute Page VII -1 .1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course The following list of principles establishes the foundation for Audubon International's belief in a more sustainable system of resource management. We support resource management decisions that have the least impact on wildlife, water, and the I' ecosystems that sustain life. • We support the use of renewable resources. • When resources are not renewable, we support reducing, minimizing, or eliminating their use. • We support human activities that identify and enhance existing resources as well as " the exploration of new resources and technologies that may be used by future generations to maximize the positive impacts on the overall quality of the environment. 'I • We support human activities that conserve water and continually enhance water quality on a global basis. • We support human activities and land use that sustains ecosystems and enhances biological diversity. • We support resource management within natural limitations and opportunities defined " by ecosystems and geographic boundaries. Goals of Audubon International Programs 'I The primary goals of Audubon International are to conserve and enhance biological diversity (bio- diversity), and promote sustainability, ecosystem management, and ecological restoration. Bio- diversity is the variety of life in all its forms and processes including 43/6, fiver • Eyris the diversity of genes, populations, natural community types, and .. ,, ecosystems. bio-diversity ecosystems' stems. Because bio- diversi increases productivity • e °' :' and long term growth, it is the cornerstone of defending and improving , „ the environment. In order to identify and protect areas of rich biological` P _ s diversity, we must work with all types of landowners to provide 1 information, encouragement, and recognition for developing and managing land in ways that are sensitive to bio- diversity. rl Sustainability means using natural resources, without depleting them, in >. 1 that will support human activity. It means living in a way that : t rr r � does not negatively impact future generations. Sustainability is at least ri Lu� r -q re partially achieved when natural resources can be conserved, recycled, f �� w ' reused, or obtained from renewable resources. In addition, Audubon n n eT z tl International believes that we must use current technology and continue to support research and development to provide sustainable alternatives = for the future. 1 Audubon International Institute Page VII -2 1 Natural Resource Management Plan for Gray's Crossing Golf Course Ecosystem management is a method of managing the earth with the mcn„, 4 f t » recognition that all land, water, and natural resources are o ystem mana omen is • 3 interconnected. Ecosystem management focuses on the ` EJz o f m 1 interrelationship between an ecological community and its ` • mana :9 environment. It is based on the premise that focusing on the *' naturalre o ices b' management of a single resource (such as a tree, a bird, or a stream) 1 may be a less effective way of addressing the health of the entire system that supports life on earth. 1 Ecological restoration and natural landscaping contribute to a g,, =, n , g� �� sustainable world in a variety of ways including: creating a healthier 1 mosaic of land uses; enhancing the diversity' of plants and animals; % k,on improving water quality; minimizing erosion; creating lower r t r t t ' ra maintenance landscapes thus reducing our dependency on water and C r • ded and a tay t chemical use; and promoting the concept that "natural" is a beautiful " aters,1>i t l:err E. *, and positive part of our landscape. .S S ura -e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page VII -3 • 1 11 11 Audubon International's 11 Ecological Design 11 Gray's Crossing Truckee, California 11 II 0 I i AUDUBON n INTERNATIONAL "' ill 11 s ill 1 Prepared by: The Division of Environmental Planning I 1 Audubon International PO Box 1226, Cary, NC 27512 1 il • S January 2003 1 0 A udubon International it I 1 0 Gray's Crossing Ecological Design 'al , TABLE OF CONTENTS to. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv IP 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BASIC CONCEPTS 1 1.1.1 Species of Concern 4 1.1.2 Wetlands and Floodplains 5 W 1.1.3 Other Rare or Significant Communities 5 1.1.4 Historical Integrity of the Natural Community 5 1.2 BIOLOGICAL SITE REVIEW 6 1.3 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 6 � 1.3.1 Native Plants 6 1.3.2 Vegetative Structure 7 tr 1.3.3 Buffer Zones 7 1.3.4 Edges 7 r 14 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 9 ' 2.1 ELEMENTS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST 9 2.2 SIGNIFICANT HABITAT PATCHES 10 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESERVE DESIGN 12 3.1 ALDER CREEK / PROSSER HILL PRESERVE 12 IIII 3.2 NORTHERN PONDEROSA PINE PRESERVE 12 3.3 CENTRAL WASH PRESERVES 12 W 3.4 INTERIOR CORRIDORS 14 3.5 INTEGRATION OF THE GOLF COURSE INTO THE PRESERVE SYSTEM 15 W 4.0 PLACEMENT OF PROPERTY INTO REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE 16 4.1 CONNECTIVITY TO THE REGIONAL LANDSCAPE 16 O 5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ONGOING MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 17 5.1 ANIMAL POPULATIONS OF SPECIAL CONCERN OR INTEREST 17 5.2 SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITIES THAT REQUIRE CONTINUED ATTENTION 17 r "1 6.0 REFERENCES 19 APPENDIX A: Native Plant List for Gray's Crossing 0 it Audubon International Institute Page ii 0 II Gray's Crossing Ecological Design LIST OF FIGURES 11 Figure 1 -1. Gray's Crossing Site Location 2 11 Figure 1 -2. Topographic Map of Gray's Crossing Project Site and Surrounding Area 3 Figure 2 -1. Aerial Photograph of the Gray's Crossing Site 11 II 1 Figure 3 -1. Recommended Preserve Design for Gray's Crossing 13 `i II 11 1 II j N 11 11 j N li Audubon International Institute - Page iii II 1 • • i Gray's Crossing Ecological Design EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. A 120 acre preserve area in the northwest corner of Gray's Crossing: • Preserves a good example of Ponderosa Pine Forest • Provides habitat for native wildlife • Allows a tenuous connection towards the National Forest to the NW IP 2. A 150 acre preserve area along the northern boundary: • Preserves another good example of Ponderosa Pine Forest • Provides habitat for native wildlife Buffers remaining open space to the south of Prosser Reservoir 3. The two intermittent streams in the center of Gray's Crossing: • Are provided with surrounding buffers of upland habitat and golf course • Are connected offsite to a 250 -acre preserve area to the east • Provide both wildlife habitat and movement corridors Are provided with viable "critter crossings" where they cross roads and paths 4. Golf course roughs and out -of -play areas: • Provide additional patches of native vegetation for wildlife habitat • Buffer the stream corridors and connect to the offsite preserve Are networked to each other and to peripheral preserves 5. In recognition of hydrological connections to the stream drainages, the golf course itself: • Minimizes managed turf and maximizes buffer zones and naturalized areas • Uses IPM and other BMPs to minimize chemical use and run-off L, • Audubon International Institute Page iv Gray's Crossing Ecological Design • 11 i ✓ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 a East West Partners is in the process of transforming a parcel of property in Truckee, California ✓ from open space to a mixture of housing, golf, and nature preserve. In keeping with its desire to (� develop this site in an ecologically sustainable way, East West Partners has formed a partnership I r i with Audubon International to create an ecological design for the property. This report evaluates the property, approximately 757 acres located to the northwest of I -80. Figure 1 -1 shows the 1, location of the Gray's Crossing site, and Figure 1 -2 is the USGS topographic map of the I' immediate vicinity. ✓ "4 From the perspective of East West Partners' desire to integrate people and nature in sustainable g ways on this property, there are three goals that should be accomplished by the design for the r project. The first is to preserve a portion of the property in natural communities of plants and wildlife, so that the site continues to support its current complement of species and ecosystems. 11 ✓ The second is to protect two intermittent stream systems that cross the property to serve as L. corridors for both water and wildlife. The third is to construct a golf course that will provide ✓ '1 additional non - intrusive recreational buffer. In addition, we will integrate native plantings and wildlife habitat into the golf course in order to make it a functional part of the landscape. ✓ 1 a L , The Ecological Design presented here is one part of the Environmental Master Plan for Gray's Crossing. It characterizes the basic physical and ecological components of the property. Based on these characteristics, development strategies that encompass sustainability — using natural resources without depleting them, in ways that will support human activity — have been identified and evaluated, and will be implemented. 1.1 BASIC CONCEPTS . . The Gray's Crossing project is following these five basic concepts that provide the foundation for r r , the East West Partners / Audubon International Sustainable Community Program: 1 ✓ 1. Design in Context with the Landscape. By designing in context with the landscape, the changes in land use will minimize overall site disturbance. Minimization of disturbance is important because disturbance upsets ecological systems at the site which negatively affect biodiversity, stability, and overall ecological health of the site. Audubon International Institute Page 1 pi .1 LASSE. 7 011 Plumas - , National 1 Forest PLUMAS I ,‘, • ..... __ 1 , . • Loyallon 395 , . ‘ ... S 1 E, 12_ R A • ^ Sun Valley - - 3 , Sierraville . • 1 PI fk,S HO E Sierra City Spa p: • ! ...._ er .,..fre ' 6, ITe.....t ! -•-:i - V • eg III • . 1 ') - Reno ,... • , 01, 395 A .., ... . ....„,.. - N E V !D A.--I . • NEVADA 1 ■ . )1: ,. ; STOREY Mount It ---'- ' •21 r; e Tahoe 0, - /2"2/ -, Soda --.,..Truckee.-1 Rt -- National Spr P p ocest _ in_ c c't • ... . .1 g , Mount Daygsgn City. 2b CAL 1 F A Tolyabe National Forest i ' l ---- • ,vi c i lne City Incline 'New WasKbe _.----- ,,,-/ ln 1 ', - ---- ' 4 ,/.." / / 1 Grays Crossing Tahoe Vista, r __________. ) i I • Kings 1 j g 1 _;,„---- ---A. Daytour Beach i \----- VON PLACER ; ,-• Fc.,. , 1, . _ . - City „,-.--- r•__r Tahoe City • . CARSON CITY • 1 soon •••,„• "'ea • 50 Lake Tahoe , _. _ ... --:..-.....?:...—:.. , 1 1 Homewood , . Ighon?a ____ 1 • •H' r 395 , ... ! Zephyr D 6 111 G L A S • a Cove Genoa . : . - _ , II . \ Round Hill •• ', • S Stateline • \.1 Minden Elddrado National Forest iPIE ,. _. _ EL DORADO m Sith Lake Tahoe ° Gardnerville 145 iOn14501.W.Ornati., - ,,As.. -,T,,,axiiigraartasiabait - it.....a , ‘ N‘ , Eureka v ri) ka. , Yre Salt Lake ity , i \\., • (7 ar ---, ,- ic., 1 el \ , Re: • .. :UNITED STATE. g 1 s Sacramento , NEV. Il tir , 1 1 0 j bm o . eNsto . , 0 UTAH- San ioche V 1 Francisco N-, Las Ve \ C ARIZONA CALIFORNIA ‘ 1 Oxnard o -- . Phos nix 4,. 0 - N II 1 Los Angeles Ti - --,)„ A per u c p, sr B ia o, i E ■. i '!. Figure 1-1. Gray's Crossing Site Location. • Page 2 La as re I Gray's Crossing Ecological Design pig Endangered, threatened, or rare; 1 • Endemic; Important to key ecosystem processes; 11 • Sensitive to human disturbance; or • Important to community education efforts. 1 r When such species are present, it is our obligation to afford them special protection. When they I; are not present, then we should concentrate on maintaining or restoring sufficient combinations of native habitat to prevent any further erosion of biodiversity on the site. Several species of special concern have been identified on the Gray's Crossing property, and preserve areas have 01 been designed to maintain habitat for these species. 1.1.2 Wetlands and Floodplains 111 Wetlands are greatly diminished nationally, as well as being critical resources for biological 11 1 communities. Between drinking water, habitat, breeding sites, and migration stopovers, wetlands ,({ provide something for virtually all animals. They are also important in maintaining the structure of the food web, as well as providing recreation and relaxation opportunities for humans. Two i 4i important intermittent streams have been identified on the Gray's Crossing site. is 1.1.3 Other Rare or Significant Communities i' ig Audubon International believes that the best way to preserve biodiversity is to concentrate on the j � preservation of entire communities. Therefore we look for habitats that support natural N communities that are vulnerable, rare, species -rich, or highly endemic. We note that California MIL riparian communities and native grasslands are listed by Noss, et al. (1997) as among the most 11 highly endangered ecosystems of the United States. Therefore we have emphasized throughout this plan the preservation and restoration of these ecosystems. 1.1.4 Historical Integrity of the Natural Community 11 IT Land use and disturbance history leave signatures that can determine not only what is currently on a site, but also what can grow there in the future. Thus it is important to understand as much about the history of a site as possible. Although the Gray's Crossing site has been impacted by a L 4 2 variety of historical disturbances, it has been allowed to regenerate for much of the last century. 1 Thus much of the property is reasonably similar to historical cover types. We believe the Audubon International Institute Page 5 III 11 Gray's Crossing Ecological Design !till . primary conservation focus for this property is preservation of existing assemblages rather than I restoration efforts. One of Audubon International's conservation priorities is natural communities that represent • lig good examples of their type. We believe in preserving the best remaining samples of all habitats, whether rare or not. Therefore we compared the natural communities present on the Gray's Crossing site to the biological potential for those communities. Much of the current ecosystem cover on this site represents relatively intact natural communities. This ecological design recommends the preservation of substantial subsets of these systems. . , r I 1.2 BIOLOGICAL SITE REVIEW A variety of analyses of the biological elements occurring at Gray's Crossing were used in the `. preparation of this ecological design. First we reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report . prepared for submission to the Town of Truckee, and dated April 2000. In addition, Audubon F International staff (A. 011er, M. Smart, and L. Woolbright) personally conducted site visits during 2002. This combination of approaches provided a thorough and complete picture of the biological elements present on the site. ii ? 1.3 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION The majority of Gray's Crossing represents reasonably intact natural assemblages including a rt ,. variety of native species. Therefore, there should be little need for ecological restoration on this ,.; site. Rather we recommend that care be taken to avoid unnecessary clearing. Preservation is Pi- I almost always greatly superior to restoration when there is native material on site to work with. However, some portions of the area will require clearing and re- shaping as a part of this project. . These areas will be available for re- vegetation after construction is concluded. For this reason, L. there will be limited restoration activity on this site for the next few years. General principles of restoration design are covered in the following paragraphs of this document, although most of our site - specific recommendations on restoration will be included in the Natural Resource Management Plan to be delivered at a later date. i 1.3.1 Native Plants li t4 Audubon International believes that sustainable resource management requires the use of native and naturalized plants. This practice accomplishes a variety of positive goals, including: ,, Audubon International Institute Page 6 i p MI >C i i" . 1 F� < & '�: 1E ii, ,, t� 'b1LJ'8E'ih.A ,l ` R ' �i :: pie , t • , 7 . 1J , n . .y y„,/, 'i K� , II � • `` .. ` Y } ` ' i l ",• Y i...to `� r. N �` . '6,-7-94' ` . 5 11 % _ S . .- - \: 4 ft - i t ° . w' A. - i ., fi r " y 5 i . - -°:`,"... t 4 i ` . I Vt1. 1 : Y . A e4t t " 0. . � `V 71 , � i i r , ,, �f: l �'J a � > ' ;4 • At .. ■ '\ }� „ 2 Sad y' , 1g iv 4 , ., f f �x )'r , t) T .lr 4 1 .f "t � t• . , n '�d � V . - /1,1. e L \ .Q:;; 'ht� t �f . 'j ) f t � M'ci'L J' c , V . j , '�• f pl+,.z 1 x \. .. a � {X -t ettf t ,', "' f t f f k l :‘ t t , � tri . 4 1 « k ” I j \�t,ly �}e, j , "Y y . < � j) • `F � � \ � r 1� 5 I • i / > 1Y l t 1 y � ) �i} f �S" • f { � _ � k �� L t y l 6 \ l M t l y/ •- r 1. y ■ i' * ? y. r � y �:yJtpp }�� ` \ •?";,,,, T P. 1 � •' ' 1:I. 9y t" � a �c :2,,,-.-,-..i4:%-741;:, r ' jc .•∎ r ' _ 5 C er: ' . a 1 R 3 • � m t \ G ., •tlr D $C 0 . p e L �i, • I � X , � . .� ' �y� * '. r w �, s r•C F 1 ;' 4 4 :tN 1, x V . }.�. 7 q .. E t . .� . t'` j` mot. i! Y ..y \• .' , 'l� ' ' ^ + l l fi ' rl } <, �'t ,' • ^r , no r I l,� I l)� t + {y h . A . • . y� d. k T �p f � • r • 1'� • .' �la IAN. 7• ar'. > r 3 1 t ' L { t �IL+w.,,u al4 �` Ill (((fff a ` � a s p a ' J o s 't l �r n . 4 ,_.:: ;. RY�� ` r T n p 1 ' y a` {; `(� .. • 7rotr ' it J' `, : , L t� I l : i „ � a "MI .1 '' t . .:, , w8 4 ` !ta,�• a ,�e ' Rv l Vl !4 i r' +y 9F ty t � ii i �' 4,.1-1;.k,.."4.4 t y .‘a-:. ♦ i v b � 4.' L � 1 } y w 15J� ?•R j 'w , J. ,� i . } i "i.. .; 6 1r � ? 1'•'RT 't n. 4: - � c \ "Il • / ' i 3 a ,: n Y � w t i e. ; (■■ `• CR ,g p .l Y ? > .;i ,r�, i �i y a M a s 4 ' . 4.. it 'ii 4 L t 5 � a .Y h� r I . � ,a, r l r S.' y 4Y ?') .p�rs.c r 'JS Na+,KS • Y ��, t om. "14 p � • ., • '', s } 1 ` � i � [ � ' . y M r 4 lAV k". �. - i• r" bi' • W �. 1 e * < 5a `{+►a .. '� , a �� iY. t r . i I ` T {r AV y ''M ` yS 1 f" 5 � f V 4- ♦ . T J, w 1 f• 4 I t Z t -ay: s +y ,. , t C � � ` as �'r� e.,A � 't'lb l y y y t � i} ! n .. l },s c } f .r ,-,..,g � S, r 4 iii } t, � y4 y \ '7 'Y�� t'A; 1 e � y ry V . µ -� % ! v l ^ p 1 • ''L y t, .. F. Y �y la s h f • r { tr 1l r b P_ T. w'h vr,6 t n j� t i : + e w r , * • ta 4t. 1 .. yj? �' y ilot � M �' . t 0� o n 1i X �� +7 r 3 .:4 ;- A i • Kei in r "tit f� y l 4: t F ii b ` S v , b '4, . 1 S li .. • 1 > I 7y� t ,. 4 ' g r y, � ' h,: i' )‘ " ' �t" �M'R i` `di f i �V L p B l y � • u r , � a'4 r r 4 � � it L � t' l f 1'ST' r r .,. ' 3xm , t ll s' +,. 1 r� 1 4 a. 1 : } S -y 1 t` '�' I �. , w t . • l �• , , ( `` ' y ` 1 . R , `4' �`. i L,1 � S ! l 1 f �.'1 i ' 1 I N ► N y, tx f \t<. .t, A � l S M u4 \ fir' '''' l ` `t, !'y 1L. r � t., i " L 1 } lS h - k tte + , V ie et k t l t r {\ .- r � � . f' • • 1 t V �� j � I` 11 SN ,� A Y � a I t ,� Yw ; -• : I tr l t , ,t r } .3 t {.ap r O A r � I . i,-. :2s M r , f'E ;..:t1... .7 ` ' �. 1 5 ...‘...r1.,',.!•:...:.-..-:.,. J - . . .g1 4 1 ' , e +", 1 �i�, ' ir t . i' I (d ''I �L ,c,, { F , • ill le 5 y� t`i tt , , r t i,. i t � y . " 3 0 - ". .1 '0:16?.,: ` ' � � � ti ° �+/ •, i � 1 C YM, ' i t l" t • i [w •'4,F� 1 i � ' ? '� ` [ L I 1 M1 A l T .ti 1 " T i ,�] F I i ii�Ei s �a ar r . L ; e , I / i � .l' t46 � ! � f r f • ) a 'e �) �.` It � - 1•...,.:. <� q � ...,,, i ti f A _I, an i it { r(tt.N � }� i., �d �� 11 l t 9 I . - O i �, 2 y ' c r.. F■ ■ • M f - ' - . " d. i k l � l • , t 1 p - t� P i, \ % \ p I l� ,..'.r 1 , ;.: \� 1 1 r u } �' 1 r i (, r 4` ltl,, :' ; �a t i, : t � / t s � i� . , i ` .I^ 41 ' a rt i y .(' ' ' � l t - _) \ ` 'Sd ` r. „.,::,,,\;....,\...:::;4:-1,,:,::'.,1/2:: : ' S r a ,�c���qq } .,x iy, . , yt yidr3'. � .y - �{a s . 's :i �T17T �i'1 ■ 1. " L�� L ,, � ��.._• '� iit Map Scale: 1:11,177 Figure 2 -1. Aerial Photograph of the Gray's Crossing Site. Grays Crossing !���, A 1 Projection: State Plane 1983 N T uckee, C alifornia 1!I Zone: California Zone II Datum: NAD 193 duorao N, Units: US Surve Feet 0 0.05 0.1 02 0.3 0.4 iles I NTERNATIONAL l l M Page 11 ilt II s - rai Gray's Crossing Ecological Design p• 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESERVE DESIGN The preserve design for Gray's Crossing is shown in Figure 3 -1. The next three sections of text describe the three primary preserve areas of the design, and the rest of this section covers other aspects of the design. II 3.1 ALDER CREEK / PROSSER HILL PRESERVE gi Highway 89 is a fairly major obstacle to wildlife movement that dissects Gray's Crossing and isolates the northwestern corner of it from the rest of the property. However, continuing on to the northwest around the outskirts of Truckee, there is relatively little development separating the „� western part of Gray's Crossing from Alder Creek and the Prosser Hill area. We recommend that a preserve area of 120 acres be established in the northwest corner of Gray's Crossing . 'In that location it can augment the remaining natural areas offsite as well as preserve a good example of el the Ponderosa Pine Forest ecosystem. ,', . 3.2 NORTHERN PONDEROSA PINE PRESERVE ■ t + To the north of Gray's Crossing, only a small band of natural area exists south of the residential i development associated with Prosser Reservoir. This is potentially an important area for wildlife aim attempting to avoid developed areas while moving from the I -80 underpasses to the substantive natural areas north of the Reservoir. In an effort to secure that as a viable passageway, we recommend that the far northem portion of Gray's Crossing be set aside as a second Ponderosa i s Pine Preserve. Current plans call for this preserve to be approximately 150 acres. r 1 3.3 CENTRAL WASH PRESERVES _ V _ 1 The two intermittent streams running from southwest to northeast across the central portion of Gray's Crossing represent important resources for several reasons. First, they include meadow and grassland ecosystems not found elsewhere on the property. Second, they provide a source of i t water, at least sporadically, in a landscape in which it is a limiting resource. Third, they serve as habitat corridors across the property for a subset of the wildlife on the site. Therefore, we recommend that they be buffered and preserved as key features of the landscape. it Audubon International Institute Page 12 K la It 111 �.��11.. tail � • it 'i ', n erd + , 7 , 10 . ,...,, 11 • le / � �■ 7-1h, � ► "� � si • ri r II ♦ ♦ ♦� �' j�j1� I _ Aisp gas" ) ► ' ■ moans, . � �(4.14,/ 1 A - Alifpnrit \ y.. t li re • g 7s /2 ,— ill • II i iKritilli l anr , \ . /"...a ,..x.r __di A : j ' . > ; 4 0 , 4 c§;::: ,...: .1- . :: : .. : ::::: Il . • * ►IIh , . b : .. � i 111111 ilit II / 7' f� �I ; � �'�i� /�ir�� i r �/ II I ' t f 7-45 - temate Locations for \ a7 r o Northern Connections �I cc, ill \ J a 4 \ ro , � � � Q Crater Underpass pr r ' k a l t1 IL F\ we - - - -+ Possible Corridors l l .. � t "; • .- . L egend 1 ‘1...„1.11. ��� � � 250 Acre Preserve (Off Site) ' ( t� V i � !f t , ` �, �� •� Alder Creek /Prosser Hill Preserve tl It , �/ �/ �/ , Golf & Wash Preserve ■■ °1 // I I� '��+ / ii Northern Ponderosa Pine Preserve �/ � �, >� '� • Existing Wildlife Underpass 1 —l . • Wildlife Underpass i" 1 4 M Scale: 1:11,214 Figure 3 -1. Recommended Preserve Design for Gray's Crossing 111 L . Grays Crossing Projection: State Plane 1983 N Truckee, California Zone: California Zone II jj Datum: S Su vey 1983 0,037.575 0.15 0.225 0.3 11 AUDI:RO \ L Units: US Survey F eet Miles n UD1:BON 1._� Page 13 U 1 Gray's Crossing Ecological Design • Once the project is completed, these two areas will serve as the main wildlife corridors across the i site It will be important that they be buffered as well as possible. This can be accomplished through the creative use of the golf course, which should be seen as a tool for enlarging the useful corridor area and protecting it from negative impacts of nearby housing. Section 3.5, 1 below, expands on these concepts. I The other main consideration for the wash preserves is the issue of crossings. Current plans call for one road crossing over the southern wash. Consideration should be given to eliminating this I crossing and making the road into two cul de sacs instead. If this is not feasible, then the roadway should be raised up on a bridge high enough above the wash to allow wildlife to cross i under it. It is likely that cartpaths will also need to cross the wash. These crossings should be minimized. When unavoidable, they should either be unimproved surface (i.e. paving ends and carts travel across a rock pathway through the wash) or raised above the wash on bridges. i 3.4 INTERIOR CORRIDORS The successful conservation of wildlife on a developed parcel depends in large part on whether or not the parcel can provide sufficient natural area to supply the resources needed to support a i large enough population of animals to be genetically viable. The wildlife value of a patch of vegetation depends on the size of the patch and the degree to which the patch is connected to other good habitat. Habitat corridors between patches allow animals to move back and forth from their shelters to water and feeding areas on a daily basis, without leaving the cover of % natural vegetation. They also provide routes for dispersal of young and annual movements of migratory species. Ideally, all tree patches and all wetlands should be connected into this I network. Connecting corridors should be as wide and tall as possible, given their locations. Bands of trees with understory shrubs and no -mow buffers are best, but are not always possible. Any connection is better than none. I Most of the preserve areas on the Gray's Crossing property are already connected to large natural I areas by virtue of their locations adjacent to other open property. The exceptions are the interior washes discussed above and the golf holes in the far south of the property. In order to remain 1 viable habitat, these will need substantial connections to a larger natural area. We recommend that all of these areas be connected to the 250 acre preserve to the east of the property. That area is currently separated from Gray's Crossing by a dirt road that gets little traffic and does not Audubon International Institute Page 14 i ell lin Il Gray's Crossing Ecological Design present a great obstacle to wildlife. If future developments cause an increase in traffic or a 11 hardening of the road surface, it will be important to provide wildlife underpasses at that time. ,.., lit 3.5 INTEGRATION OF THE GOLF COURSE INTO THE PRESERVE SYSTEM 11 II The entire complex of open space created by the golf course, associated out -of -play areas, and II tree features can be viewed as a conservation preserve. Whenever possible we recommend that �� the out -of -play areas of the golf course be left in their present state rather than being graded and PIE - re- vegetated. The natural vegetation of the site will make a very attractive setting for those areas that do require managed turf. However in some areas the topography will require re- shaping the 11 out -of -play areas and re- vegetation will then be required. Appendix A provides a species list for lir this aspect of the project. 11 ir Two key points should guide the development of the golf course at Gray's Crossing. One is that 11 the course is intimately associated with the intermittent streams, and so it must minimize the use of chemicals and manicured turfgrass, and maximize buffer zones and naturalized areas. The 11 second is that all of these buffer zones and naturalized out -of -play areas should be connected f' together to form a network of secondary habitat patches. r 111 Ultimately, all of the golf course open space and the intermittent streams must connect to the 250 -acre preserve just to the east of the property. For the southern holes, that will be a straight- Ii forward connection. However, holes 5 — 8 in the north are isolated from the preserve by Prosser C ir Dam Road, a high- traffic, paved obstacle to wildlife movement. The red dotted lines on Figure 3 -1 are intended to be "cartoons" illustrating examples of how these holes and associated 1.7- natural areas might be connected to the southern network. These solutions would require the 11 1. Ito installation of one or more wildlife underpasses under Prosser Dam Road, probably a _. prohibitively costly solution unless the road is scheduled for reconstruction anyway. The altemative is to connect these holes to the northern Ponderosa Pine Preserve. This connection it could occur at Alder Creek Road, or it could occur in the middle of the property by adjusting a few housing lots. The latter seems to be the overall best solution. 1[ II Audubon International Institute Page 15 II i 111 j Gray's Crossing Ecological Design ■ 4.0 PLACEMENT OF PROPERTY INTO REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE i From a regional perspective, this project is best viewed as infill. Although the landscape matrix is porous and offers significant natural features, there is no clear connection between this property and any large regional natural area. To the south is I -80, a major obstacle to wildlife, �" although an underpass provides some connection. The west is primarily occupied by the Town of Truckee, although there is a tenuous connection from the NW corner of the property to the Prosser Hill area. To the north, substantial housing has been developed between the property and Prosser Reservoir. The best adjacent habitat is roughly 250 acres to the east that is part of the Old Greenwood project that is slated to remain undeveloped. Beyond it is more low- density housing that obscures a good connection to the Boca Hill and Reservoir area. 4.1 CONNECTIVITY TO THE REGIONAL LANDSCAPE Given its position in a semi - developed landscape, we believe the appropriate role for Gray's Crossing is one of expanding and augmenting those local areas that are most suitable as habitat hubs and corridors for wildlife. Because of the presence of the Town of Truckee to the west and I -80 to the south, the preserve areas of Gray's Crossing are oriented to the north and east. In these positions they will be able to effectively enlarge the 250 acre preserve area to the east, as p well as to provide a tenuous corridor south of Prosser Reservoir. i I Audubon International Institute Page 16 ill Gray's Crossing Ecological Design II 5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ONGOING MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN II PE Environmental planning is an imprecise science. Ecological understanding of complex II ecosystems is not well developed. What worked in one type of ecosystem might not work in another. The current astonishing rate of species extinctions and changes in global climate make II even what we do know uncertain in the future. Therefore, the impact of any management plan _ iiis must be evaluated after it is in place, and we must be ready to revise and adjust it. This kind of II adaptive management is a key to successful conservation planning (Peck 1998). 5.1 ANIMAL POPULATIONS OF SPECIAL CONCERN OR INTEREST 1 IIII Wildlife censuses at Gray's Crossing have not conclusively determined the presence or absence of several species of concern that could potentially exist on the site. These include the yellow ii warbler (Dendroica petechia), the wolverine (Gulo luscus), the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes), the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) and other raptors. None of these species is ✓ listed as endangered or threatened, but all are of sufficient interest to warrant keeping track of. ` Golfers, homeowners, youth groups, and local conservation organizations should be encouraged Il to keep systematic records of sightings of these species. Please include copies of these summaries with your annual reports to Audubon International. II In addition, Audubon International conducts an annual nest -box survey designed to collect II information about the use of golf courses by nesting songbirds. Either the golf course superintendent's staff or the natural resource manager should be charged with establishing a ` II series of between 20 — 30 songbird nest boxes in the environs of the golf course and monitoring a their use and fledging rates each year. Audubon International will send out an annual reporting form to collect the data as a part of our national effort. Homeowners and other community 1 constituents can be encouraged to participate in this project as well. I 5.2 SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITIES THAT REQUIRE CONTINUED ATTENTION rw e. . 4 II Two plant species, Donner Pass buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum) and Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca), have been identified as having potential habitat on the site, although neither has II been documented to actually occur there. Both have been identified as special status plants by PA-1j 1 Audubon International Institute Page 17 1 Gray's Crossing Ecological Design the California Native Plant Society. Before plans for Gray's Crossing are finalized, we recommend that a qualified botanist be retained to conduct thorough ground surveys to determine if either plant exists on the site. If either is found, the area around it should be incorporated into the natural preserve network and a schedule of continuing surveys should be established to monitor the population. In addition to these two special status plants, plant biodiversity in general should be tracked in the three primary conservation areas. Plants should be monitored along permanent vegetation transects, and the plant community should be photographed from standardized camera points once each year for a visual record. This and basic water quality sampling are appropriate tasks for Gray's Crossing's Natural Resource Manager. They are important basic quantities that need to be monitored on a regular basis using standardized and verifiable methodologies. Good documentation is essential. In addition to these basic requirements, we recommend that management be on the lookout for other opportunities to collect information on the ecology of Gray's Crossing. Local schools can be approached about adopting monitoring efforts as part of their environmental education programs_ A great deal could be accomplished if one or more schools could identify science teachers willing to make a commitment to such a long -term project. Local environmental groups might also be willing to lend their expertise on such things as bird counts. The costs of such a partnership would be minimal, and the potential pay -off in information and public exposure would be great. Standardization and repeatability are less critical with such partnership efforts. 1 4 1 1 1 1 Audubon International Institute Page 18 El i I II Gray's Crossing Ecological Design MI lI Ise 6.0 REFERENCES 11 Balogh, J.C. and J.L. Anderson. 1992. Environmental impacts of turfgrass pesticides. Pp 221 -353 PO In Balogh and Walker (eds.) Golf Course Management and Construction: Environmental Issues. Ii Lewis Publishers, Chelsea MI. us Harker, D., S. Evans, M. Evans, and K. Harker. 1993. Landscape Restoration Handbook. CRC 11 Press. Boca Raton, FL. III Myers, R.L. and J. J. Ewel (Eds.) 1990. Ecosystems of California. University Presses of 11 California, Gainesville. 11 Noss, R.F., M.A. O'Connell, and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning. II Island Press, Washington D.C. n Peacock, C.H. and M.M. Smart. 1995. IPM, monitoring, and management plans - a mandate for II the future. USGA Green Section Record 33:10 -14. III Peacock, C.H., M.M. Smart, and W.H. Warren- Hicks. 1996. Best management practices and 0 integrated pest management strategies for protection of natural resources on golf course Si watersheds. Pp 335 -338 In Watershed `96, Proceedings of the Conference for Watershed Protection. Baltimore, June 1996. it Peck, S. 1998. Planning for Biodiversity: Issues and Examples. Island Press, Washington DC. • II I II II 11 11 e 11 11 L Audubon International Institute Page 19 if 11 I - Gray's Crossing Ecological Design I VII . APPENDIX A Native Plant List for Gray's Crossing . . . . .. . i , , . ii 1 . 0 in _ . . _. 1 ) ._ .. il Audubon International Institute L P 11 Gray's Crossing Ecological Design SI Appendix A: Native Plant List for Gray's Crossing II 1 (from Harker et al. 1993) II Ponderosa Pine Forest. Ponderosa Pine Forest is the most extensive forest type in Califomia. II Of The forest has been called "midmontane conifer forest," "yellow pine forest," "white fir forest," "mixed conifer forest," and "big tree forest." Although each type listed may have dominants other than ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine occurs throughout each forest type. Generally, ponderosa pine occurs on dry sites at elevations between 1000 and 6000 feet in the north and 4000 and 7000 feet in the south. Where soil moisture increases, white fir may become dominant. II Where-soils are too poor for ponderosa pine, California black oak will become dominant. On the • pm east side of the Sierras where conditions are generally drier and colder, Jeffrey pine is likely to share dominance with ponderosa pine. Ponderosa pine forests depend upon periodic fires for II regeneration. Fires create openings where young trees can establish in full sunlight. This community corresponds to Kuchler #5 and Coniferous Forests ERT. II Canopy • III Characteristic Species II Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine • N Associates p Abies concolor white fir I' Calocedrus decurrens incense -cedar III Pinus attenuata knob -cone pine II Pinus coulteri Coulter's pine tor Pinusjeffreyi Jeffrey pine III Pinus lambertiana sugar pine II Pseudotsuga macrocarpa big -cone Douglas -fir • it Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas -fir . Quercus chrysolepis canyon live oak II Quercus kelloggii California black oak • Woody Understory 11 Arctostaphylos glandulosa Eastwood's manzanita se Arctostaphylos patula green -leaf manzanita Ceanothus cordulatus mountain whitethorn Ceanothus integerrimus deerbrush Chamaebatia foliolosa - Sierran mountain -misery Corinth nuttallii - Pacific flowering dogwood II al Eriodictyon trichocalyx hairy yerba -santa • Frangula californica California coffee berry '1 Lithocarpus densijlorus tan -oak • N Ribes roezlii Sierran gooseberry it 11 Audubon International Institute Page A -1 II k l _, 11 NI • Gray's Crossing Ecological Design i Ponderosa Pine Forest (cont.) Herbaceous Understory bi 7 Eriastrum densifolium giant woolstar Gilia splendens splendid gily -flower 11 Iris hartwegii rainbow iris Lupinus excubitus interior bush lupine Lupinus formosus summer lupine I Solanum xantii chaparral nightshade Streptanthus bernardinus laguna mountain jewelflower Ft Mountain Meadow. Throughout the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there are many meadows. Meadows are common above the treeline. In lower areas meadows may be created by conditions 4 too wet to support trees or may be the result of avalanche or fire activity. A shallow water table is the most important factor in explaining the occurrence and distribution of meadows. Although most of the species listed relate to wet site conditions, the woodland and upper elevation It meadows also occur under drier conditions, the latter even in dry gravelly soils. This community corresponds to Meadowlands ERT. I$ Characteristic Species Aster alpigenus tundra aster 4 Calamagrostis breweri Camassia quamash short-hair reed grass small camass Cardamine breweri Sierran bittercress Ill Carex bolanderi Bolander's sedge 'I■�4'1 Carex exserta short-hair sedge Carex macloviana Falkland Island sedge I Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge Carex rostrata swollen beaked sedge Carex scopulorum Holm's Rocky Mountain sedge E Carex teneriformis Cistanthe umbellata Sierran slender sedge Mt. Hood pussypaws Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hair grass • IP Dodecatheon jeffreyi tall mountain shootingstar Eleocharis bella delicate spike -rush I • Eleocharis quinquejlora few -flower spike -rush Eriogonum incanum frosted wild buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium cushion wild buckwheat I Eriophorum cringerum fringed cotton grass Festuca brachyphylla short-leaf fescue • Gentiana newberryi alpine gentian • Glyceria elata tall manna grass Heracleum maximum cow - parsnip Ivesia purpurascens summit mousetail Audubon International Institute Page A-2 1 Gray's Crossing Ecological Design � I Mountain Meadow 11 Characteristic Species (cont.) I Juncus nevadensis Sierran rush 11 Juncus orthophyllus straight -leaf rush Lupinus breweri matted lupine Lupinus polyphyllus blue -pod lupine II Mimulus primuloides yellow creeping monkey- flower Muhlenbergiafiliformis pullup muhly Penstemon davidsonii timberline beardtongue II Pteridium aquilinum northern bracken fern Ptilagrostis kingii Sierran false needle grass Scirpus congdonii Congdon's bulrush 'I Senecio scorzonella Sierran ragwort 1 Solidago multiradiata Rocky Mountain goldenrod Stipa occidentalis western needle grass U Triglochin palustre marsh arrow -grass Il Trisetum spicatum narrow false oat Vaccinium cespitosum dwarf blueberry Veratrum californicum California false hellebore II Veratrum fimbriatum fringed false hellebore II t 11 1 11 1 a 1 ii 1 11 • 1 11 1 11 1 11 Audubon International Institute Page A -3 II I N CO X 0 W . Q no o i a a a— sea as a a ow m la a MO S r a• r a PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN FOR GRAY'S CROSSING nS ITE � 't (RensED) ' x 1I1/4 " 7 ✓ " v DEMO ✓ BCOON 2 AND A le d x i me i seam 4 ICROISHIP n \ ,• 3 tAn� N Eat Mom 1N '/® 70WN a+ DOOM CA7A - l i .. 1 TRUCKEE' VICINITY MAP 1 q J i y,01S. -- _ C MT / A r U Y , M, j / icy,, . J /.i /1 �:. I�. i ; Y �- ,/;r t •' , ✓ /_. � , � ,i `. \ 1 tl i '/l � \ � 1 I ) 1 i : : , ..- 1 .. / ' � / � .. J 7 -� �KC � /j r y t v ,I i F 7 � / \ b "� i � .`r L 1 i x i t i 4 I 6 / 4 / i ,.F J 1 y /�� / '> ''.,7 ® , + r A , q �, ( \ 1 t . / . ' � .f � '' , 1 V � . /` A ) , I ! -111--'1 r., t .,,, A N Y /4,- ! I q` 0 y , �,, .----;44;- / I , a` 1 ir ; t >> ' I ! r �° r ° �W -2. ` � y. _ i , r i r d -2 i )/ I ;f -." ,�� is 1 is f /s- y ^- 1 - 1 !' '� 1 1 1 \.. ;♦ ; e W I ' \ O / F : l ✓ .'{ r I/ }- i T" e � r t Y W �Y � Jal.. B ` f, .r 1 t 4 aZg1.9 K{ F o y \ r 1 r j 1 r / ` ?.k o) 2 I ! � . �� E -...r '„,,, � � � ,. "' II '-'4) / Fay `. � w �� i .,✓" a ? ( + r E h , 1 N � 4� x Y i<'�`'J ' r� i. � 1� � 1 � � %_ I ��. j � 1 �1�, '(a X 11 ` \0r V � H i x it �� T'� ,v� \ •/ "fit l i - - -✓ li , + h i 0 1 1 1 ; ,i $ , 1A"-- � : c . may .,� \ y 1 _ �. x 7/ 1 4 7; 7 : -. ' x " / 1 1 1 'r � r sx r t^ S G' f I I � 1 I + r / f l /CA S r i , /' i �/ . ' � � i � 9 , i I' • +Y ` .."-"-=•::4,47-,-- I� I / / Li / � : Y y /� t F 1 1 s e c C( i s 3 , ° . ' `j�'� /; } � � / 1 If ; .' r I! 8 7 ! &k* fr '< Y ri ' I ✓ ✓Y J / � p Y / I�` 1 hh p e" v, SCO OVERALL OEVELOPMEM \ }1 ^, Z \ '�" r/ '_..5 � • .. ; r!`: • `._ '1 % • \- N. LEGEND: ,, \�/j.; ii WETLANDS (DELINEATED BY ) ( i + t ,, ECOSYNTHESIS - OCT. 2001) '' , � / \ // - C _�__.I 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (PROMBITION AREA) ) i / 'c y% - EXISTING DRAINAGE L_ -- � ,- %// ' PROPOSED TRAIL ��' CHANNEL FLOW r --- SHEET FLOW gab RETENTION BASINS /FACILITIES PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN F OR: _. REVI uo..�_- �� "P"r,_ •,..,..., ...�w„, L OF f.-;CC) i NO. mms oe¢ omcrt¢m . GRAY'S x^17[7 �+p p"(/''! /+ A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GRA JL S '1�J1'lOSS �T ..._... .,.rte am am =I se se m ea i am m _ as e o n _ r ma rn 0 0 1 r r. CUMULATIVE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES REPORT r FOR LAHONTAN DEVELOPMENT 1996 -2002 r r 1 Prepared for 1 DMB Highlands 10185 Truckee Tahoe Airport Road, Suite 410 Truckee, CA 96161 (530) 550-2990 Contact: Mr. Ron Parr 1 ' Prepared by: • . Huffman & Carpenter, Inc, 700 Smithridge Drive, Suite 102A Reno, NV 89502 (775) 828 -1991 - Fax (775) 828 -2302 Contact: Ms. Lori Carpenter, PWS • 1 Tammy 2003 r r TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Regulatory Background & Water Quality Objectives 1 2.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING OBJECTIVE & MONITORED CONSTITUENTS 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3 1 4.0 METHODS 3 5.0 DISCUSSION OF THE 1996 - 2002 DATA 4 1 5.1 Data Uncertainty 6 • 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 7 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE REVIEWED 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I :AProjectsV105- Lahontau\1 05- 104- 01- Lahontan I & II \TechnicalAtask 4 - wq monito ingVCumulative WQ Report VCumulative Water Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd t 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENTS I . ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES 1 Figure 1 Lahontan Project Location Map Figure 2 Hydrologic (Sub) Basin Map I Figure 3 Figure 4 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Concentration Nitrate/Nitrite Concentration Figure 5 Reserved I Figure 6 Total Sulfate Concentration Figure 7 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Figure 8 Total Chloride Concentration 1 Figure 9 Total Iron Concentration Figure 10 Total Nitrogen Concentration 1 Figure 11 Total Phosphorus Concentration Figure 12a Total Phosphorus Concentration Trends • Figure 12b Total Phosphorus Lahontan 1 - 1996 - 2002 - Trend Analysis 11 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLES I Table 1 Water Quality Objectives for Martis Creek (at mouth) Table 2 Reserved 1 Table 3a Water Quality Objectives for Martis Creek for the Lahontan I Project Collected between 1996 and 2002- Statistics - Mean of Quarterly Data with 1 Table 3b Standard Deviation . Quarterly Water Quality Data with Statistical Min, Max, Mean and Standard Deviation • 1 - Table 4 Water Quality Raw Data Lahontan I Project March 1996 -July 2002 • 1 1 • 1� I 1:\Frojectsuo5- Lahontan\ 105 - 104 -01- Lahontan I D \Teclwical \task 4 - wq monitorii glCurnulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water Quality Analyses FlNAL.wpd ii 1 • i • Cumulative Water Duality Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 .Ianumy 2003 1 1.0 .INTRODUCTION This report is an analysis and summary of the water quality data collected at the Lahontan I development from 1996 through the second quarter of 2002. The water quality data reviewed are from the original Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. (H &C) quarterly reports. For a full list see the bibliography contained within 1 this report. This report describes the layout of the site with the sample locations, methods of sample collection, results of the analyses of chemical constituents, and an interpretation ofthe time series of these results. The study team consisted of Ms. Lori Carpenter, PWS, Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist; Mr. Dave Kelly, Statistician, Huffman & Carpenter, Inc.; and Dr. Clay Cooper, Hydrologist, Desert Research Institute. 1 The approximate 740 -acre Lahontan I development is located within Section 25 and the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, T. 17N., R 16E., Placer County, California (Figure 1 of Attachment 1). The LahontanI development is between the Truckee Tahoe Airport and the Martis Creek Reservoir, approximately 2 miles southeast of downtown Truckee and 0.5 mile southwest of Highway 267. The Lahontan I development is within the jurisdiction ofthe State of California, Water Quality Control • Board - North Lahontan Region (Regional Board). Quarterly water quality monitoring was aRegional Board water quality certification requirement of the Lahontan project. A ulna' waiver ofwater quality certification for the Lahontan I project was issued on June 15, 1995. Water quality objectives have been established by the Regional Board for Marti s Creek at its confluence with the Truckee River, which is located approximately 3 miles downstream from the exit ofthe project site (Attachment 2, Table 1). The objectives have been adopted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) and California State Board Resolution No. 68 -16 (Statement of Policy withRespect to MaintainingHigh Quality of Water in California). These documents identify the allowable chemical constituents and define their criteria (i.e. concentrations) for compliance. 1.1 Regulatory Background & Water Quality Objectives 1 • • The Regional Board has adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the North Lahontan Basin (Regional Board, 1994) which has established water quality objectives from beneficial uses for a particular water source. The term "water quality objectives" is defined in the 1969 Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act as "...limits or levels ofwater quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses ofwater or the prevention ofnuisance(s) within aspecified. area." The definition reflects certain provisions of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water P ollution Control 1 1:\Proj ects \105- LaboniaMV 05- 104- 01- Lahontan I 8. II \Technical \task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water • Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd 1 1 Cumulative Water Quality Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 1 Janaary 2003 • Act, PL 92-500, and State Water Resources Control Board Policy No. 68- 16, "Statement oft' olicywith Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California." - Present and potential beneficial uses of surface and groundwater for Martis Creek' include: • Municipal and Domestic suppl'y Agricultural supply • Groundwater recharge • • (Rec -1) water contact recreation - (Rec -2) non -water contact recreation • Cold freshwater habitat' M • Wildlife habitat Commercial and sport fishing • • Spawning, reproduction and development Rare, threatened or endangered species • Migration of aquatic organisms. 1 2.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING - OBJECTIVE & MONITORED CONSTITUENTS I The water quality monitoring objective was to assess the effectiveness of the project design, and tobeused as an on-goiuggolf course management tool to implement corrective measures expediently if any constituent 1 is detected above the compliance limit: The overallproject goal was to maintainwater quality objectives as set forth in the Basin Plan. Therefore, the Golf Course and the LahontanIdevelopment were specifically designed to meet strict environmental standards that were developed for use in the Siena Nevada. i • - Water Quality Control Plan Report - North Lahontan basin (6A), State Water Resources Control Board - Lahontan Region (6) - Table 2 -1, and Appendices E, 0, and M. • ' 2 Municipal and domestic supply are defined as the protection of public health, aesthetic acceptability of the product, and the economic impacts associated with treatment or quality related damages. ' 3 Cold freshwater habitat is defined by maintaining specific concentrations of the following coustiments: dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity, salinity, turbidity, dissolved solids, oil, toxicants, and diseased organisms. I 1:\ Projects\ 105- Lahontan \105 - 104- 01- Labontan I & tI \Technical \task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water Quality Analyses TINAL.wpd 2 r a Cumulative Water Oumlity Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 January 2003 1 Quarterly water quality samples of Martis Creek were analyzed for the following constituents: • total Kj eldahl nitrogen (TKN) • nitrite /nitrate (NO2_3 - N) • sulfate (SO 1 • total dissolved solids (TDS) • chloride (C1) • iron (Fe) • • total nitrogen (N) • total phosphorus (TP) • boron (B) 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Amap showing the sampling locations is presented in Attachment 1, Figure 2. A surface water quality 1 monitoring program for the LahontanProjectis cun effect as first proposed in the Best Management Practices Reportfor Water Quality Management (H&C, 1995). Quarterly sampling was conducted at three stations along Martis Creek (QW 1, QW2 and QW4) and an unnamed tributary at the confluence to Martis Creek (QW3) (Attachment 1, Figure 2). Station 1 (QW1) is located on Martis Creek and represents flow as it leaves the project boundary to the east. Station 2 (QW2) is located on Martis Creek e at the propertyboundary line andrepresents water corning into theproj ect area from upstream sources. Station 3 (QW3) is located at the confluence of the unnamed tributary to Martis Creek and represents cumulative surface flows from sub - basins 1, 2, 2a, 3, 4, and 10 and golf course greens 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The sample for QW3 is taken within the tributary before it reaches the Creek. Station 4 (QW4) is located on Martis Creek upstream of QW3 and represents cumulative surface flows from the aforementioned sub - basins as well as sub - basins 6, 7, 8 and golf course greens 8, 9, 10 and 14. • 4.0 METHODS t Personnel from Huffman & Carpenter, Inc., collected water quality samples as per the protocol outlined 1 in the March 1996 Quarterly Monitoring Report for Lahontan D evelopment Proj ect on a quarterly basis. Each sampling event occurred either during, or within a few weeks of the months of March, June, September, and December. Details of the sampling and analysis protocol havebeen reported previously in quarterly reports. • 1 I:\Projects \105- Iahontan \105- 104 -01- Lahontan I & II \Technical \task 4 - wq monitoring Cumulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water Quality Analyses FINALwpd 3 • i r • Cumulative Water Duality Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 1 Janttmy 2003 Grab samples were collected at each station in laboratory- provided sample container. A duplicate sample at one location was also collected. Following collection, all samples were packed nn an ice cooler, and along with chain -of- custody forms, were delivered to the analytical laboratory-by H &C staff. All samples were analyzed by State of California- certified laboratories for the constituents specified M the water quality objectives, as outlined in the Basin Plan. The samples were analyzed for total Kj eldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite /nitrate (NO -N), sulfate (SO total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride (C1), iron (Fe), total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (TP), and boron (B). From 1996 through 1998, the samples were analyzedbyNEL Laboratories (NV CertificationNo. NV033 andNV 052, California Certification CA084). From 1999 through 2002, Acculabs, hic. (California Certification No. 2326), presentlyknown as Western Environmental Testing Laboratories, performed all analyses. In addition, ablank collected at one of the stations during each sampling event was also analyzed for all constituents; these results are reported in Attachment2, Table 3. The analytical methods and detection limits used for each constituent are presented in each of the quarterly reports. - 5.0 DISCUSSION OF THE 1996 - 2002 DATA The results for each quarter have already been reported in the H&C quarterly reports. This section isan analysis of the cumulative data. Within this report, cumulative water quality concentration data collected from 1996 through 2002 are summarized relative to the compliance objectives set forth by the State Regional Board. Attachment 2, Table 3 summarizes the mean and standard deviation of the quarterly values of each constituent at sample locations QW1 through QW4. That is, the mean and standard deviation of all six values of chloride for the first quarter were determined, as were the mean of all six values for the second - quarter, etc. The data are also plotted as bar graphs (Attachment 1, Figures 3 through 12). Errorbars on the graphs represent ±1 standard deviation 1. • 4 With respect to a graphical representations of the standard deviation on the figures within this report, the smallest value for standard deviation from each quarterly sampling event was depicted as a fixed value error bar. (Attachment 2, Figures 3 - 11). I - I:\ Projects\ I05- Lahontan \105 - 104- 01- Lahontau 1 & II \Technical \task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water Quality Analyses FMAL.wpd • 4 • 1 i Cunwlative Water Oualitjy Analyses Report for Lakontan Development 1996 -2002 Janumy 2003 • The results ofthe data indicate that the water quality objectives are met for TKN, NO S O„ TDS, 0, Fe, and N, at all monitoring stations (Attachment 2, Figures 3, 4, 6 -11). The reason for the large standard deviation in sulfate is that through March 1999, the detection limit was 0.1 mg/l. After that time, the laboratory used 5 mg /1 as the detection limit. For each sample an analysis was made for boron, although no objective exists for boron (Attachment 2, Table 1). 1 The only mean constituent in which the water quality objective is not met is total phosphorus. The water quality objective (0.05 mg/1) was exceeded in the third quarter at sampling location QW3 and in first . quarter at QW1 and QW3. The fourth quarter results from samples obtained at all sampling points (QW1 through QW4) also do not meet the water quality objective for total phosphorus. Attachment 1, Figure 12a and 12b are aplot ofthe time series of phosphorus concentration. Figure 12a shows all of the data, whileFigure 12b is re-scaled so that most of the data are viewed with more precision. 1 The data do not depict either a seasonal or spatial trend. The reason is that the data are too variable and that the natural fluctuations are too great over the stream reach. Examination of uncertainty of total phosphorus concentration shows that there is no statistical difference between phosphorus concentration at the most upstream sample location (QW2) and the one furthest 111 downstream (QW1) The statistical reason is that the phosphorus concentration in individual samples at QW1 (furthest downstream) were frequently less than the concentration detected at upstream sampling points (QW2 and QW4 in particular) on the same day. In other words, the variability in background phosphorus levels is so large that one cannot conclusivelyrule out the possibility of anthropogenic effects contributing to total phosphorus in the stream. For most samples, the concentration of total phosphorus The mean and standard deviation amounts for sulphate were calculated from data collected March 1996 1 through March 1999. Prior to March 1999, a detection limit of 0.1 mg/1 was used; after March 1999, the detection limit was increased to 5 mgll by the laboratory. No sulphate was ever detected above the higher 5 mg/1 detection level. Had the.results after March 1999 been used with the results prior, the mean and standard deviation calculations would have been meaningless due to the large difference in the detection limits of the two analytical methods. • 6 Station 2 (QW2) is located on Martis Creek at the property boundary line and represents water coming onto the project area from upstream sources. y Station 1 (QW1) is located on Martis Creek and represents flow as it leaves the project boundary to the east. 1 Station 4 (QW4) is located on Martis Creek upstream of QW3 and represents cumulative surface flows from the aforementioned sub - basins as well as sub- basins 6, 7, 8 and golf course greens 8, 9, 10 and 14. I :\Projects \105- Lalrontan \105 - 104 -01- Labontan 1 & II \Technical\task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ Report\Cumulative Water Quality Analyses PINAL.wpd 5 • 1 1 - Cumulative Water Quality Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 January 2003 was often less than 0.1 nigh. Our conclusion is that there is no trendwithin the data indicating that elevated concentrations of phosphorus are golf course or project related. The standard deviation is so large for all of the data that there is no discernible trend in water quality as flow moves across the site. This would be expected for most constituents, since the chemical reaction tithes are probably slower than the travel time of flow across the site. For phosphorus and the various forms of nitrogen, however, this may not be the case. - 5.1 Data Uncertainty A standard deviation describes how dispersed the data are about a mean. The means and standard deviations reported here assume that the data are stationary. Data are stationary if their mean and standard deviation do not vary in space or time. These data are probably non - stationary, as they may have real periodic (in time) fluctuations. However, as there are no observable trends in any of the data, it is assumed here that the mean quarterly value of each constituent is stationary, and therefore that at each station, the mean and standard deviation for the concentration of each constituent are the same from year to year. ' The most common analysis used to explain variations hi data are the mean and standard deviation. Statisticians generally agree that at least3 0 samples are required for a Meaningful statistical description of data. Given that most water quality sampling pro gams cannot collect this amount of data, this means that _ means and standard deviations reported here should be carefully interpreted, as they are based upon only six values for each site, for each quarter. ' The reason for the dispersion in the data is that there are random fluctuations that contribute to its uncertainty. There are two types of uncertainties: those due to sampling errors (as aresult of the nature and heterogeneity of the watershed), and those due to analytical errors (as a result in variations in the measurement equipment). In other words, there is rarely a single "correct" value that represents a given ' parameter at any one time. The discussion below explains some of the most common sources of uncertainty in data. • 1 Sampling error. Sampling errors are those due to the variability of watershed, such as the amount and duration of rainfall, spatial variations in soilproperties, topography, snow pack variability, temperature and . the nature of overland flow. In addition, parameters change within a stream itself; for example, the concentration of iron would not be uniformly distributed in space for a given cross section of stream. When a sample is collected and analyzed, the measurement is actually a point value, although it is often assumed to be representative uniformly for some duration in time. e I:\Projects\ 105- Lahontan \105- 104- O1- Lahontan I & II \Technical \task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ ReporACumulative Water Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd 6 • r ' • Cumulative Water °teality Analyses Report - for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 Janumy 2003 • Concentrations also fluctuate within a stream over time. For example, it is lcnown that samples collected from the same location over the course of a few minutes show variations in concentration. For example, during the April 2002 sampling event, the concentration of total phosphorus at a location had areported value above the water quality objective while the replicate had a value below the objective. Since these samples were collected within several minutes of each other, it presents an example of the possible 1 fluctuations in sample concentrations at nearly the same tine. Interfering with the random fluctuations in data are trends that occur daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally. None of the data analyzed here show any trends. • An alytical error. Analytical errors refer to v ariations in the way in which an instrument measures a particular parameter. For example, if the same sample is analyzed twice for chloride ion, two distinct values may be measured. These represent accuracy of the instrument making the measurement. For some constituents reported here, these errors were as great as 80 percent. This was determined by comparing , the concentration of a constituent of a given sample and that of its blank. • r 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Water quality data collected between 1996 and the second quarter of 2002 were analyzed to assess whether there w ere pr oj ect-r elated impacts to Martis Creek. The collection and analysis are currently being used as an on- going golfcourse and proj ect water quality management tool. If any constituent is detected above compliance limits, corrective measures are expediently implemented. Water quality objectives were met for all constituents except total phosphorus. However, phosphorus concentrations (i.e., the concentration plus its standard deviation) often exceeded the objective at the most upstream sample location, before entering onto the project site. Based on the analysis presented herein, the golf course and project does not appear to adversely impact the water quality in Martis Creek. An analysis of the data indicates that the overall goal of the project was met because there are no project related - impacts to water quality. 1 1 1 I:\Projecis \105- Lahontan \105 - 104- 01- Lahontan 1 & II \Technical \ task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ ReporiCumulative Water Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd 7 - 1 1 1 Cumulative Water Quality Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 January 2003 r ' 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPIIY AND LITERATURE REVIEWED Best Management Practices Report for Water QualityManagement for (formerly) Gooseneck Ranch" . September 1992, updated March 1995, by Huffinan & Associates. Huffinan & Associates, Inc. 1992. Best ManagementPractices Report for Water Quality Management, 1 Gooseneck Ranch, Placer County, California. Huffman & Associates, Inc. 1995. Best Management Practices Report for Water QualityManagement, Gooseneck Ranch, Placer County, California. Huffman & Associates, Inc. 1995. First Draft Chemical Application Management Plan (CHAMP) for the Proposed Gooseneck Ranch Golf Course. 1 Huffinan & Associates, Inc. 1996. Quarterly Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Proj ect (Gooseneck Ranch) Placer County, California. Huffinan & Associates, Inc. 1996. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Lahontan Development Project, Gooseneck Ranch, Placer County, California. Huffman &Associates, Inc. 1996. Chemical Application Management Plan (CHAMP) for the Proposed Lahontan Project Golf Course. ' Huffinan & Associates, Inc. 1997. Dewatering Plan and Best ManagementPlan for the East and South Bridges, Lahontan Project, Placer County, California. Huffinan & Associates, Inc. 1997. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffinan &Associates, Inc. 1997. Results of 1996 Quarterly Monitoring at Lahontan Project Truckee, ' Placer County, California. ' Huffinan & Associates, Inc. 1997. First Quarterly Monitoring Report for 1997 for Lahontan Development Project (Gooseneck Ranch), Placer County, California. 1 . I:\Projects\ 105 - Lahontan \105- 104- Ol- Lahontau I & II \Technical\ task 4 - wq monitoring\ Cumulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water 1 Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd 8 • 1 • 1 Cumulative Water Oualily Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 Januaiy 2003 1 Huffinan & Carpenter, Inc. 1998. March and June 1998 First and Second Quarterly Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 1998. September 1997 (revised) Second Quarterly Water QualityMonitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Truckee, Placer County, California 1 Huffinan & Carpenter, Inc. 1998. October and December 1997 Final Quarterly Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Truckee, Placer County, California. Huffinan & Carpenter, Inc. 1998. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 1998. SWPPP Compliance Report for the 1997/1998 Construction Season 1 for the Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 1999. Chemical ApplicationManagement Plan (CHAM P) for the Lahontan 1 I and If Projects Golf Courses. Huffinan & Carpenter, Inc. 1999. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) for Lahontan 1 Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 1999. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Lahontan H Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc., 2000. -March 2000 First Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc., 2000. June 2000 Second Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. 1 Huffinan & Carpenter, Inc., 2000. October 2000 Third Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffinan & Carpenter, Inc., 2000. December 2000 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. 1 I:AProjects\I 05- Lahontan \] 05- 104-01- Lahontan I Fe Il \TechnicalAtask 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ ReportVCumulative Water Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd - 9 • • 1 1 1 Cumulative Water Quality Analyses Report for Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 • Janumy 2003 1 - Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2000. Storurwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Lahontan 1 Development Project, Placer County, Califomia. 1 Huf nan & Carpenter, Inc. 2000. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Lahontan II Development Projects, Placer County, California. ' Huffman & Carpenter, Inc., 2001. March 2001 First Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. • 1 Huffman & Carpenter, Inc., 2001. July 2001 Second Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, Califomia. 1 Huffman & Carpenter, Inc., 2001. November 2001 Third Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. .Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2001. Chemical Application Management Plan (CHAMP) for Hopkins Ranch. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2001. ChemicalApplication Management Plan (CHAMP) for the Lahontan I and II Projects Golf Courses. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2001. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Lahontan . Development Project, Placer County, Califomia. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2001. SWPPP Compliance Report for the 2000 Construction Season for the 1 Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2002. December 2001 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan 1 Development Project, Placer County, California. 1 Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2002. April 2002 First Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. • • Huffman & Carpenter, Inc. 2002. SWFPP Cornpliance Report for the 2001 Construction Season for the Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. 1 I:\ Projects \105 - Lahontan \105- 104 -01- Lahontan I & Il\Teclmical \task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ Report\Cumulative Water Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd 10 1 • • 1 Cumulative Water Ouality Analyses Report - fo-Lahontan Development 1996 -2002 • January 2003 1 Lahontan LLC, 1999. December 1998 QuarterlyMonitoringReport for Lahontan Developrnent Project, Placer County, California. ' Lahontan LLC, 1999. March 1999 QuarterlyMonitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. 1 Lahontan LLC, 1999. July 1999 Third Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. Lahontan LLC, 1999. September 1999 Third Quarter Monitoring Report for Lahontan Development Project, Placer County, California. R.C. Fuller Associates. 1993. Gooseneck Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I. 1 State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins. 1 • • 1 5 1 1 1 1 I: Projects \105- Lahontan \105 - 104 -01- Lahontan I & IRTeelmical \task 4 - wq monitoring \Cumulative WQ Report \Cumulative Water Quality Analyses FINAL.wpd - 11 1 -MN • MN M .la M M r IMO N I NM al M. E r I OM • • • • - rn 0 0 - MNII NM MN OM 1111•1 I= MI — NM OM OM MN MN MN . MN IMO. I= MN NM . ._, a • TABLE 2-1. BENEFICIAL USES OF SURFACE WATERS OF THE LAHON'I'AN REGION Unless otherwise specified, beneficial uses also apply to all tributaries of surface waters identified in Table 2-1. • • BENEFICIAL USES • HYDROLOGIC UNIT/SUBUNIT WATERBODY RECEIVING DRAINAGE FEATURE CLASS MODIFIER '7 WATER ,... i ,. c ■ I 2 < 2 0 ,-, uj ,, 2 21X13,, j'E0>>002DX-1_1118CO3111 0 nute-=-cca l ow woot c .Occc-a-u.(i_, HU No. X 6. 3 o Is. z 0. 2CC U<SONSCDOC2V) U. 635.00 TRUCKEE RIVER HYDROLOGIC UNIT • SPAWM,Wkn ea l tigNi 0 Wi i gi r a r ; : ;M:Viag,ft:NineWii'10i.;;M,r,m,,a0.,, , ,. :. .. ;, ,. :.:, ,...,.. ri,..:,:,..,*„: ,.. * , ;.:,•,,..:H.:,....:.,......,.:.,,.,..:.: J.L 035.10 I/00 VALLEY NYDROLOO/C AREA Sn'ii'MVIJ!iiiMWV10...aMirgi]jj;;I:;IiMOMP.'Jj,iaiidERWEN:9SM,:ii.M.:WMOSAMMEt;MI.:0;;ft.§MNIMiii 000 VALLEY WETLANDS MT MOW. FLOOOPLAIN. MINOR STREA X X X X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER DOG VALLEY CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER . MINOR SURFACE WATERS . XX XX XXX X XXXXX MINOR WETLANDS SPRINGS/SEEPS/EMERGENT/MARSHES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 635.20 TRUCKEE RIVER HYDROLOGIC AREA A:54:.::WIMUM;rii=550;iigg,A1=50g.5at:1:i1;:i4W5Sit.iligtad5i:107M76■7571,77.7a77,P,''''',4:'14:,:.'k:,',':',1:1,:,:::,:r4,':'::1:,,::::':::Lv,t,',.> TRUCKEE RIVER PERENNIAL RIVER XX ' XXX X X X X X X X X X PYRAMID LAKE, NEV. SEAR CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER SQUAW CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X.X X XXX X X XXX TRUCKEE RIVER SQUAW VALLEY MEADOW WETLANDS WETLANDS X X X X X X X X X X POLE CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X XXX X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER COLD STREAM CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X DONNER CREEK DONNER LAKE ..I.AKE X X X X X X X X X X X DONNER CREEK DONNER CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER PROSSER CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X " X X X XT x ) ------ 7 - TRUCKEE RIVER PROSSER RESERVOIR RESERVOIR X X X X X X X X X X X PROSIIER CREEK MARTIS CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER MARTIS CREEK RESERVOIR RESERVOIR X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIS CREEK TROUT CRE X X EK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X A X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER ALDER CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X XXX 'X X XXX TRUCKEE RIVER JUNIPER CREEK • PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X rr TRucNEE RIVER GRAY CREEK . PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER BRONCO CREEK PERENNIAL STREAM X X X X X X X X X X TRUCKEE RIVER MINOR SURFACE WATERS XX XX XXX X X X X MINOR WETLANDS SPRINGS/SEEPS/EMERGENT/MARSHES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r 634.00 LAKE TAHOE HYDROLOGIC UNIT '0.3 k■,'';i:R'':'.:1-',''''a.M '1!'::::'40%1MM'''PAM4> .Viiklifli00*.44ii,flogiSi:::Mii;.?;i0w,*::i.,aiiro,.:;1,!;:ki,N,:iot.: INj MI 634.10 SOUTH TAHOE HYDROLOGIC AREA 0'01M iK ' Ni/W ,VMai.5.Sii.:A.AMMIatingiaNniP:',1■aai74777.1:,:rTi,:f, .. . c' ' ..p.,; TAHOE MEADOWS WETLANDS Mall1111111:111.11211113.1:111SIMINI X X M HEAVENLY VALLEY CREEK Intheitaailligal X X TROUT CREEK COLD CREEK TROUT CREEK '9111...1111Ellain.111100Ealla A X ill _ -...-...-...■ TROUT CREEK 5: .....11113111111111101a11.2.1. X X UPPER TRUcKEE nivsa r N.) SAXON CREEK przywomm....__ X X X TROUT CREEK C —.s. GRASS LAKE WETLANDS -SOlial( 1113.11.0/31311.13.1311111 X X X CO —_______ cn tTI • • • 1 Ch. 2, BENEFICIAL USES 1 TABLE 2 -2. BENEFICIAL USES FOR GROUND WATERS OF THE LAHONTAN REGION 1 BASIN BENEFICIAL USES DWR NO. BASIN NAME MUN AGR IND FRSH AQUA WILD , 6-45 Tehachapi Valley East x x x x 6-46 Fremont Valley x x x x 6-47 Harper Valley x x x x 1 6-48 Goldstone Valley - - x x x 6-49 Superior Valley x 6-50 Cuddback Valley x x x x 6-51 Pilot Knob Valley x x x. x _ 1 6-52 Searles Valley (see note below) x ' • x 6 -53 Salt Well Valley x x 6 -54 Indian Wells Valley x x x x , 1 6 -55 Coso Valley x 6 -56 Rose Valley x x x x 6 -57 Darwin Valley x , 6-58 Panamint Valley x x 6 -59 Granite Mountain Area x x x 6 -60 Fish Slough Valley x x x x - 1 6 -61 Cameo Area x - 6 -62 Race Track Valley x x • 6 -63 Hidden Valley x 6 -64 Marble Canyon Way x x _ x 1 6-65 Cottonwood Spring Area x x x _ - 6 -66 Lee Flat x 6 -67 Martis Valley x x x 1 6 -68 Santa Rosa Flat x _ 6 -69 Kelso Lander Valley x x x • 6 -70 Cactus Flat x x x ' 6 -71 Lost Lake Valley x _ 6 -72 Coles Flat x _ _ 6 -73 Wild Horse Mesa Area x _ 6 -74 Harrsiburg Flats x 6 -75 Wildrose Canyon x _ 6 -76 Brown Mountain Valley , x _ x 6 -77 Grass Valley x x • 1 6 -78 Denning Spring Valley _ x x _ x 6 -79 California Valley x x _ x x r 6-80 Middle Park Canyon _ • x x x — x , 6 -81 Butte Valley x 6-82 Spring Canyon Valley . x x x . 6 -83 Furnace Creek Area _ x x • 6 -84 Greenwater Valley x x 6 -85 Gold Valley x x x 6 -86 Rhodes Hill Area x • x x - _ 6 -87 Butterbread Canyon Valley x 1 r • 6 - 88 O Lake Valley 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 in Note: MUN designation does not apply to ground water under Searles Lake 10/94 1 2 -47 • 1 _ i __ ;' GROUND WATER d BASINS. REGION 6 - 1 1\ NORTH LAHONTAN ,: Plate 2A • 0 ALLUVIAL BASINS 0 o e� °' YOUNGER VOLCANIC BASINS OLDER VOLCANIC BASINS ls,25 °• ` ° a- P % ! MAJOR LAKES P MAJOR INTERMITTENT LAKES I ' - ` ♦ ` Ground water may occur in areas i . 4) other than the indicated basins r 9 . ..c.iii_ w _..vrue. . I ..e me cw _ Region 5 ..a w • ^ nacv . .n Hong tu e I • '''''s w fiki o me. A ) c k �, m omen wan ass nneova d , p•• All .1o1 ea �>.. ° Y .1a. wont !van. „a„, rov.+nc me. y , • r .•n ,o yuu e.o.m.( poi ex • H) e+� .los suniumn ...un f .io sw tut uu. �. .... NORTH LAHONTAN REGION PROJECT GUIDELINES FOR EROSION CONTROL In the interest of protecting surface water quality from unnatural or accelerated erosion caused by land development, the following guidelines shall be followed: 1 Temporary Construction BMPs 1: Surplus or waste materials shall not be placed in drainage ways or within the 100 - year flood plain of surface waters. 2. All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or earthen materials shall be protected in a ' reasonable manner to prevent discharge of pollutants to waters of the State. Material stockpiles should be placed on the upgradient side of excavation whenever possible. Stockpiles may also be ' protected by covering to prevent contact with precipitation and by placing sediment barriers around the stockpiles. I 3. Dewatering shall be done in a manner so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants, including earthen materials, from the site. The first option is to discharge dewatering waste to land. A separate permit may required if due to site constraints, dewatering waste must be discharged to 1 surface waters. Contact the Regional Board for information on discharging to surface waters. 4. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized by appropriate erosion and/or sediment control measures ' by October 15 of each year. 5. All work performed between October 15th and May 1st of each year shall be conducted in such I a manner that the project can be winterized within 48 hours. Winterized means implementing erosion and/or sediment controls that will prevent the . discharge of earthen materials from the site and the controls will remain effective throughout the rainy /snow season without requiring I maintenance. In general, this requires stabilizing bare disturbed soils with mulch, erosion protection blankets, or other suitable materials, and installing perimeter sediment controls such as fiber logs or other similar materials that will remain effective during significant rain and snow 1 events. 6. After completion of a construction project, all surplus or waste earthen material shall be 1 removed from the site and deposited at a legal point of disposal. 7. All non - construction areas (areas outside of the construction zone that will remain undisturbed) 1 shall be protected by fencing or other means to prevent unnecessary encroachment outside the active construction zone. 8. During construction, temporary erosion control facilities (e.g., impermeable dikes, filter fences, hay bales, etc.) shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge of earthen materials from the site ' during periods of precipitation or runoff. 9. Control of run -on water from offsite areas shall be managed (protected, diverted, treated, etc.) to prevent such water from degrading before it discharges from the site. 10. Where construction activities involve the crossing and/or alteration of a stream channel, such activities require a prior written agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and shall be timed whenever possible to occur during the period in which streamflow is expected to be lowest for the year. Other control measures may be used as necessary to prevent adverse effects 111 from work in surface waters. - 1 ' HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 830 -3 , May 1, 2001 Table 831.3 1 Desirable Roadway Drainage Guidelines 1 DESIGN STORM - DESIGN WATER SPREAD 1 HIGHWAY 4% 10% Shldr or 1/2 Outer Local Type /Category/Feature (25 yrs) (10 yrs) Parking Lane Lane Standard 1 FREEWAYS Through traffic lanes, branch X — X — — 1 connections, and other major ramp connections. Minor ramps. -- X X -- -- 1 Frontage roads. -- X -- -- X 1 • CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS High volume, multilane X -- X -- -- ' Speeds over 75 kph. High volume, multilane -- X -- X -- Speeds 75 kph and under. . Low volume, rural . X -- X -- Speeds over 75 kph. Urban 1 -- X • -- -- X Speeds 75 kph and under. . ALL STATE HIGHWAYS 1 Depressed Sections That Require Pumping: - • Use a 2% (50 yrs) design storm for freeways and conventional state highways. Design water spread at - • depressed sections should not exceed that of adjacent roadway sections. A 4% (25 yr) design storm may be used on local streets or road undercrossings that require pumping. 1 • 1 1 1 1 is a r a se in in as an no is EN ow ms X art BMP /SWPPP INSPECTION CHECKLIST 1 Project Name: Gray's Crossing Project Number: Inspection Date: Storm Information Beginning of storm event: (date) through: (date) Approximate Daily Rainfall: Sun: Mon: Tues: Wed: Thurs: Fri: Sat: 1 General Site Observations 1 1 1 1 BMP Observations 1 1 1 1 Corrections Needed 1 1 Inspected by: Signed: Date: 1 1 • Exhibit 1 i i n — NE M — — _ _ ! aim = s n a g m v X ' SEP -15 -03 10:36 Am SIERRA RESOURCE INC 530 273 1473 P.02 1 1 For Aidminis Use Only TIMBER HARVESTING PLAN FOR ADMIN. USE ONLY Ame dmen§ date & 8 or M STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY THP No. 1. 7._ AND FIRE PROTECTION ' 2. S __ RM-83 (01.00) Dates Recd 3. O.,_,- ,,.,,,_ THP Name: Preis Cfo slag 4. I R7._ (In me CDF FPS, this Is THP Datalpnon' Il hb l Date Filed I 5. I t 1.� - Dete Approved • ea Modified THP, clack boc I 1 Date Expires (1. 12.____ 1 EMenaions 1) ( 1 2) t 1 This tu ber Hinvaatino Plan (THP) form, when properly completed, I designed t o comply vdth Ste Forest Practice Act (FPA) and Board of Foraevy. rules, See eepa alb Instryctlons for Information on completing this form. NOTE; The form must be printed legibly In Ink or typewritten. The THP is divided Into six I sect , If mbre space le necessary to answer s question,•contlnue the answer at the end of the appropriate section of your THP. if writing en electronic versl n, insert additional space for your answer. Please distinguish answers from questions by lent change, bold or underline. I SECTION I • GENERAL INFORMATION i 1 This {f HP conforms to my plan end upon approval, Uwe agree to conduct harvesting in accordance therewith. Consem Is hereby given to the Dire Ct0' of Fore try and ire Protecibn, and his or her agent' and employees, to enter the premises lo Inspect timber operations for compliance with the Fores t PradICe Act d Fore Practice Rules. 1 1 , 1 TIMBER OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Name Orav's Station L.L.C. Address P O Rnx 2537 . 1 • City Tnlck»e St CA Zip AS1R1 Phone . I : lecture �// C Date %/d`1 �� E The timber ner Is responsible for payment of a yield tax. Timber VW Ts nformatlon may be obtained at the Timber Tex I . Dl4blon, Sults Board of Equalization, P.O. lox 042070, Sacramento, California 04270 001; phone 1400-400 -7116; • E Web Page at httpalwww.boe.ea•gov. 2.. TIMBERLAND OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Name Grey's Station. L.L.C. 1 Address (same as above) City _ State _ Zip ^ Phone _ 1 Signature t -971141, Date _ '� 3. LICENSED TIMBER OPERATOR(S): Name (TD be advised) LTO# _ 1 i . Address _ City _ State _ Zip _ Phone _ • 1 I • Signature Date . (If unknown, so state. You must notify CDF of LTO prior to start of operations) 1 4, j PLAN SUBMITTER(S): (1) Name Gray's Station. LL.C. Address P.O. 8ox 2537 1 I • City jn ckee State SA_ Zip _96161 Phone (530) 587 -3046 (SUbminer moa / r4L IFC_ 1,2, or 3 He/she must San below. Rel. Tine 14 CR 1032,7 (e)) Signature Date, I 1 GraysCrossing THP2 - Page 1 Section I: General Information (continued) 1 1 5. a. List person to contact on -site who is responsible for the conduct of the operation. If unknown, so state and name must be provided for inclusion in the THP prior to start.of timber operations. 1 Name Larry Rieger, RPF #2044 Address 13026 Madrona Leaf Court 1 City _ Grass Valle' State CA Zip 95945 Phone (530) 273 -1473 b. [x] Yes 0 No • Will the timber operator be employed for the construction and maintenance of roads and landings 1 during conduct of timber operations? If no, who is responsible? c. Who is responsible for erosion control maintenance after timber operations have ceased and until certification of the Work Completion Report? If not LTO, then written agreement must be provided per 1050 (c). 1 LTO (as per 14CCR943.4). If extension of maintenance period is required by Director, Landowner shall become responsible for extended period. 6. a) Expected date of commencement of timber operations: • 1 [x] date of conformance, or 0 (date) b) Expected date of completion of timber operations: 1 [x] 3 years from date of conformance, or 0 (date) 7. The timber operation will occur within the: ' 0 COAST FOREST DISTRICT 0 The Tahoe Regional Planning Authority Jurisdiction 0 Southern Subdistrict of the Coast F.D. 0 A County with Special Regulations, identify: 0 SOUTHERN FOREST DISTRICT 0 Coastal Zone, no Special Treatment Area 1 0 High use subdistrict of the Southern F.D. 0 Special Treatment Area(s), type and identify: [X] NORTHERN FOREST DISTRICT 0 Other 1 8. Location of the timber operation by legal description: Base and Meridian: [x] Mount Diablo 0 Humboldt 0 San Bernardino 1 Section Township Range AcreageCounty Assessor's Parcel Number (Optional) ' 01,02,11 17N 16E 757 Nevada 19- 370-07,14,17,18,19,20,21,22,24,25,26 • 19 -410- 19,21,22 TOTAL ACREAGE 757 (Logging Area Only) 1 USGS Quadrangle & date: Truckee 7.5' Quad, 1955 (Revised 1986) Planning Watershed: CALWATER Version, Identification Number, and Name: Prosser Creek Reservoir, ID ' #8635.200304, Alder Creek ID #8635.200303, and East Martis Creek, ID #8635.200402 9. 0 Yes [x] No Is a Timberland Conversion been submitted? If yes, list expected approval date or permit number and expiration date if already approved. An Exemption for Conversion of Non -TPZ Land for Subdivision Development is being processed, and should be approved by CDF Sacramento, prior to approval of this THP. 10. 0 Yes.[x] No Is there a valid Sustained Yield Plan for this property? Number _ Date app. _ li ■ • 0 Yes [x] No Has a Sustained Yield Plan been submitted but not approved? Number _ Date sub. • 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 2 111 Section I: General Information (continued) 1 11. 0 Yes [x] No Is there a THP or NTMP on file with CDF for any portion of the Plan area for which a report of satisfactory stocking has not been issued by CDF? If yes, identify the THP or NTMP number(s): _ ' 0 Yes [x] No . Is there a contiguous even aged unit with regeneration less than five years old or less than five feet tall? • If yes, explain. Ref. Title 14 CCR 913.1 (933.1, 953.1) (a) (4). I 12. [x] Yes 0 No Is a Notice of Intent necessary for this THP? [x] Yes 0 No If yes was the Notice of Intent posted as required by 14 CCR 1032.7 (g)? I 13. RPF preparing the THP: Name Larry Rieger, RPF #2044 . Address 13026 Madrona Leaf Court City Grass Valley State CA Zip _95945_ Phone (530) 273 -1473 I a) [x] Yes 0 No I have notified the plan submitter(s), in writing, of their responsibilities pursuant to Title 14 CCR 1035 of the Forest Practice Rules. [x] Yes 0 No I have notified the timber owner and the timberland owner of their responsibilities for compliance with • the Forest Practice Act and rules, specifically the stocking requirements of the rules and the 1 maintenance of erosion control structures of the rules. b) [x] Yes 0 No I will provide the timber operator with a copy of the portions of the approved THP as listed in . 14 CCR 1035 (e). If "no" who will provide the LTO a copy of the approved THP? I or my supervised designee will meet with the LTO prior to commencement of operations to advise of I sensitive conditions and provisions of the plan pursuant to Title 14 CCR 1035.2. c) I have the following authority and responsibilities for preparation of administration of the THP and timber operation. (Include both work completed and work remaining to be done): I (1) I am responsible for preparation of this THP through approval, and for its' accuracy and completeness of its contents. I am responsible for marking of timber to be harvested along with identification and flagging of WLPZ's. I am also responsible for amendments and correspondence subsequent to final approval. (2) I have been retained by the Plan Submitter to provide professional advice throughout the timber operations. I I hereby certify that there is no conflict of interest regarding the real party of interest for whom I am providing RPF services. (3) I shall disclose any newly discovered conflicts of interest with regard to the plan submitter, timberland owner, timber owner, the LTO and timber purchaser, pertaining to the timber or land that is subject to operations under I the plan; as long as I have responsibilities relative to this plan. The disclosure shall include identification of the real party of interest for whom I may be providing professional forestry services. (4) Any disclosures between myself as RPF and an affected party pursuant to this section may be kept • • confidential. (5) I, or my designee, shall be present to provide professional advise throughout the timber operations, on the logging area at a sufficient frequency to know the progress of operations and advise the LTO and timberland owner, but not less than once during the life of the plan. (6) I or my designee shall inform the LTO during operations of any mitigation measures incorporated into the plan . that are intended to address operations that have a high likelihood of resulting in immediate, significant and long -term harm to the natural resources of the State if such mitigation measures are not strictly applied to • minimize such impacts. I (7) I shall without delay notify in writing the LTO, the plan submitter, and the Department of a decision to withdraw professional services from the plan. d) Additional required work requiring an RPF which I do not have the authority or responsibility to perform: 1 e) After considering the rules of the Board of Forestry and the mitigation measures, I have determined that the timber operation: 0 will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Statement of reasons for overriding I considerations contained in Section III) [x] will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 3 SEP -15 -03 10:37 AM SIERRA RESOURCE INC 530 273 1473 P.03 Sect on 1: General Information (cgrtinuegJ Reglitpred professional Forester: 1 certify that 1, or my designee, personally Inspected the THP area, and the plan complies with the Forest ractice Act, the Forest Practice Rules and the Professional Foresters Law. tf this is a Modified THP, I also, certify that: 1) th conditions or facts stated in 14 CCR 1051 (a) (1 )-(18) exlat on the THP area at the time of submission. preparation, mIt1 anon, nd analysis of the THP and no Identified potential significant effects remain sed; 1, or my prvised del a II meet with the LTC at the TH Ite, before timber operations commence, to review undisclo end discuss and 2) the Conten and Impl !bent ion of the M • THP, Sig ture - `,r" ,d" ' i Pate 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 ■ 1 GrayaCrossing THP2 - Page 4 1 ' SEP -15 -03 10:38 AM SIERRA RESOURCE INC 530 273 1473 • P.04 I. 1 Sect 1: G Information (continued) • i• • . • I 1 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL FORESTER (RPF) RESPONSIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (As per Section 1035.1 Mle 14, OCR) RPF IIC to Provide Professional Advice: ' Na ' S�'� jgger, RPF 12044 S ' 4ddresbrPO Box 13026 Madrona leaf Court CIty: _ Press Valley Zip Coda: 95945 _ Tele One Ndmber. (630) 273 -1473 • M of 1, 2001, I have read and understand my po fesnailllity as RPF, as aerated under 14CCR 1035,1(a -g). I agree to fulfill my reapin:16111 i0 as an RPF as they pertain to this plan. I jxj Y¢s Q N{r 1 have been retained as the RPF, available t0 provide professional advice to the Iieensed timber operator and timbenand owner . upon request, roughout the active timber Operations regarding: (1) the plan, (2) the forest practice rules, (3) and other associated regulations pertaining to mber operations. ' JtPF . I •i • I I PLAN SUBMITTER RESPONSIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • I (As per Section 1035 Title 14, CCR) • Nam : . Grd Station. L.LC, Sire t Addreds/PO Box P.0 Box 2537 City: Truckee Zip Code: 90161 • ' Tele hbne Npmber. (5301567.304& As o 1, 2001, I have read and understand my responsibilities as Plan Submittar as described under 1036.1 certify that I have fulfilled my I gal obligation as stated In the forest practice rules, and agree to fulfill my rsaponsibility as the plan submltter as tt pertalna to this plan. I 1 x Y s Q no I have retained the servIceS of an RPF to provide professional advice to Me LTO and timberland owner upon request throughout active ember operations regarding (1) the plan, (2) the forest practice rules, (3) and other associated regulations pertaining to timber operations. Q Yet : (xi No I have authorized the timberland owner, _, to perform the services of 5 professlonalforester, understanding that the services will • I be p Oyided Personally on lands owned by the timberland owowner. Piertubnl��er$ignature /`•" y :�j /" / ... . • . �#Bi- TNIa- 14.00R) I 1 ' ..,.;. - .. °� 6it)c= Zip6ode:_ ..'. lalpiled ,myJagal- aDligelienaaatatedan .. :.. -- .. .. tlmbedaadeNner- aa�l�arsalas-10thia pa 1 4vaaersland�tbal-L . .:..... -• -., : . -... ... .. .... .. :.. .. - . ... - .. - • = . 0,,,,,.P,.-tignature: . , Grayscrosaing TMPZ - Page 5 • • 1 1 SECTION n - PLAN OF TIMBER OPERATIONS NOTE: If a provision of this THP is proposed that is different than the standard rule, the explanation and justification required must be included in Section III unless it is clearer and better understood as part of Section II. . 14. a. Check the Silvicultural methods or treatments allowed by the rules to be applied under this THP. Specify the option chosen to demonstrate Maximum Sustained Production (MSP) according to 14 CCR 913.11 (933.11, 953.11). If more ' than one method or treatment will be used show boundaries on map and list approximate acreage for each. 0 Clearcutting _ ac. 0 Shelterwood Prep. Step ac. 0 Seed Tree Seed Step _ ac. 0 Shelterwood Seed Step _ ac. 0 Seed Tree Removal Step ac. 0 Shelterwood Removal Step ac. 0 Selection _ ac. 0 Group Selection _ ac. 0 Transition ac. 0 Commercial Thinning ac. 0 Sanitation Salvage ac. 0 Special Treatment Area ac. 0 Rehabilitation of Understocked Area ac. 0 Fuelbreak ac. 0 Alternative ac. [x] Conversion 757 ac. 0 Non - timberland Area _ ac. Total acreage 757 ac. (Explain if total is different from that listed in 8.) MSP Option Chosen(a) 0 (b) 0 (c) 0 b. If Selection, Group Selection, Commercial Thinning, Sanitation Salvage or Altemative methods are selected the post harvest stocking levels (differentiated by site if applicable) must be stated. Note mapping requirements of 1034 (x) (12). c. 0 Yes [x] No Will evenage regeneration step units be larger than those specified in the rules (20 acre tractor, , 30 acre cable)? If yes, provide substantial evidence that the THP contains measures to accomplish any of subsections (A) - (E) of 14 CCR 913 (933, 953).1(a) (2) in Section III of the THP. List below any instructions to the LTO necessary to meet (A) - (E) not found elsewhere in the THP. These units must be designated on map and listed by size. Regeneration method is Conversion; therefore, this proiect will be exempt from meeting stocking requirements. as per 14CCR932.7, Resource Conservation Standards for Minimum Stocking. d. Trees to be harvested must be marked by or marked under the supervision of the RPF. Specify how the trees will be marked and whether harvested or retained. Trees will be designated for harvest by the survey crew laving out the "footprint" of the subdivision, including new road construction, subdivision roads, golf course, pond locations, driving range, clubhouse, sewer line location, hiking trails, fuel modification and removal of trees for fire prevention, and other improvements in conjunction with the planned development. These trees will then be marked for removal by the RPF. Trees will only be removed that are in the road rights -of -way, golf course improvements, utility rights -of -way, clubhouse site, and other amenities to be constructed under the approved project plans. These plans are to be reviewed and approved by the Town of Truckee and other appropriate agencies. 0 Yes [x] No Is a waiver of marking by RPF requirement requested? If yes, how will LTO determine which trees will be harvested or retained? If yes and more than one silvicultural method, or Group Selection is to be used, how will LTO determine boundaries of different methods or groups? Under this conversion plan, there are no stocking standards to be met; however, the RPF is responsible for marking the trees to be removed. It is in the subdivision's best interests to only remove those trees absolutely necessary for construction of the project, and for improving stand health and reducing fire danger. The tree cover is viewed as aethetically pleasing, as an amenity to the area; it is very important that residual trees are • protected as a result of-this project. 1 e. Forest Products to be Harvested: Sawlogs, cull logs and hog fuel. f. 0 Yes [x] No Are group B species proposed for management? 0 Yes [x] No Are group B or non - indigenous A species to be used to meet stocking standards? 0 Yes [x] No Will group B species need to be reduced to maintain relative site occupancy of A species. If any answer is yes, list the species, describe treatment, and provide the LTO with necessary felling guidance. g. Other instructions to LTO concerning felling operations. ■ 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page 6 • 1 ' Section II: Plan of Timber Operations (continued) ' Trees are to be felled as to not damage the residual stand. Trees to be harvested are to be directionally felled away from adioining properties and structures. Where possible, trees shall be felled into road rights -of -way, within the golf course fairways, and into clearings for other facilities. An archaeologist will delineate archaeological sites, and be involved with the protection of any listed sites designated for protection. Trees adiacent to county roads and state highways shall be directionally felled away from these roads. Signs will - be placed to alert motorists to timber falling activities, in both lanes of traffic, 250 ft. from the felling activities. If necessary, traffic control measures will be implemented during felling operations. h. 0 Yes [x] No Will artificial regeneration be required to meet stocking standards? I i. 0 Yes [x] No Will site preparation be used to meet stocking standards? If yes, provide the information necessary for a site preparation addendum. ' j. If the rehabilitation method is chosen provide a regeneration plan as required by 14 CCR 913 (934, 954).4(b). 1 PESTS 15. a. 0 Yes [x] No Is this THP within an area that the Board of Forestry has declared a zone of infestation or infection I pursuant to PRC 4712 -4718? If yes, identify feasible measures being taken to mitigate adverse infestation or infection impacts from the timber operation. See 917 (937, 957).9(a). 1 b. 0 Yes [x] No If outside a declared zone, are there any insect, disease or pest problems of significance in the THP area? If yes, describe the proposed measures to improve the health, vigor and productivity of the stand(s). ' HARVESTING PRACTICES 16. Indicate type of yarding system and equipment to be used: i GROUND BASED' CABLE SPECIAL a) [x] Tractor, including end /long lining d) [] Cable, ground lead g) 0 Animal b) [x] Rubber tired skidder, Forwarder e) [] Cable, high lead h) 0 Helicopter ' c) [x] Feller buncher f) 0 Cable, Skyline i) 0 Other *All tractor operations restrictions apply to ground based equipment ' 17. Erosion Hazard Rating: Indicate Erosion Hazard Ratings present on THP. (Must match EHR worksheets) I Low [x] Moderate 0 High 0 Extreme 0 If more than one rating is checked, areas must be delineated on map to 20 acres in size (10 acres for high and extreme EHRs in the Coast District). ' All waterbreaks shall be installed by October 15th of the year of operations. 18. Soil Stabilization: I • In addition to the standard waterbreak requirements describe soil stabilization measures or additional erosion control measures to be implemented and the location of their application. See requirements of 14 CCR 916.7 (936.7, 956.7), and 923.2 (943.2, 963.2) (m), and 923.5 (943.5, 963.5) (f). Per 14CCR934.6(c): Distances between waterbreaks shall be as follows: 1 EHR: LOW MODERATE ' GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 7 • • • Section II: Plan of Timber Operations (continued) Slopes <10% 300' 200' Slopes 11 -25% 200' 150' Slopes 26 -50% 150' 75' Slopes >50% 100' 50' 1 All waterbreaks shall be installed by October 15th of the year of operations. 1 19. 0 Yes [x] No Are tractor or skidder constructed layouts to be used? If yes, specify the location and extent of use: 20. 0 Yes [x] No Will ground based equipment be used within the area(s) designated for cable yarding? If yes, specify the location and for what purpose will the equipment be used? • 21. Within the THP area will ground based equipment be used on: • a) 0 Yes [x] No Unstable soils or slide areas? Only allowed if unavoidable. b) 0 Yes [x] No Slopes over 65 %? c) 0 Yes [x] No Slopes over 50% with high or extreme EHR? d) 0 Yes [x] No Slopes between 50% and 65% with moderate EHR where heavy equipment use will not be restricted to the limits described in 14 CCR 914 (934, 954).20)(2)(1) or (ii)? e. [] Yes [x] No Slopes over 50% Which lead without flattening to sufficiently dissipate water flow and trap sediment before it reaches a watercourse or lake? If a. is yes provide site specific measures to minimize effect of operations on slope stability and provide explanation and justification as required per 14 CCR 914 (934, 954).2(d). CDF requests the RPF consider flagging tractor road locations if a) is yes. If b., c., d., or e. is yes: 1) the location of tractor roads must be flagged on the ground prior to the PHI or . start of operations if a PHI is not required, and 2) you must clearly explain the proposed exception and justify why the standard rule is not feasible or would not comply with 914 (934, 954). The location of heavy equipment operation on unstable areas or any use beyond the limitations of the standard rules must be shown on the map. List specific instructions to the LTO below. 22. 0 Yes [x] No Are any alternative practices to the standard harvesting or erosion control rules proposed for this plan? If yes, provide all the information as required by 14 CCR 914 (934, 954).9 In Section III. List specific instructions to the LTO below. WINTER OPERATIONS 23. a. .[x] Yes 0 No Will timber operations occur during the winter period? If yes, complete c) or d). State in space provided if exempt because yarding method will be cable, helicopter or balloon. b. 0 Yes [x] No Will mechanical site preparation be conducted during the winter period. If yes, complete d). c. [x] I choose the in -lieu option as allowed in 14 CCR 914 (34, 954).7(c). Specify below the procedures listed in subsections (1) and (2), and list the site specific measures for operations in the WLPZ and unstable areas as required by subsection (3), if there will be no winter operations in these areas, so state. d. 0 I choose to prepare a winter operating plan per 14 CCR 914 (934, 954).7(b). NOTE: "Winter period" means the period between November 15 and April 1, except as noted under special County Rules at Title 14 CCR 925.1, 926.18, 927.1, and 965.5... (a) except as otherwise provided in the rules: (1) All waterbreaks shall be installed no later than the beginning of the winter period of the current year of timber operations. (2) Installation of drainage facilities and structures is required from October 15 to November 15 and April 1 to May 1 on all constructed skid trails and tractor roads prior to sunset if the National Weather Service forecast is a "chance" (30% or more) of rain within the next 24 hours. 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page a • ' Section 11: Plan of Timber Operations (continued) • Winter Period Operations Plan: As per 14CCR934.7(c), this is in lieu of a winter period operating plan. (1) Tractor Yarding or the use of tractors for constructing layouts, fire breaks, or other tractor roads, as well as hauling of logs, shall be done only during dry, rainless periods where soils are not saturated. (2) Installation of drainage facilities and I structures is required from Oct. 15 to May 1 on all constructed skid trails and tractor roads prior to sunset if the National Weather Service forecast is a "chance" (30% or more) of rain within the next 24 hours, and prior to weekend or other shutdown periods. (3) No mechanical site preparation will be conducted during the winter period. (4) No operations will be conducted within the WLPZ's, or on unstable areas, during_the winter period. No streamcourse will be crossed while I water is flowing, without a prepared tractor road crossing as described in 14CCR934.8(b). (5) Waterbreaks will be installed in any area where operations have been conducted, immediately upon completion of that harvest area. The intent of this provision is to continue operations during the winter period, should weather permit. LTO is I responsible for determining whether ground conditions are saturated. "Saturated Soil Conditions" are defined in the Forest Practice Rules, 895.1 Definitions,, as: ' That site conditions are sufficiently wet that timber operations displace soils in yarding or mechanical site preparation areas or displace road and landing surface materials in amounts sufficient to cause a turbidity increase in drainage • facilities that discharge into Class I, II, III or IV waters, or in downstream Class I, II. III or IV waters that is visible or would violate applicable water quality requirements. ' In yarding and site preparation areas, this condition may be evidenced by: a) reduced traction by equipment as indicated by spinning or churning of wheels or tracks in excess of normal performance, b) inadequate traction without. bladinq wt soil, c) soil displacement in amounts that cause visible increase in turbidity of the downstream waters in a I receiving Class I, II, III or IV waters, or in amounts sufficient to cause a turbidity increase in drainage facilities that dischar•e into Class I II III or IV waters or d creation of ruts •reater than would be normal followin• a li•ht rainfall. On logging roads and landing surfaces, this condition may be evidenced by a) reduced traction by equipment as I indicated by spinning or churning of wheels or tracks in excess of normal performance, b) inadequate traction without bladinq wet soil, c) soil displacement in amounts that cause visible increase in turbidity of the downstream waters in a receiving Class I, 11, 111 or IV waters, or in amounts sufficient to cause a turbidity increase in drainage facilities that discharge in to Class I, II, III or IV waters, d) pumping of road surface materials by traffic, or e) creation of ruts greater I than would be created by traffic following normal road watering, which transports surface materials to a drainage facility that discharges directly into a watercourse. • I . Soils or road and landing surfaces that are hard frozen are excluded from this definition. The protection measures listed above will serve to minimize damage due to erosion, soil movement into watercourses, and soil compaction from felling, Yarding, and erosion control activities. ' NOTE: All water breaks and rolling dips must be installed by October 15th or as prescribed above. For the purposes of installing drainage facilities and structures, waterbreaks, and rolling dips, the winter period is from October 15 to May 1. 1 ROADS AND LANDINGS . 24. Will any roads be constructed? [x] Yes 0 No, or reconstructed? [x] Yes ONo. If yes, check items a through g. ' Will any landings be constructed? [x] Yes 0 No, or reconstructed? [x] Yes 0 No. If yes, check items h through k. a. [x] Yes 0 No Will new or reconstructed roads be wider than single land with tournouts? b. 0 Yes [x] No Are logging roads proposed in areas of unstable soils or known slide -prone areas? I c. 0 Yes [x] No Will new roads exceed a grade of 15% or pitches of 20% for distances greater than 500 ft? . Map must identify any new or reconstructed road segments that exceed an average 15% grade for over 200 feet. I d. 0 Yes [x] No Are roads to be constructed or reconstructed, other than crossings, within the WLPZ of a watercourse? If yes, completion of THP Item 27 a. will satisfy required documentation. e. 0 Yes [x] No Will roads be located across more than 100 feet of lineal distance on slopes over 65 %, or on slopes over 50% which are within 100 feet of the boundary of a WLPZ? I f. g. 0 Yes [x] No Will any roads or watercourse crossings be abandoned? 0 Yes [x] No Are exceptions proposed for flagging or otherwise identifying the location of roads to be constructed ?. h. 0 Yes [x] No Will any landings exceed one half acre in size? If any landing exceeds one quarter acre in • GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 9 • Section II: Plan of Timber Operations (continued) 1 NOTE: A yes answer to any items a. through j. constitutes an in -lieu practice. If any item is answered yes, refer to 14 CCR 916 (936, 956).1 and address the following for each item checked yes: 1. The RPF shall state the standard rule; 2. Explain and describe each proposed practice; 3. Explain how the proposed practice differs from the standard practice; 4. The specific location where it shall be applied, see map requirements of 14 CCR 1034 (x)(15) and (16); 5. Provide in THP Section III an explanation and justification as to how the'protection provided is equal to the standard rule and provides for the protection of the beneficial uses of water per 14 CCR 916 (936, 956).1(a). Reference the in- lieu and location to the specific watercourse to which it will be applied. 28. a. [x] Yes 0 No Are there any landowners within 1000 feet downstream of the THP boundary whose ownership adjoins or includes a class 1, II or IV watercourse(s) which receives surface drainage from the proposed timber operations? If yes, the requirements of 14 CCR 1032.10 apply. Proof of notice by letter and news- paper should be included in THP Section V. If No, 28 b. need not be answered. b. 0 Yes [x] No Is an exemption requested of the notification requirements of 1032.10? If yes, explanation and justification for the exemption must appear in THP Section III. Specify if requesting an exemption from the letter, the newspaper notice or both. c. 0 Yes [x] No Was any information received on domestic water supplies that required additional mitigation beyond that required by standard Watercourse and Lake Protection rules? If yes, list site specific measures to be implemented by the LTO. • 1 29. 0 Yes [x] No Is any part of the THP area within a Sensitive Watershed as designated by the Board of Forestry? If yes, identify the watershed and list any special rules, operating procedures or mitigations that will be used to protect the resources identified at risk. • (See Section IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment: Watershed 303d, Threatened & Impaired Watercourses) • HAZARD REDUCTION: 30. a. [x] Yes 0 No Are there roads or improvements which require slash treatment adjacent to them? If yes, specify the ' type of improvement, treatment distance, and treatment method. - b. 0 Yes [x] No Are any alternatives to the rules for slash treatment along roads and within 200 feet of structures requested? If yes, RPF must explain and justify how alternative provides equal fire protection. Include a description of the alternative and where it will be utilized below. All slash and stumps associated with improvement for the Gray's Crossing Subdivision will be treated by chipping or removal. As per 14CCR937.2(b) or 14CCR957.2(b), within 100' of the edge of the traveled surface of public roads, and within 50' , of the edge of traveled surface of permanent private roads open for public use, where permission to pass is not required: Slash created and trees knocked down by road construction or by timber operations shall be treated by lopping for fire hazard reduction, piling and burning, chipping, burying, or removal from the zone. Lopping is defined as severing and spreading slash so that no part of it generally remains more than 30" above the ground. As per 14CCR937.2(c) or 14CCR957.2(c), all woody debris created by timber operations greater than 1" but less than 8" in diameter, within 100' of permanently located structures maintained for human habitation, shall be removed or chipped. All slash created between 100' and 200' of permanent structures maintained for human habitation shall be removed or chipped. • 31. 0 Yes [x] No Will piling and burning is to be used for hazard reduction? See 14 CCR 917 (937, 957).1 -11 for specific requirements. Note: LTO is responsible for slash disposal. This responsibility cannot be transferred. • 1 • BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ■ 32. a. 0 Yes [x] No Are any plant or animal species, including their habitat, which are listed as rare, threatened or • endangered under federal or state law, or a sensitive species by the Board, associated with the THP area? If yes, identify the species and the provisions to be taken for the protection of the species. GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 12 • ' Section II: Plan of Timber Operations (continued) ' b. 0 Yes [x] No Are there any non - listed species which will be significantly impacted by the operation? If yes, identify the species and the provisions to be taken for protection of the species. See Section III, RPF's Information 33. [x] Yes 0 No Are there any snags which must be felled for fire protection or safety reasons? If yes, describe snags are going to be felled and why. 1 Those hazard snags shall be felled which pose a danger to the logging crew. and /or those snags which are within 100 ft. of public roads, permanent roads, seasonal roads, landings, and railroads; or within 100 ft. of structures maintained for human habitation. Merchantible snags (snags containing over 30% merchantable material) shall be felled at any t location as provided for in the Plan. 34. 0 Yes [x] No Are any Late Succession Forest Stands proposed for harvest? If yes, describe the measures to be I implemented by the LTO that avoid long -term significant adverse effects on fish, wildlife and listed • species known to be primarily associated with late succession forests. See Section III, RPF's Elaboration & Evaluation 1 35. 0 Yes [x] No Are any other provisions for wildlife protection required by the rules? If yes, describe. See Section III, RPF's Elaboration & Evaluation ' 36. a. [x] Yes p No Has an archaeological survey been made of the THP area? • b. [x] Yes 0 No Has an archaeological records check been conducted for the THP area? • I c. [x] Yes 0 No Are there any archaeological or historical sites located in the THP area? Specific site locations and protection measures are contained in the Confidential Archaeological Addendum in Section VI of the THP, which is not available for general public review. I 37. p Yes [x] No Has any inventory or growth and yield information designated "trade secret" been submitted in a separate confidential envelope in Section VI with this THP? ' 38. Describe any special instructions or constraints which are not listed elsewhere in Section II. 1 DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 1 This Timber Harvesting Plan conforms to the rules and regulations of the Board of Forestry and the Forest Practice Act: By. • (Signature) (Date) • (Printed Name) (Title) 1 • . 1 .. . 1 ' GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 13 • SEP-15-03 11:03 AM SIERRA RESOURCE INC 530 273 1473 P.02 • � • 9. 0 000 1y '• ` 1 .,..:1,,..,.,.,., _ �,'!'` d\ f YY-. * ' sap ^ �.; ^ ` \ � • 1q hy 1 . t' X• + ' ' /' • • F a ccc//%n . • Il ff j a i � ` , :. T i . • (r • y ' p • 111 i 1 J.. II Y ///� + .� - y, . 4. 61 ' 1 �Y : c a. ,r ¢ rQ • ).) ' . ..:10...::' Y ,:*t::::.: •: art 1 a n ,) , " wr ,,• } O I 89\ q6 • ' l Sp'1°•nq 1 . C 1 K , elr 8926 ✓ � y ;`. �� rro+v s ' nSib ?' ,.� , � -,. ;" jY A' , � G Cray's Crossing THP ' T17N, R16E; Por. Sections 01,02,11 (MEB64) --i&' THP Boundary 1 -80 and Hwy,89 Coif Hole 1 awe County Road Man -Made Pond (to be constructed) may' New Subdivision Road __ •• Class II Watercourse ll (caved permanent) ,_,,, • ,/: �` Oul- de -bac (Road) """Class III Watercourse Scale: 1" ■ 1,240' tuckee 1.5 .Quad (rev. 1996 - 1,: --- Transmission lines • war Existing seasonal road (dirt) i T Existing seasonal low water crossing 1 1. • m • SEP -15 -03 11:04 API SIERRA RESOURCE INC ;I 530 273 1473 P. 03 ..w f �' e . • A � o r' �. . c f ,M :,33 f . • a 1 1 1! i ii ' 1 \ ati �/q P c/ ,, a/ �. A p * � YY 9ffff f 1 ,.I . 1 C • . _ 0. T'' - " 1 . r/ ' } •t . 'd . , / / / * . I . • 4 €1 : \ �.; , . r ; ./s . -CY r x , `� ` i l ' �E ".:14::1,:.:,..:-......',/::::, YY ' I 7 r % la = s '1 � 1 r y ' . t r l� j : , • : , , ` I / S a s r�:41� J:j ii ?,1° *7 Ir... d l : ! ? /(I ® \ / I+. • 11 • '" .∎•• j... +1� /;:.. • • f iu a I . . ± l . -� / r ._ . ... 1 r / I a cn YY _....44 1 V �' F { d I L a39; y , r S�rr::n • r . c'1.6 .w I ' • Gray's Crossing THP I . r T17N, R16E: Por. Sections 01,02,11 (MDB &M) j --if- THP Boundary ••` I -80 and Hwy.88 Golf Hole i. 1 °q County Road CO) Man -Made Pond (to be construet8d). .1 New Subdivision Road — "� Class II Watercourse :.• • O Oul -de -Sac (Road) —'•' "'Class III Watercourse Scale• 1" - 1,240: ruck•e. j.5' Quad (rev. 1986, ' ; SOILS MAP ARE - Aldi- Kyburz KME - Kyburz - Aldi I EUB - Euer- Martis Variant KRF - Kyburz - Rock Outcrop - Trojan I • j FTP - • Fugawee- Tahoma MEB - Martin - Euer Variant FUE - Kyburz - Trojan i 0 . SEP -15 -03 11:05 AM SIERRA RESOURCE INC 530 273 1473 P.04 1 F' ' TO T MAP CROSSING FOR ' — GRAY'S 1 10 WAX I y © rr tI amen ADel G1 kI r` NN... 5 I KM AMA =EP a. r N O1MCM e mit 1 � . VICINITY MAP ' y w i 1 • ■ w 1-14, 'mu i. Wli 1 - .I "r 1 1 I 1 �' �� peem irn,.lm ^,..n 0 r, 5 f . • . . 1 ""h" I op dA'�Nc• LI OQ O� b 1f t ' . , { 1 RM YI.OM1I. \ ��� rNJti all ,. •cOrtWe101e Mll r �/ .MgYNiW LOn YI •I" W rMRi e v in aq{• o i .,_.+ o o v o• t ./' 4 i0, 'a te ; ao I ' , � r+" ° `� i i�ra b° / �°Q°�a°' ° 46 % ' � �fo � 1 -- ryas. b 4 0o� � _ �" 410, r aQ ( bO b�, I ' 0000 00'0 , �� . / ao � • ' w s tr, oopoaoon I . v. .. ... I ' • • r a t, E • p o ° ��4. I / 'i • n .1 Cy- g I So) °j DGGj a , °f.2:?X I (/ d' ' -p�O „ . r • .6�' s 1 I I w 1 1 , , f d4 ar w 1 , 43 III[\NN,,W Ii1 o I 1 J`' 1 j 1 Sfi M: � • • ' p v.,ia, nn N Ri O /./ I - . 0 _ O t 1� / / l.'P W Lrw j � a . � 1 ' / / PLANNING Et ENGINC[AING' I :�yA�S�� , � � / , KO iotcctiof trt mND.''' ii WTI MW[DiN . n �:\ S \ S 4' -. � )2 r• t,vl+'i l :�•� • Mims dMPNMi \! \ \\ \ .�' %/' tlM�L ryD. Ml PI 1 P LANNG $NO iNS ! AFCNIlEy0 ' if .n � Y o Y .I.' 1 'w > >t v, L.A5 r N N'1Fdf. u aKi wl -nn j — ('\ ui „OltTala �eewieni OVEa,LAJ T2 / \ ® p:�Kr;^F�.w�+. d tit: • µ l$pl, OINYJ[I ' 1 • .I!ff ,+' r m ; � • q / J A54ES PAAG RS. ;" i LANG WtE.i' .Y•.iu.e � ZONE Y4 •. M LEGEND: zoNe K•i L °•"� _• ,• I 1 A'RNNCs (DELNEATW ev GENERAL PUN DE$GNATION, 10 1 ' I �. 01 .. II EfOWNiMEf[a OC.t wAE PAOTECtON: —T"1R. •Ve 1/214 • Q ID] FLOOD RAN H rit ( D(11147 A iCE A: SEWERAGE DISPOSAL: aYIeT[ W DIIAINAae matt rc.K• snot ¢,nn . SAL: N.ma I =,=,_,........ PROPOSER MIL ELEGIAIC!'1 VrlunEb� .y � v, »..e eeul[r mon TENTATVEMAP FOR: .I+rn �•, wm f ••• "^',_••• j = ( / ° C3 RAI^S CROSSING A I4 - 1 +ww. GI_ANN PME F�D Dl06ELQM ev.rtiw w. nu 1 SECTION III - RPF's ELABORATION AND INFORMATION RELATING TO SECTIONS I & II ' Description of Project Area: Title 14CCR1034(jj). Location. The proposed harvest area is located in Nevada County, Legal Desc. T17N,R16E: Por. S.01,02,11 (MDB &M). To access the project area, travel east on Interstate -80 to the Town of ' Truckee. Harvest area is in the vicinity of the intersection of I -80 and Hwy.89. Most of the project is east of Hwy. 89, north of I -80. Prosser Dam Road runs through the center of the project area. 1 - Follows: Excerpt from Draft EIR, Project Description. r 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 r e GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page 17 SECTION III, RPF's Info. Relating to Sections 1 /II (continued) 1 1 Excerpt from Draft E.I.R.: Project Description (Section 3.0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 18 1 • SECTION III, RPF's Info. Relating to Sections 1 /II (continued) 1 Topography and Soils. This project area is located in the range of 5,800' to 6,200' elevation level. Generally, topography is level. There are some slopes, between 10% and 30 %. There are several soil ' types within the project area, described as follows: The largest component, on the eastern boundary of the project area: MEB, Martis Euer Variant Complex, on 2% to 5% slopes. The martis component of this soil has a dark brown sandy loam surface layer 0 -17 ", brown gravelly sandy loam sub - surface layer 17 " -67 ". The Euer component has a grayish brown gravelly sandy loam surface layer 0- 12" and a pale brown, very gravelly clay loam sub - surface layer 12 -70 ". Both components ' are well - drained soils with moderately slow permeability at the sub -soil level, but rapid permeability in the sub - stratum. On the higher elevations of the eastern portion of the project area, near the northern boundary: ' FUE, Kyburz Trojan, on 9% to 30% slopes. Kyburz component has a brown gravelly sandy loam on its' sub - surface 0 -6 ", reddish brown gravelly clay loam in its' subsoil 6 -34 ", and weathered andesitic rock in its' substratum. The Trojan component is similar,except that its' subsoil contains a brown and light brown clay loam, and its' substratum has slightly fractured ' andesite. Thhis is a well- drained soil with moderately slow permeability. ARE, Aldi Kyburz, 2% to 30% slopes. The Aldi component is a shallow soil with a brown loam surface layer 0 -8 ", a brown clay loam subsoil 8 -18 ", and a weathered andesite substratum. It is well - drained, but permeability is slow to very slow. On the western portion of the project site: EUB, Euer Martis Variant, 2% to 5% slopes. This is similar to the Martis -Euer Varient ' except that the Euer component is predominant. The Euer component has a surface layer 0- 15" brown sandy loam, sub - surface 15 -47" of yellow, brown very gravelly sandy clay loam. Martis has a surface layer 0 -10" of dark grayish brown gravelly loam, sub - stratum is 10 -51" of brownish yellow gravelly clay loam. This is a well- drained soil with a moderate erosion ' hazard. Unlike the Martis -Euer Variant, permeability within the subsoil of this soil ranges from moderate to rapid. KME, Kyburz Aldi, 2% to 30% slopes. Similar to the Aldi - Kyburz complex except that the Kyburz component predominates. Aldi has 0 -8" of brown loam, and a substratum 8 -18" of brown clay loam. Kyburz has a surface layer 0 -6" of brown gravelly sandy loam, sub - stratum is 6 -34" of reddish brown gravelly loam. This is well - drained, moderately slow permeability ' in the Kyburz soil and slow in the Aldi soil. Within the area of greater slopes in the western portion of the project area, the most common soil types are: Fugawee Tahoma, 30% to 50% slopes. A well - drained siol with moderate to moderately slow permeability. Both components have a loam surface layer, a gravelly clay loam subsoil, and a weathered andesitic substratum. However, the Fugawee surface layer is a . sandy loam, while the Tahoma surface layer is a gravelly loam. Fugawee has 0 -7" of dark brown sandy loam, subsoil 7 -35" light reddish brown gravelly clay loam. Tahoma is 0 -8" of brown gravelly loam, subsoil is 8 -41" of strong brown gravelly clay loam. KRF, Kyburz Rock Outcrop Trojan, 30% to 50% slopes. Similar in both composition and • characteristics to the Kyburz -Trojan complex, except that it contains out crops of volcanic rock. Rock Outcrop is volcanic rock. Trojan has 0 -10" of dark brown gravelly loam, and 10- 67" of brown and light brown clay loam. Permeability is moderately slow, well - drained. ' Vegetation and Stand Conditions. The harvest area within this THP is 757 acres of sub - alpine and mountain elevation timber stand. There is 199 acres in residential homesites (including the church site), 28 acres in multi - family residential, 41 acres in commercial, 13 acres includes the lodge, and • 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 19 • SECTION III, RPF's Info. Relating to Sections I /II (continued) 112 acres in the 18 -hole golf course. There are 364 acres of site III timberland that will remain in ' "open space ". Within the open space, dead & suppressed trees will be harvested and chipped to reduce fire danger and improve stand health. The Truckee Fire Protection District is requiring a fuel reduction strip that will surround the subdivision, in which fuel modification is required. Dead trees, limbs, down woody material, as well as fire ladder material, will be chipped to provide for a • defensible space. Within the rest of the open space area, some fuel modification will be completed as well to reduce fire danger. Smaller suppressed trees will be cut and removed to improve spacing and stand conditions. The site class was determined based upon the use of total tree height and age statistics, referencing site class tables from Duncan & Dunning True Fir Forest of the Sierra Nevada. Dominant and pre - dominant trees in Jeffrey pine were bored to determine age and growth conditions. This area was logged in the late 1800's to early 1900's, providing lumber for mines, fuelwood for steam locomotives, as well as the production of charcoal. The stand is an uneven -aged Jeffrey pine • stand type, approximately 60 yrs. to 110 yrs. in age. There are varying ages in the understory. Stand composition is 95% Jeffrey and ponderosa pine, and 5% lodgepole pine. Overall, the stand has pockets of timber mixed in with large openings. In these open areas throughout the property there is dry sub - alpine meadow made up of sagebrush scrub and bitterbrush with various types of dry grasses including squaw carpet and assorted forbs. Watershed and Streamcourse Conditions. There are no bodies of water on the project site.. The nearest body of water is Prosser Creek Reservoir, a man -made lake located approx. % mile north of • the site. The reservoir, with a storage capacity of 29,800 acre feet, was created by a dam constructed by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, which currently operates the dam. In general, reservoirs in the Truckee River basin store water in the spring and release in the summer and early fall. There are two watercourses located within the harvest area boundaries, which are described below. Streamcourse Channel Description (ref. Section II, Item 26): The class II watercourse starts southwest of Alder Hill near the Tahoe - Donner area and enters the project site at its' southwestern corner, flowing in a northeastern direction through the THP area, and empties into Prosser Creek Reservoir north of the project area. For most of the length of the streamcourse, slopes are 0 -10 %. There are signs of cumulative surface runoff as well as some riparian vegetation. Channel is made up of sand, rock and gravel, sometimes becoming intermittent. Canopy cover ranges from 0% to 70 %, made up mostly of conifers. The class III watercourse is intermittent, appears to only flow water during spring snow melt. There is one area that has riparian vegetation; this portion will be flagged and protected as a class II. Tributary channels traverse the southeastern portion of the project site in a course parallel with the class II (above). Intermittent channel is made of sand, rock and gravel, with no riparian vegetation. • This has 0% to 70% canopy cover of conifers (primarily). Item #10, Sustained Yield Plan (SYP). • The landowner- does not have a SYP submitted.to CDF at this time. Item #14 & 14a, Silvicultural Prescription. ' The regeneration method for the entire Plan area is Conversion (exemption for conversion of non- TPZ land for subdivision development). Therefore, this project will be exempt from meeting stocking requirements, as per 14CCR932.7, Resource Conservation Standards for Minimum Stocking. The timberland owner is in the process of obtaining approval to construct 427 residential units, 173 multi - family residential units, 165,000 sq.ft. of commercial development, 150 -room lodge, and an 18- hole golf course as we ll as an 11 sq.ft. church site This development will he on the 737 -acre site. ■ As per 14CCR1104.2, the following conditions are being met for timber operations on the conversion of land not in timberland production zone for subdivision development: GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 20 SECTION III, RPF's Info. Relating to Sections I /11 (continued) • A. The Town of Truckee approval of subdivision map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. B. The town of Truckee granting of required use permits and other necessary document approvals. C. Timberland owner filing of Notice of Exemption from Timberland Conversion Permit for Subdivision. The THP will meet MSP by complying with 14CCR933.11(c)(4), under the prescription of conversion of timberland, no stocking standards are required to be met herein. This includes protecting the soil air, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other public trust resources as described in Section IV, Addendum: Cumulative Impact Assessment, #3.3 Biological, herein. ' Item 24, Roads & Landings. (24a): There are existing roads within the THP area that will be used to facilitate timber removal. It is not anticipated that there will be a need to use existing watercourse crossings; however, there area several that currently exist. Only class III watercourse crossings will ' be used, if necessary. Generally, there will be no need for new landing construction. All golf course fairways, road intersections, and other improvement clearing sites will be used for the landings. The main permanent roads involved with this project are to be built to county specifications, which ' includes double lanes, rock sub - grade, paving, and drainage structures. Roads will be 24 ft. wide with widening for shoulders, cuts and fills. The LTO is only responsible for clearing the vegetation within the clearing limits set by the survey crew for this project. Another roadbuilding contractor, retained by the landowner, will be responsible for all grading, rocking and paving of newly constructed ' subdivision roads. A stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared for this project, to mitigate any potential run- off problems. ' Item 28, Title 14CCR1 032.10, Downstream Domestic Water Users. RPF has published water supply users notification in the Sierra Sun; copy of publication is included herein. Harvest activities are not scheduled within 1,000 ft. of the property line; however, there are ownerships which contain Class I, ' II or IV watercourses located within 1,000 ft. downstream from the THP boundary. These landowners have been notified by letter (see enclosed copies), as required. There has been no response received, to date. Item 32, Protection Measures for listed and non - listed species on the Plan area. ' Any active nest sites of non listed raptors will be identified with a "W" painted on the tree to alert operations. Annual survey for raptors and other species of special status shall be conducted within 30 ' days prior to the beginning of timber operations, by a qualified biologist, in order to identify active • nests on site. If no nests are found during the survey, no further measures are required; however, if an active nest is found during the survey, or at any time during timber operations, no timber activities shall occur within 500 ft. of the nest until the young have fledged from the nest, and the nest is determined by a qualified biologist to be inactive. For any listed species that may be discovered, operations on the project area within .25 miles shall be stopped and DF &G contacted to initiate a consultation. Trees containing nests or burrows that must be removed as a result of the project implementation shall be removed during the non - breeding season (late September to March). Item 34, LSFS. Late succession forest stands are defined as stands of dominant and pre- dominant trees that meet the criteria of a wildlife hazard rating class 5M, 5D, or 6; with an open, moderate or dense canopy closure classification, often with multiple canopy layers; and are at least 20 acres in size. Functional characteristics of LSFS include large decadent trees, snags, and large downed logs. ' There are no areas of LSFS within this project. The stand is generally a second growth ponderosa and Jeffrey pine east -side stand type which has been managed in the past under an uneven -aged management scenario. ' Item #35, Wildlife Habitat Protection. The DF &G wildlife database reported several listed occurrences of rare or endangered species within the cumulative impacts assessment area of this project (see Section I GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 21 • SECTION III, RPF's Info. Relating to Sections I /11 (continued) IV, Cumulative Impacs Assessment (Biological). Also see copy of Draft EIR, section covering Biological Resources, included in TI F Section W. During field review activities, the RPF noted no signs of threatened, rare or endangered species 1 within the project area. • As per DF &G request, DF &G will be notified to set up and coordinate a meeting between the 1 qualified biologist representing the plan proponent and the Dept. prior to initiation of plant & raptor surveys regarding methodology and reporting requirements. • • • • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • • • 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 22 1 • 1 SECTION IV: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT ' CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST • (1) Do the assessment area(s) of resources that may be affected by the proposed project contain any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable probable future projects? • 1 Yes _X No If the answer is yes, identify the project(s) and affected resource subject(s). ' (See Checklist Discussion, following) (2) Are there any continuing, significant adverse impacts from forest land use activities that may add to the impacts of the proposed project? 1 Yes No _X If the answer is yes, identify the activities and affected resource subject(s). ' (3) Will the proposed project, as presented, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects identified in items (1) and (2) above, have a reasonable potential to cause or add to significant cumulative impacts in any of the following resource subjects? ' • No reasonably. potential Yes, after No, after significant mitigation(a) mitiqation(b) effects(c) 1 1. Watershed X 2. Soil Productivity X 1 3. Biological 4. Recreation x 5. Visual 6. Traffic X • 7. Other X • ' a) Yes, means that potential significant adverse impacts are left after application of the forest practice rules and mitigations or alternatives proposed by the plan submitter. b) No after mitigation means that any potential for the proposed timber operation to cause significant adverse impacts has been substantially reduced or avoided by mitigation measures or alternatives proposed in the THP and application of the forest practice rules. c) No reasonably potential significant effects means that the operations proposed under the THP do not have a reasonable potential to join with the impacts of any other project to cause cumulative impacts. (4) If column (a) is checked in (3) above, describe why the expected impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated or avoided and what mitigation measures or alternatives were considered to reach this determination of impacts. If column (b) is checked in (3) above, describe what mitigation measures have been selected which will substantially reduce or avoid reasonably potential significant cumulative impacts except for those mitigation measures or alternatives mandated by application except for those mitigation measures or altematives ' mandated by application of the rules of the Board of Forestry. (5) Provide a brief description of the assessment area used for each resource subject. (6) List and briefly describe the individuals, organizations, and records consulted in the assessment of cumulative ' impacts for each resource subject. Records of the information used in the assessment shall be provided to the Director upon request. 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page 23 SEP -15 -03 11:06 AM SIERRA RESOURCE INC 530 273 1473 P_05 (Si ': '\a //. 2 -//, I /, 1 - - r l'SS s � ,,. 4 . 894. \�> L. '. • \ 1, r H toQ 7m - Cr ` . I BO CISp 1 i •I _-,, . , ��—'. O il J it I I^ (i I l I y J) 0 �/1 i ti / ` L r/ 7 � �' • I l0 u SPRIN,hi15 • ("/ J 12 �, ' '�F;:;: 11 41 II \ 1 , • I S` u__S , Q i1 Ii ' I p 7/ i % �/ 189.0 � _ _ / REST IC E T Can " / \� ... Booa��� 6 • ] ' i./. ■:,' 15 14 131 18 ,'';;&.?'. '.. 17 16 Q 0 15 14 � . " I \i \ V�� � II .S cho era ' .I -`� • ) \,. j L i • - 8 66) B89 r A r , c' - � o – ( . \ �L - 1 y R C ' ' lcl � k \ J ay , � : 4- -'t : ID A , / :J 22 s pr . I 1 ., , I I E I // L 24 f 11 23 I > \• R _ oSSER I r / ! 1 I l f, -. ( � 'Milli . Spr H 1 ^1\! SE VO /R • ✓ 0� ( ,Y / 4' BOC / ' . .i �r�r -Fr/ }1 : • K I NIy � �� 73 ` � •bC� 1 1 d j VC 9 1 66 69 r 80 26 . `i 2 at PRO ER 2 ' Ilj /.' �\ I PROSS 0 G- � SP , .Qq�'� AE r 28 1 --- DONNf �• ' \ l _ . -= � Hr i• , N • r \ C.----?.e. ��� ,' `�\ � v (,1 � � � I Juniper � i — ORe .. a I ' - � 4� : ! l� 2. 4 11 • I Flat 1 34 \ C r � § 33 N /RS DA L E' - 3S w ....... r. re2 � A /' - • '' 781 .411111 ‘Lit J , , I m o � da r/''a / ►' / G! ='s ire e Ald ill ,. ',4 - ' �\ \ II . 67aJ _ 1 .A. 9 I � f � '- \ 6 – /``: U n an � / , 3 2 / / / eY 4 ;Buck ' 5 a � r 6 Mc KdY S r ' 1' / I – / 1r < / SDr U ' T CKEE , ' 6R6 /� �� Gray's Crossing THP 17'; _ 41 20 ` • • / 2 ._ .007- 7t(I 6 Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area I IIORK y �\ I.� T18N,R17E- Sec. 29/30/31/32 < 71TER ii�� _ — _._ d T18N,R16E Sec.25/26/35/36 • w „ I _ Vi *,, . T17N,R16E- Sec. 01/02/03/10/11 ' .;:+ ~lV'✓ 7., ---\•- J ruck •e 13 I1OJ 6,000 acres �\ � s / � M A // a (' t. USFS Msp - 1” = 5, 280' 3 c \ 11 �.. ± . OcA • ARoE .�`i INEVADA CO ' ;< *! a-- - 'aJ l - -- -- ----- v, - - - -) ' q E v - ; I • — - ( P CE R 0` LA •CO A S' 1 23 I\\ 2 19 I �. L'p I 22 23 i 22 ` • I 21 I Ma rks C4 • 06 - :.. II R�NCN+I EA f� MARTIS I - G� nceguvnrR II i 7 ._. -_ -. ___._. I ` i ` ;� \��� \ � o Monte I Carlo I ; \\ Pa ' i i( ` w __ I G o Mdw ! 26 I R G o os en ecR � � 1 + 2 ald : Fla 2 3o N ^ \ \ 29 ; I 9 7- 2e i i Ill C4 • ; \■ C 2' te ' SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): Checklist Discussion. (1) Past Projects within the Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area: Twp Rge Section THP# Acres Silvicultural Prescription 17N 16E 03 2 -94- 384 -NEV 195 Selection ' 17N 16E 10 17N 16E 03 2 -95- 210 -NEV 252 (incl. Sec.09), Transition 2 -96- 443 -NEV 7 Selection .17N 16E 11 2 -97- 075 -NEV 10 Marsh Conversion, Transition ' 17N 16E 03 17N 16E 11 2 -97- 256 -NEV 35 Sanitation Salvage 2 -97- 289 -NEV 12 Selection 17N 16E 03 2 -98- 355 -NEV 56 AltRx (Sanitation Salvg) (Alder Hill) r 18N 16E 35 2 -01- 133 -NEV 29 Conversion (Foster- Mason) Present & Future Projects: r 17N 16E 01 2 -00- 233 -NEV 280 Conv, to subdivision (Featherstone /Old Greenwood) 17N 16E 12 2 -02- 024 -NEV 314 Conv. to subdivision (Old Greenwood Project) 17N 16E 10 2 -02- 011 -NEV 238 Conv. to subdivision (Pineforest @ Truckee Project) r r r r 1 r r 1 r r GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 25 SECTION IV. Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): (2) See Checklist. ' (3) See Checklist. (4) (Discussion, #3): 3.1 Watershed Assessment Area/ Rationale for Determination: The assessment area is approx. 6,000 acres in size (see Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area Map). The northern boundary runs from Alder Hill along a ridge to Prosser Reservoir, including most of the reservoir to Boca Hill. The eastern boundary runs from Boca Hill to Interstate 80. The southern boundary runs directly along I -80 to the intersection of Hwy. 89 & I -80. The western boundary runs behind the Truckee Ranger Station, up a ridge to Alder Hill (point of beginning). Rationale for selection of this assessment area is that this assesses an entire drainage area that runs northward into Prosser Reservoir. Any runoff from the proposed project area would be deposited into this reservoir, and therefore not flow directly into the Truckee River system. Interstate 80 to the south and a series of ridges to the north form a natural boundary to adequately assess cumulative impacts to watershed resources from the proposed harvest. CALWATER Planning Watershed: Prosser Creek Reservoir #8635.200304, Alder Creek #8635.200303, and East Martis Creek, #8635.200402. Principal Watershed Owners: The US Forest Service. To the east is the Old Greenwood Subdivision 1 (same landowner). Most of the other ownerships are medium to small parcels and subdivisions. Beneficial Uses of Watershed: There are two watercourses within the THP area, one class II and one class III. Any surface runoff would flow toward Prosser Reservoir which is %z mile north of the project area. The main beneficial uses of Prosser Reservoir are domestic and agricultural purposes, as well as recreation such as fishing, hiking, boating and camping. Both watercourses will have WLPZ's or ELZ's to provide a buffer strip to trap sediment. The following is a list of mitigation measures to be implemented during the planned project which will aid in protecting the watershed resource: 1. Existing skid trails, roads, and landings shall be used for operations. 2. Class III watercourse will have a 25' ELZ, and Class II will have a 50' WLPZ, which will be identified with paint and flagging, by the RPF or his designee. 3. Runoff from the subdivision roads will be addressed in the Stormwater Retention Plan. 4. Equipment will be excluded from the WLPZ, except for existing crossings. • s . All trees will be felled away from the watercourses and end -lined out of the protection zones. • 6. All trees will be marked-in advance of felling within the WLPZ and ELZ, by the RPF or his designee. • 7 . No activities will occur during the winter period when soils become saturated. 8. All activities will be limited to the construction site areas for various facilities. Contractor is to minimize soil disturbance throughout the project area. Mitigation of potential on -site impacts by the extra measures listed above, in conjunction with those stipulated in the Forest Practice Rules, will help eliminate the potential of significant adverse cumulative watershed impacts in the assessment area as a result of this project. 303d, Impaired Watershed. This project lies within the Prosser Creek ID#8635.200304, Alder Creek ID #8635.200303, and East Martis Creek ID #8635.2002402 CALWATER Planning Watershed(s). GraysCrossing THP2:doc - Page Page 26 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): These are tributary to the Truckee River, which is identified as being within, or drains into, the following 303d Listed Hydraulogical Units: Donner Lake, Bear Creek, Bronco Creek, Gray Creek, Cindercone Springs and Squaw Creek. Sediment/siltation is the listed stressor for the Truckee River, Bear Creek, Gray Creek, Bronco Creek and Squaw Creek. The proposed project involves timber harvesting associated with the conversion of ' timberland associated with a subdivision known as Gray's Ciossing. All harvest activities will be associated with the roads, infrastructure, housing units, lodge, and amenities. Sedimentation/Siltation: If unmitigated, this project could possibly cause sedimentation/siltation in off -site watercourses that may combine with existing stressors to impair the beneficial uses of water in the 303d water bodies, 1 where sedimentation/siltation is the listed stressor. The following are mitigation measures included within the project which will reduce any impacts to a level of insignificance. 1. All applicable Forest Practice Rules relating to protection of water quality, aquatic habitat, riparian habitat, and watershed health will be adhered to. I 2. All Forest Practice Rules relating to soil, erosion control, and stabilization will be adhered to. 3. All required erosion control facilities will be installed, as required by the Rules. 4. Minimal amounts of harvest activities, as well as soil disturbance, will occur in conjunction with construction of this project, to minimize effects to the natural landscape. • 5. Over 50% of the project area is in open space, which will act as a natural filter to offset impacts from construction activities. 6. There are mitigation measures within the project Draft EIR addressing stormwater runoff, as well as a Stormwater Polution Prevention Plan (being prepared), which addresses runoff from permanent roads and other facilities. ' Mitigation measures proposed in this THP will help restore watershed characteristics in the 303d hydrologic units listed above. Priority Organics: PCB's in fish and sediments is the listed stressor for Donner Lake. No known Polychlorinated biphenyls or any other priority organic will be used, created or released into the environment in association with the timber harvest or any other activities related to the proposed project. Nutrients: Nutrients from an unknown source is the listed stressor for Cindercone Springs. This is tributary to the Truckee River, and has contributed nutrients via sub - surface drainage from the former wastewater ' disposal area (disposal discontinued in 1978). No release of untreated wastewater into 303d water bodies or their tributaries willoccur from the timber harvest or any other activities related to the proposed project. Salinity/TDS/Chlorides: These three toxins from wastewater is a listed stressor for Cindercone Springs. Cindercone Springs is tributary to Truckee River and has contributed TDS /Chlorides via sub - surface drainage from a former • wastewater disposal area (discontinued in 1978). No release of untreated wastewater into 303d water • bodies or their tributaries is expected to occur from the timber harvest or any other activities related to the proposed project. Follows: Excerpt from Draft E.LR., as refers to Hydrology and Water Quality 1 1 • GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 27 • • SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 EIR: Section 4.6 (Water Quality) • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 2 8 i SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 3.2 Soil Productivity. Assessment Area/ Rationale for Determination: The assessment area for cumulative impacts to soil productivity shall be confined to the THP area. Rationale for selection of this assessment area is that mitigation measures implemented herein will only affect the Plan area, and no significant off -site 1 impacts are expected. This is a Site H timberland, characterized by medium productivity of high elevation conifer (Jeffrey I and lodgepole pine). The primary factors influencing soil productivity to be assessed are 1) organic matter, 2) surface soil loss, 3) soil compaction, and 4) growing space loss: 1) Organic Matter Loss. Minor amounts of organic material loss will occur through displacement by heavy equipment or minimal erosion. The project area will be logged by crawler tractor or skidder -type logging equipment, resulting in a disturbance of organic material. To minimize the effects of the harvest the following protective measures will be taken: a) Only minimal amounts of vegetation will be removed to accommodate this subdivision. It is in the owner's best interest to retain all trees possible, for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, minimal amounts of the timber stand will be removed under this project. b) To keep disturbance to a minimum, equipment will use existing skid trails and landings. c) In accordance with the Town of Truckee planning and air quality agencies, all vegetative material associated with the trees, including stumps, are to be removed from the site or chipped and left in place. 2) Surface Soil Loss will occur with the use of skid trails, log skidding, and the use of landings. • Soil loss will be kept to a minimum by implementing the following protective measures: a) All skid trails will be water - barred upon completion of use by applying the spacing stated in Item #18 of this THP. b) We are catching all run -off, including soil, into catch basins throughout the project, in 1 accordance with the Stormwater Polution Prevention Plan (being prepared). 3) Soil Compaction. In general, less than significant amounts of soil compaction will occur associated with this project. The trees that are to be removed fall within the footprint of the Featherstone Project, which is being converted from timberland. Therefore, soil compaction is not an issue in this area. In any other areas that may be disturbed during the construction of this project, soil compaction will be kept to a minimum. 4) Growing Space Loss. This area being converted from timber production; therefore, growing space loss is not an issue. The above planned mitigation measures, in conjunction with existing Forest Practice Rules, should limit impacton soil productivity with minimal potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts within the assessment area. • Follows: Excerpt from Draft E.I.R., as refers to Geology and Soils • 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 29 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 1 DRAFT EIR: Section 4.5, Geology & Soils 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 30 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 3.3 Biological. ' Assessment Area/ Rationale for Determination: The biological impacts assessment area is the same as the watershed assessment area (see map). Rationale for selection of this assessment area is that the Prosser Reservoir and its' tributaries within the area will serve as a natural collection boundary for wildlife data. This information will address any significant impacts to wildlife both on or in close proximity to the THP area. There is a section on Biological Resources within the Draft Environmental Impact Report associated with this project (see copy included in Section III of this THP). 1 In examination of the THP area, the RPF found no indication of rare or endangered species. The DF &G Natural Biodiversity Database records show the following occurrences of rare or endangered species within the assessment area: Plumas Ivesia (Ivisea Sreicoleuca). Not observed during field reconnaissance of the site; however it could occur in the great basin sage scrub, ponderosa pine forest, and montane meadow habitat on -site. Donner Pass Buckwheat (Erogonum Umbellatum Var Torreyanum). This species occurs on volcanic soils within rocky meadows and upper montane conifer forests. Although this species is currently known from fewer than 10 occurrences at higher elevations than present on this project site, potential habitat is present on the site. This species was not found during field reconnaissance. r Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa Subumbellata). Occurs along the Lake Tahoe shoreline, in decomposed granite soils. Historically, this species occurs in the Truckee vicinity; however, no known populations of this species are currently mapped there. Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site. Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes Nacator). DF &G Natural Diversity Database reports sighting in 1994, crossing Hwy. 89 (T17N,R16E, SW % Section 02). This species was not observed within the project area during field reconnaissance. Follows: Copy of DF &G Text Report. 1 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 31 • SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 (Insert DF &G Report) 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 !� 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 32 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 The current wildlife habitat rating is a 4P. This rating will not change under post- harvest conditions, because most of the impacts will take place within the roads, golf course, and homesites and other ' • improvements. The Draft EIR, section 4.7, states that there will be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. There are mitigation measures listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (see attached, Section III), that will help to lessen the effects to biological resources of this project. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the removal of approx. 200 acres of Jeffrey pine ' forest, 72 acres of Great Basin sagescrub, .08 acre of Montaine meadow, and .01 acre of intermittent drainage habitat. Referring to the Draft EIR, section 4.7: "While these habitats are common throughout the Sierra Nevada, cumulative disturbance to these habitats resulting from the I implementation of numerous proposed projects contributes to the continual loss of open space, as well as the removal of native plants, wildlife, and forest resources throughout the Truckee vicinity. The project does propose to dedicate approx. 364 acres to open space. There will be some fragmentation to the Truckee Deer Herd habitat and travel corridor. The continual fragmentation of these movement I corridors will affect the reproductive success of this herd, ultimately resulting in a decline of the herd's population. These cumulative impacts to open space, plants and wildlife, forest resources, and movement corridors are considered significant and unavoidable ". Deer. The proposed project is a migratory corridor for the Truckee Loyalton Deer Herd. The current project design includes migration corridor in the eastern portion of this site, allowing wildlife to migrate. This migration corridor will be a 500' buffer incorporated into the project design. In addition, other mitigation measures listed in the Draft EIR, section 4.7 (see copy in Section III) include planting of Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine to screen the open space movement corridor and to protect native vegetation on the project site. Other items, such as keeping pets on leashes and not allowing fencing, will help mitigate negetive impacts to the deer herd corridor. Bear. There were no signs of bear activity within the THP boundaries. Vegetation remaining under post- harvest conditions will not result in a decrease of habitat for this species. Goshawks and Other Raptors. Referring to the Draft EIR, section 4.7 (biological resources): After light harvest associated with the subdivision improvements, there should be no change in the current habitat for goshawks and other raptors. Raptors, including Northern Goshawk, Red -tail Hawk, as well as other migratory birds, including yellow warbler, hermit warbler, and Lewis woodpecker, may utilize habitats within the project site, for nesting. Within the Featherstone Resort Project HCMP (copy included herein), it calls for maximizing the potential for future and present nesting use by raptors and owls, by maintaining open space. Also listed in the Draft EIR under section 4.7.5A, a 1 nesting bird survey shall be conducted to determine if nesting activity occurs on the project site. No goshawks or other sensitive or endangered raptors were sighted during field review and timber t marking operations. Timber and construction crews will be instructed to watch for signs of nesting activity, and to cease work and notify the RPF immediately. ' Spotted Owl. No spotted owl activity was noted during field review. Timber and construction crews will be instructed to watch for signs of nesting activity. There is more suitable habitat for this species present within surrounding lands within the watershed. It is not anticipated that habitat for this species will be significantly affected by this harvest. Summary ( #3.3, Biological) . As stated above, there will be some significant and unavoidable negative cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of this project; however, mitigation 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 33 • SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): measures listed in the Draft EIR, section 4.0, for the Gray's Crossing planned development, in addition to mitigation measures listed herein, in conjunction with the other practices and mitigation measures listed in the Forest Practice Rules, should combine to maintain the viability and diversity of 1 the biological resource • 1 Follows: Excerpt from Draft E.I.R., as refers to Biological Resources 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 r . 5 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 34 1 1 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 DRAFT MR: Section 4.7, Biological Resources 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing TI-IP2.doc - Page Page 35 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 3.4 Recreation. The assessment area coincides with the project area, plus 300' outside of the project area boundary, as required by the Forest Practice Rules. There will be 364 acres of open space that will provide recreational opportunities to the general public, such as hiking. Once the project is complete, there should be no significant decrease in recreational opportunity from that which currently exists. No adverse cumulative impacts to public recreational opportunities are expected to result from the proposed harvest. 3.5 Visual Aesthetics. • • Assessment Area/ Rationale for Determination: The assessment area for impacts to visual aesthetics 1 includes the project area plus the surrounding 300 ft. outside of the project boundary, as well as the roads and hiking trails throughout the view shed of this harvest area, as required by the Forest Practice Rules. The southem portion of the project site is visible from eastbound and westbound • traffic on Interstate 80 as well as northbound and southbound traffic on Hwy. 89. The potential effect on visual resources is analyzed in depth in the Draft EIR, section 4.9 (see copies herein). The document concludes that the project would not significantly alter the views of the project site for motorists travelling along State Route 89, a designated scenic corridor. Implementation of the proposed project could alter the characteristics of existing views from Interstate 80, a State designated scenic highway. Mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR, section 4.9, and other sections of this EIR, would further minimize impacts. The project would preserve approx. 50% of the area as permanent open space. This project is supported by the land use designations within the Town General Plan, therefore cumulative impacts on visual resources are considered less than significant. 3.6 Traffic. The proposed harvest will generate 500 loads of logs and chips on weekdays, for a period of approx. ten weeks. It should generate 5 to 10 loads of logs per day, and approx. 2 loads of chips per day. The project area is directly adjacent to Highway 89. Prosser Dam Road and Alder Drive will be used for log haul out of the project area. No significant impacts to historic traffic levels should occur as a result of the timber harvest. The Draft EIR, section 4.2 (copy herein) addresses potential impacts to transportation/ circulation in the area surrounding the project. 1 Follows: Excerpt from Draft E.I.R., as refers to Visual Resources & Transportation/Circulation 1 • • 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 36 1 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 DRAFT EIR: Sections 4:2, 4.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 37 SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): 1 5) Description of assessment area used for each resource subject is included in discussions above. 6) Sources contacted for information pertinent to the project are as follows: Draft E.I.R. for Planned Community 2 Pacific Municipal Consultants 10411 Old Placerville Road, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95821 (916) 361 -8384 1 • Calif. Dept. of Forestry Listing of past & present THP's 6105 Airport Rd. Redding, CA • 96002 (530) 224-2445 1 • DF &G Biodiversity Database 1416 9th St. Sacramento, CA 94244 -2090 (916) 324 -3812 USDA, Forest Service Truckee Ranger District P.O. Box 399 Truckee, CA 95734 (530) 587 -3558 USDA, Forest Service Tahoe National Forest Soils Survey Dale Creighton Sylvester, Creighton & Ozanich 1 140 Litton Drive Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 272-5841 1 CDF Inspector Jeff Dowling • Truckee -Auburn District PO Box 399 Truckee, CA 95734 (530) 587 -8926 Follows: Copies of Draft EII2 Section 5.0, 5.1, Cumulative Impacts Summary: 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 38 ' I SECTION IV, Cumulative Impacts Assessment (continued): DRAFT EIR, Sections 5.1, 5.1 i I1 [[l C 1 I l ) di GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 39 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) () Meeting between RPF or supervised designee familiar with on -site conditions and LTO will be conducted prior to start of timber operations. 7 • () Meeting between RPF or supervised designee familiar with on -site conditions and LTO has been conducted r� (provide details): (x) This RPF or supervised designee will not be meeting with the LTO. Provide information demonstrating - compliance with 929.2 [949.2, 969.2] (c): Archaeologist, Susan Lindstrom, will be available for on -site meetings with the LTO prior to harvesting and construction phases of operations. Ms. Lindstrom is responsible for identifying and posting all protection measures for each site within the project area, as well as providing any mitigation measures necessary. Part XI: SITE RECORDING Any time prior to THP approval, or ompanying an EM larger than 3 acres, the RPF or RPF's supervised designee shall submit completed site records tot each site determined to be a significant archaeological or historical site 114 CCR Section 929.1 1949.1, 969.11 lc), or for sites the surveyor elects to record but for which no determination of significance has been made 114 CCR 929:1 1949.1. 969.11 101. Furthermore, the Director is responsible to ensure that ail archaeological or historical sites determined to be significant and located within the site survey area on THP's or EM's larger than 3 acres are recorded in a manner consistent with the recording standards Identified in OHP's 'Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.' Describe how these recording requirements have been or will be addressed: () No sites found within the site survey area. (x ) The following sites have been recorded and completed records are attached: Refer to Draft EIR: Listing of historic and prehistoric sites found and recorded is included in the Draft EIR, Section 4.8 (Table 4.8.1). 4.8 - thru 4.8 - lists specific sites. Site records are attached, as part of • Lindstrom's report. 1 1 The following sites will be recorded prior to THP approval: • I) The following sites has been previously recorded, updates not prepared (attach copyliesl): I) The following sites has been previously recorded, updates prepared (attach copylies)): () The following sites will not be recorded, justification provided below: I 1 PART XII: OTHER APPLICABLE INFORMATION Provide any additional information concerning the archaeological survey for this project: • Additional Information: (Refer to attached documentation) PART XIII: ATTACHMENTS Indicate which attachments are included with this report. For THP's and EM's of 3 acres or larger, the rules require the attachment of an Archaeological Coverage Map or Maps 114 CCR Sections 929.1 1949.1, 969.11(h) (71 and 1052 (h). This map (or maps( shall contain a north arrow, a scale, and accurately display Ole project boundary, the site survey area (showing survey intensitylies), and specific location of all archaeological and historical sites identified within the site survey area. The maps) must be on a 1:1 scale copy of a USGS 7.5' quadranglels). or digitally generated topographic equivalent. Additional maps at other scales may be included to more accurately display required information or increase clarity. (x ) Archaeological Records Check Request: (x ) Archaeological Coverage Map (1:1 scale of USGS 7.5' quad) (x 1 Archaeological Records Check Request • Map: (x 1 Additional Archaeological coverage map(s) (x 1 Information Center Reply: ( ) Project Vicinity Map (optional) (x ) I Example of Notice to Native Americans: ( ) Written Reply from Native Americans GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 6 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) 1 . () USFS or other Agency Correspondence: (x) Site Records for: (specify which sites) () Other: () Photographs (optional) • • • 1 1 1 Part XIV: SUBMISSION OF APPROVED REPORT TO INFORMATION CENTER Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 929.1 1949.1, 969.111}1. the RFC or supervised designee, within 30 days following CDF's approval of a THP or acceptance of an EM of larger than 3 acres, shall 1 , send to the appropriate Information Center the following: (11 A complete Confidential Archaeological Addendum which includes all changes and additions required in the THP review process, and which identifies the plan number, or for EM's of three acres or larger, a Confidential Archaeological letter, and, (2) Two copies each of any completed archaeological or historical site records, for sites determined to be significant or for sites the surveyor elects to record but for which no determination of significance has been made. Complete this section only atter CDF approves the THP or after an. EM is submitted to the Director. THP plan number: 1 Emergency Notice number: Date mailed to Information Center: 1 • • 1 1 CDF Archaeology Office 01/01/98 • • 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 47 • Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) • 1 Archaeological Coverage Map An Archaeological Coverage map must be attached to this report [14 CCR 929.1(a)(2)). It must be prepared from a photocopied segment of a USGS 7.5' topographic map with legend, scale, and north arrow. It should clearly display the • boundaries of the THP, the exact areas which received archaeological coverage, existing and proposed roads and landings, and the exact location of any archaeological or historical resources identified during this investigation. 1 GraysCrossing THP Archaeological Survey Area Map T17N,R16E: Por. S.01,02,11 (MDB&M) USGS Quad: Truckee 7.5', 1955 (Rev. 1986) THP Area Boundary / / / / / /// Survey Area (Intensive) • • Site Location 1 1 (1 inch = 1,000 ft.) 1 Contour Interval: • • 1 • 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 4 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) Sierra Resource Larry Rieger, RPF 13026 Madrona Leaf Court Grass Valley, CA 95945 24- September, 2002 i «Native Amer. Rep» ' Re: Research for Confidential Archaeological Addendum — Gray's Crossing THP ' Dear Native American Representative: I am initiating preparation of a timber harvest plan in the following area: Nevada County, Por. W -1/2 Section 01, Por. Section 02, and a Por. N -1/2 Section 11, and T17N, R16E, MDB &M (Truckee 7.5' Quad., Rev. 1986). The proposed THP area is located north of Interstate -80, east of the intersection with Hwy. 89, within the Truckee city limits. . I am writing to you to request any input you may have in regard to significance of this area to Native Americans. If you have any knowledge of archaeologically significant sites or other information pertinent to research for archaeological survey, your response within 10 days to the address above would be appreciated. As part of the THP, a confidential archaeological addendum will be prepared for this project; a copy of pertinent information contained within it may be obtained from the CDF Director. ' The estimated earliest date that the CDF Director may approve this plan would be 31't- January, 2003. Your participation in the THP planning process, if you so desire, would be welcome. The address and telephone number of the CDF office where the Plan will be reviewed is as follows: Calif. Dept. of Forestry 6105 Airport Rd. Redding, CA 96002 ' (530) 224-2445 • Yours truly, • Sierra Resource, Inc. • A Larry Rieger, RPF #2044 • 1 • • GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 49 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) 1 • 1 Draft EIR, Section 4.8 (Cultural Resources) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ • 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page so 1 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) (Insert Copy of Lindstrom Report) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 51 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) 1 (Insert Copy of Site Records) ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 52 t ction vi, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) Insert EHR Form) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 53 section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) sierra Resource, Inc. ,arty Rieger, RPF '0 Box 1542 ;edar Ridge, CA 95924 530) 273 -1473 • 5 September, 2003 'o: Gray's Landing, LLC ATTN: Rick McConn P.O. Box 2537 Truckee, CA 96161 Re: Gray's Crossing THP, 1 Responsibilities of Plan Submitter . )ear Landowner: \s part of my contractual requirements to provide RPF services on the subject project, I am required by the forest practice rules t irovide you with this notice. Pursuant to Calif. Forest Practice Rules, #1035.1(b), the following is notification of your esponsibility under the Rules as Plan Submitter (updated 1 /01 /01). 'he plan submitter, or successor in interest, shall: (a) Ensure that an RPF conducts any activities which require an RPF. . (b) Provide the RPF preparing the plan or amendments with complete and correct information regarding pertinent legal rights to, interests in, and responsibilities for land, timber, and access as these affect the planning and conduct of timber operations. (c) Sign the THP certifying knowledge of the plan contents and the requirements of this section. (d) (1) Retain an RPF who is available to provide professional advice to the LTO and timberland owner upon request throughout the active timber operations regarding: (A) the plan, (B) The Forest Practice Rules, and (C) Other associated regulations pertaining to timber operations. (2) The plan submitter may waive the requirement to retain an RPF to provide professional advice to the LTO and timberland owner under the following conditions: (A) the plan submitter provides authorization to the timberland owner to provide advice to the LTO on a continuing basis throughout the active timber operations provided that the timberland owner is a natural person who personally performs the services of a professional forester and such services are personally performed on lands owned by the timberland owner; (B) the timberland owner agrees to be present on the logging area at a sufficient frequency to know the progress operations and advise the LTO, but not less than once during the life of the plan; and (C) the plan submitter agrees to provide a copy of the portions of the approved THP and any approved operation amendments to the timberland owner containing the General Information, Plan of Operations, THP Map, Yarding System Map, Erosion Hazard Rating Map and any other information deemed by the timberland owner to be necessary for providing advice to the LTO regarding timber operations. (3) All agreements and authorizations required under 14CCR1035(d)(2) shall be documented and provided in writini to the Director to be included in the plan. (e) Within five (5) working days of change in RPF responsibilities for THP implementation or substitution of another RPF, file with the Director a notice which states the RPF's name and registration number, address, and subsequent responsibilities for any RPF required fieldwork, amendment preparation, or operation supervision. Corporations nee not file notification because the RPF of record on each document is the responsible person. (f) Provide a copy of the portions of the approved THP and any approved operational amendments to the LTO containini the General Information, Plan of Operations, THP Map, Yarding System Ma. Erosion Hazard Rating Map and Operations, r, s System Map, ....,�..,... Rating Map .,,... any other information deemed by the RPF to be necessary for timber operations. (g) Notify the Director prior to commencement of site preparation operations. Receipt of a burning permit is sufficient notice. GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 54 'ection VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) . (h) Disclose t o the LTO, prior to the start of operations, through an on- the - ground meeting, the location and protection I measures for any archaeological or historical sites requiring protection if the RPF has submitted written notification to the plan submitter that the plan submitter needs to provide the LTO with this information. Note: Authority cited: Sections 4551 and 4552, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 757, 4582 and 4582.5, I Public Resources Code. hider I4CCR943.4, Road Maintenance: Logging roads, landings and associated drainage structures used in the timber it eration shall be maintained in a manner which minimizes concentration and runoff, soil erosion and slope instability, d which prevents degradation of the quality and beneficial uses of water during timber operations and throughout the irescribed maintenance period for erosion controls on permanent and seasonal roads, and associated landings and ;rainage structures (culverts, water bars and cross ditches on landings). This period shall be at least one year. ks per 14CCR1050, initial responsibility for construction and maintenance of erosion control structures will be the 1 sponsibility of the LTO, until such time as the Dept. has approved the timber operations work completion report. The TO is responsible for proper construction, inspection, and maintenance of erosion control during the prescribed naintenance period (at least one year), until the work completion report, as described in PRC4585, is approved by the i trector. If the prescribed maintenance period is extended, as per 14CCR943.4(a) Road Maintenance, the landowner is sponsible for inspection and any needed repair and maintenance of erosion control during he remainder of the ■rescribed maintenance period. . I there are any questions or additional information needed, please call me at (530) 273 - 1473. Thank you. (ours truly, 1 any Rieger, RPF . 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 e 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page s ;ection VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) >ierra Resource, Inc. , arty Rieger, RPF #2044 • .3026 Madrona Leaf Ct. 3rass Valley, CA 95945 .5 September, 2003 :FirstName» «LastName» :Company» Address 1» ;City> «State» «PostalCode» NOTICE OF PROPOSED TIMBER HARVESTING PLAN 1 TO: DOMESTIC WATER USERS LOCATED DOWNSTREAM FROM THP AREA )ear Property Owner: 1 n conformance with 14CCR1032.10 of the California Forest Practice Rules, as an RPF representing the timber rarvesting plan submitter, I am requesting information on domestic water supplies that may be affected 1,000 ft. lownstream of the THP boundary whose ownership adjoins or includes a class I, II or IV watercourse which receives lrainage from the proposed timber harvesting operations area. • (our property, described as APN«APN» in Nevada County, has been determined to be within 1,000 ft. of the Grays :rossing timber harvest plan in TI7N,R16E, Portion Sections 01,02 & 11. A class II watercourse flows from within 'HP area into your ownership which is within 1000 ft. downstream. I am requesting any information on your domesti vater supply uses from the above - described watercourse. I am requesting a response from you, the property owner, . vithin 10 days of receipt of this letter. Please send information to Sierra Resource, Inc. (address above), or call (530) :73 -1473. 'hank you. (ours truly, >IERRA RESOURCE 1 , arry Rieger, RPF , LR/pr 1 • 1 1 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 56 S ection vi, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) :ray's Crossing THP IL wnstream Water Users: N 16- 601 -01 Lichard & Karen Furtado 190 Prosser Dam Road ckee CA 96161Gray's Crossing THP ownstream Water Users: IIN 16= 601 -02 idi Senglaub '.0. Box 2632 ' ruckee CA 96160Gray's Crossing THP 11 ° wnstream Water Users: LPN 16- 601 -03,04 rbara Anderson rrste. 353 Booksin Ave. ';an Jose CA 95125Gray's Crossing THP wnstream Water Users: N 16- 601 -05 rulia B. Victor Oru O. Box 10178 ckee CA 96162Gray's Crossing THP ownstream Water Users: I N 16- 601 -06 ik S. & Toinette L. Robinson '.0. Box 3161 'ruckee CA 961610Gray's Crossing THP 11 ° wnstream Water Users: LPN 16- 601 -07 niel V. & Anne E. Collin � 2470 Prosser Dam Rd. ruckee CA 96161 1 1 1 M . 1 1 I GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 57 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) NOTICE OF INTENT TO HARVEST TIMBER Timber Harvesting Plan or an amendment to an existing plan that may be of interest to you has been submitted to the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protectio he Department will be reviewing the proposed timber operation for compliance with various laws and rules. This review requires the addressing of any concerns you may ave with what is being proposed. The following briefly describes the proposed timber operation and where and how to get more information. he review times given to the Department to review the proposed timber operation are variable in length, but limited. To ensure the Department receives your comments lease note the following: The earliest possible date the Department may approve the plan or amendment is: . NOTE: THIS DATE IS PROBABLY NOT THE ACTUAL APPROVAL DATE AND CLOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENT. Normally, a much longer period of time is available fo preparation of comments. Please check with the Department, prior to the above listed date, to determine the actual date that the public comment period closes. The plan or amendment was submitted to the Department on: - . The actual review required by the Department will determine the length of the review period beyond the noted minimum, normally it is longer. Please check with the Department to determine the date when public comment closes. Questions about the proposed timber operation or laws and rules governing timber operations should be directed to: 1 California Department of Forestry 8 Fire Protection Forest Practice Program 6105 Airport Road Redding, CA 96002 (530) 224-2445 The public may review the plan or amendment at the above Department office or purchase a copy of the plan or amendment. The cost to obtain a copy is 12.5 cents for each page, $2.50 minimum per request. (To be completed by the Department upon receipt. The cost to obtain a copy of the plan or amendment is: Information about the plan or amendment follows: 1. Timberland Owner where the timber operation is to occur: Gray's Station, L.L.C. ' 2. Registered Professional Forester who prepared the plan or amendment: Larry Rieger, RPF #2044 3. Name of individual who submitted the plan or amendment: Gray's Station, L.L.C. 4. Location of the proposed timber operation (county, legal description, & approximate distance of the timber operation from the nearest community or well -kno landmark): The proposed harvest area is located in Nevada County, Legal Desc. T17N,R16E: Por. 5.01,02,11 (MDB&M). Project is • located within the Truckee city limits. II 5. The name of and distance from the nearest perennial stream and major watercourse flowing through or downstream from the timber operation: Prosser Creek Reservoir is approx.'/ mile north of the proiect area. This project is approx. 1 mile from Truckee town center. 6. Acres proposed to be harvested: 757 7. The regeneration methods and /or intermediate treatments to be used: Conversion from timberland to subdivision. 8. Is there a known overhead power line, except lines from transformers to service panels, within the plan area? Yes X No 1 A map is attached to help in locating where the proposed timber operation is to occur. FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY ' TIMBER HARVESTING PLAN NO. DATE OF RECEIPT . September 1, 1994 r I IN 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 58 l ection VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) (Insert copy of THP Map) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc- Page Page 59 Section VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) I ADJACENT LANDOWNER LISTING GraysCrossing THP • 16- 330 -07 16- 330 -08 16- 330 -09 Katherine Hollingsworth Scott Williams Miles Huber PO Box 3238 PO Box 581 3609 Monterey Blvd. Truckee CA 96161 Truckee CA 96160 Oakland CA 94619 16- 330 -10 16- 330 -11 16- 330 -12 Mary & Michael Boelk Dennis & Ellen Diego S. Berger 125 Richard Ln. PO Box 3457 814 Ackerman Dr. Walnut Creek CA 94595 Truckee CA 96160 Danville CA 94526 1 16- 330 -13 16- 330 -14 16- 330 -15 Janet & Gene Tanaka Yvonne & James Stowe Linda Soulsby , 1062 Verona Ave. 515 Solano Ave. 1467 Indianhead Cir. Livermore CA 95433 E1 Verano CA 95433 Clayton CA 94517 II 16- 330 -16 16- 330 -17 16- 330 -18 Donald Vacchieri Nancy & David Cavanaugh Beverly Freitas 10 Avila Rd. 234 Webb Rd. PO Box 2506 , San Mateo CA 94402 Watsonville CA 95076 Truckee CA 96160 16- 330 -27 16- 330 -28 16- 330 -29 , - Cheryl & Michael Donahue Pamela Kelly Geoff Call 12046 Rain Dr. PO Box 8479 110 Quintana Ct. Truckee CA 96161 Tahoe City CA 96145 Santa Cruz CA 95060 II 16- 330 -30 16- 330 -45 16- 330 -46 1 Rosa & Julio Gonzalez Evelyn & Anthony Caneda David Heep PO Box 162 PO Box 908 PO Box 3066 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96160 1 16- 330 -47 16- 330 -64 16- 330 -65 1 Richard Nowlan c/o Towata Flowers Paul & Jenny Kontos PO Box 9624 John & Christine Towata 75 Vista Marin Dr. Truckee CA 96162 624 Oakland Ave. San Rafael CA 94903 Oakland CA 94661 ' 16- 330 -66 16- 340 -09 16- 450 -03 Michael Archambo Linda & Kern Astrup Denise Woo PO Box 334 PO Box 9869 2020 Marshall field Ln. #2 Tahoe Vista CA 96148 Truckee CA 96162 Redondo Beach CA 90278 1 II 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 60 1 , ection VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued) 6- 450 -05 16- 450 -06 16- 450 -07 oward & Diane Jones Lee & Harriet Auckenthaler Robert & Carol Merjil ��� 0 Box 1302 PO Box 1925 10392 Showshoe Cir. Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96161 1 16- 450 -08 16- 450 -13 16- 450 -14 . IC arit Roman David Hipkins ' Gloria & C.L. Cox • O Box 9871 PO Box 8254 490 Cambridge Dr. ruckee CA 96162 Truckee CA 96162 Arcadia CA 91006 1 [6- 450 -22 16- 450 -23 16- 450 -24 Chester Adamick, Trste. Truckee Donner P.U.D. Daniel Dunn, Et.Al. 11 300 Burnham Ranch Rd. PO Box 309 10465 Snowshoe Cir. anta Rosa CA 95404 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96161 11 6-450-25 16- 450 -26 16- 450 -27 ory Koff Michael Marken Mary Cabral _ 10449 Snowshoe Cir. 6200 Oakdale Ave. PO Box 8853 ruckee CA 96161 Oakland CA 94605 Truckee CA 96162 1[ 6- 450 -28 16- 450 -29 16- 450 -30 ordon Hanson Theresa Kramer Susan Ostrom 726 Aries Ln. 10381 Snowshoe Cir. 511 Camelback Rd. Foster City CA 94404 Truckee CA 96161 Pleasant Hill CA 94523 16- 450 -31 16- 450 -32 16- 450 -33 I ouglas Gonda Dennis & Lenise Dodds Barbara Johnson O Box 104 PO Box 6838 PO Box 1558 Truckee CA 96160 Tahoe City CA 96160 Truckee CA 96160 1 16- 450 -34 16- 601 -01 16- 601 -02 arland Hogan Richard & Karen Furtado Heidi Senglaub O Box 673 12190 Prosser Dam Rd. PO Box 2632 ruckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96161 Truckee CA 96160 1[6- 610 -20 16- 610 -40 16- 620 -04 John & Mary Eaton Kenneth Cutler; Trste. John & Janet Moore, Trtes. 11 0 Box 808 PO Box 10047 193 Contractors St. ruckee CA 96162 Truckee CA 96162 Livermore CA 94550 I 6- 620 -05 19- 200 -03 19- 200 -20 rnest D. Grossman, Trste. Christal & Steven Ames James & Michele Claussen PO Box 3817 12716 Northwood Blvd. #1 11241 Alder Dr. ruckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96161 Truckee CA 96161 IF ' GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 61 >ection VI, Confidential Documents Addendum (continued 19- 200 -21 19- 200 -24,25 19- 200 -25 .James & Nancy Maass Richard & Cari Leversee Dennis Smith Il 11211 Alder Dr. PO Box 3666 11285 Alder Dr. Truckee CA 96161 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96160 1 19- 210 -04 19- 210 -11 19- 210 -22 Dawna & Charlie Peters William & Maureen Williamson - Aaron Emigh ' 536 N. 80 W. PO Box 111 679 Bryant St. Lindon Utah 84042 - Norden CA 95724 San Francisco CA 94114 19- 210 -23 19- 210 -24 19- 220 -03 John & Charlotte Byrne Mark Moiseff Elide & Hiedi McLaughlin 11171 Alder Dr. PO Box 254 11075 Alder Dr. ' Truckee CA 96161 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96161 19- 220 -04 19- 220 -05 19- 220 -23 1 Jeremy Jones Michael Sylvestri Tahoe Title Guaranty Co. PO Box 379 PO Box 3232 c/o First American Title Tahoe Vista CA 96148 Truckee CA 96160 PO Box 5046 ' Auburn CA 95603 19- 370 -10 19- 370 -13 19- 370 -14 ' Pacific Tel & Tel Billy & Patsy Thomas Dan Lutkenhouse 130 Kearny St. Room 3501 PO Box 2295 PO Box 3171 San Francisco CA 94108 Truckee CA 96160 Truckee CA 96160 ' 19- 380 -01 19- 380 -02 19- 380 -19 Chyrise M. Broyer Bank of California, Trste. Robert & Roxanne Williams PO Box 3654 c/o Trust Real Estate Dept. PO Box 5283 III Truckee CA 96160 PO Box 45188 Tahoe City CA 96145 San Francisco CA 94145 ' 19- 380 -36 19- 380 -37 19- 3830 -20 Nanette & James Kuenzi David & Badariah Ferneyhough Stephen & Andrea Batie t 414 Dalton Ct. 11551 Alder Drive PO Box 10131 Benicia CA 94510. Truckee CA 96161 Truckee CA 96162 19- 410 -04 19- 410 -06 19- 410 -09 Coachland LLC USFS Truckee Land L.L.C. PO Box 2658 - Tahoe National Forest PO Box 2537 - t Truckee CA 96160 630 Coyote St. Truckee CA 96160 Nevada City CA 95959 19- 410 -10 II Robert Gales PO Box 2658 - Truckee CA 96160 il 1 GraysCrossing THP2.doc - Page Page 62 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! _ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! — ! D o - o - v rn v X ROOF DRIP LINE TRENCH CALCULATION 1 IFGFNO TO CALCULATE THE DEPTH OF TRENCH (Drl: AR = AREA OF ROOF LE = LENGTH OF EVE FORMULA: DT = 0.12(AR) (LENGTH OF DRIP TRENCH) LE WT = WIDTH OF TRENCH 1 INDIES FOR OTHFR W10TH5 1) ASSUMES VOID RATIO = 50% 2) ASSUMES WIDTH OF TRENCH IS 1' FORMULA D7 = 0.12(AR) 3) DEPTH OF TRENCH NOT TO EXCEED (WT).(LE) 1 DEPTH OF FOOTING SEE DIAGRAM BELOW 1 -F / 'OAR;. 1 'J I 1 E t T WT 1 ROOF DRIP LINE TYPICAL SECTION I 1 4 1 1 ` 1 CEN TER TRENCH ON DRIP LINE. E cs TOP 4" ABOVE TRENCH TO BE ROCK, t e! OR NON - EROSIVE PERMEABLE - E a I LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. ` / Pic • rs I DT (DEPTH TRENCH 6" MINIMUM WRAP TRENCH W/ NON -WOVEN I CLEAN, WASHED STONE, PERMEABLE FILTER FABRIC. OVERLAP TOP OR GRAVEL (1.5 " -3.0 ") OF TRENCH NOTE: DEPTH OF TRENCH NOT TO EXCEED DEPTH OF FOOTING. . sfE 1 NE ■a la moo . ea — _s EN el on am - am on — — 'Nom D - 0 rn . Z 0 1 1 Gray's Crossing BMPs Final EIR and SWPPP 1 1 CA20 Solid Waste Management ESC10 Seeding and Planting 1 ESC11 Mulching 1 ESC21 Dust Controls ESC24 Stabilized Construction Entrance 1 ESC31 Temporary Drains andBwales ESC40 Outlet Protection 1 ESC42 Slope Roughening/Terracing 1 ESC50 Silt Fence ESC54 Storm Drain' Inlet Protection 1 ESC56 Sediment Basin 1 SCO Public Education/Participation SC10 Housekeeping Practices 1 SC20 Material Storage Control SC75 Detention/Infiltration Device Maintenance 1 SC76 Storm Channel/Creek Maintenance 1 1 1 1 1 S:\Job_Admin \0106\BMPs.doc 1 BMP: SEEDING AND PLANTING Objectives Housekeeping Practices ��S Contain Waste Minimize Disturbed Areas • Disturbed Are / I V �Stabilim auu I I A / raw' /� / �tect SlopesIChannel _- I��p S I = � n ' j �I aat � ` � Control Site Perimeter ' tip _� 1 ,� Control Internal Erosion • 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Targeted Pollutants Seeding of grasses and plantings of trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers provide long- • Sediment term stabilization of soiL In some areas, with suitable climates, grasses can be planted for temporary stabilization. Q Nutrients Q Toxic Materials SUITABLE APPLICATIONS Q Oil & Grease Appropriate for site stabilization both during construction and post - construction. 0 Any graded/cleared areas where construction activities have ceased. • Floatab/e Materials • Open space cut and fill areas. 0 Other Construction I • Steep slopes. Waste • Spoil piles. • Vegetated swales. • Likely to Have • Landscape corridors. Significant Impact • . Stream banks. _ Probable Low or Unknown Impact INSTALLATION /APPLICATION CRITERIA Implementation Type of vegetation, site and seedbed preparation, planting time, fertilization and water Requirements requirements should be considered for each application. . Q Capital Costs Grasses: • Q O &M Costs • Ground preparation: fertilize and mechanically stabilize the soil. Q Maintenance • . Tolerant of short-term temperature extremes and waterlogged soil conditions. • Appropriate soil conditions: shallow soil base, good drainage, slope 2:1 or flatter. Q Training • Develop well and quickly from seeds. Q Suitability for • Mowing, irrigating, and fertilizing are vital for promoting vigorous grass growth. Slopes >5% r Trees and Shrubs: • Selection Criteria: vigor, species, size, shape & wildlife food source. • Soil conditions: select species appropriate for soil,drainage & acidity. • Other Factors: wind/exposure, temperature extremes, and irrigation needs. 1 • High 0 Low Vines and Ground Covers: • Ground preparation: lime and fertilizer preparation. ESC 10 • Use proper seeding rates. �+v • Appropriate soil conditions: drainage, acidity, slopes. • Generally avoid species requiring irrigation. Best Managemen • Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 10 March, 1993 • 1 BMP: SEEDING AND PLANTING (Continue) 1 REQUIREMENTS • Maintenance - Shrubs and trees must be adequately watered and fertilized and if needed pruned. - Grasses may need to be watered and mowed. . • Cost Average annual cost for installation and maintenance (2.year useful lift, source: EPA, 1992) - Seeding: $300 per acre, appropriate for flat slopes and stable soils. - Seeding with Mulching: 51,100 per acre, appropriate for moderate to steep slopes and/or erosive soils. - Trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover. Cost, applicability based on species used and terrain features. LIMITATIONS _ • Permanent arid temporary vegetation may not be appropriate in dry periods without irrigation. • Fertilizer requirements may have potential to create storm water pollution if improperly applied. 1 • 1 1 • .e 1 • • • t t I ESCIO . Construction Handbook 5 - 11 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Seeding and Planting • Planting: I The following steps should be followed to ensure established growth: 1. Select the proper grass for the site. • 2. Prepare the seedbed; soil should be fertilized and contain good topsoil or soil at least a 2:1 or flatter slope. • 3. Broadcast the seedings in the late fall or early spring. In the late fall, seedings should be planted by mid- September ' to have established grass by the October rainy season. 4. Initial irrigation will be required often for most grasses, with follow -up inigatio•and fertilization as needed. Mulching may be required in dry climates or during drought years. 1 . Trees & Shrubs -- I S l ion: Trees and shrubs, when properly selected, are low maintenance plantings that stabilize adjacent soils, moderate the adjacent temperatures, filter air pollutants, and serve as a barrier to wind. Some desirable characteristics to consider in selecting trees and shrubs include: vigor, species, age, size and shape, and use as a wildlife food source and habitat Trees and shrubs to be saved should be clearly marked so that no construction activity will take place within the dripline of the plant. The sites for new plantings should be evaluated. Consider the prior use of the land: adverse soil conditions I such as poor drainage or acidity; exposure to wind; temperature extremes; location of utilities, paved areas, and security lighting and traffic problems. I Transplanting: Time of Year - I are fall through winter (November to February) is the preferred time for transplanting in most of California Preparation - Proper digging of a tree/shrub includes the conservation of as much of the root system as possible. Soil adhering to the roots should be damp when the tree is dug, and kept moist until re- planting. The soil ball should be 12 inches in diameter for each inch of diameter of the trunk. ' Site preparation - Refer to landscape plans and specifications for site and soil preparation, and for ability to coordinate • construction strategy with permanent vegetation. • 1 Supporting the trunk - Many newly planted trees/shrubs need artificial support to prevent excessive swaying. Watering - Soil arotmd the tree should be thoroughly watered after the tree is set in place. When the soil becomes dry, I the tree should be watered deeply, but not often. Mulching around the base of the tree is helpful in preventing roots from drying out I Selection: &Ground Covets Selection: - . Vines, ground covers, and low growing plants, that can quickly spread, come in many types, colors, and growth habits. I Some are suitable only as part of a small maintained landscape area, while some can stabilize large areas with little maintenance. Flowers, which provide little long -term erosion control may be planted to add color and varietal appear- . • ances. • 1. • I • ESC10 Boort s . Construction Handbook 5 - 13 . March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Seeding and Planting Caution should be exercised in the non- native vegetation because of impacts to native vegetation on adjacent lands. For example, species that may be planted at the construction site can quickly spread and compete with originally undisturbed • vegetation such as the California Poppy and California buckwheat, both of which complete poorly with introduced grasses (e.g., planting wild oats is illegal in California). In addition to stabilizing disturbed soil,.vines and ground covers can perform the following functions: I.. Provide attractive cover that does not need mowing. 2. Help to define traffic areas and control pedestrian movement Cite Preparation: Ground covers are plants that naturally grow very close together, causing severe competition for space nutrients and water. Soil for ground covers should be well prepared. The entire area should be spaded, disced, or rototilled to a depth of six to eight inches. Two to three inches of organic material, such as good topsoil or peat, should be spread over the entire area. Planting: r The following steps will help ensure good plant growth. • 1. Make the plantings following the contours of the land. 2. Dig the holes 1/3 larger than the plant root ball. • 3. Know what depth to place the plants. 4. Use good topsoil or soil mixture with a lot of organic matter. 5. Fill bole 1/3 to 1/2 full, shake plants to settle soil among roots, then water. 6. Leave saucer - shaped depression around the plant to hold water. 7. Water thoroughly and regularly. 8. Space plants according to the type of plant and the extent of covering desired. Iviateriats: • There are many different species of vines and ground covers from which to choose, but care must be taken in their selection. It is essential to select planting materials suited to both the intended use and specific site characteristics. The plants discussed in this handbook are those which are known to be adapted to California, and commonly available from commercial nurseries. Additional information can be obtained from local nurserymen, landscape architects, and exten- sion agents. An approved low water use plant list may be obtained from the State Department of Water Resources or the Soils Conservation Service. Requirements Maintenance General requirements include: • Grass maintenance should be minimal to none. Irrigation and regular fertilizing may be required for some types of grasses. Mowing is only required in areas where aesthetics or fire hazards are a concern. • Young trees should receive an inch of water each week for the first two years after planting. The tree should be watered deeply, but not more often than once per week. • Transplanted trees should be fertilized on an annual basis. • Proper pruning, watering, and application of fertilizer is necessary to maintain healthy and vigorous shrubs. A heavy layer of mulch applied around the shrubs reduces weeds and retains moisture. • Trim old growth as needed to improve the appearance of ground covers. Most covers need once -a -year trimming to promote growth. ESC10 sos, I R.ctbs. Construction Handbook 5 - 14 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Seeding and Planting J,imitationq 1 • Construction activities are likely to injure or kill trees unless adequate protective measures are taken. Direct contact by equipment is the most obvious problem, but damage is also caused by root stress from filling, excavation, or compacting too close to trees. • Temporary seeding can only be viable when adequate time is available for plants to 'grow and establish. • Over fertilizing of plants may cause pollution of stone water runoff. • Irrigation source and supply may be limiting. 1 REFERENCES Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa - County, September 1992. "Draft - Sedimentation and Erosion Control, An Inventory of Current Practices ", U.S.E.P.A., April, 1990. Guides for Erosion and Sediment Controls in California, USDA Soils Conservation Service - January 1991. Kiowa Engineering, Interim Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Construction Activities, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado. Manual of Standards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Association of Bay Area Govemments, Jun 1981. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters; Work Group Working Paper, USEPA, April, 1992. Stomiwater Management Water for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, The Technical I Manual - February 1992, Publication # 91 -75. • Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume II, Handbook of Management Practices, Tahoe 1 Regional Planning Agency - November 1988. • 1. 1 1 1 • • 1 ESC10 tie Construction Handbook 5 - 15 March, 1993 • 1 1 BMP: MULCHING objectives • Housekeeping Practices I ' / I i/ Contain Waste , f Minimize Disturbed Areas I Mulchin ctabilizeDiturbedAreaa / Mulching Qrotect Slopes/N/annel� ' TT 1T - n - n - n ' - n - - , - o nTnfnistiiiininitt- rt= n -n =,n- Control Site Perimeter n- n- n- n- n- n- n -n -n- n -�l -�. : *- T- T- r- T- r -T -r -* Dsttrbed Soil i- i-T-i- -� . ,_ _n- n- rt -n -n- tt- n- n- n- n -ir -n- i- T- i- i- i- T- T- i T - uflliT a- rt- n- n- n- g- n rt- - n- n- n- n- rt- rt- n- n'n -n= Control Internal 1 - T T T T T i- T- T- T- i- T- T -T =T = T n_n- n- n- Tr- Tr- n -ni - ' GENERAL DESCRIPTION Targeted Pollutants 1 Mulching is used to temporarily and permanently stabilize cleared or freshly seeded areas. • Sediment Types of mulches include organic materials, straw, wood chips, bark or other wood fibers, Q Nutrients decomposed granite, and gravel. O Toxic Materials • SUITABLE APPLICATIONS 0 Oil & Grease • • Temporary stabilization of freshly seeded and planted areas. Floatable Materials 1 • Temporary stabilization during periods unsuitable for growing vegetation. • Temporary stabilization of areas that cannot be seeded or planted (e.g: insufficient Other Construction rain, steep slope). - 1 • Mulches such as gravel and decomposed soils may be used as post- construction • Likety to Have BMPs, particularly in arid regions- Significant Impact • O Probable Low or INSTALLATION /APPLICATION CRITERIA - Unknown Impact Mulch prevents erosion by protecting the soil surface and fostering growth of new seedings that do not stabilize by themselves. Implementation Requirements e • May be used with netting to supplement soil stabilization. . • Apply to planting areas where slopes are 2:1 or greater. Q Capital Costa • Binders may required for steep areas, or if wind and runoff is a problem. Q O&M Costa • Type of mulch, binders, and application rates should be recommended by manufac- Q Maintenance 1 turericontractor. Q Training REQUIREMENTS • Suitability for 1 • Maintenance Slopes >39G - . Must be inspected weekly and after rain for damage or deterioration. • Cost Average annual cost for installation and maintenance (3-4 month useful life, , source: EPA, 1992) - Straw Mulch: $7,500 per acre. - Wood Fiber Mulch: $3,500 per acre. I • High 0 Low - Jute Netting: S12,500 per acre. e. ^ •� 1 LIMITATIONS ESC 1 l • Wood fiber mulches should be used only in areas with over 20 inches annual precipi- 1 tation. Organic mulches are not permanent erosion control measures. 1a • Mukbes tend to lower the soil surface temperature, and may delay germination of / • "q 1 some seeds. Best \" - Permanent mulches for arid regions should include gravel and decomposed soils. Managemen• • Practices I Construction Handbook 5 - 16 March, 1993 Additional Information — Mulching Mulching protects the soil from rainfall impact; increases infiltration; conserves moisture around trees, shrubs and I seedings; prevents compaction and cracking of soil; and aids plant growth for seedings and plantings by holding the seeds, fertilizers and topsoil in place until growth occurs. Mulches include organic materials, straw, wood chips, bark or other wood fibers, decomposed granite and gravel. A variety of nettings or mats of organic or non- organic materials and chemical soil stabilization are practices that may be used conjunctively with mulching. . I Mulching may be applied to all graded and cleared areas of the construction site: • Areas which have been permanently seeded to assist in retaining moisture, and to hold seedings; • Areas which need temporary soil surface protection because seeding cannot occur due to the season; Areas between trees, shrubs and certain ground covers; , • Areas where climatic conditions require a soil moisture retention aid to avoid cracking of the soil and associated 1 compaction, and require soil temperature modification. 7nstallation/Anolicttion Criteria I Only a set of general guidelines is included for application and installation of mulching on disturbed lands because of the various climates, soil conditions and land uses in California Installation of mulch consists of furnishing all materials, preparing the soil surface and applying the mulch to all soil surface areas designated on the project plans or established I by the site engineer. Materials Organic mulch materials, such as straw, wood chips, bark and wood fiber, have been found to be most effecti where . ' re- vegetation will be provided by reseeding. The choice of mulch should be based on the size of the area, site slopes, surface conditions such as hardness and moisture; weed growth and availability of mulch materials. Wood Fiber Mulches: Wood fiber mulches consist of specially prepared wood fiber processed to contain no growth I germination inhibiting factors. The mulch should be from virgin wood, and be manufactured and processed so the fibers will remain in uniform suspension in water under agitation to form a homogenous slurry. The fiber lengths should be as long as possible to increase the effectiveness for erosion control. Wood fiber mulching should not be used in areas of I extremely hot summer and late fall seasons because of fire danger. When used as a tackifier with straw mulch, wood fiber mulches are good for steep slopes and severe climates. The California Office of the Soils Conservation Service recommends a non -toxic mulch green dye be used to provide a visual aid in metering applications - 1 Wood Chips and Bark Chips: Wood and bark chips are suitable for application in landscaped areas that will not be closely mowed. Wood chips do not require tacking, but do require nitrogen treatment (12 pounds/ton) to prevent nutrient I deficiency.. Bark chips do not require additional nitrogen fertilizer. When the wood source is near the project site, wood and bark chips can be very inexpensive. Caution must be used in areas of steep slopes, since both wood and bark chips tend to wash down slopes exceeding 6 percent- . I . Straw Mulch: Straw mulch is a good short-term protection most commonly used with seeding. The Mulch should be from the current season's crop. A letter of certification from the supplier should be required to show that the straw was baled less than 12 months from the delivery date. Wheat or oat straw is recommended. • ' Emulsified Asphalt Asphalt is used to adhere the mulch to the ground surface, preventing the mulch from blowing or washing off. The type and quantity of asphalt used should not result in a storm water pollution problem. • 1 Binder: Binder should be free flowing, noncorrosive powder produced from natural plant gum such as those marketed under M- Binder, M145 Binder, or AZ -TAC. Synthetic, spray -on materials are not recommended since they tend to create an impervious surface, and may enter the stormwater sewer system via discharge runoff. ESC11 ' �y� e.r I Pnactlor Construction Handbook 5 - 17 - March, 1993 1 Additional Information -- Dust Controls 1 Califomia's mediterranean climate, with short wet seasons and long hot dry seasons, allow the soils to thoroughly dry out. During these dry seasons, construction activities are at their peak, and disturbance and exposed areas are increas- ingly subject to wind erosion, sediment tracking and dust generated by construction equipment. Dust control. as a BMP, is a practice that is already in place for many construction activities. Los Angeles, the North Coast and Sacrarento, among others have enacted dust control ordinances for construction activities that cause dust to be transported beyond the construction project property line. Recently, the State Air Resources Control Board has, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, started to address air quality in relation to inbalable partictilate matter less than 10 microns (PM -I0). 9096 of these small particles are considered to be dust. Existing dust control regulations by local agencies, municipal departments, public works department, and/or public health departments are in place in some regions within California. For jurisdictions that have no formal dust control regulations and/or standards, Sections 10, 17 and 18 of CalTrans' Standard Specifications provide detailed provisions for dust control practices. Many local agencies require dust control in order to comply with local nuisance laws opacity laws (visibility impair- ment) and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The following are measures that local agencies may have already implemented as requirements for dust control from contractors: • Construction 8 (Trading Permits: Require provisions for dust control plans; • °parity Emission inns.. Enforce compliance with California air pollution control laws;. • Jnrrease overathenforermr,nt activities; Priority given to raves involving citizen complaints; • Maintain Field Anntiration Records: Require records of dust control measures from contractor, • Sipnnwater Pollution Prevention Plan: (SWPPP): Integrate dust control measures into SWPPP. Dust Control Prartir Dust control BMP's generally stabilize exposed surfaces and minimize activities that suspend or track dust particles. Table ESC2I.1 shows which Dust Control BMPs apply to site conditions which cause dust For heavily traveled and disturbed areas, wet suppression (watering), chemical dust suppression, gravel or asphalt surfacing, temporary gravel construction entrances, equipment wash-out areas, and haul truck covers can be employed as dust control applications. Permanent or temporary vegetation and mulching and sand fences can be employed for areas of occasional or no con- struction traffic. Preventive measures would include minimizing surface areas to be disturbed, limiting on -site vehicle traffic to 15 miles per hour, and controlling the number and activity of vehicles on a site at any given time. Many of the reasonably available control measures for controlling dust from construction sites can also be implemented as BMPs for storm water pollution prevention. Those BMPs include: • Pave, vegetate, or chemically stabilize acne points where unpaved traffic surfaces adjoin paved roads. • Provide covers for haul trucks transporting materials that contribute to dust. • Provide for wet suppression or chemical stabilization of exposed soils. • Provide for rapid clean -up of sediments deposited on paved roads. Furnish stabilized construction road entrances and vehicle wash down areas. • Stabilize unpaved haul roads, parking and staging areas. Reduce speed and trips on unpaved roads. • Implement dust control measures for material stockpiles. • Prevent drainage of sediment laden storm water onto paved surfaces. • Stabilize abandoned construction sites using vegetation or chemical stabilization methods. • Limit the amount of areas disturbed by clearing and earth moving operations by scheduling these activities in phases. For the chemical stabilization, there are many products available for chemically stabilizing gravel roadways and stock- piles. The types of chemicals available and recommendations for their use are tabulated in Table ESC 212, Commonly Used Chemicals for Dust Control. 1 I ESC21 t1 abta n.•r Construction Handbook 5 - 26 March, 1993 1 1 Additional Information — Dust Controls In addition, there are many other BMPs identified in this handbook that provide dust control including: 1 • Seeding and Plantings (ESC 10) • Mulching (ESC 11) • Construction Road Stabilization (ESC 23) • Stabilized Construction Entrances (ESC 24) J.imitations ' ' • Oil treated subgrades should not be used because the oil may migrate into drainageways and/or seep into the soil. Chemically treated subgrades may make the soil water repellant, interfering with long -term infiltration, and the vegetation/re- vegetation of the site. Some chemical dust suppressants may be subject to freezing and may contain solvents and should be handled properly. • Asphalt, as a mulch tack or chemical mulch, requires a 24 hour curing time to avoid adherence to equipment, worker shoes, etc. Application should be limited because asphalt surfacing may eventually migrate into the drainage • system. • In compacted areas, watering and other liquid dust control measures may wash sediment or other constituents into the drainage system. ' REFERENCES Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona, September 1992. 1 California Air Pollution Control Laws, California Air Resources Board, 1992. . CalTrans, Standard Specifications, Sections 10, "Dust Control "; Section 17, "Watering "; and Section 18, "Dust Pallia- tive". Prospects for Attaining the State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10), Visibility 1 Reducing Particles, Sulfates, Lead, and Hydrogen Sulfide, California Air Resources Board, April 1991. • Sacramento County, Winterization Ordinance & Dust Control Ordinance (example). USDA Soil Conservation Service, "Guides for Erosion and Sediment Control'. 1. 1 • 1 1 ESC21 1 . raja • Bast Pr sakes , Construction Handbook 5 - 27 March, 1993 1 n c TABLE ESC 21.1 DUST CONTROL BMPs FOR GIVEN SITE CONDITIONS DUST CONTROL HMI's Temporary Gravel Minimize • Wet Chemical Gravel or Construction Haul Extent SITE Permanent Suppression Dust Asphalt Sand Entrances/Equipment Truck of Area CONDITION Vegetation Mulching (Watering) Suppression Surfacing Fences Wash Down Covers Disturbed — Disturbed Areas not X X X X X X Subject to Traffic Disturbed Areas X X X X Subject to Traffic Material Stock Pile X X X X Stabilization 00 Demolition X X X Clearing/Excavation X X X Truck Traffic on X X X X Unpaved Roads Mud/Dirt Carry-Out X X n b M as es as a fl a s as is a ea IS S es I= • 111 on .a le' — a. r a■s- as at a al is as ar as as a an las en n O n r TABLE ESC 21.2 COMMONLY USED CHEMICALS FOR DUST CON1'ROL F SALTS ORGANIC, NON PETROLEUM BASED PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCTS' CHEMICAL TYPES • Calcium Chloride • Calcium Lignosulfonale • Bunker 011 • Magnesium Chloride • Sodium Lignosulfonate • Asphalt Primer • Natural Brines • Ammonium Lignosulfonate • Emulsified Asphalt LIMITATIONS Can lose effectiveness in dry Not affected by dry weather Generally effective regardless periods with low humidity. and low humidify. Leached of climatic conditions may Leaches from road in heavy rain from road in heavy rain if not pothole in wet weather. sufficiently cured. Not recommended for gravel road Best performance on gravel Best performance on gravel surfaces with low fines. roads with high surface fines roads with 5 -10% lines. Recommended 10 -20% fines. (10 -30 %) and dense compact surface with loose gravel. COMMENTS Calcium Chloride is popular. May Ineffective on gravel surfaces Creates a hardened cruse. become slippery when wet on low in fines. May become gravel surfaces with high lines. slippery when wet on gravel surfaces with high fines content. 1 o ' Motor oils and oil treaunents are not recommended due to adverse effects on plant life and groundwater. 2 Not recommended due to adverse effects on plant life. • • 1 BMP: STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE objectives Ciousekeeping Practice;, �; i •,U Contain Waste II .. t? .. ', L, j' ! fr Z • n o , Minimize Disturbed Areia) -:({- %1 ^Z_'____ Stabilize Distunbed Area 1 Gll J ,,..; _ ,� i...: f • % ��'� Protect Slopes/Channels . -..: - c 7 ntroi Site Perimejg 1 Control Internal Erosion I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Targeted Pollutants The construction entrance practice is a stabilized pad of aggregate underlain with filter Q Sediment cloth located at any point where traffic will be entering or leaving a construction site to or I from a public right -of -way, street, alley, sidewalk or parking area Stabaliring the Q Nutrients construction entrance significantly reduces the amount of sediment (dust, mud) tracked Q Toric Materials off-site, especially if a washrack incorporated for removing caked on sediment- Q Oil & Grease 1 SUITABLE APPLICATIONS Rentable Materials 0 • All points of construction ingress and egress. 0 Other Construction • Unpaved areas where sediment tracking occurs from site onto paved roads. Waste I INSTALLATION /APPLICATION CRITERIA • Likely to Haws - • Construct on level ground where possible. Significant Impact a • Stones should be 1 -3 inches. Q Probable Low or - Minimum depth of stones should be 6 inches or as recommended by soils engineer. Unknown Impact Length should be 50 -foot minimum, and 30 -foot minimum width. Implementation • • Provide ample turning radii as part of entrance. Requirements REQUIREMENTS Q Capital Coats • Maintenance 06M Costa I Inspect monthly and after each rainfall. Maintenance Replace gravel material when surface voids -are visible. - Remove all sediment deposited on paved roadways within 24 hours. 0 Training I - Remove gravel and filter fabric at completion of construction 0 Suitability for • Cost Average annual cost for installation and maintenance (Source: EPA, 1992) Slopes >5% Without Wash Rock: $1500 each. - With Wash Rock: $2200 each. 4 LIMITATIONS • Requires periodic top dressing with additional stones. 1 • Should be used in conjunction with street sweeping on adjacent public right -of -way. I • High 0 Low ESC24 1 1 Best Managemen . Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 37 March, 1993 1 • 1 Additional Information — Stabilized Construction Entrance A stabilized construction entrance is a pad of aggregate underlain with filter cloth located at any point where traffic will be entering or leaving a construction site to or from a public right -of -way, street, alley, sidewalk or parking area. The purpose of a stabilized construction entrance is to reduce or eliminate the tracking of sediment onto public rights -of -way or streets. Reducing trackout of sediments and other pollutants onto paved roads helps prevent deposition of sediments into local storm drains and production of airborne dust • Where traffic will be entering or leaving, a stabilized construction entrance should be used at all points of construction ingress and egress. NPDES permits require that appropriate measures be implemented to prevent trackout of sediments onto paved roadways, which is a significant source of sediments derived from mud and dirt carryout from the unpaved roads and construction sites. Stabilized construction entrances are moderately effective in removing sediment from equipment leaving a construction site. The entrance should be build on the level ground. Advantages of the Stabilized Construction Entrance is that it does remove some sediment from equipment and serves to channel construction traffic in and out of the site at specified locations. Efficiency is greatly increased when a washing rack is included as part of a stabilized construction entrance. The aggregate for a stabilized construction entrance aprons should be 1 to inches in size, washed well- graded gravel or a crushed rock. Minimum apron dimensions of 30 ft. x 50 ft. and 6 inches deep is adequate for two-way ingress/egress traffic. The entrance must be properly graded to prevent runoff from leaving the construction site. When wash areas are provided washing is done on a reinforced concrete pad (if significant washing is neces•ary) or in an area stabilized with crushed stone which drains into a properly constructed sediment trap or basin (ESC 55 and 56). Sediment barriers are provided to prevent sediments from entering into the.stormwater sewer system, ditch, or waterway. J 3mitationq- • Construct on level ground. • Stabilized constrnction.entrances are rather expensive to construct and when a wash rack is included, a sediment trap of some kind must also be provided to collect wash water runoff. • Requires periodic top dressing with additional stones. • Should be used in conjunction with street sweeping on adjacent public right-of-way. REFERENCES 1 Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona, September 1992. Manual of S tandards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Association of Bay Area Governments, June 1981. . Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, Work Group Working Paper, USEPA, April, 1992. Stormwater Management Water for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, The Technical 1 . Manual - February 1992, Publication # 91 -75. Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 1991. Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume 11, Handbook of Management ESC24 . Practices, Tahoe Regional Pla Agency - November 1988. r1 I .441 B , it Construction Handbook 5 - 38 March, 1993 1 1! • Additional Information — Stabilized Construction Entrance • IT 1 / / a '-- _ / DITCH TO CARRY WASH WATER 70 • -!. „ SEDIMENT BASIN OR I TRAP • / WASH RACK _ I i VEHCLE LENGTH 11 _l _ �� = i ir.ii. iiai.ir rs a ear!ir: ii:ir: irai!ii alii ir!ii ar iia:: irtai— I I DRAIN SPACE METAL BAR . REINFORCED CONCRETE 1 CHANNEL /DITCH BOTTOM . - WASH RACK (SCHEMATIC) 1 II / di z— R20' it A ; . 50' MIN I A i • rI J• ( .yin ► .. i•• • � • .., • • 0 4 il FILTER FABRIC 4. z 11 I" TO 3" COARSE M AGGREGATE ESC24 I STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE r..d,v. 11 ' Construction Handbook 5 - 39 March, 1993 • yI Additional Information Temporary Drains and Swales 1 r3:1 OR FLATTER 18" (MIN.) C �� =It1I-•,S ��l Avg 11=. _u_siEu 1E1_1_ 2' (MIN.) STABILIZATION LEVEL • CROSS SECTION . it • 1 0.5X OR STEEPER. DEPENDENT ON TOPOGRAPHY -..11/1M ' raja swsaa STABLE OUTLET REQUIRED a ■ • FLOW . — ■FLOW ELAM . • TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SWALE 1 ESC31 �1 I Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 46 March, 1993 I w 1 BMP: OUTLET PROTECTION Objectives 1 `�. Housekeeping Practices - Contain Waste I : \ � Minimize Disturbed Areas J' e � J s ® = , ; Stabilize Disturbed Areas • III • �� � � �i rote Slo s/Channe v �_"__ • _ A r - e Control Site Perimeter 1 --- � Control Internal Erosion • I l GENERAL DESCRIPTION Targeted Pollutants Rock outlet protection is a physical device composed of rock, grouted riprap, or concrete rubble which is placed at the outlet of a pipe to prevent scour of the soil caused by high • Sediment a pipe flow velocities, and to absorb flow energy to produce non - erosive velocities. 0 Nutrients SUITABLE APPLICATIONS 0 Toxic Materials • Wherever discharge velocities and energies at the outlets of culverts, conduits or 0 Gil & Greas e • • channels are sufficient to erode the next downstream reach. 0 Floatable Materials Rock outlet protection is best suited for temporary use during construction because it O Other Construction is usually less expensive and easier to install than concrete apron or energy Waste I diccipators. • A sediment trap below the pipe outlet is recommended if runoff is sediment laden. • Likely to Have Significant impact • Permanent rock riprap protection should be designed and sized by the engineer as part I of the culvert, conduit or channel desi g n. O probable Low or Unknown Impact • Grouted riprap should be avoided in areas of freeze and thaw because the grout will break up. Implementation . 1 Requirements INSTALLATION /APPLICATION CRITERIA Q Capital Costs • Rock outlet protection is effective when the rock is sized and placed properly. When this � 0 . is accomplished, rock outlets do much to limit erosion at pipe outlets- Rock size should be DAM Costs 'r increased fix high velocity flows. General recommendations for rock size and length of Q Maintenance outlet protection mat are presented in the additional information sheet- Best results are Q Training obtained when sound, durable, angular rock is used. CalTrans Standard Specifications or • I. the local municipality can provide additional specifications for constructing outlet protec- 0 Suitability for tion devices. Slopes >SY. REQUIREMENTS Maintenance - . Inspect after each significant rain for erosion and/or disruption of the rock, and . repair immediately. I 0 High 0 Low I - Grouted or wire -tied rock riprap can minimize maintenance requirements. • COst ESC40 - CalTrans Cost Schedule gives regional cost ranges. • 1 LIMITATIONS • illica large storms often wash away the rock outlet protection and leave the area suscep- I tible to erosion. • Sediment captured by the rock outlet protection may be difficult to remove without Best removing the rock Managemen _e • Outlet protection may negatively impact the channel habitat. Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 53 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Outlet Protection 1 Outlet protection is needed where discharge velocities and energies at the outlets of culverts, conduits or channels are sufficient to erode the immediate downstream reach. Tbis practice protects the inlet or outlet from developing small eroded pools (plange pools). and protects against gully erosion resulting from scouring at a culvert mouth. Rock outlet protection is usually Less expensive and easier to install than concrete aprons or energy dissipators. It also serves to trap sediment and reduce flow velocities. As with most channel design projects, depth of flow, roughness, gradient, side slopes, discharge rate and velocity should be considered in the outlet design. Compliance to local and state regulations should also be considered while working in environmentally sensitive streambeds. General recommendations for rock size and length of outlet protection mat is _ shown in the rock outlet protection figure. Best results are obtained when sound, durable, angular rock is used. Rock . depth and outlet protection length are governed by the discharge pipe size, but hydraulic calculations and velocities should be used to determine length. Your local municipality or CalTrans should be consulted for appropriate sizing criteria in your area REFERENCES Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Mariposa County, Arizona, September 1992. County of Sacramento Improvement Standards, Sacramento County - May 1989. 1 Environmental Criteria Manual, City of Austin, TX, 1989. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, SJ. Goldman, K. Jackson, T.A. Bursztynsky, P.E.. McGraw Hill Book Company, 1986. Handbook of Steel Drainage & Highway Construction, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1983. Manual of Standards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Association of Bay Area Governments, Jun 1981. Stonnwater Management Water for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, The Technical Manual - February 1992, Publication it 91 -75. Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume II, Handbook of Management Practices. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - November 1988. 1 1 1 1 ESC40 t Practices 1 t � � Construction Handbook 5 - 54 March, 1993 • 1 Additional Information — Outlet Protection 1 o • o °• o • 1 0o000000 • A _ 0(O'0O Dap0 La = LENGTH OF APRON �eC40O�CP•• • A do = INSIDE PIPE DIAMETER • • w = APRONWIDTH m ° O `�O.••••• • 0 O • .• .• d =APRON THICKNESS I o8D cU° . • • -� i • i PLAN La ° te a : I NOTES 0 1. APRON LINING MAY BE RIPRAP, �o �O .76 �Iw I j[ GROUTED RIPRAP, OR CONCRETE I a to 0 o • •0 • • o ?• •O O• 2. PIPE DIAMETER, APRON DIMENSIONS, AND AVERAGE ROCK SIZE FOR FILTER FABRIC SECTION A A RIPRAP ARE BASED ON THE DESIGN I FLOW RATE AND VELOCITY. La AND PIPE OUTLET TO FLAT AREA ROCK SIZE MUST BE SET TO SLOW WITH NO DEFINED CHANNEL THE FLOW TO NON - EROSIVE 1 VELOCITIES (e.g., LESS THAN 10 fps). ���;� SEE CALTRANS AND LOCAL AGENCY �� • 00.• DESIGN CRITERIA FOR APPROPRIATE •• • •• • • � • SIZING CRITERIA - .•0 Q• OO • O • 1 1 • .••• ij S. ��Ot �! �! �JC 3. d = 1.5 TIMES THE MAXIMUM ROCK B ` • • . O • oo H . • B SIZE DIAMETER BUT NOT LESS THAN 6 1 J I • y ° •• •• •• •• r At INCHES. 1 1:7 1 1 1 . 111/4. let et . . • P . • % 1 m O. •000 Lo n i 9:?1 v t ' 0. i i i O FILTER FABRIC SFCTION B -B ESC40 I PIPE OUTLET TO WELL - DEFINED CHANNEL Pala PIPE OUTLET CONDITIONS B " ° P7.ceo.. e Construction Handbook 5 - 55 March, 1993 1 I BMP: SLOPE ROUGHENING/TERRACING Objectives 11 ---, Housekeeping Practices (j I ( Contain Waste mi ifI 14 f I �, Minimi Dishltbad Araas I 'l u till tabitiz 1 VII — Al i Crotect Slopes/ChanniTS, Control Site Perimeter I II 1 j nit Control Internal Erosion I GENERAL DEFINITION Targeted Pollutants Slope roughening/terracing creates microclirnates for establishing vegetation reduces • Sediment . nmoff velocity, increases infiltration, and provides small depressions for trapping sedi- 1 meat. O Nutrients 0 Toxic Materials SUITABLE APPLICATIONS 0 Oil& Grease ii . I � . Any.cleared area prior to seeding and planting. Required for cleared, erodible slopes steeper than 3:1 and higher than 5 feet prior to 0 Rotatable Materials seeding and planting. 0 Other Construction Waste I INSTALLATION /APPLICATION CRTI£RIA Slope roughening/ten is performed in several ways: • Likely to Han • Stair step grading Significant Impact '� • Grooving. • 0 Probable Low c or Unknown Impact Furrowing. • Tracking. Implementation • Rough grading. Requirements • No grading. O Capital Costs REQUIREMENTS 0 O&M Costs I • Maintenance Inspect roughened slopes weekly and after rainfall for excessive erosion. 0 Maintenance - Revegetate as quickly as possible. 0 Training • Cost (source: EPA, 1992) 0 Suitability for Surface Roughening: Performed at no (c.g., rough grading) to low (e.g., track- Slopes >5% ing) cost. - Terracing: Average annual cost is S4 per linear foot (2 year useful life). LIMITATIONS • Roughening is of limited effectiveness on its own, but is used to speed revegetation. I High O Low • ar ESC42 1 17 1 east Managemen Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 59 March, 1993 1 1 Additional Information —Slope Roughening/Terracing is Slope roughening/ terracing creates uneven depressions, steps or grooves on the soil surface to aid in establishment of vegetation, reduce runoff velocity, increase infiltration, and provide for sediment trapping. Surface roughening may be applied to all slopes steeper than 3:1, and greater than 5 vertical feet, providing some instant erosion protection on bare soil while vegetative cover is being established. It is an inexpensive, simple and short -term erosion control measure for roadway cut slopes. 1 Tu,a.iug usually is a more permanent measure used to stabilize a steep slope. Terraces should be designed by a regis- tered professional engineer and included in the project construction plans. Local design criteria should be used. jnstailation/Annlir ation Graded areas with smooth, hard surfaces give a false impression of "finished grading" and a job well done. It is difficult to establish vegetation on such surfaces due to reduced water infiltration and the potential for erosion. Rough slope . surfaces with uneven soil and rocks left in place may appear unattractive or unfinished at first, but they encaaage water . infiltration, speed the establishment of vegetation, and deacased runoff velocity. Rough, loose soil- surfaces give lime, fertilizer, and seed some natural coverage. Niches in the surface provide microclimates which generally provide a coolei and more favorable moisture level than hard flat surfaces; this aids seed germination. There are different methods for achieving a roughened soil surface on a slope, and the selection of an appropriate method depends upon the type of slope. Roughening methods include stair -step grading, grooving, and tracking. Factors to be considered in choosing a method are slope steepness, mowing requirements, and whether the slope is formed by tuning or filling. 1. Disturbed areas which will not require mowing may be stair -step graded, grooved, or left rough after filling. 2. Graded areas steeper than 3:1 should be stair- stepped with benches (See figure at end of fact sheet). The stair - steping will help vegetation become attached and also trap soil eroded from the slopes above. Stair -step grading is particularly appropriate in soils containing large amounts of soft rock. Each "step" catches material which sloughs from above, and provides a level site where vegetation can become established. Stairs should be wide enough to work with standard earth moving equipment 3. Areas which will be mowed (there areas should have slopes less than 3:1) may have small furrows lceft by disking, harrowing, raking, or seed - planting machinery operated on the contour. .4. It is important to avoid excessive compacting of the soil surface when scarifying. Tracking with bulldozer reads is • preferable to not roughening at all, but is not as effective as other forms of roughening, as the soil surface is severely . compacted and nmoff is increased. Tracking can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including "track walking," or driving a crawler tractor up and down the slope, in leaving a pattern of cleat imprints parallel to slope contours. REFERENCES Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona, September 1992. Handbook of Steel, Drainage & Highway Construction, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1983_ 1 Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, Work Group Working Paper, USEPA, April, 1992. Stormwater Management Water for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, The Technical Manual - February 1992, Publication it 91 -75. 1 ESC42 Practice* Construction Handbook 5 - 60 March, 1993 1 I . Additional Information — Slope Roughening/Terracing • I —•! D EBRIS FROM SLOPE ABOVE = 11-- IS CAUGHT BY STEPS N i =11 ; RAIN'S_ / o•� 11= 1-1 ' D 'o °O d o °�I L � 10 � _ � ��O o0o0o � � _�� _ OP= j1.: ■ I - ... • =II 'I--- C �L� � �, i t I 40 50" .� - 1�1 1 4 -n r _ • lf==.1 I ' 11 . 2 r WATER. SOIL. AND FERTILIZER IL- _ ;�p ARE HELD BY STEPS - PLANTS 1 . u 7_J 1 CAN BECOME ESTABLISHED ON 11� I p'� THE STEPS. � = , �.= 1f =.1. 7L STAIR STEPPING CUT SLOPES i A 6 I o 6. 0 d 0 6 0 t a a a 8 0 0 86 a a a a a 6 0 ° a , I \I. , 6 4 0 0 a a s a ?c a a a a rI. t - 1 - 1 - 1 - - j--1 1 - � ti �, Z . — 15,. 1 =1 -1 =1: � II _ 11 _ I _ : .,,c 3_ GROOVING IS CUTTING FURROWS 1 �' I = I ., j ALONG THE CONTOUR OF A SLOPE. , - 1 i; IRREGULARITIES IN THE SOIL SURFACE '' --ll CATCH RAINWATER AND PROVIDE SOME COVERAGE OF LIME. FERTILIZER AND SEED. GROOVING SLOPES • i ESC4Z ■ STAIR- STEPPING CUT SLOPES f ir AND GROOVING SLOPES Construction Handbook 5 March, 1993 1 1 BMP: SILT FENCE Objectives Housekeeping Practices , � ` _ _ Contain Waste — — — ' �•�— , _ _ = e Disturbed Areas Minimize _ •• . _ Stabilize Disturbed Areas g:::�:: •■ .. ..•t ieettte� ;;�� „ "::: %;'ee =;i ' / ProtecfSlopes/Cftanttels en agropla -- C dr .ntrol Internal Erosio II i GENERAL DESCRIPTION Targeted Pollutants A silt fence is made of a filter fabric which has been entrenched, attached to supporting 0 Sediment poles, and sometimes backed by a wire fence for support. The silt fence detains sediment -. 0 Nutrients laden water, promoting sedimentation behind the fence. 0 Toxic Materials 1 • SUITABLE APPLICATIONS Q Oil & Grease • 'Along the perimeter of the site. • Below the Q Fbatab /e Materials 1(1C of a cleared slope. Q Other Construction • Along streams and channels. Waste I • Around temporary spoil areas. • Across swales with catchments less than 1 acre. 0 Uksly to Have • Significant Impact • Below other small cleared tl • eared areas. Q Probable Low or Unknown Impact INS i i_ TALLATION /APPLICATION • Use principally in areas where sheet flow occurs. Implementation 1 • Install along a level contour, so water does not pond more than 1.5 feet at any point. Requirements ir^ • No more than 1 acre, 100 ft., or OS cfs of concentrated flow should drain to any point along the silt fence. Q Capital Costa • Turn ends of fence uphill. Q O&M Coats • Provide area behind the fence tor runoff to pond and sediment to settle (aPProx. 1200 Q Maintenance sq. ft per acre draining to the silt fence). 0 Training • Select filter fabric which retains 85% of the soil, by weight, based on sieve analysis, but is not finer than an equivalent opening size of 70. 0 Suitability y tor r REQUIREMENTS • • Maintenance - Inspect weekly and after each rainfall. - Repair wherever fence is damaged. Remove sediment when it reaches 1/3 the height of the fence. I 0 High 0 Low • Cost (source: EPA,1992) - Average annual cost for installation and maintenance (assumes 6 month useful ES C50 life): 57 per lineal foot (3850 per drainage acre) G J 7 LIMITATIONS 1 • Do not use when 85% of the soil, by weight, pacers through a No. 200 sieve because the filter fabric will clog. '� //� • Do not place fence on a slope, or across any contour line. - Best 1 • Do not use in streams, channels, or anywhere flow has concentrated. Managemen • Do not use in locations where ponded water may cause flooding. Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 62 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Silt Fence A silt fence is a temporary sediment barrier consisting of filter fabric stretched across and attached to supporting posts, entrenched, and, depending upon the strength of the fabricused, supported with wire fence. Silt fences trap sediment in two ways: (1) by intercepting and detaining mall arnnrmtq of serlimem from disturbed areas during construction opera- tions in order to promote sedimentation behind the fence; and (2) by decreasing the velocity of low flows (up to 0.5 cfs) in swales. Silt fences may be used for perimeter control, placed upstream of the points) of discharge of sheet flow from a site. They may also be used as interior controls below disturbed areas where runoff may occur in the form of sheet and rill . erosion, and perpendicular to minor swales or ditch lines for up to one acre contributing drainage areas. Silt fences are generally ineffective in locations where the flow is concentrated and are only applicable for sheet or overland flows. Jnstallafion/Anpliratoll Planning: . Silt fences are generally most effective when the following placement criteria are followed: • Limit the upstream drainage area to 1 acre or less when used alone or in combination witb sediment basin in a larger site • The maximum slope perpendicular to the fence line should be 1:1. • . Limit the maximum sheet or overland flow path length to any point along the fence to 100 feet • Limit the concentrated flows reaching the fence to 0.5 cfs. Silt fences are preferable to straw barriers in many cases. Laboratory work at the Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council has shown that silt fences can trap a much higher percentage of suspended sediments than can straw bales. While the failure rate of silt fences is lower than that of straw barriers, there am many instances where silt fences have been improperly installed. The following installation methods can improve performance and should be followed: • Construct the silt fence along a level contour. • Silt fences should remain in place until the disturbed area is permanently stabilized . • Provide sufficient room for runoff to pond behind the fence and to allow sediment removal equipment to pass between the silt fence and toes of slopes or other obstructions. About 1200 sq. ft. of ponding area should be • provided for every acre draining to the fence- • Tum the ends of the filter fence uphill to prevent storm water from flowing around the fence. • Leave an undisturbed or stabilized area immetiately downslope from the fence. • Do not place in live streams or intermittently flowing channels. Design: Selection of a filter fabric is based on soil conditions at the construction site (which affect the equivalent opening site (EOS) fabric specification) and characteristics of the support fence (which affect the choice of tensile strength). The designer should specify a filter fabric that retains the soil found on the construction site yet will have openings large enough to permit drainage and prevent clogging. The following criteria is recommended for selection of the equivalent opening size: 1. If 50 percent or less of the soil, by weight, will pass the U.S. standard sieve No. 200, select the EOS to retain 85 percent of the soil. The EOS should not be finer than EOS 70. 2. For all other soil types, the EOS should be no larger than the openings in the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 70 [0.0083 in. (0.21 mm.)] except where direct disrharge to a stream, lake, or wetland will occur, then the EOS should be no larger than Standard Sieve No. 100. ESC50 1 Beet Pranfaate Construction Handbook 5 - 63 March, 1993 • Additional Information — Silt Fence To reduce the chance of dogging, it is preferable to specify a fabric with openings as large as allowed by the criteria. No L fabric should be specified with an EOS smaller than U.S. Standard Sieve No. 100 [0.0059 in. (0.15 mm.)]. If 85 percent r or more of a soil, by weight, passes through the openings in a No. 200 sieve [0.0029 im (0.074 mm.)], filter fabric should not be used. Most of the particles in such a soil would not be retained if the EOS was too large, and they would dog the fabric quickly if the EOS was small enough to capture the soil. The fence should be supported by a wire mesh if the fabric selected does not have sufficient strength and bursting ` strength charattaistics for the planned application ( as recommended by the fabric manufacturer). Filter fabric material should contain ultraviolet ray inhibitors and stabilizers to provide a minimum of six months of expected usable construc- tion life at a temperature range of 0' F. to 120' F. _ t Installation Guidelines: Filter fences me to be constructed on a level contour. Sufficient area should exist behind the fence for ponding to occur without flooding or overtopping the fence. • Posts should be spaced a maximum of 6 feet apart and driven securely into the ground a minimum of 30 inches. • A trench should be excavated approximately 8 inches wide and 12 inches deep along the line of posts and upslope I from the barrier. • When standard strength filter fabric is used, a wire mesh support fence should be fastened securely to the upslope side of the posts using heavy -duty wire staples at least 1 inch long, tie wires or bog rings. The wire should extend into the trench a minimum of 4 inches. • . The standard strength filter fabric should be stapled or wired to the fence, and 40 inches of the fabric should extend into the trench. When extra - strength filter fabric and closer post spacing are used, the wire mesh support fence may { be eliminated and the filter fabric stapled or wired directly to the posts. l • Avoid the use of joints. The filter fabric should be purchased in a continuous roll, then cut to the length of the barrier. When joints are necessary, filter cloth should be spliced together only at a support post, with a minimum 6 inch overlap, and both ends securely fastened to the post • The trench should be backfilled with compacted native materiaL Relnirrmrnts Maintenance: Inspect monthly during dry periods and immediately after each rainfall. Repair as necessary. Sediment must be removed when it reaches approximately one third the height of the fence, especially if heavy rains are expected. Filter fences should not be removed until the upslope area has been permanently stabilized. J .imitatinnq II • Filter fences will create a temporary sedimentation pond on the upstream side of the fence and may cause temporary flooding. Fences not constructed on a level contour will be overtopped by concentrated flow resulting in failure of the filter fence. • Filter fences are not practical where large flows of water are involved, Bence the need to restrict their use to drainage areas of one acre or less, and flow rates of less than (15 cfs. r • Problems may arise from incorrect selection of pore the and/or improper installation. • Do not allow water depth to exceed 13 ft at any point. • Improperly installed fences are subject to failure from undercutting, overlapping, or collapsing. ESC50 Pelee • asit PrectIcst art► Construction Handbook 5 - 64 March, 1993 I 1 Additional Information — Silt Fence REFERENCES 1 Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona, September1992. Environmental Action Manual, City of Austin, Texas, 1989. 1 Manual of Standards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Association of Bay Area Governments, Jun 1981. I Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, Work Group Working Paper, USEPA, April, 1992. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Practices, An Introductory of Current Practices (Draft), USEPA, 1990. Stomwater Management Manual for The Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, Public Review Draft, 1991. Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume II, Handbook of Management Practices, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - November 1988. 1 1 r . 1 1 1 ESC50 r Psi. Pits Construction Handbook 5 - 65 March, 1993 1 • 1 Additional Information --Silt Fence I _ r2" X 4" WOOD POST. STANDARD OR BETTER OR / EQUAL ALTERNATE: STEEL FENCE POST / 1 FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 60" WIDE ROLLS. Z.DI / USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTATCH FABRIC TO WIRE 1 — 2 "X2 "14 GA WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. • __ IL i �Zll • •••••••• • �••••••• • iii .. �III4 • • V IL_ IIL • • : • : • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • rffiiii • •iii i i i i i�•!i!i!S• •w • 1 6 � .� f %i\ % % \j \jam \ / �j / \ \j / \ \ / / \ \ //\ j \ \ /j� \� \j / \ \ /j \ \! � / 1 II 1 11 1 a H-} — — - - -- -- — T— 1 ro I I / BURY BOTT O FIL MATERIAL 1 • I I IN 8" X 12" TRENCH I 1 1 . 6' MAX. -L� tpl FILTER FABRIC MATERIA — I 2" X 2" 14 GA WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. FOLD & SET FILTER ' • FABRIC INTO SOIL 12 N ~ l'i '%_ BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE EXCAVATED �/ N F SOIL IN TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES >y. \, \/- �-....- OF FILTER FENCE FABRIC h• . 2 "X4' WOOD POST k 8". t 6 co ALT: STEEL FENCE POSTS 1 ESC50 SILT FENCE ! ®%r • Construction Handbook 5 - 66 March, 1993 1 BM P: STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION Objectives Housekeeping Practices Contain Waste 1 I•- •,` ir - � :��:a■ Minimise Disturbed Areas =r L'Y;. – L%:` ; ; .,' Stabilize nrstt»bedAreas 1 _ —: t ^ a i 1 r =I I Protect Slopes/Channels iii= . * I. ontrol Site Perimete .t- 1111 . Internal Erosion) GENERAL DEFINITION Targeted Pollutants Devices of various designs which detain sediment -laden runoff and allow the sediment it to settle prior to discharge into a storm drain inlet or catch basin. Sediment Q Nutrients I SUITABLE APPLICATIONS 0 Toxic Materials • Every storm drain inlet receiving sediment -laden runoff should be protected, either by • covering the inlet or promoting sedimentation upstream of the inlet. 0 011 & Grease 1 Q Floatable Materials INSTALLATION /APPLICATION 0 Other Construction • Five types of inlet protection are presented below, however, it is recognized that other Waste • O effective methods and proprietary device, exist and may be selected: Filter Fabric Fence: Appropriate for drainage basins less than one acre with less • likely to Have . than a.5 percent slope. Significant impact • - Block and Gravel Filter. Appropriate for flows greater than 0.5 cfs. 0 Probable Low or • 1 - Gravel and Wire Mesh Filter. Used on curb or drop inlets where construction unknown Impact equipment may drive over the inlet Implementation - Sand bag barrier. Used to create a small sediment trap upstream of inlets on Requirements sloped, paved streets. . Excavated Drop Inlet Sediment Trap: An excavated area around the inlet to trap Q Capital Costs sediment (see Sediment Trap ESC 55). 0 O&M Costs I • Select the appropriate type of inlet protection and design as referred to or as described in this fact sheet Q Maintenance • Use only for drainage areas crnaller than one acre unless a sediment trap first intercepts 0 Training the runoff. 0 Suitability for Provide area around the inlet for water to pond without flooding structures and Slopes >5% • property. I REQUIREMENTS • Maintenance Inspect weekly and after each rain l • High 0 Low - Replace clogged filter fabric or stone filters immediately. - Remove sediment when depth exceeds half the height of the filter, or half the E S C54 depth of the sediment trap. I • - Remove as soon as upstream soils are stabilized and streets are swept. Cost (source: EPA, 1992) e ®* - Average annual cost for installation and maintenance (1 year useful life) is 5150 /' 'ear" 1 per inlet Best Managemen Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 79 March, 1993 1 1 BM P:– STORM DRAIN INLET-PROTECTION (Continue) — - -- - LIMITATIONS • Drainage area should not exceed I acre. • • Runoff will bypass protected inlets on slopes. • Ponding will occur at a protected inlet, with possible short-tam flooding. • Straw bales are EX effective for inlet protection. 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ESC54 sta Boot Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 80 March, 1993 1 _ Additional Information — Storm Drain Inlet Protection ' Storm drain inlet protection consists of a seditnentfilter or an impounding areaarotmd or upstream of a storm drain, drop inlet, or curb inlet. This erosion and sedimentation control BMP prevents excessive sediment from entering storm drainage systems prior to permanent stabilization of the disturbed area All on -site storm drain inlets should be protected Off -site, inlets should be protected in areas where construction activity 1. tracks sediment onto paved areas or where inlets receive runoff from disturbed areas. Jnstallation/Aplication Criteria Planning Large amounts of sediment may enter the storm drain system when storm drains are installed before the upslope drainage area is stabilized, or where construction is adjacent to an existing storm drain. Incases of extreme sediment loading, the storm drain itself may clog and lose a major portion of its capacity. To avoid these problems, it is necessary to prevent secfunent from 1 entering the system at the inlets. Inletcontrol measures presented in this handbook should not be used for inlets draining mare than oneacre. Runoff from larger ' disturbed areas should be first routed through a Temporary Sediment Trap (see ESC 56). Different types of inlet protection are appropriate for different applications depending on site conditions and the type of inlet. Inlet protection methods not presented in this handbook should be approved by the local storm water management agency. ' General Design and sizing criteria: • Grates and spaces around all inlets should be sealed to prevent seepage of sediment -laden water. • Excavate sediment sumps (where needed)1 to 2 feet with 2:1 side slopes around the inlet. r Installation procedures for filter fabric fence: a. Place 2 inch by 2 inch wooden stakes around the perimeter of the inlet a maximum of 3 feet apart and drive them at least 1 8 inches into the ground. The stakes must be at least 3 feet long. b. Excavate a trench approximately 8 inches wide and 12 inches deep around the outside perimeter of the stakes. c. S taple the filter fabric (for materials and specifications, see Silt Fence ESC 50) to wooden stakes so that 32 inches of the fabric extends out and can be formed into the trench. Use heavy -duty wire staples at least one inch in length. d: Bacldill the trench with 3/4 inch or less washed gravel all the way around Installation procedure for block and gravel filter: ' a. Place hardware cloth or comparable wire mesh with one -half inch openings over the drop inlet so that the wire extends a minimum of I foot beyond each side of the inlet stmcttire. If more than one strip is necessary, overlap the strips. Place filter fabric over the wire mesh. ' b. Place concrete blocks lengthwise on their sides, in a single row around the perimeter of the inlet, so that the open ends face outward, not upward. The ends of adjacent blocks should abut. The height of the barrier can be varied, depending on design needs, by stacking combinations of blocks that are 4 inches, 8 inches, and 12 inches wide. The row of blocks should be at least 12 inches but no greater than 24 inches high. I! c. Place wire mesh over the outside vertical face (open end) of the concrete blocks to prevent stone from being washed through the blocks. Use hardware cloth or comparable wire mesh with one half inch openings. d. Pile washed stone against the wire mesh to the top of the blocks. Use 3/4 to 3 inch graveL 1 Installation procedure for gravel and wire mesh filters: a. Place wire mesh over the drop inlet so that the wire extends a minimum of 1 foot beyond each side of the inlet structure. ' Use hardware cloth or comparable wire mesh with one -half inch openings. If more than one strip of mesh is necessary, overlap the strips. Place filter fabric over wire mesh. ESC54 1 J,_ Practices Bald Construction Handbook 5 - 81 March, 1993 1 1 Additional Information — Storm Drain inlet Protection b. Place 3/4 to 3 inch gravel over the filter fabric/wire mesh. The depth of the gravel should be at least 12 inches over the �. entire inlet opening (see attached figure). Installation procedure for sand bag barrier: a. Use sand bag made of geotextik fabric (not burlap), and fill with 3/4 in. rock or 1/4 in. pea graveL b. Construct on gently sloping street c. Leave room upstream of barrier for water to pond and sediment to settle. d. Place several layers of sand bags — overlapping the bags and packing them tightly together. e. Leave gap of one bag on the top row to serve as a spillway. Flow from a severe storm (e.g., 10 -year storm) should not overtop the curb. Maintenance Requirements • For filter fabric fences: Inspections should be made on a regular basis, especially after large storm events. If the fabric becomes dogged, it should be replaced. Sediment should be removed when it reaches approximately one -half the height of the fence. If a sump is used, sediment should be removed when it fills approximately one -half the depth of the hole. • For gravel filters: If the gravel becomes clogged with sediment, it must be carefully removed from the inlet, and either cleaned or replaced. Since cleaning gravel at a construction site may be difficult, use the sediment -laden stone instead as fill and put fresh stone around the inlet • The inlet protection should be removed 30 days after the upslope area has been fully stabili7.r1. Any sediment around the inlet must be carefully removed and disposed REFERENCES Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona, September 1992. "Draft - Sedimentation and Erosion Control, An Inventory of Current Practices ", U.S.E.P.A., April, 1990. -1 Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, SJ. Goldman, IC Jackson, T.A. Bursetynsky, P.E., McGraw Hill Book Company. 1 Manual of Standards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Association of Bay Area Governments; June 1981. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, Work 1 Group Working Paper, USEPA, April, 1992. Stormwater Management Water for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, The Technical Manual - February 1992, Publication # 91 -75. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Handbook, First Edition, State of California, Department of Transportation Division of New Technology, Materials, and Research, October 1992 1 • 1 ESC54 rat Beet Practices Construction Handbook 5 - 82 March, 1993 1 I Additional Information — storm Drain inlet Protection STAKES —DROP INLET WITH GRATE r i • 1� 1 I . 1 : 4040+0 e e1 — Q ' S i e t e a t e4ie% � g eei e fo ei e 1eei e + t+ FILTER FABRIC `' ELEVATION , WASHED GRAVEL STAKES DROP INLET . 1 i. — — — FILTER FABRIC ' 1 q ■ v SEDIMENT LADEN a O 7 U7S.9 O ff► :.y I♦Er ��� °�► 'T . _ ► BURIED FILTER FABRIC t7/ ' PROFILE ESCS4 I FILTER FABRIC FENCE DROP INLET FILTER ars W Construction Handbook 5 - 83 March, 1993 Additional Information — Storm Drain Inlet Protection • NNW d y ap 1 F lo j . O °8 70 W p o 00000 0 ti:.t!:t•• CPO Z Z2 WIRE MESH WITH 1/2" OPENINGS GRAVEL FILTE" L 12" (3/4" TO 3" GRAVEL) FILTERED WATER ' . I:... ri�- l:jr:p> • w 11 7(— :1_I: = IIPMF4i = 11°= 11 =t1. II— • 1 SEDIMENT 1? I 7= = I • CONCRETE GUTTE• CURB INLET 1 GRAVEL AND WIRE MESH FILTER FOR CURB INLET ESC54 Pada Ba Pneetkes Construction Handbook 5 - 84 Marcb, 1993 • 1 1 Additional Information — Storm Drain Inlet Protection I 7/ ---...„ ---...„ %:. , / //// I - --„S --- - 0 \\\ " � � ii/P \\ / f ►� 1 <1/2/7 � �!`� /I 1 /////// \ STORAGE VOLUME. 3600 CU.FT. PER �" �\ DISTURBED DRAINAGE. SEDIMENT -LADEN RUNOFF AS' DEPTH BELQW TOP OF INLET: MIN Y - MAX 2' REQUIRED 1 .:_` 11 11= I1-t.. ••• MAX SLOPE 2 :1 _ . — .. ttrtt�t •Ii - n '�i- —II— 11=11— aT 11- =11- 1=1I: ' :11 11= LARGER PARTICLES A- WEEP HOLES 111 =11 SETTLE OUT STORM WATER WI 1' DEWATERING • Mt LARGER PARTICLES II 1 REMOVED 11 ?II =t1. DROP INLET .c 11'I SPECIFIC APPI ICATION THIS METHOD OF INLET PROTECTION IS APPLICABLE WHERE HEAVY FLOWS I - ARE EXPECTED AND WHERE AN OVERFLOW CAPABILITY AND EASE OF MAINTENANCE ARE DESIRABLE. ESC54 EXCAVATED DROP INLET SEDIMENT TRAP fly. Best nil .r,ctIcm• 1 Construction Handbook 5 - 85 March, 1993 1 1 Additional Information - Storm Drain Inlet Protection WIRE MESH WITH 1/2" OPENINGS .ar trat ml... r.— .. °Ij o f 131 ® n )o ' 0 0 lInelta).•o. �^ • 0 , — : :nor 0 L CONCRETE BLOCK • .11 ' • �� t GRAVEL FILTER • �%� • 13/4" TO 3" GRAVEL) • �� 7 • 1 WIRE MESH DROP INLET WITH GRATE 1 OVERFLOW r • RUNOFF WATER •;i1• _ • 4 " ' WITH SEDIME •,., eon B e r d i. . . p . f.-,C4 ���s!: i ;,.�r / SEDIMENT ✓' 1 ���� ILTERED WATER BLOCK AND GRAVEL FILTER AT DROP INLET 1 RUNOFF WATER 3/4" TO 3" GRAVEL ' WITH SEDIMENT (12" MIN DEPTH) 18" MIN WIRE MESH (VY rte �. �. �. �. .? ‘P .� al ir , OPENINGS) WITH r pr i g•i•i•••••ii•••••• • ON TOP FABRIC ..�r•.l .. nal ea •Itn-iit .. It . s. O.. It 1. Illh. r.: \ ?1= SEDIMENT •: - FILTERED WATER ESC54 ' GRAVEL AND WIRE MESH FILTER P fla 1 FOR DROP INLET • B.. Construction Handbook 5 - 86 March, 1993 , 1 1 ■ BMP: SEDIMENT BASIN ob jectives ■ Housekee Practices ' Contain Waste �® Minimize Disturbed Areas _ Stabalize Disturbed Areas I �� t� �,g�i Protect Slopes/Channels VV ii rI illMtaI11111 iU���llllll�mlt� control Site Perimeter ' I =I III— i =1 I GENERAL DEFINITION Targeted Pollutants A pond created by excavation or constructing an embankment, and designed to retain a detain • runoff sufficiently to allow excessive sediment to settle. Sediment 1 Q Nutrients SUITABLE APPLICATIONS Q Toxic Materiels • At the outlet of all disturbed watershed 10 acres or larger. 0 Oil & Grease I • At the outlet of smaller disturbed watersheds, as necessary, • Where post construction detention basins will be located. 0 Floatable Materials • Should be used in association with dikes, temporary channels, and pipes used to divert 0 Other Construction disturbed areas into the basin and undisturbed areas around the basin. - Waste 1 INSTALLATION /APPLICATION • likely to Have • Construct before clearing and grading work begins. 1 Signlncant Impact I I 0 ' Do st2t locate in a stream. Probable taw or • All basin sites should be located where failure of the embankment would not cause Loss Unknown Impact of life/property damage. • Large basins are subject to state/local dam safety requirements. Implementation I • Securely anchor and install an anti-seep collar on the outlet pipe/riser, and provide an Requirements emergency spillway for passing major floods (see local flood control agency). 0 Capital Costs • The basin volume should be sized to capture runoff from a 2 -year, 24 -hour storm, or other Q o &M Cos ts I appropriate design storms specified by the local agency. A detention time of24to4Ohours should allow 70 to 80 percent of sediment m settle. Q Maintenance • The basin volume consists of two zones: Q Training - A sediment storage zone at least 1 foot deep. Q Suitability for settling zone at leas[ 2 feet deep. Slopes >5% • The length to settling depth ratio (IJSD) should be less than 200. • The length to width ratio should be greater than 6:1, or baffles are required to prevent short 1 circuiting. REQUIREMENTS I • Maintenance I • High 0 Low Inspect weekly and after each rain. - Remove sediment where the sediment storage zone is half full C 56 1 Cost Average annual cost for installation and maintenance (2 year useful life, G J J V source: EPA, 1992) - Basin Less than 50.000 fL $0.40 per ft. ($700yor drainage acre) Basin size greater than 50,000 fL $0.20 per fL ($350 per drainage acre) � � I Best Managemen 1 / Practices Constructi on Handbook 5 - 90 March, 1993 1 . 1 BM P:— SEDIMENT - BASIN {Continue) -- LIMTTATIONS • The basin should have shallow side slopes (minimum 4:1) or be fenced to prevent drowning. • Sites with very fine sediments (fine silt and clay) may require longer detention times for effective sediment removal. • Basins in excess of 25 feet height and/or an impounding capacity of 50 ac. ft- must obtain approval front Division of Safety of Danis. • Standing water may cause mosquitos or other pests to breed. • Basins in excess of certain depth and storage volume criteria must meet State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) and local safety requirements. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 ESCSG Boot — _ Proton. Construction Handbook 5 - 91 March, 1993 1 1 Additional Information — Sediment Basin A sediment basin is a controlled storm water release structure formed by excavation or by constructing an embankment of • ' compacted soil across a drainageway, or other suitable location. Its purpose is to collect and store sediment from sites cleared and/or graded during construction or for extended periods of time before reestablishment of permanent vegetation and/or construction of permanent drainage structures. It is intended to trap sediment before it leaves the construction site. The basin is a temporary measure (with a design life of 12 to 18 months) and is to be maintained until the site area is permanently protected against erosion or a permanent detention basin is constructed. • Sedimentation basins are suitable for nearly all types of construction projects. Whenever possible, construct the sedimen- I tation basins before clearing and grading work begins. Basins should be located at the stormwater outlet from the site, but not in any natural or tmdisturbed stream. A. typical application would include temporary dikes, pipes, and/or channels to divert runoff to the basin inlet Many development projects in California will be required by local ordinances to provide a storm water detention basin for post - construction flood control, desiltation, or storm water pollution controL A temporary sedimentbasin may be constructed ' by ugh grading the post -construction control basins early in the project Sediment basins trap 70-80 percent of the sediment which flows into them if designed according to this handbook. 'Therefore, they should be used in conjunction with erosion control practices such as temporary seeding, mulching, diversion dikes, etc., to the amount of sediment flowing into the basin. jnstallation/Anolirttion Criteria I • Planning: To improve the effectiveness of the basin, it should be located to intercept runoff from the largest possible amount of disturbed area. The best locations are generally low areas below disturbed areas. Drainage into the basin can be improved by the use ' of diversion dikes and ditches. The basin must not be located in a stream but should be located to trap sediment -laden runoff beforc it enters the stream. The basin should not be located where its failure would result in the loss of life or interruption of the use or service of public utilities or roads • Design: • The sedimentation basin volume consists of two zones: • - The sediment storage zone (at least 1 foot in depth). 1 - A settling zone at least 2 feet in depth. • The sedimentation basin may be formed by partial excavation and/or by construction of a compacted embankment. It may have one or more inflow points. ' • Awn/rely anchored riser pipe with an and-seep collar is the principaloutlet, along with an emergency overflow spillway. A solid riser pipe with two 1 -inch diameterdewatering holes located at the top of the sediment storage volume on opposite sides of the riser pipe usually provides sufficient detention time for basins draining about 10 acres. Rock; rip -rap, or other ' suitable outlet protection is provided to reduce erosion at the riser pipe outlet. • Settling Zone Volume 1 • ESCSG Construction Handbook 5 - 92 March, 1993 1 Additional_Information_— sediment_aasin______ _ The settling zone volume is determined by the following equation: • (V) = 1.2(SD)Q/ VSED 1 Q = design inflow based on the peak disrharge from a speed design storm (e.g., a 2 -year, 24-hour duration design storm event) from the tributary drainage area as computed using the methods required by the local flood control agency. Provide a minimum of 67 cubic yards of settling volume per acre of drainage if a design storm is not specified. VSED =the settling velocity of the design soil particle. The design panicle chosen is medium silt (0.02 nip). This has a settling velocity (VSED) of 0.00096 ft/sec. As a general rule it will not be necessary to design for a particle of size less than 0.02 mm, especially since the surface area requirement increases dramatically for smaller particle sizes. For example, a design particle of 0.01 mm requires about three times the surface area of 0.02 mm. Note also that choosing VSED of 0.00096 ft/sec equates to a surface area (SA) of 1250 sq. ft per cfs of inflow. ' SD = settling depth, which should be at least 2 ft, and no shallower than the average distance from the inlet to the outlet of the pond (L) divided by 200 (i.e., SD > L200). Total sediment basin volume and dimension are determined as outlined below: 1 a. The details shown in the attached figure may be useful in designing the sediment basin. ' b. Determine basin geometry for the sediment storage volume calculated above using aminimum of 1 ft depth and 3:1 side slopes from the bottom of the basin. Note, the basin bottom is level. c. Extend the basin side slopes (at 3:1 max.) as necessary to obtain the settling zone volume as determined above. d. Adjust the geometry of the basin to effectively combine the settling zone volume and sediment storage volumes while preserving the depth and side slope criteria. e. Provide an emergency spillway with a crest elevation one foot above the top of the riser pipe. f. The ratio between the basin length and width of the pond should either be greater than 6:1, or baffles should 1 be installed to prevent short- circuiting. j imitations Sediment traps and ponds must be installed only within the property limits. Failure of the structure must not result in loss of life, damage to homes or buildings, or interruption ofuseorservice ofpublicroadsorutilities. Also, sediment traps and ponds are attractive to children and can be very dangerous. Local ordinances regarding health and safety must be adhered to. If fencing of the pond is required, the type of fence and its location shall be shown in the SWPPP and in the construction specifications. • Generally, temporary sedimentation ponds are limited to drainage of 5 acres or more. • Sedimentponds maybe capable of trapping smallersaliment particles if additional detention time is provided. However, they are most effective when used in conjunction with other BMPs such as seeding or mulching. • Ponds may become an "attractive nuisance" and care must be taken to adhere to all safety practices. • Sediment ponds designed according to this handbook are only practically effective in removing sediment 1 down to about the medium silt size fraction. Sediment -laden runoff with smaller size fractions (fine silt and clay) will pass through untreated emphasizing the need to stabilize the soil quickly. 1 ESC56 Bad Rotten Construction Handbook 5 - 93 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Sediment Basin REFERENCES 1 A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Coastal Zones, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, March, 1992. Best Management Practices and Erosion Control Manual for Construction Sites, Flood Control District of Maricopa 1 County, Rough Draft - July 1992. Draft - Sedimentation and Erosion Control, An Inventory of Current Practices, US.EP.A., April, 1990. 1 Environmental Criteria Manual, City of Austin, Texas. ' Guidlines for the Design and Construction of Small Embankment Dams, Division of Safety of Danis, California Depart- ment of Water Resources, March 1986. Manual of Standards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Association of Bay Area Governments, Jun 1981. ' Proposed Guidance Specifying Mnangement Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Water, Work Group Working Paper, USEPA, April, 1992. 1 Stormwater Management Water for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, The Technical Manual - February 1992, Publication # 91 -75. ' Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume II, Handbook of Management Practices, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - November 1988. 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 ESC56 Bast Practices Construction Ha ndbook 5 - 94 March, 1993 1 BMP: PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION P gram Elements New Development ceaidantialI '- YOU CAN PREY N Commercial Activitie;) W dTER POLLUTION Industrial Activities �.•• �• u Municipal Facflitier = cf sr Chugs; Dlechargec Graphic: North Carnal Tuxes 000,1903 DESCRIPTION Public education/participation, hike an ordinance or a piece of equipment, is not so much a best management practice as it I is a method by which to jrnnlemrnt BMPs. This fact sheet highlights thc importance of integrating dements of public education and participation into a mwmicipality's overall plan for storm water quality management. Public education/ participation art vital components of many of the individual source control BMPs that follow in this chapter. I A public education and participation plan provides the municipality with a strategy for educating its employees, the public, and businesses about the importance of protecting storm water from improperly used, stored, and disposed of pollutants. Municipal employees must be trained, especially those that work in departments not directly related to storm water but whose actions.affca storm water. Residents must become aware that a variety of hazardous produas are used in the home and that their improper use and disposal can pollute storm water. Incased public awareness also facilitates public scrutiny of industrial and municipal activities and will likely increase public reporting of incidents. Businesses. I particularly smaller outs that may not be regulated by Federal, State, or local regulations, must be informed of ways to reduce their potential to.pollute storm water. - The specific public education/participation aspects of each of the source controls arc highlighted in the individual fact sheets_ Thc focus of this fact shat is more general, and includes thc overall objectives and approaches for assuring . public involvement in local storm water management programs. Accordingly, the organization of this fact sheet differs I somewhat from the other fact sheets in this chapter. OBJECTIVES Thc public education and participation plan should be based on four objectives: • Promote a clear identification and understanding of the problem and the solutions, . • Identify responsible panics and efforts to date, I • Promote community ownership of the problems and the solutions, and • Integrate public frerihrtr into program implementation. 1 APPROACH • Pattern a new program after the many established programs from mtmicipalitics around the stare and country. - I Whenever possible, integrate storm water public education/participation into existing programs from other depart- tncns at your municipality: _ SC • a Best Managemen Practices ' Municipal Handbook 4 - 2 March, 1993 • BMP: PUBLIC EDUCAT1OWPARTICIPATION (CONTINUE) • Implanmt public fon/partidparioo as a coadinatcd campaign in which each mevn ge is related to the Ias - • Present a clear and consistent mecsage and image to the public regarding how they contribute to storm eater pollution and what they can do to reduce it • • Expand defnition of " public" to include small businesses and construction site opera tors who often possess the same limited levels of awareness of the problems, regulations, and solutions as the "general" public. As a result, small businesses need the same level of technical acsicranee (education) and participation in the process as the "general" public • Utilize multi -media to mach the full range of audiences. • Translate messages into the foreign languages of the community to reach the full spectrum of your populace and to avoid misintcspremtion of messages. • Create an awareness and identification with the local watershed. • Involve focus or advisory groups in the development of a public educarion/partidpation pis This will create a much more effectiveplan as well as promote ownership of the plan by those involved. • Use everyday language in all public pieces. Use outside reviewers to highlight and reduce the use of technical terminology, anonyms, and jargon- ' • Make sure all statements have a sound, up-to -date technical basis. Do not contribute to the spread of misinforma- don- • Break up canplinted subjects into smaller morc simple concepts. Present these concepts to the public in a mcurcd and organized way to avoid "overloading" and confusing the audience. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCO �s. J (♦ti� Municipal Handbook 4 - 3 March, 1993 ,- Additional Information —Public Educatlort/Patticipailon I Public education and participation are critical elaments of many of chest source control BMPs. As each municipality 1 chooses source u is SWMP, and develops and implements SWMP, it is vay important that the public education and panicipafoa aspects of the chosen source controls be integrated into an overall plan. The presentation of a well coordi- nated and comprehensive campaign will Ix much more effective and efficient at teaching the target audiences than a I series of separate actions whose relation to one another may trot be evident_ Tamer Andicnerl To effectively achieve these objectives, the implementation of a public education and participation plan requires that the • ' full range of target audiences be identified and provided with appropriate information and outreach_ The following audiences should be included_ ' • Political - Elected officials and heads of departments, agencies, and commissions; • Technical (Internal) - Municipal department and agency staffs; • Technical (External) - Stare agencies (Cal -EPA. SWRCB, IWMB, ARB), regional agencies (eg.,ABAG. SLAG, I AMBAG, wafer acid transportation agwdes), and neighboring governments; • Business - Commercial and industrial, including trade assn cations; • Construe: fiat - Developers and contractors; ' Commtmity Groups - Fraternal, conic, hobby. horticultural, senior citizen, and service; al Environmental Groups; • Geaaal Public/Residential; 1 • Schools/Youth Group ▪ Media - Print and electronic, and • Pollutant-defined - Groups of individuals defined by the specific pollutant(s) they di< charge (c -g., used motor oil. pesticides). • t Sttaroir Activities - 2be public must have a clear understanding of the problem of storm water pollution in order to bring about the behavioral changes needed to reduce the (Recharge of pollutants - Part of this "clear understanding" involves increasing the public's . realization of their "place in the watershed. The public should be educated about the watershed, where they live in relation to it, and how their behavior affects the health of the whole watershed. Ultimarrly, municipal employees, ritirrns, and businesses must realize that they conulbate to storm water pollution and that by modifying their behavior they tun contribute to the solution. Implementation of the public education and participation plan is the mechanism by which this understanding is attained, and these behavioral changes are brought about. It has been estimated that some individuals require exposure to the same tot-stage up to seven times. from a variety of media, before behavior modification occurs Therefore, given limited resouuccs, the key question is not what cam activity ' (e.g., fair) or media (e.g., radio) is best, but what mixtnm.of these dements is most effective for the target audience. In light of this information, the public education and participation plan should include a variety of activities to teach and I educate the target audiences. These activities may include . • Program Pining and Tracking - Public surveys and daraM.rse; ' • Program Identity c Program message, logo, and tag It Collateral Material -Newsletter, fact sheets, brochures, posters; • Coordinating Committees; 1 • Media Campaign - Press releases, advertising, public service amaouncements; SCO 1 as 407/ Ws n.es ' Municipal Handbook 4 = 4 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Public Education/Participation - Residential Programs - Storm dram stencilling, home toxics clrrtlisdalternativcs, and sprrfie neighborhood 1 ProJe�: • Presentations - Environmental booth, speakers bureau, and special events; - Business Programs - Workshops, publications, and green business projects: • - Consnumioo Programs - Workshops educational materials, and certification; • Consumer Programs - Point of purchase displays and printed grocery bags; and School Education - Facility tours, contests, and curriculum_ Flemrnts of a Model Public Fdnrarion/Partir'inatinn Plaq The following elements of a model plan are based on plans developed in California and dsewhat. The list of elements is intended as a guideline or menu only. The list of activities is by no means exhaustive, and new aaivitics are being developed by communities on an ongoing basis. The actual level, priority, and schrrinlr of activities in your agency's public education/participation plan must be based on your community's needs and resources. Commtmiries have typically developed 5-year plans to match the length of their NPDES permit._ That arc some activities thaf should occur before others. These activities are listed as a group first, followed by a general list of other activities - ,Start -Tip Activities • Program Planning and Tracking (Public survey and database) - A public survey is an important toot to assess the the of toxic materials, perceptions of health risk, disposal practices, support and willingness to pay for new programs, , and overall environmental awareness. The survey results will rnnratr you as to your com munity's needs and guide the development and implanentation of your public education and panicipation plan. Surveys are equally important in establishing a haceline for evaluating the effectiveness of program.. As such, surveys should be conducted • ' , on a regular basis (e.g. biannual) to gauge your program's success. Strongly consider the use of a professional survey firm. Surveys conducted in an ,mscientiflc marina often provide poor information at best, and misinforma- tion at worst A dataha« is another important program assessment tool that should be initiated before the program begins. The database can maintain information on mailing lists, phone inquiries, material distributions, spill incident data, and levels of effort As much as possible, the program's effort should be quantified to mark its progrtss and to provide feedback to the public and to the regulatory agencies. • Program Identity (Message, logo, and tag line) - The development of a consistent image which appears on all materials distributed by your program will promote an understanding of the program. its mission, and its interconnectedness with other issues and programs. The development of a program logo with such high public • exposure should be performed by a professional graphics firm. • Coordinating committees - The work of other agencies within your mrmicipality and other groups outside of the municipality often torches on some part of the storm water quality issue as a byproduct of these groups' efforts. ' Committees should be established that coordinate the storm water public education/participation program with other environmental education efforts within. the municipality and at the schools. Likewise, suc cssfulimplemcntation of the storm wars management program cats across most mtmicipal departments requiring that represcntadvcs from these departments meet regularly to coordinate their efforts. SCi) Best Municipal Handbook 4 - 5 March, 1993 - 1 • ' Additional Information — Public Education/Participation fhher Artivrrirs • Media Campaign (Press releases, advertising, and public service announcements) - The media (radio, television, and ' newspapers) offers both widespread coverage and the oppotmnity to repeat the same message Cultivate media support and involvement by educating media staff on the purpose of the program. Press retraces and public service aemcm (PSAs) may be produced on a regular basis to inform the public about upcoming events, household hazard waste collections, and sources of additional information_ Billboards and municipal vehicle (buses, street sweepers) placards arc another effective media for transmitting the program logo and tag line. I • Collateral Material (Newsletter. fact sheets. brochure and posters) - Produce newsletters at regular intervals to inform program participants, the general public, and businesses about the program. Fact sheers may be used to inform the public about specific iscors Brochures provide an overall picture of the program and can be used to highlight the programs a rmptcbcnsivcness and long tam nature- . Posters may be displayed at municipal offices for both public education and municipal staff training. and distributed to schools and businesses. I • Residential .Programs (Storm drain stencilling, home toxic chectlisrraltanatives, and specific neighborhood projects) - Because of its short development time and low maintenance costs, storm drain stencilling is often one of the first activities implemented by communities- Likewise, a home taxies d>ccklisttalmvatives publication, devel- oped initially to meet household hazardous waste regulations, may bc integrated into the public education effort I about storm water quality. Some larger communities are targeting specific neighborhoods for more concentrated and, immediate education, because of tbcir geographic position in a watershed- I • Piesentatiorss (Fnviroomental booth, speakers bureau, and special events) - Direct contact between the municipal staff' implementing the storm water management program and the public can be a highly effective way of educating target audiences. Environmental booths can bc especially effective because they distribute the message in a three I dimensional, sometimes interactive way. A special event an bring extra attention to tie program by highlighting a milestone, particularly if reporters from the media cover the event I • Construction Programs (workshops, educational materials and certification) - Contractors and developers often need education on sources, imparts, and control of pollutants from construction sites. Site operators often teed assistance in developing erosion and sediment controls A certification program may be appropriate for all construction site operators, plan reviewers and inspeaots- The certification program would establish a minimumcompetency level for those involved in preparing and implementing erosion and cediment control plans, and storm water pollution prevention pleas. • Business Programs (Workshops, publications, and "green" business project) - Some businesses are more likely than otitis to contribute to storm water pollution. Municipality's can take advantage of this by defining and focusing education efforts on priority businesses. Small businesses, in particular. need assistance with understanding the problems and being made aware of alternatives and solutions. The use of an eduational, positive incentive -based program for small businesses is often much more effective than a traditional command-and-control approach. • Consumer Programs (Point of purchase displays and printed grocery bags) - Point of purchase displays an be very effective because they convey the program's message directly to the consumer at the time and place the purchase decision is being made- Grocery bags printed with the program logo and tag line are a quick and effective way to give brief information to many people SCO Municipal Handbook 4 - 6 March, 1993 • i Additional Information - Pub( Education/Padictpatbn School Educarioo (Facility tours, contests, and curriculum) - The most effcaive long term method to modify —, behavior is to edtratc people at an early age. Facility tours of the wastewater treatment plant, sewer system, ' household hazardous waste collection center, and other municipal facilities provides children with a fast hand look at the processes involved with treating waste and reinforces the awareness that substances deposited to the storm drain are not treated Contests to develop posters, calendars, etc. are a fun way to raise children's awareness and the aoeuracy of the resulting products can provide feedback as to effectiveness of other educational efforts. An environ- • . mental curriculum coveting recycling. energy use. air and water pollution can be a highly effective but long tam . educational activity. Several groups have recently developed or art developing curricula (see below). Framnln of Pt-alive Ptomains. • There are a number of communities with effective public education/participation programs. The most pro-active include Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto, Alameda County, the City and Cotmty of San Francisco, the Santa Monica 2 Bay Restoration Project. City of Los Angeles Clean Water Program, City of Santa Monica the Municipality of Metro- politan Seattle (Metro), and the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, Orcgoa. In addition, large businesses, such as PG&E. have used inserts in their bill mailings to educate their castanets. The-Califomia Coastal Commissio and the Lindsay Museum are both developing a cmricultm targeted at nonpoint source pollution, and the San Francisco Estuary Project has already developed such a asthenia= for 1C-12 REFERENCES • The Global Cities Pmjca, 1992. Offer Residents an Education Program About Water Protection, Building Sustainable Communities. Noopoint Source Pollution: You are the Key to the Cleanup, Water Environment Federation, 1992 r • Pacific Gas and Eleatic. 1992 Let's Keep Our Creeks Clean, PG&E Spotlight Public Infccmaaw/Pagicipation Plan, 1992 Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program- San Francisco Department of Public Works, 1992- Bat Management Practices Public Education Piaa. ' Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program, 1990. Public Information/Participation Plan- Schumacher, macber, J.W. and R.F. Grimes, 1992. A Model Public Education Process for Stormwarer Management, p. 55 -58. ' Public Works for September, 1992 • • ■ al :r salt • r r 1 Municipal Handbook 4 - 7 . March, 1993 ' BMP: HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES Program Elements New Development I 55: (Residential) GAL. :ti r: -gig e • .� : ;..J • . Commercial Activities pr industrial Activities • . CMunicipa/Fadlitle - s f ir . 5 5 . .. ... ' S 5 Wraps/ Discharges .II ': GAL. GAL. ' DESCRIPTION Targeted Constituents Promote efficient and safe housekeeping practices (storage, use, and cleanup) when handling potentially harmful materials such fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning solutions, • Sediment rly I paint products, automotive products, and swimming pool chemicals. Related information is • Nutrient, provided in BMPs SCI1. Safer Alternative Products: SC31. Household Hazardous Waste Collection: SC32, Used Oil Recycling; and the Spill Pa-venial and Cleanup BMPs 0 Haag Metals (SC40/SC41). For information on specific activities at municipal facilities, see Chapter 4, Industrial Handbook. • • Toxic Materfak . 0 Fkutable Materials APPROACH I • Pattern a new program after the many established programs from municipalities arotmd • oxygen Demand the state and comcmtry. Integrate this best management practice as much as possible Imp Substances g with existing programs at your municipality. • 011 & Greats • This BMP has two key audiences, municipal employees and the general public_ ` • Implanter this EMP in conjunction with SC11, Safer Alternative Products. Q "� Viruses • For a quick rr[erence on disposal alternatives for specific wastes, see Table 4.1, SC50, • Utakf' b Have IIIegal Dumping Control Significant impact Q Probable Low or Unknown Impact REQUIREMENTS • Cost Considerations Implementation - The primary oast is for staff time as noted below. Requirements • Regulations 0 Capita/ Costs - There are no regulatory requirements to this BMP. Existing regulations already c o6M assts require municipalities to property store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials • Administrative / Staffing 0 Regulatory - Staff to train municipal employees and to coordinate public education efforts. • Equipment Q Staffing - Thar we no major equipment trquiteme:us to this BMP. • Training • Training - Municipal employees who handle potentially harmful materials should be trained Adrnlnittr:Mrs in good housekeeping practices. Personnel who use pesticides must be trained in I • High 0 Low I their use The California Department of Pesticide Regulation license pesticide dealers- artily pesticide applicators and conduct on -site iaglretinns S C 10 PUBLIC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION • Public awareness is a key to this BMP. Pall .••,// LIMITATIONS Best • There are no major limitations to this bat managcmcnt practice Managemen Practices . ' Municipal Handbook 4 - 14 March, 1993 Additional Information — Housekeeping Practices. Municipal facilities should follow the best management practices outlined in Chapter 4 of the Industrial Handbook. most 1 of which include good housekeeping measures. Municipalities should develop controls on the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in public right-of-ways and at municipal farilitir -c Controls may include • list of approved pesticides and selected uses; • Product and application information for users; • Equipment use and maintenance procedures; and • Record keeping and public notice ptoccdun s. For the general public, municipalities should establish a public education program that provides information on such items as storm water pollution and the beneficial effects of proper disposal on water quality; reading product labels; safer alternative products; safe storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous products; list of local agencies: and emergency pboae numbers. The programs listed below have provided this information through brochures or booklets that art available at a variety of places including mtmicpal offices, household hazardous waste collection events or farilitics, and public information fairs. The following discissioa provides some general information on good housekeeping that may be provided to the general ' public. More specific information on particular chemicals may be found in the references listed below. • Always use caution when handling my hazardous household product. Many products contain toxic chemicals that can cause severe injury or death. • Store household hazardous products securely and away from children, pets, and sources of heat, sparks, and flames. • Store products in their original containers and keep them well labeled 12 ly e store chemicals in food containers. • Read and follow use instructions. 111 Avoid contact with eyes and skin. Wear gloves and eye protection when using hazardous substances. Do not wear • contact krises which can absorb hazardous vapors. • . Work in only well ventilated areas. • .Use up all of the product before disposing or give extra to friends, neighbors or community groups. • Doom dispose of household hazardous waste: - in trash, - down storm drains or into creels, - down sink or toilet. - onto the gtamd, or ▪ by burning • pp dispose of hazardous wastes at household hazardous waste collection events or facilities The California Integrated Waste Management Board's Recycling Hotline, 1- 800-553 -2962, provides information on household hazardous waste collection programs and facilities. 1 Tramples of Ffiertivr Programs mere are a number of communities with effective programs. The most pro-active include Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alm, the Qty and County of San Francisco, and the Municipality of Mc.ucpolitan Seattle (Metro)_ ,REFERENCES • The Bay Begins at Yaw Door (Brochure), Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, (No date). Guide to Hazardous Products Around the Home (Booklet), Household Hazardous Waste Project, 1989. ,' • SC1� omit Municipal Handbook 4 - 15 March, 1993 1 1 BMP: MATERIAL STORAGE CONTROL program Elements New Development • CO✓ER TO MItIIC Residential STORM WATER - Commercial Activities . Industrial Activities ' .aw. - M unlclpa/ Fxkk : v N C r ,y: C,74a uo' e ; r' ^ illegal Dlschargaa ; � rr !1 ut•:.�• 1 DIKE TO CONiNN ? fir spas it RutnrF , C•I t►; ' DESCRIPTION • Targeted Constituents Pratt or reduce the dicrharzc of pollutants to storm water from material delivery and . Q storage by rninimiring the suxage of hazardous materials on -site. stating materials in a Sediment I designated area, in «aping secondary containment, conducting regular inspections, and i Nutrients training employees and subcontractors. • 0 Heavy Metals • ' This test management practice primarily covers material delivery and storage for munici- • Torte materials pal opaatioos For material storage related to the general public (c g., storage of pesti- cides) refer to SC1O Housekeeping Practices. For other information on municipality 0 Floatable Materials handling of materials, see Spill Prevention and Cleanup BMPs (SC40/SC41) and Material ' Disposal and Recycling BMPs (SC30- SC32). The Industrial Handbook also contains 0 Oxygen Demand - material managcmmt information for industrial activities at municipal facilities. Ing Substances 0 011 & Grease 1 APPROACH _ • The key is to design and maintain material storage taus that reduce exposure to storm 0 Bacteria & vinraea water. • Store materials inside or under cover on paved surfaces 1 - Use secondary containment Q Probable Low or - Minimize storage and handling of hazardous materials Unknown Impact • - Inspect storage areas regularly. ' • For a quick reference on disposal alternatives for specific wastes, see Table 4.1. SCSO, Implementation Illegal �p� Control Requirements Capital Costs 1 REQUIREMENTS Q o&M costs ▪ Cost Conside:anions - Will vary depending on the size of the facility and the necessary controls. 0 Regulatory I Regulauons Q .Staffing Storage of reactive, ignitible, or flammable liquids mast comply with the Uniform Fire Code and the National Electric Code.. • Training • Administrative / Staffing . Accurate and up-to -date inventories should be kept of all stored materials Q Administrative l • Equipment • High O Low 1 - Keep an ample supply of spill cleanup materials near the storage area. I /� Training C � Employees should be well trained in proper material storage J I PUBLIC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION Fa • Employee education is paramount for successful BMP implementation. / v. re • Best II LIMITATIONS Managemen • Storage sheds often must mat building and fire code requirements. practices ' Municipal Handbook 4 - 19 Mardi, 1993 • 1 Additional Information— Material Storage Control i The following mat are commonly scored at m facilities — _'— • Pesticides and herbicides, • Fertilizers, • Detergents, • Petroleum products such as fuel oil. and grease, and • Other hazardous chemicals such as acids, lime, glues, paints, solvents, and curing eompormds. Storage of these materials can pose the following risks: 1 • Injury to workers or visitors, • Grotmdwatn coaraminarioo, • Soil contamination, and • Storm water contamination. • Therefore, the following steps should be taken to minimizr your tide 1 • Employees trained in emergency spill cleanup procedures should be present when dangerous waste, liquid chemicals, . or other wastes are delivered. . • Store materials inside or under cover whenever possible. • Designate a secure material storage area that is paved with Portland cement concrete, fret of orates and gaps, and impervious in order to contain leaks and spills. • Drums stored in an area where tmauthorized persons may gain access mast be segued to prevent accidental spillage, ?di pilferage, or any unauthorized use. • Whenever possible, store - materials in r-rerartary containment. • Do not store rtrmienIS drums, or bagged materials directly on the ground- Place these items in secondary contain- ' meat • If drums mast be kept uncovered, store them at a slight angle to reduce poodrng of rainwater on the lids and to reduce corrosion. • Storage of reactive, ignitible, or flammable liquids must comply with the local codes Contact the Fore Marshal to review site materials, quantities, and proposed storage area to determine specific requirements. See the Flammable MI Combustible Liquid Code, NFPA30. • When designing a storage area, include measures to prevent and contain spills (see BMPS SPUSP2). • Keep an =mat, up-to -date inventory of the materials delivered and stored on-site. • Keep your inventory down. Store only the am0int you rod, for only as long as you need it- • Store as few hazardous materials on -site as possible. • Handle hazardous materials as infrequently as possible. • Try to keep chemicals m their original containers, and keep-them well labeled. • Train employees in proper storage measures. • Keep the designated storage area dean and well organ zed. • Conduct routine weekly inspections and check for external corrosion of material containers. REFERENCES ' Best Management Practices for Industrial Storm Water Pollution Control, Santa Clara Valley NoapointSource Pollution Control Program, 1992. - . • • Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management 1 Practices, USEPA, July 1992 • Water Quality Best Management Practices Manual, City of Stank, 1989. - • Pere n.wo= Municipal Handbook 4 - 20 March, 1993 1 lI Badlands PrograBadlands TENTION /INFILTRATION DEVICE MAINTENANCE I BMP DE New Development i Residential �►� Commercial Activities industrial Activities i . . ►. rif . . CMunicipa/ Facilities . il legal Discharger i DESCRIPTION Targeted Constituents Proper maintenance and siltation removal is requited on both a routine and:coatxtive basis • Sediment to promote effective storm water pollutant removal efficiencies fcc wet/dry detention pond and infiltration devices. 0 Nutrients APPROACH Heavy Metals Remove silt after cuff ciao acemnulation. 0 Toxic Materials ▪ Periodically dean accumulated sediment and silt out of pre-treatment inlets. Infiltration device silt removal should occur when the infiltration rate drops below 1t2' O. Fiostabla Materials inch pa hour. •. Oxygen Demand- • Removal of aconnulatcd paper, north, and debris shouldoccur every six (6) months or ing Substances ' as needed to prevent dogging of control devices. • Vegetation growth should not be allowed to exceed 18 inches in height 0 Oil & Grasse • Mow the slopes periodically and check for dogging. erosion and um growth on the embankment • Bacteria & Viruses • Corrective. maintenance may require more frequent attention (as required). • Wady to Have Sly itIcas rImpact REQUIREMENTS. 0 P obabh Cow or • Cost Considtions Unw,o.m impact era - Frequent sediment removal can be labor intensive and costly. However. properly Implementation designed ponds allow for easy removal of accumulated sediments at n latively Requirements I - minor cost - Q Capital Costs Cost of waste material for transport and disposal. • AdministrativciStaffmg Q O&M Carts - - Two - person teams may be needed for routine silt removal and excavation . 0 Regulatory • Program manage needed to tea& maintenance activities and provide field assistance. - - Q Stalling • Staff team needed for corrective maintenance activities. 0 . Training ` • . Regulations - Permits may be requited by Corps or Engines. Fish & Wildlife or State Fish & . 0 Administrative Creme. . • Equipment ( • High 0 Low - Vehicles, dump rinks. bulldozes, traelmoes, excavators, mowers. weed trim- mers, sickles. machetes, shovels, rakes, and personal protective equipment (PPE), SC75 • (goggles, dust masks, coveral s, boots, gloves). Training ia Appropriate excavation and maintenance procedures. / y/ � I - • Proper waste disposal procedures. Beat Managemen Practices Municipal Handbook 4 - 78 . March, 1 19 . _ . • • . BMP--:- DETENFIOWINFlLTRA7ION- DEVICE - MAINTENANCE- (Continue) - -- - - - - -- - - - �1 PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION • •Create a public education campaign to explain the function of wet/dry detention pond/infiltration devices and their _' operational requirements for proper effectiveness • Encourage the public to report wet/dry detention pondfinfiltradon devices needing maintenance LIMITATIONS • Wet detention pond dredging an produce slurried want that often exceeds the requirrce ents of many landfills - Frequent sediment removal is labor and cost intensive • • • • r r t • • r r .1 SC75 1 • Ps„r W R•rNe•• • Municipal Handbook 4 - 79 March, 1993 • Additional Information — Detention/Infiltration Device Maintenance Maintn anre Proper maintenance of detention pond and infiltration device systems is a source control procedure necessary to ensure effective storm water pollutant removal efficiency. Routine and corrective maintenance needs should be monitored after storms for proper function of wet ponds, extended detention brim, and infiltration device structures. Proper mainte- I Dance of these structures requires periodic silt/sediment and trash debris removal, as well as timely vegetation conrroL Detention basin silt removal should own when the acC mmulated depth exr.Ms six. (6) inches on average in basins without sediment traps. In basins with sediment traps, silt removal should occur when accumulation exceeds four (4) ruche More frequent sediment removal is recommended. especially in areas where roadway drainage provides a significant I runoff component Higb.accumulation rates of heavy metal contaminants (lead, zinc, copper) have been identified in these BMP structures adjacent to high traffic areas. In order to avoid situations of hazardous waste disposal. sediment dredging and excavation should be given frequent priority. 1 Maintenance atoms may require access vehicles, dump trucks, bulldozers, and dredging/excavation equipment Manual • use equipment (such as rakes, shovels, sickles, machetes) may suffice for maintenance of dry detention ponds and infiltration device systems. Staffing will require a minimum of two (2) person•aews for health and safety reasons and I effective structural BMP maintenance. A program manages should oversee operations tither in the field or be readily accessible for providing procedural advice or direction. For corrective maintenance activities, a contingent team of field . staff should be ready to mobilize for remedial action. I A public awareness campaign for educating the community of the operational and maintenance requitements of these BMP structures for pollutant removal effectiveness would assist in the monitoring of these sysrrnc. A community phone ' number for the reporting of stuatrrts - public and private- in need of maintenance would help to provide corrective maintenance as requinx. REFERENCES Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management. Storm water and Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs for Developing Areas, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1988. Enviroamenrai Criteria Manual, Design Guidelines for Water Quality Control, City of Austin, Texas, 1989. • • 1 1 1 1 ' SC75 • • • 1 Municipal Randbook 4 - 80 Minch, 1993 1 f BMP: STORM CHANNEL!CREEK MAINTENANCE Program Elements 1 Gew Development • , er Ridentlal • • • • I • • .• e. • t e � Si ti. • .M. Commercial Activities i?k4 , • 4 I . 1. —i industrial Activities • • ... . CMunicipal Facilitie?) A 4' Il legal Discharger) 1 .- - - G raphic North Central Texas COG, 1993 I DESCRIPTION Targeted Constituents Reduce pollutant levels in storm water by regularly removing illegally -d mmped items and • Sedi material from storm drainage dannels and ardor . Modify channel characteristics to . I rnha Ire pollutant removal and/or hydraulic capacity. 0 Nutrients APPROACH fa Heavy Metals . . ' I • _ Identification of illegal dumping hot spots; regular inspection and clean up of hot spots . Toxic Materiels . and other storm drainage areas where illegal dumping and disposal occurs_ Posting "No Littering" signs with a phone numtxr for repotting a dumping in- progress. 0 FlontaMle Materials Adoption and enforcement of substantial penalties for illegal dumping and disposal. Modification of storm channel ebaraaeristics to improve channel hydraulics, to Ing Su b a Substances D increase pollutant removals, and to enhance r bannrVacck aesthetic and habi tat value. • Maintenance of aCcurare logs to evaluate materials removed and improvements made. • 011 & Grease 1 REQUIREMENTS 0 Bacteria & Viruses • Cost Considerations • L key w Have 1 = Purchase and.inaallmion of signs. +fit htpact Cost of vehicle(s) to haul illegally disposed items and material m landfills. 0 Probable Lan' or - Rental of heavy equipment to remove larger items (e.g.. car bodies) from channels. Unknown lmpa t . 1 - Purchase of bnrlfill space to dispose of illegally-dumped items and material. Implementation - Capital and maintenance acts for channel mall f tioas. Requirements • I gu]atrons Q Capita / Cotta • • - Adoption of substantial penalties for illegal dumping and disposaL I • Administratio&Staffmg Q O&M Costs - Larger municipalities should commit at least ouc full -time staff person; anatlrr munirapalitics at least one part -time staff person_ Additional staff as- needed. Q Regulatory a • Equipment and Materials (see div above). Q Staffing Training - Channel maintenance and use of heavy equipment. • Training - Identification and handling of hazardous matcrials/waates. O I Administrative _ PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION ' • Education oo the need for proper disposal of refuse. I • nigh 0 Low I Notification of penalties for illegal dwnping/disposaL C r ' LIMITATIONS S C 76 • Clean -up activities may create a slight disturbance for local aquatic specks_ 1 • Access to items and material on private property may be limited. ��° ch • annel Trade -offs may exist between hydraulics and water quality/ riparian habitat / -, t/ r • Worker /public safety may be at risk in crime-ridden or homeless - populated areas. Bost If storm channels or basins are recognized as wetlands, many activities, including Managemen ' mainrrnanct. may be subject to regulation. Practices Municipal Handbook 4 - 81 March, 1993 1 Additional Information — Storm Channel/Creek Maintenance (Teen -nn Arrivitin �'— Although illegally dumped Hans have not been quantified in tams of their contribution to stem water runoff pollution, the potential exists for significant redactions in runoff metals loadings as a result of comprehensive storm channel and creek maintenance. Potentially significant sources of toxic pollutants in storm channels and reels may include the following: • Car bodies and automotive strap, • • Car batteries, • Tues. • • Hazardous materials/waste, • Various metallic items (shopping tam. fumintrt:, appliances, ctcj, • Animal waste, and • Wastes from homeless people encampments. In addition to the obvious benefit of reducing pollutants in storm water runoff, an equally important benefit of channel/ 1 creek maintenance is the dramatic aesthetic improvement achieved by removing all illegally - dumped wastes from a given mach of a storm channel or seek. Use of such areas for illegal dumping creates an eyesore and reflects poorly on a community that might otherwise be mating a conscientious effort to improve the environment- Consequently, storm mating en channeUaeek maintenance efforts should not Locus solely on removing those items known to pose a threat to watts quality. Instead, the effort should be directed toward all illegally dumped materials; including common household trash, litter. and non - metallic and/or inert materials of all kinds. In this way, water quality improvement and significant aesthetic enhancement can both be achieved - r'hannel Modifiearinnrtmnnwemrnr Urbanization, particularly land clearing and constractien, tends to disrupt stream equilibrium, by temporarily intensifying sediment yield to streams In addition to the cleanup practices described above, impleinanaxioo of the erosion and sediment control BMPs presented in the Construction Handbook can also significantly cedar: the effects of urbanization oo sttrams- It should be noted that any person, government agency, or public utility proposing an activity that will change the neuron (cmprasis added) stare of any river, stream, or lake in California. must enter into a stream or Lake Altrratim Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. The developer- applicant should also contact local governments (city, county, special districts), other state agencies (SWRCB, RWQCB, Department of Funwu Department of Water Resources). and Federal Corps of Engineers and USFWS. . }low Manavrment Flow management has been one of the principal motivations for designing urban stream corridors in the past. Such needs may or may not be compatible with the storm water quality.goals in the stream corridor. Downstream flood peaks can be suppressed by reducing througbflow velocity. This can be accomplished by reducing gradient with grade control structures or increasing roughness with boulders, dense vegetation. 01 complex banks forms. Reducing velocity oarespoodingly inaeasea flood height. so all such mcasurts have a natural association with floodplain open space- Flood elevations laterally ad}accnt to the stream can be lowered by increasing througbflow velocity- . •However, inaeasmg velocity incases flooding downstream and inherently cooflicts with channel stability and human safety. Where topography permits, another way to lower flood elevation is to lows the level of the floedway with drop structures into a large but subtly excavated bowl whore flood flows arc allowed to spread out- 1 SC76 Municipal Handbook 4 - 82 March, 1993 1 . Additional Information — Storm ChanneUCreek Maintenance Sim Corridor Plarminr I Urban streams restive and convey storm water flows from developed or developing watersheds. Planning of stream corridors thus interacts with urban storm water management programs. If local programs arc inre. vied to control or . protect downstream environments by managing flows delivered to the channels, then it is logical that such programs should be supplemented by management of the materials, forms, and uses of the downstream riparian corridor. My proposal for stream alteration or management should be investigated for its potential flow and stability effects on up ^tom downstream. and laterally adjacent seas. The timing and rate of flow from various tributaries can combine in complex ways to alter flood hazards. Each section of channel is unique, influenced by its own distribution of 1 roughness elements, management activities, and stream respnncr's. Flexibility to adapt to stream features and behaviors as they evolve must be included in stream reclamation planning . The amenity and ecology of streams may be enhanced through the landscape design options of 1) corridor reservation, 2) bank treatment, 3) geomorphic restoration. and 4) grade control Cnrridnr rtsayatinn - Reserving stream corridors and valleys to accommodate nannal stream meandering, aggradation, degradation, and ovabank flows allows streams to find their own form and generate less ongoing erosion. In Califor- nia- open stream corridors in recent urban developments have produced recreational open space, irrigation of streamside plantings, and the aesthetic amenity of flowing wale. Banknraun= - The use of armoring. vegetative cover. and flow deflection may be used to influence a channel's form, stability, and biotic habitat. To prevent hank erosion, armoring can be done with rigid construction materials, such as amerce, masonry. wood planks and logs, riprap, and gabions. Concrete linings have been criticized berans. of their lack of provision of biotic habitat. In contrast, riprap and gabions make relatively porous and flexible linings. Bout - das, placed in the bed reduce velocity and erosive power. I Riparian vegetation an stabilize the banks of streams that arc at or near a condition of equilibrium Binding networks of roots increase bank shear strength. During flood flows, resilient vegetation is forced into erosion- inhibiting mats. The roughness of vegetation leads to lower velocity, further reducing erosive effects. Strucnrai flow deflection can protect banks from erosion or alto fish habitat By concentrating flow, a deflector causes a pool to be scoured in the bed. _ ' f romp phir rranratinn - Restoration refers to alteration of disturbed streams so their form and behavior emulate those . of undisturbed streams. Natural meanders arc retained, with grading to gentle slopes on the inside of curves to allow . point bars and riffle -pool sequences to develop. Trees are retained to provide scenic quality, biotic productivity, and roots for bank stabilization, supplemented by plantings where necessary. A restorative approach can be successful where the stream is already approaching equilibrium. ibrirnn. However. if upstream urbanization continues, new flow regimes will be generated that toad disrupt the equilibrium of the treated system. Gracie Control - A grade control structure is a level shelf of a permanent material, such as stone, masonry, or concrete, over which stream water flows. A grade control structure is called a sill, war, or drop strucnre, depending on the relation of its invert elevation to upstream and downstream channels. A sill is incralled at the precxisting channel bed elevation to prcvan upstream migration of nickpoints. It establishes a - firm base level below which the upstream channel can not erode. • ' SC76 4t PrIctlave ' Municipal Handbook 4 - 83 March, 1993 1 I Additional Information — Storm Channel/Creek Maintenance . , A weir or check darn is installed with invert above the preexisting bed ekvatioo. A weir raises the local base level of the scram and causes aggradatioa upstream. The gradient, velocity, and erosive potential of the stream channel are reduced, A drop stmami: lowers the downstream invert below its preexisting elevation. reducing downstream gradient ' and velocity. Weirs and drop structure control erosion by dissipating energy and reducing slope velocity. When carefully applied, grade control structures can be highly versatile in eStablishing human and environmental benefits in stabilized channels. To be successful, application of grade control strucmre_s should be guided by analysis of the stream system bah upstream and downstream from the area to be claimed Framplrs of Fifer Pmptams The California Department of Water Resources began the Urban Stream Restoration Program in 1985. The program - provides grant funds to municipalities and community groups to implement stream restoration projects. The projects • reduce damages from strrambank and watershed instability and floods while restoring streams' art *h•tir: recreational, ' acid fish and wildlife values. In Buena Vista Park, upper floodway slopes arc gentle and grassed to achieve continuity of usable park land across the rhgntrl of small bouldas at the base of the slopes. The San Diego River is a large, vegetatively lined channel, which was planted in a variety of species to support riparian 1 wildlife while stabilizing the steep banks of the floodway. REFERENCES Ferguson, BK 1991. abaa_Streamicciamatiou, p. 324-328, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. • • 1 • 1 1 • I 1 I SC76 • f ade Municipal Handbook 4 - 84 March, 1993 ' X 0 - Z W CL Mil ___ gal _..____M_______ • • Memo on Nine Hole Courses 1 Economi cs Research Associates ' MEMORANDUM 1 To: Rick McConn, East West Partners 1 From: Greg Cory 1 Subject: Comments on 9 hole course viability • Date: August 6, 2003 • 1 CC: Nadine Fogarty 1 . 1 To further elaborate on the vulnerabilities of nine -hole facilities, there are several reasons not to build them in conjunction with a real estate oriented development. 1 1. Nine -hole facilities operate best in urban locations as teaching facilities and impromptu play experiences. They need a high density, permanent surrounding population, good exposure to the market, and a long play season. 2. Because of the play experience they offer they tend to be very price sensitive, yet the cost of construction per hole is not significantly different than a full- length course. Thus, they need to generate a great deal of rounds at reasonable fees in order to recover operating costs, let alone debt. 3. Nine -hole facilities have operating inefficiencies relative to 18 hole courses. They still require the core management and operating staff that a full length facility requires, they still need a maintenance bam and related equipment, and they still require some form of ' clubhouse. The only operating savings relative to a full - length facility is . in relatively inexpensive maintenance labor. Thus, there are core costs that are disproportionately higher relative to the fee structure that can be supported. When complicated by a short play season . 1 (as would be the case at Gray's Crossing elevation), it is our opinion that such a course 1. 1 rage 2ofL . • • Memo on Nine Hole Courses 1 • • would -be very difficult -to- make - viable - given- current - constriction- costs, - operating- budgets, and fair allocation for land value. 4. A significant issue for Gray's Crossing, as it would be for any of the other communities East West Partners is planning in the Tahoe market, is the impact on real estate values. There is no evidence that we have found nationally where a nine -hole golf course creates any significant real estate premiums. Given the cost of development of a course in an alpine setting, - it is . critical to extract as much value as possible in order to recapture the development risk. As illustrated in the 2001 book published by the Urban Land Institute, Developing Golf Courses in Residential Communities, real estate inside a golf course community (with full length courses) commands between a 10 and 50 percent premium over similar property without a golf course. Depending on the orientation of particular lots, this premium can exceed 200 percent. These premiums, and ergo taxable values, would not be achieved with a nine hole facility. .5. Finally, a nine -hole golf course does not contribute to a destination resort experience. The consumer, when choosing a location for a vacation (or second home purchase), carefully • evaluates the extent and variety of recreational attributes offered by competing destinations. • • The knowledgeable consumer, if golf is a significant part of the decision making process, will always choose a location with a full length, championship rated course over a destination without equivalent facilities. We hope this has been helpful. Should you need additional information, please do hesitate to call. 1 • • • 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 X 0 Z W LL 0 a la N w =- - E ME _ r N - w .a - s I :It '2; F 4 . r > s a �f' � O � ms's i i Pt, , e ° / 7 i . s h °,*4'.K,. o!O L /I ` a r ` , ` -1 ,r �,: 5 g 3 M g E v. �( F I V I 14. 9 �T 2 • LUG' °i .� ro It'll' ; ,.'' �.' `�' .f" /�x 4 �"� .� {{ g aa g ♦. ',IR. o I ++ L �RM'r �. 1) y,L / {� 7! " e- { / ' 5 g 1 _ 1 /� • 1177 N -, g ,, , f -∎ 4 .„ -We) t 4 '. ,, \ „try 1 1 , . a + I- eA 1 ti :,41,1—±-0` r � . 1 } , � " o ,x 300 o ' e j,yrrd? � i g t�� , v ` b � $� 4 S � } � J u ,,, C 1 F 1 ri" ` � j a I r l [� , sa , wo r 5 j r s i •A r .q� t3.�� A 1E I ryy,A' ' , �,"� ♦ ,r � '����`��1 1 A/ 1 �" L.;•f j Ilv`e X 4 4 I ly 1 04.1 T1,i 3 � Q \ 1' n }3 `.. S .M J Y § r { 1 ?: � � rW I ii i , . � \ `fi 4 7 ' ! V ( y 1 2ti ) a � �' t t ea.' 9 :� L�; _ coer - , n ��q 2 CC .�` •,!i`�t t 1 1 ;::\t:, � " a`�c°' fi i � =1,. ,t'`X . .. 3�q a.�� . . ♦ ,41/44.- v i � . q�3 ,y�y �l ,rJ R/W 213' • AL R/W ' EXISTING 87 PROPOSED EXISTING TREES EXISTING 130' AFFORDABLE /EMPLOYEE (TO REMAIN) (TO R. PROPOSED HOUSING // , \ \ AFFORDABLE EMPLOYEE eeeo �� - � • HOUSING .. - 'm % \\ / / ;'� ayCk_ PROPOSED 1 - O CC eT 1 _—'__ - � HIGHWAY 89 ��','� .� � q PARKANG AREA - O I . . e LANDSCAPE BUFFER: z U ' PROPOSED 4 —7 HIGH, ROCK .& EARTHERN BERM (TO BE LANDSCAPED O w FOR VISUAL SCREENING) e-co ikea w GA 13.00 11.00 I SECTION Q W } 4 R/W R/ CO j • EXISTING TREES 236' , PROPOSED /` TO REMAI 236 PROPOSED 65' - 130' AFFORDABLE /EMPLOY _ ( ) EXISTING TREES / ,^' / (TO REMAIN) j� AFFORDABLE /EMPLOYEE HOUSING _ O 1 ew /\ � ; - � .. / • HOUSING _ � \ / \ / PROPOSED ,0,11 \ \ pC SLO � 1y � PARKIN AREA WAY/ ROAO ' ee G ., .. •,,,,.� : fN / Sn HIGHWAY 89 PE 5.2 S(Opt a E %ISTNG LANDSCAPE BUFFER: • PROPOSED 4' -7 HIGH ROCK & - W I oeWr n EARTHERN BERM (TO BE LANDSCAPED y FOR VISUAL SCREENING) y i A & i I 3 9 I ...op e.w 0.0. ,a wn 12.00 ,e.ao ,..00 0 _ EXISTING NC TREES SECTION P R 70 REMAIN R/W \ O z 295' \ a 267' A\ Aj�� z � /%�/ \ EXISTING TREES ATTACHED Ai. ! \ � ___ (TO REMAIN) R / ESIDE��MIAL \ i ;. ., nN S H OP HIGHWAY 89 Ed,STNG S LOPE .- .. ..... . �.. .,.. _........... E �T f at I I e # 11 1 i i I a I l of2 I e�e 10.2 12.03 N SECTION 0 III , .7•5 1 13 .Tfr+ ° , c ` a 5 ,: iFv 11 ...gggppp • \ R ` &\ r . i r s •, 1 � '° , it ` I La tv, , ,e 21. �• x )," + ; t - q AV E !-se 4 , P L ♦ .Y •� 5 r l u. ' a a s S E l i i N �, t> � L I ` �� ,, > �. ' 7� s '�` itl va , .. , ,$.3!- , ( ' I k n e I C : � 1 �3F. 1 .v-.}.:-. � . s •�: �C� I 5L i l ( �� 'K F G • t` m; R \ � 1 I ) �9f 1 V ♦ yy ,\ 'l _ � .`.4112-.11/4 l li �e q � !'' ' ,f, N • s sE .lys K — s l x §74F 1 /\ n.'., I § - ,h1ti . (r A n � l ' d \h tT'?--4:4‘ ' \ T t ' Jo> ' 1 c.} .45k . n. r n v d 4 '� ( 4 s \ i i',1(t . a , l tar'.' s \ ♦ F S♦' ao♦ / 9iK Z'✓ i : ' t• hti \ r , S b , a ♦ 'AS / �1. 1iC1 F✓ , .r ,..i { , Y I�i y . ♦ T ... /� f � at '1447, }1A 't. S }! 4-' • \ •M, ,�. 4 . e .i1 /6 `1 * � �h ,+ Yy F j/ �y � { ♦ 4 v .1. < i -G ... e' ` } % + o . 4 i _ ro .F � , .. e A P . _ �. C1 F\ L . . 4 .`. I k if _i R/W R/W 147' 159' PROPOSED jj PROPOSED FOOD MARKET EXISTING TREES LANDSCAPE, EXISTING TREES (TO REMAIN) 1 BU FER RETAIL/OFFICE (TO REMAIN) a / � /� \ / t1� /\ --N-__. I ROADWAY/ \ ROADWA �\ O PROPOSED - - RD p j O _ - -- HIGHWAY 89 - cc W PARKING AREA ._---- ..::.,•� F• :�: `' LANDSCAPE BUFFER: _ C4 O • " • PROPOSED 4 -] HIGH ROCK & (j 1= W EARTHERN BERM (TO BE LANDSCAPED V � Lw a r FOR VlSI JAL PREENING) p w Q SECTION T Im 0 _ ' R/W C R/W PROPOSED EXISTING TREES 164' q LANDSCAPE EXISTING TREES 250' RESIDENTIAL /LOFTS (TO REMAIN) ] ,\ A' BUF R 70 REMAIN) 1 d \ — PROPOSED PROPOSED s•m F �,. a.. PARKING AY 1 WAY/ =LC-NC– %" W ROAD �\ HIGHWAY 89 - P AREA LANDSCAPE BUFFER: Q waif PROPOSED 4'-] HIGH ROCK & LL EARTHERN BERM (TO BE LANDSCAPED 0 R ^ g am ° g am FOR VISUAL SCREENING) 9 F� 0-0:1 i 8e AA 12.00 SECTION 5 R/W R/W EXISTING T• ES 1 (TO REM L EXISTING TREES 187' /\ 162' PROPOSED (TO REMAIN) j v L ODGE - ,14 ,,,� PROPOSED HIGHWAY 89 C _ P RRWG / ' s.. 1 a I1 • LANDSCAPE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER: i $ 91 PROPOSED 4' -7' HIGH ROCK & I Wale EARTHERN BERM (TO BE LANDSCAPED ■ 2 of 2 FOR VISUAL SCREENING) SECTION R 1 1 N o J X 6 W CL • C Q awn — _ — — _ — r alas a maasexam 1 1 ECoSynthesis, SCIENTIFIC & REGULATORY SERVICES I Adrian M. Juncosa, Ph.D. Senior Ecologist • ' Dr. Juncosa is a vegetation ecologist and regulatory scientist with 21 years of professional experience throughout the United States, and in the Asian and Latin American tropics. He is particularly expert in integrating analysis of ecological systems and the physical environment and applying this synthesis to creating innovative reclamation, restoration, and ecological 1 management plans. His scientific expertise includes vegetation and wetland ecology, habitat creation and restoration, conservation biology, and plant systematics and biogeography, with exceptional skills in plant identification and vegetation sampling design and application. Dr. Juncosa's regulatory experience includes NEPA, CEQA, the Clean Water Act (especially Section 404), Endangered Species Act, Eagle Protection Act, U.S. Forest Service and BLM environmental assessment, ecological site inventory, riparian monitoring, and reclamation . procedures, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of - Ordinances and environmental review procedures. His project experience includes public agencies, utilities facilities, hard rock I and aggregate mining, ski area and golf course developments, and community planning and natural resources policy. • Dr. Juncosa has provided the full range of consulting services, including field surveys, I • CEQA /NEPA and permitting documentation, agency negotiation, mitigation and monitoring plans and studies, habitat construction specifications and oversight, and expert witness services. Finally, Dr. Juncosa has an extensive record of peer- reviewed publications and presentations at national and international scientific symposia. 1 EMPLOYMENT • 1997- Present EcoSynthesis Scientific and Regulatory Services. Owner and Senior Ecologist. I. Survey and analyze the system ecology of riparian, wetland, and upland habitats. Prepare habitat restoration designs, revegetation specifications, reclamation plans, and ecological management plans. Prepare environmental impact analyses and CEQA /NEPA documents. Carry out wetland delineations, I rare plant surveys, and other biological site inventories. Develop regulatory strategy, prepare permitting documents, and represent applicants in regulatory negotiations. Design ecological risk assessments. I 1995 -1997 • " Parsons Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Supervising Scientist. Prepared permitting documents and environmental impact assessments. Carried out wetland delineations. Trained staff and provided senior technical review. Managed projects and prepared contract proposals. I 1989 -1995 EIP Associates. Director of Wetland and Botanical Studies. Conducted over 70 resource studies, permitting, mitigation, and monitoring projects, and environmental impact studies. Provided expert witness services. I 1986 -1989 University at California at Davis. Visiting Assistant Professor, Lecturer, and Postgraduate Researcher. Developed and taught a five -unit lecture and laboratory course in flowering plant systematics; supervised teaching and plant collecting assistants. Conducted field and laboratory research on pollination biology and I _ 1984 -1986 developmental morphology of Euphorbiaceae and Leguminosae. Harvard University. Postdoctoral Fellow. Co- principal Investigator of a National Science Foundation research grant (systematics, ecology, floral development and I 1982 -1984 function, and embryology of Rhizophoraceae, or mangrove family). Missouri Botanical Garden. Postdoctoral Fellow. Collected and identified plants and conducted ecological studies throughout the Choc6 floristic region and adjacent highlands of Colombia and Ecuador. Originated and taught the I equivalent of a one - quarter graduate level lecture and laboratory course in Spanish for selected Colombian researchers and professors. 1 -- • , 1 • FrnSyntheSIS- SCIENTIFIC & REGULATORY -SERVICES - • 1980 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Botanical Consultant. Carried out field surveys of potential nature preserves on the outer coastal plain. Prepared master species lists and community descriptions and evaluated habitat values and suitability for preservation. EDUCATION Ph.D. (Botany): Duke University, Durham, North Carolina - B.A. (Biology): Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL TRAINING Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (David Rosgen, Wildland Hydrology Consultants). Stream . function, classification, and evolution; introductory sedimentology; quantitative stream restoration design. River Morphology and Applications (David Rosgen, Wildland Hydrology Consultants). Mapping of landforms, valley types, and channel types; field measurement of morphological variables; watershed management, cumulative effects analysis, and restoration problem - solving. Wetland Delineation Update and Refresher Course (Wetland Training Institute). Course designed for eligibility of experienced delineators for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pending certification program. Wetland and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Monitoring (Wetland Training Institute). Planning and implementation of wetland and riparian restoration and mitigation projects, including hydrology, soils, planting materials and methods, construction, cost estimation, and monitoring. Wetland Delineation - 1989 Interagency Manual (Wetland Training Institute). Standard lecture and field training in wetland delineation methods and their scientific and regulatory background. Endangered Species Act (Continuing Legal Education). CERTIFICATIONS Professional Wetland Scientist (No. 000820, Society of Wetland Scientists, 1995 to present) TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES 1 • Wetland and Riparian Studies Wetland and riparian ecological studies and restoration or habitat creation plans in a wide variety of habitats and geographic areas: • Habitat types: montane and lowland riparian habitats, vernal pools, mangroves and salt marshes, peat swamps, inland saline /alkaline wetlands, natural and artificial springs. • • Geographic range: United States (emphasis on montane and arid areas in western states), Central and South America, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, and South Pacific region. Determinations and delineations of the extent of federal and state jurisdiction, specializing in large (4,000- to 100,000 -acre) and /or technically difficult delineations. Stream environment zone delineation using Tahoe Regional Planning Agency methods. Characterization of wetland habitat types, functions, and values. Stream classification and riparian condition assessment (BLM and other methods). • Preparation of construction and planting specifications, and construction monitoring. Monitoring, ecological analysis, and remediation of mitigation and restoration projects. - 2 1 1 1 FmSynthesis SCIENTIFIC & REGULATORY SERVICES • TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES (CONTINUED) 1 Vegetation and General Ecology Reclamation and erosion control planning for arid, montane, and rain forest sites. 1 Quantitative vegetation sampling and statistical analysis. Habitat mapping from aerial photography and qualitative or quantitative field studies. Conservation biology, including preserve design, management planning, and population . biological analysis for conservation of rare species and genetic diversity. Site - specific and landscape - level ecological studies and restoration /management plans for temperate and tropical forest types, fire - adapted forest and shrub communities, grasslands, . and desert scrub. Examples include soil ecological studies, plant colonization and succession studies, and landscape - Ievel analysis of plant community water relations. 1 Regulatory Documentation and Permitting Project siting, site design, and regulatory strategy. Section 404 permits and Department of Fish and Game streambed alteration agreements. I CEQA and NEPA documentation, including biological resources sections for large -scale EIRs • and EISs and preparation of complete initial studies /mitigated negative declarations and NEPA environmental assessments and decision documents. 1 Coastal Commission and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency permitting. Mitigation monitoring plans and biological monitoring. ' Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Habitat suitability assessment and species- specific surveys for rare plants and selected wildlife (see range of habitats and geographic areas listed above under Wetland Studies). 1 Biological Assessments and single- or multiple- species habitat conservation plans. Listed species consultations and mitigation agreements. _ • Rare species mitigation implementation and monitoring. 1 U. S. Forest Service Biological Evaluations. 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 . X 6 z . W CL ea al ! m i am as i as me — a — — — as as r Gray's Crossing ' Estimated Construction Traffic for Development 1 Gray's Crossing is intended to be constructed in 5 (five) phases as outlined in the Specific Plan. As such, construction traffic will be limited to the areas where each phase is developed. To estimate construction traffic, we used Phase II which is the most intense construction period and includes the golf course, portions of the Village Center, some affordable housing, and a portion of the lodge units. We have broken down the estimated construction traffic into categories. They are: employee, off-haul trucking, and construction material delivery for roadway /grading, and vertical /concrete construction. We have tried to explain the difference between roadway and utility construction versus the vertical (building) construction. The following outlines the type of construction and the anticipated traffic that will result. 1 1. Employee Traffic Generation It is anticipated that' Phase II of the Gray's Crossing project would employee ' approximately 40 -50 construction workers for grading and utilities for the golf course, grading and utilities for the roadway, and grading and utilities for the Village facilities. The construction workers generally arrive at the site between 5:00•a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and leave the site around 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. They generally drive either pickup trucks or automobiles. Trip ends associated with 1 this type of activity are anticipated to be between 40 and 50. 2. Off -haul Trucking 1 Off -haul trucking generally consists of: removing materials from the site which are estimated to be unsuitable for re -use, or hauling elsewhere for recycling or 1 disposal. The Gray's Crossing project is being designed as a balanced earthwork project; therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant amount of ' off -haul traffic would be generated from the construction activity. We anticipate approximately 2 -3 trucks per week of off-haul material only during the grading operations. r 3. Construction Material Delivery Traffic ' Construction materials will be delivered in 2 (two) forms: materials needed for roadway construction /grading activities, and materials needed for vertical construction, i.e. lumber, shingles, sheetrock, and the like. 1 C: \Documents and Settings \bvieg \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK8D \Estimated Construction Traffic.doc ' Pagel of August 26, 2003 Gray's Crossing Estimated a. Roadway and Grading Construction Traffic Construction materials anticipated for roadway and grading activities include 1 water pipe, sewer pipe fittings, vaults, backfill material and miscellaneous items associated thereto. These materials are generally delivered in semi - trucks and stored in material storage areas. Backfill material will be continuously delivered to the site from offsite locations. It is anticipated that this type of trucking activity will generate approximately 4 -5 deliveries per day 1 during the roadway and utility construction period. b. Vertical Construction Traffic Vertical construction activity has a wide range of material delivery. Generally, 2 -ton trucks rather than semi - trucks are used to haul wood, electrical 1 supplies, and other types of heavy construction materials. During vertical construction, this type of activity is generated to be 2 -4 vehicle trucks per day. 1 Concrete Deliveries • During intense vertical construction, it is estimated that concrete deliveries could reach 5 -6 concrete trucks per concrete pour. The majority of concrete work consists of curbing, sidewalks, foundations, and retaining walls and is 1 generally limited to the Village area. Since the Village area is proposed to be built in phases, this type of activity would stretch over a 1 -2 year period with the primary activity in spring and mid - summer months. It is estimated that this type of construction would only occur during the startup of vertical construction and would probably be limited to 4 -5 days per month. 1 Dust Control Operations As required per Truckee Code and waste discharge requirements from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, dust control during construction is mandatory. A variety of techniques will be incorporated to offset dust generated from construction 1 activities. They include: 1. Continuous watering of disturbed area, 2. Covered loads for dump trucks hauling to and from site, 3. Rock cobble in 100 -foot sections from exposed dirt to paved areas, and 4. Daily washing of encroachment areas from the construction site to the paved road area. 1 1 C: \Documents and Settings \bvieg \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKBD \Estimated Construction Traffic.doc Page 2 of 3 August 26, 2003 Gray's Crossing . ■ Estimated Construction Traffic for Development Water for dust control will be obtained through onsite water lines. Therefore, it is not 1 anticipated that additional offsite truck traffic would be needed to provide water for dust abatement during construction. 1 Summary 1 The following is a summary of the anticipated trips and duration during the construction periods: Use Vehicle Type Trip Ends Duration I Employees Automobile /pickup trucks 40 -50 Per day Off -haul Semi - trucks 2 -3 Per week during grading ' Construction Semi - trucks 4 -5 Per day during intense deliveries grading activity I _ Vertical Construction I. Use Vehicle Type Trip Ends Duration 1 Employees Automobile /pickup trucks 30 • Per day Construction 2 -3 Ton vehicles 2 -3 Per day I deliveries • Concrete pours Concrete truck 6 Per pour; 5 pours per month during . foundation and sidewalk construction ' Note: Vertical construction takes place after the roadway and utilities are complete; I traffic should be counted separately. . 1 • 1 1 C: \Documents and Settings \bvieg \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK8D \Estimated Construction Traffic.doc Page 3 of 3 1 August 26, 2003 - z 0 z W on ow es a Is am am um is ars am am as es um am ea 1 1 Gray's Crossing FEIR Supplemental Information for Traffic - Related 1 Response to Comments 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MITIGB - 2005 PM Peak - WeeFri Aug 29, 2003 10:45:52 Page 1 -1 Gray's Crossing without Mitigation Measures (R1- 2005GraysCrossing.tfx) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 112 SR 89 6 Prosser Dam Rd. -1-P 1- P1oC Z GGriSTNGh ***** t**************************** t ** ** ***** * ** * ** * ** * * *** *** * *** **** ****t** * ** Average Delay (sec /veh): .fl3&0.% : Worst Case Level Of Service: F II ********* * ** * * * ** ** * ** *** **** * * ** * * * **** ******** *t * * ***t * **** ** ** * ****** * * * * * ** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R I 11 II 11 1 - . Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include - Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 - I 11 11 11 I , Volume Module: Base Vol: 185 390 70 5 300 13 10 15 170 89 20 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 185 390 70 5 300 13 10 15 170 89 20 5 11 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 • PHF Volume: 195 411 74 5 316 14 11 16 179 94 21 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 195 411 74 5 316 14 11 16 179 94 21 5 1 11 II II I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 II FollowopTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5. 4.0 3.3 I 11 II II I Capacity Module: - Cn£lict Vol: 329 xxxx xxxxx 484 xxxx xxxxx 1183 1207 • 323 1267 1177 447 Potent Cap.: 1241 xxxx xxxxx 1089 xxxx rxxxx: 168 185 723 147 193 615 1/ Move Cap.: 1241 xxxx xxxxx 1089 xxxx xxvvx 129 152 723 88 158 615 I II 11 11 I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 8.4 xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 474 xxxxx xxxx 99 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 18.3 xxxxx xxxxx 236 xxxxx Shared LOS: • * * * * * * * C * * F * 11 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 18.3 • 235.7 ApproachL05: - * * C . F 1 1 Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LS&C , Denver, CO 1 1 1 1 1 MITIGB - 2005 PM Peak - WeeThu Aug 28, 2003 13:53:12 Page 1 -1 1 Gray's Crossing without Mitigation Measures (R1- 2005GraysCrossing.tfx) Level Of Service Computation Report II 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************* * ** ** *****4 *t * *** *4t** ** * *** *** ****** * * * * * * *t**** Intersection fl2 5R 89 & Prosser Dam Rd. +Pi - vs..? 1 •" .;:) 1 1. ML{1On I ******* ************************4***************** * * * * * * * ** * * * *t * *** **4t * **t * *t ** Average Delay (sec /veh): '- ftl 6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F ******************** t**************************** * ****t** *t***** * * ** * **t*t * **** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - A II I II II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 I - I II II II I - Volume Module: Base Vol: 130 390 70 5 300 10 10 5 170 50 10 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • Initial Bse: 130 390 70 '5 300 10 10 5 170 50 10 5 II User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF -Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 137 411 74 5 316 11 11 5 179 53 11 5 I Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 137 411 74 5 316 11 11 5 179 53 11 5 1 II 11 I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 II - FollowupTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 I II II II I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 326 xxxx xxxxx 484 xxxx xxxxx 1061 1089 321 1145 1058 447 . Potent Cap.: 1245 xxxx xxxxx 1089 xxxx xxxxx 204 217 724 178 227 615_ II Move Cap.: 1245 xxxx xxxxx 1089 xxxx xxxxx 176 190 724 119 199 615 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 8.2 xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx II LOS by Move: A * A * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx vxvx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 582 xxxxx xxxx 136 xxxxx Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.3 xxxxx xxxxx 55.7 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * *. * B * * ' F * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.3 55.7 ApproachLOS: * * B F 1 - 1 Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LS &C , Denver, CO 1 r . II MITIC8 - 2005 PM Peak - WeeThu Aug 28, 2003 13:53:50 - Page 1 -1 1 Gray's Crossing without Mitigation Measures (R1- 2005GraysCrossing. tfx) II Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) **************************************************** ** **** ** * ** * * * *** ** * * * * ** **** Intersection #10 SR 89 & Donner Pass Rd. 4 phet3e- i C[n 3huchC{. ************************************************* ** * ***** ** *** * *** * *** ** * ** * ** ** Average Delay (sec /veh): 51.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F ************************ * *** * **** * * ** * ** * * * ** ** * * ** * *** *iii* * * ** * * * * ** ****** * * ** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include II Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0. 0 0 0 0 I 11 11 11 Volume Module: Base Vol: 210 275 0 0 205 310 315 0 115 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 Initial Bse: 210 275 0 0 205 310 315 0 115 0 0 0 II User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 221 289 0 0 216 326 332 0 121 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II Final Vol.: 221 289 0 0 216 326 332 0 121 D 0 0 1 11 11 11 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollawfpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 11 11 11 I Capacity Module: II Vol: 542 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 947 xxxx 216 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 292 xxxx 829 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 244 xxxx 829 xxxx xxxx xxxxx rI 11 11 11 I Level Of Service Module: S ll topped Del: 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 224.8 xxxx 10.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A *. * * * * F * B * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx II Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * • _ * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 167.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F II 1 1 Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LS &C , Denver, CO 1 1 i 1 11 MITIG8 - 2005 PM Peak - WeeThu Aug 28, 2003 13:54:11 Page 1 -1 Gray's Crossing without Mitigation Measures 1 (R1-2005GraysCrossing.tfx) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) • II Intersection 410 SR 89 & Donner Pass Rd. , Vilate,1 t f 1 D4C- 2. CoY15 01( w a* ********************************************** *** ** * * **** ** *** ** * ** *** * * ***** Average Delay (seclveh): 77.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: F ************************************************* * * ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * * * ** * * *** * **** ' Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L Movement: - T - R L - T- R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 11 II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign • Stop Sign I Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 I (I 11 11 Volume Module: 11 Base Vol: 210 275 0 0 205 310 315 0 115 40 .0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 210 275 0 0 205 310 315 0 115 40 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 221 289 .0 0 216 326 332 0 121 42 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Final Vol.: 221 289 0 0 216 326 332 0 121 42 0 0 i II II 1.1 'I 1 Critical.Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx. 3.3 3.5 xxxx xxxxx 1 . II 11 II I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 542 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 947 xxxx 216 1171 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 243 xxxx 829 171 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 203 xxxx 829 122 xxxx xxxxx 1 11 II II I ' Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 347.5 xxxx 10.1 49.2 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * F * H E * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT 11 Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxx x x *xr xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 257.3 49.2 ApproachLOS: * * F E Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LS&C , Denver, CO 11 1 1 Letattea nepoit - _ • � rage 1 of Z . HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT • General Information Site Information Analyst RLB Intersection SR 28 / SR 267 , Agency or Co. LSC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 7/8/3 Jurisdiction Placer County / TRPA Time Period Summer 30th PM Peak Analysis Year 2002 Hour Project ID Grays Crossing EIR - No ! Project Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L TR Y TR LTR LT R , Volume, V (vph) 202 834 1 3 675 1 422 1 0 3 323 1 264 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 0 .0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A AA A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 I Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 Initial unmet demand, O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 100 Lane width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N • 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 1 Parking maneuvers, N. Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 G Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= G= G= G= • Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 66.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT .LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 213 879 3 1134 4 341 173 Lane group capacity, c 199 2038 301 1924 491 409 480 v/c ratio, X 1.07 0.43 0.01 0.59 0.01 0.83 0.36 1 file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Becky\ Local %20Settings \Temp\s2kA2.tmp 8/29/2003 - , 1 tietattea Report rage 2 of 2 . . I _ Total green ratio, g/C 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.30 0.30 t 0.30 Uniform delay, d 14.0 7.9 6.0 9.0 16.1 21.4 18.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.37 0.11 1 Incremental delay, d 83.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 13.8 0.5 Initial queue delay, d ,' Control delay 97.7 8.0 6.0 9.5 16.1 35.2 18.5 Lane group LOS F A A A B D B Approach delay 25.5 9.5 16.1 29.6 1 Approach LOS C A B C Intersection delay 19.6 Intersection LOS 8 I HC32000Th Copyright 01A00 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 • 1 file: / /C:\ Documents %20and%20Settings\becky\ Local %20Settings \Temp\s2kA2.trnp 8/29/2003 ]Jetaneu Report - rage 1 of 2 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT I General Information Site Information Analyst RLB Intersection . SR 28/ SR 267 Agency or Co. LSC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 7/8/3 Jurisdiction Placer County/ TRPA Time Period Summer 30th PM Peak Analysis Year 2002 Hour Project ID Grays Crossing E!R Plus Project Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT . LT TH RT LT TH RT iii Number of lanes, N 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 217 834 1 3 675 438 1 0 3. 337 + 1 276 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 Pretimed (P) or actuated ( A) A A AA A A A A A A A A - Start -up lost time,' 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 Extension of effective green, e 20 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 ' Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 Initial unmet demand, O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes ' 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 100 Lane width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N III Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , Min. time for pedestrians, G 12 3.2' 3.2 3.2 P Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 , G= 40.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= _ Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 68.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 228 879 3 1151 4 356 185 Lane group capacity, c 201 2082 310 1962 476 397 466 v/c ratio, X 1.13 0.42 0.01 0.59 0.01 0.90 0.40 1 file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \becky\ Local %20Settings \Temp\s2kC6.tmp 8/29/2003 1 I v..waaw awrvu . . .. raga L Ul L : . 1 Total green ratio, g/C 0.59 0.59 0 .59 0 .59 0.29 0.29 0.29 Uniform delay, d 14.0 7.7 5.8 8.8 17.0 23.0 19.2 1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.42 0.11 1 Incremental delay, d 104.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 22.3 0.6 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 118.3 7.8 5.8 9.3 17.0 45.3 19.7 1 Lane group LOS F A A A 8 D 8 Approach delay 30.6 9.3 17.0 36.6 1 Approach LOS C A 8 D Intersection delay 22.9 Intersection LOS C r=CS2000TM . Copyright 02000 Univecuty of Florida, All Rights Rcs[ved Version 4.lc 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 i 1 file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \becky\ Local %20Settings \Temp\s2kC6.tmp 8/29/2003 1 1 V.0 r :. :(1(t j 1 MITIG8 - 2005 PM Peak - WeeWed Sep 3, 2003 16:13:16 Page 1 -1 2005 Gray's Crossing II with Mitigation Measures (R1- 2005GraysCrossingwith Mitigation. tfx) Level Of Service Computation Report 1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) #4# *44#44#44 # * * ** 444#*********#***#*#***### 4#**** *** *4#4* *** ** * * * * ** * * *## #*#** *# Intersection #10 SR 89 & Donner Rd. * ** **** * * * * * ** * *4* ** ******************** t****# 4* * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * ** 1 Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.955 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 49.5 Optimal Cycle: 114 Level Of Service: - D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound II Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I it II II I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 210 275 0 0 205 310 315 0 115 65 51 0 ll . Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 210 275 0 0 205 310 315 0 115 65 51 0 Added Vol: 0 141 92 3 138 41 83 36 0 98 23 3 1 PasserByVol:. 0 -14 14 9 -9 0 0 0 0 9 0 14 Initial Fut: 210 402 106 12 334 351 398 36 115 172 74 17 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 II PHF Volume: 221 423 112 13 352 369 419 38 121 181 78 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 Reduced Vol: 221 423 112 13 352 369 419 38 121 181 78 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 221 423 112 13 352 369 419 38 121 181 78 18 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.96 II Lanes: 1.00 0.79 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.76 0.66 0.28 0.06 Final Sat.: 1805 1457 384 1805 1900 1615 1688 402 1285 1192 513 118 1 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: • Vol /Sat: 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.19 0.23 0.25 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: * * ** # * ** # * ** * * ** Green /Cycle: 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.16 0.16 II Volume /Cap: 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.77 0.96 0.96 0.36 0.36 0.96 0.96 0.96 Delay /Veh: 79.0 29.1 29.1 170.1 34.6 62.3 53.1 22.8 22.8 72.0 72.0 72.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 79.0 29.1 29.1 170.1 34.6 62.3 53.1 22.8 22.8 72.0 72.0 72.0 ;� DesignQueue: 8 12 '3 1 12 12 14 1 4 7 3 1 *#*********************************************** * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * *** # * * * * * * * ** ** 1 Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LS &C , Denver, CO 1 • 1 1 II CGn t c - 11 uil k1 II MITIG8 - 2005 PM Peak - WeeWed Sep 3, 2003 16:12:50 Page 1 -1 I 2005 Gray's Crossing with Mitigation Measures (R1- 2005GraysCrossingwith Mitigation. tfx) i Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ************************************************* * ** * * * * * * * * * ** ***** *** * * ** * ** ** Intersection 42 SR 89 & Prosser Dam Rd. Cycle (sec): 38 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.975 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 22.2 . Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: • C Il Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T- R L - T- R L T R L--T- R . I. II II II I ' Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1! 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 I II 11 II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 130 390 70 • 5 300 10 10 5 170 50 14 16 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 130 390 70 5 300 10 10 5 170 50 14 16 II Added Vol: 55 3 169 16 3 3 2 14 37 142 18 15 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 185 393 239 21 303 13 12 19 207 192 32 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 195 414 252 22 319 14 13 20 218 202 34 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 195 414 252 22 319 14 13 20 218 202 34 33 _ ' PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 204 434 264 22 319 14 13 . 20 218 202 34 33 I 11 11 II I . Saturation Flow Module: IF Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.45 0.45 0.45 Lanes: 1.26 1.08 0.66 0.06 0.90 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.87 0.75 0.13 0.12 II Final Sat.: 2267 1959 1191 84 1216 52 71 112 1225 642 107 104 1 II II 11 I • Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** II Green /Cycle: 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Volume /Cap: 0.98 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00. 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.96 0.96 0.96 Delay /Veh: 28.7 7.2 7.2 45.6 45.6 45.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 38.6 38.6 38.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I AdjDel/Veh: 28.7 7.2 7.2 45.6 45.6 45.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 38.6 38.6 38.6 DesignQueue: 4 6 4 0 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 I Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LS&C , Denver, CO I • Movement Summary Page 1 of 1 '' 2 1 . Movement Summary s akcelik assoclftes aaTraffic SIDRA ' SR 89 / Alder Drive Roundabout Vehicle Movements 1 Deg of • Aver 95 W° Aver Oper Mov No Turn Dem Flow Cap Satn Delay Level of Back of Eff. Stop Speed Cost (veh /h) (veh /h) - (v /c) (sec) Service Queue Rate (ft) (mi /h) ($ /h) ill SR 89 32 L 202 1843 0.483 7.9 LOS A 105 1.02 32.4 151. ' 32 T 427 1843 0.483 7.9 ' LOS A 105 1.02 • 32.4 151 32 R 260 1843 0.483 7.9 LOS A 105 1.02 32.4 151 Approach 890 1843 0.483 7.9 LOS A 105 1.02 32.4 151 Prosser Dam Road 22 L 209 797 0.369 16.1 LOS B 72 1.65 28.3 56 22 T 39 797 0.369 16.1 LOS B 72 1.65 28.3 56 , 22 R 46 797 0.369 16.1 LOS B 72 1.65 28.3 56 . Approach 294 797 0.369. 16.1 LOS B 72 1.65 28.3 56 SR 89 1 e • 42 L 23 942 0.391 9.1 LOS A 76 1.36 31.7 - 61 42 T 329 942 0.391 9.1 LOS A 76 1.36 31.7 61 1 42 R 14 942 0.391 9.1 LOS A 76 1.36 31.7 61 Approach 368 942 0.391 9.1. LOS A 76 1.36 31.7 61 Alder Drive ' 12 L 13 835 0.314 11.4 LOS B 58 1.49 30.7 45 12 T 21 835 0.314 11.4 LOS B 58 1.49 30.7 45 12 R 226 - 835 0.314 11.4 LOS B 58 1.49 30.7 45 1 Approach 262 835 0.314 11.4 LOS B 58 1.49 30.7 45 All 1814 4418 0.483 10.0 LOS A 105 1.26 31.3 314 . Vehicles F: \Grays Crossing EIR \SIDRA \89 Alder 05 plus conf Produced by aaSIDRA 2.0.1.206 ill Copyright© 2000 -2002 ' Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 9/4/2003 11:26:53 AM • 1 I file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \becky \Local %20Settings \Temp \ %20109057C.HTM 9/4/2003 ' 1 Movement Summary Page 1 of 1 WI CICriit' tto Cc- 2 Movement Summary ° &associates 1 aaTraffic SIDRA SR 89 / Donner Pass Road . ' Roundabout Vehicle Movements . 1 Deg of Aver 95 °70 Aver Oper • Mov No Turn Dem Flow Cap Satn Delay Level of Back of Eff. Stop Speed Cost (veh /h) (veh /h) (v /c) (sec) Service Queue Rate (mi /h) ($ /h) SR 89 32 L 221 496 0.446. 16.2 LOS B 67. 1.75 28.5 44 . 31 T 423 949 0.446 7.6 LOS A 67 1.39 32.8 67 33 R 112 249 0.446 10.1 LOS 8 .66 1.65 31.5 19 ' Approach 755 1694 0.446 10.5 LOS B 67 1.53 31.2 129 • Access 22 L 181 601 0.488 17.9 LOS B 87 1.93 27.5 57 I 22 T 82 601 0.488 17.9 LOS B 87 1.93 27.5 57 22 R 29 601 0.488 17.9 LOS 6 87 1.93 •27.5 57 - Approach 293 601 0.488 17.9 LOS B 87 1.93 27.5 57 SR 89 • 42 L 13 37 0.351 15,6 LOS B 60 1.55 28.8 3 41 T 352 992 0.355 6.5 LOS A 62 1.16 33.1 56 1 43 R 369 1040 0.355 8,4 LOS A 62 1.30 31.9 61 A pproach 734 2069 0.355 7.6 LOS A 62 1.24 32.4 119 ' Donner Pass Road 12 L 419 922 0.454 15.6 LOS B 81 1.58 28.7 83 • 11 T 381 839 - 0.454 7.0 LOS A 81 1.24 32.8 60 ' 13 R 121 266 0.455 9.3 LOS A 80 1.45 31.7 20 A pproach 921 2027 0.454 11.2 LOS B 81 1.42 30.6 163 1 V V ee hicles 2703 6391 0.488 10.8 L05 B 87 1.46 30.8 469 I F: \Grays Crossing EIR \SIDRA \89DPRO5 p conf Produced by aaSIDRA 2.0.1.206 Copyright@ 2000 -2002 . • Akcelik & Associates Ptv Ltd ' Generated 9/4/2003 11:29:22 AM 1 • • 1. ' - file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \becky \Local %20Settings \ Temp \ %2010B4BEC.HT... 9/4/2003 0 O X 0 z W CL aem us E as ow no _ _ _ — — _ a s - _ _ _ . 1 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 FOR THE 1 MARTIS VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE 1 1 SCH No.: 2001072050 1 1 Prepared for: PLACER COUNTY 1 Planning Department 11414 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 1 Prepared by: 1 PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 1 Sacramento, CA 95827 916.361.8384 Fax: 916.361.1574 1 • 1 MAY 2003 • 1 1 1 • 1 3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT AND REVISED DRAFT EIR • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.4.4 WATER SUPPLY EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT • Several comment letters suggested that the water supply analysis in the Draft EIR was not adequate and did not fully address environmental effects associated with supplying water to • future land uses under the Community Plan. This master response is divided into subtopics that 1 addressed specific comments on water supply. Identification of Adequate Water Supply Source The water supply analysis provided in the Draft EIR is based on the Ground Water Availability in the Mortis Valley Ground Water Basin Report as well as consultations with the Placer County Placer County Mortis Valley Community Plan Update May 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 -39 1 • 1 3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT AND REVISED DRAFT FIR Water Agency (PCWA) and the Northstar Community Services District (NCSD). As described in 1 Section 4.11 (Public Services) of the Draft EIR, the water supply source for the Plan area would consist of surface water (natural springs and Reservoir A at Northstar -at- Tahoe) and groundwater (Draft EIR pages 4.11 -38 through -43). The Ground Water Availability in the Martis Valley Ground ' Water Basin report identifies that there is a total of 24,700 acre -feet annually of groundwater in the Mortis Valley Ground Water Basin that is available without changing the volume of water in storage over the long term (which includes drought year conditions) (Draft EIR page 4.7 -55). The results of this report were independently reviewed in the Independent Appraisal of Mortis Valley �. Ground Water Availability Report prepared by Kennedy /Jenks Consultants (Kennedy /Jenks, 2002). • The Independent Appraisal of Mortis Valley Ground Water Availability Report concluded that the results of the Nimbus report are conservative and generally accurate regarding the amount of groundwater available. However, the Kennedy /Jenks report notes that the Nimbus report may have underestimated the amount of groundwater available as a result of potential underestimation of groundwater recharge and discharge associated with watersheds in the basin. In addition to groundwater resources, PCWA has identified that approximately 6,000 acre- feet annually of surface water is expected to be available for use in Martis Valley upon execution of the Truckee River Operation Agreement as required under Public Law 101 -618 (Truckee - Carson- Pyramid Lake Water Settlement Act). No technical reports have been submitted by commentors that counters the conclusions of the Nimbus report. Effects of Global Warming on Water Supply Availability • Several commentors also expressed concerns regarding the effect of future global climate changes from global warming. In September 2000, the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security released Water. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Water Resources of the United States. This report . . estimated future effects of global climate changes from global warming on the nation's water I resources. The report did not provide specific information or data regarding future effects on water resources and groundwater availability in Martis Valley. However, it did identify that temperature increases would likely alter precipitation and snowpack conditions in the western portion of the U.S. (including the Sierra Nevada mountains). The report identified that precipitation in California and the Sierra Nevada mountains may increase through the 215 century, but that snowpack conditions and extent of winter season would be reduced and 1 spring runoff would occur earlier (Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, 2000). However, none of the information provided in Water: The . Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Water Resources of the United States suggests that anticipated changes in global climate would substantially alter groundwater availability that has been estimated in the Nimbus report. Estimation of Water Demands of Plan Area 1 Tables 4.7 -4 through 4.7 -7 of the Draft EIR detail anticipated water demands of the Plan area under each land use map option, including consideration of potential future snowmaking and 1 golf course operation), and are based on PCWA water demand estimates specific by land use type (Draft EIR pages 4.7 -55 through -58). These water demand estimates range from 7,401 to 8,349 acre -feet annually in the Plan area. Placer County Water Agency and the County estimates that regional water demand (Placer County, Nevada County, Town of Truckee) could ' range from 23,000 to 24,000 acre -feet annually: which would be adequately served by the available 24,700 acre -feet annually of groundwater supply and 6,000 acre -feet annually of surface water from the Truckee River (Toy, 2002). No. technical data or reports have been 1 • Martis Valley Community Plan Update Placer County . 1 Final Environmental impact Report May 2003 • 3.0 - 1 3.0- COMMENTS- AND_RESP-ONSES TO COMMENTS THE DRAFT AND REVISED DRAFT EIR submitted by commentors that counter the water demand estimates used by PCWA and the 111 Draft EIR. Effects on Surface Water Features from increased Groundwater Production . The Draft EIR also addresses potential impacts to surface water conditions in the Mortis Valley Community Plan area from increased groundwater production. As identified in the Draft EIR, there are two general aquifers in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin consisting of an upper aquifer and the middle /lower aquifer. However, geologic conditions in the subsurface vary throughout the Basin that results in varying sized water- bearing formations, which occur at varying depths. Boring data from the installation of wells in the general vicinity of Schaffer Mill Road and the Truckee -Tahoe Airport have all identified water bearing formations (sediments associated with the Lousetown Formation and Truckee Formation) and non - bearing formations (lava associated with the Lousetown Formation Volcanics) associated with the upper and middle /lower aquifers at varying depths and thickness. Sections 5, 6 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36 of the Martis Valley Community Plan area are located in areas of shallow bedrock consisting of lava, tuff, breccia and volcaniclastic deposits ranging from andesite to basalt. These bedrock conditions limit interaction between the upper and middle /lower aquifer. Test pits and well data (associated with geotechnical and well reports cited in the Draft EIR) in these areas verify that the depth to volcanic bedrock generally ranges from at the surface to 50 feet below the ground surface (Draft EIR page 4.7 -51). The upper aquifer system is fed by year -round infiltration from flowing creeks and precipitation, and in turn, this aquifer feeds waterways (Truckee River) and local springs and wetland areas from groundwater discharge. The middle /lower aquifer begins at depths ranging from approximately 200 to 800 feet below ground surface level and is the primary aquifer utilized for domestic water use. The middle /lower aquifer is fed from transmission from areas adjoining the Basin as well as leakage from the surface through the upper aquifer and permeable geologic conditions and in turn appears to feed the Truckee River. However, the • Ground Water Availability in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin Report identifies that hydrogeologic and water level data indicates that the middle /lower aquifer responds as a confined aquifer (Draft EIR page 4.7 - 15). Since release of the Draft EIR, InterFlow Hydrology, Inc released a report titled Measurement of Ground Water Discharge to Streams Tributary to the Truckee River in Martis Valley, Placer and Nevada Counties, California. This report identifies that in addition to the 24,700 acre -feet annually of groundwater determined to be available in Martis Valley, there is approximately an additional 10,320 acre -feet annually of groundwater that is discharged to tributary streams in Martis Valley ( InterFlow Hydrology, 2003). This includes Mortis ' Creek, which is estimated to be fed by approximately 5,120 acre -feet annually of groundwater that is separate of the previously identified 24,700 acre -feet annually identified in the Nimbus . report to be available for municipal use. - The Draft EIR Mitigation Measure MM 4.7.5 specifically requires that new and /or expanded well facilities be designed to not result in a substantial impact on surface water features consistent with Section 204(c)1B of Public Law 101 -618. Based on the above mentioned available • technical information regarding the hydrologic and geologic conditions of the Martis Valley Community Plan area and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7.5, increased groundwater production as a result of subsequent development under the Community Plan under existing and cumulative conditions is not anticipated to result in any significant changes in surface water conditions in the project area as documented in the Draft EIR. No technical data or reports have been submitted by commenters that counter these conclusions of the Draft BR. • Placer County Martis Valley Community Plan Update May 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 -41 1 1 3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT AND REVISED DRAFT EIR Adequacy of Groundwater Quality for Water Supply Use Several comment letters expressed concerns whether the groundwater quality in the Plan area would be adequate and identified specific water quality issues including arsenic (identified as an issue with well facilities serving the Glenshire area) as well as MTBE. As identified in Table 4.7 -1 and page 4.7 -15 of the Draft EIR, current groundwater quality conditions in the Plan area meets California Drinking Water Standards, including standards for arsenic. Elevated levels of arsenic are typically associated with utilizing groundwater from geologic units consisting of volcanic rock, while wells in the Plan area extend down approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface within sediments associated with the Truckee Formation. As documented in Section 4.3 (Human Health /Risk of Upset) of the Draft EIR, there are no known cases of MTBE contamination in the Plan area. Given groundwater quality documented in the Draft EIR and anticipated enforcement of Drinking Water Standards, no significant groundwater quality impacts are expected. 1 Environmental Impacts Associated with Water Supply Infrastructure Several comment letters identify concerns associated with the lack of identification of specific locations of future well and pipeline facilities and the lack of addressing the potential environmental effects of new water facilities. Planned and anticipated water supply facility • improvements for the Plan area are identified on pages 4.11 -39 through -43 of the Draft EIR. In 1 regards these planned water supply facilities, a PCWA maintenance facility has been proposed within the Eaglewood property (as_ part of the proposed Eaglewood project) south of Schaffer Mill 'Road, and NCSD has tested a new well site within the Northstar -at -Tahoe golf course near 1 the 7th hole fairway. Well facilities, tanks and pipelines are.expected to be placed within the development area of each property, unless connection to existing well and /or tank facilities is proposed (Draft EIR page 4.11 -40). It is expected that water distribution pipelines would be placed within roadway right -of -ways, while well facilities would be located within or immediately adjacent to development areas. However, the exact location of all the required water supply facilities to ' serve buildout of the Plan area has not been determined or approved by PCWA or NCSD. The environmental effects of development of land areas within the Plan area in the Draft EIR includes consideration of associated infrastructure improvements to support the land use mixes I • identified under the various land use map options under consideration. Mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR would also apply to any potential impacts identified for water distribution facilities. 1 1 1 • 1 • Mantis Valley Community Plan Update Placer County Final Environmental Impact Report May 2003 3.0 -42 Q X 0 z. W 0 L i i i i i i i /o i a i' i i a as i /aim Gray's Crossing Comments on Sewer Facility Sizing The Town of Truckee requested that the "Utility Plan Map" in the Gray's Crossing Specific Plan ' show where the sewer lines will be stubbed out in relation to Prosser Lake View Estates, north of the Gray's Crossing site. That request for over - sizing is based on policies set forth in the Town's General Plan to connect existing developments, which are served with septic tanks, to the sewage 1 treatment facilities. • The following outlines some history that set public precedent and policy for extending sewer to 1 serve Gray's Crossing and the surrounding properties. In 1998 the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCo), adopted Resolution 98 -04 annexing the Grays Crossing property (then known as the Hopkins property) into the Truckee Sanitation District (TSD). At that time, the Commission found that annexing this property would benefit the area: TSD Resolution 98 -104, Finding MD specifically states that: "Because of the existing zoning, surrounding land uses, and availability of services, any development of this property should consider the benefits and limitations of the • I Truckee Sanitary District in providing sewer service to the area. Therefore, annexing the 1,382.34 acres into the 'boundaries of the Sanitary District at this time would ensure that all future developments would recognize the requirements of the Truckee 1 Sanita)y District." ' In addition, the application to LAFCo stated as follows: "It is important to note that the property is considered a vital link to providing adequate services to surrounding developments that border the Hopkins property. Without providing sewer services to this area, continual groundwater degradation resulting from the use of septic tanks in the adjacent properties will further impact the Truckee River Drainage Basin. There are also limitations to power and water services available to the.surrounding properties. The Truckee - Donner Public Utility District Master Plan proposes upgrades to those services and many of the District improvements are on the Hopkins land (now Gray's Crossing) making this property an integral part of the infrastructure planning for the Truckee Region." That concept was further elaborated by comments from the Town of Truckee dated March 10, 1998 supporting annexation of the Hopkins (now Grays Crossing) into the Sanitation District. Enclosed for your reference are the following: ' I. Truckee Sanitation District Resolution #98 -104, which includes the Finding H -D, quoted . • above, and states the public benefit of annexing the property to the District. 2. A Notice of Determination (NOD) certifying the environmental documentation. 3. Copy of the February 19, 1998 LAFCo annexation application outlining the public benefit described above. 4. A copy of the March 10, 1998 letter from Town of Truckee commenting on the annexation. 1 C:\Documents and Settings \bvieg\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK8D \Sewer Facility Sizing.doc Attachment 2 , TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO. 98 -104 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION BY THE TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT - HOPKINS PROPERTY ANNEXATION RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Sanitary District, that WHEREAS, the Truckee Sanitary District desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the annexation; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given to each 1 interested and subject agency; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited, and a description of the 1 boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this referenced incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the revised Sphere of Influence document dated January 21, 1998, as prepared by the Truckee Sanitary District and submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of the County of Nevada; and WHEREAS, the reason for the proposed annexation is that future development of the subject territory will require sewer services to be provided; and WIIEREAS, this Board certifies that: I. The Truckee Sanitary District, after preparation of an Initial Study, made a tentative 1 determination that the proposed annexation of the 1,382.34 acres would not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and, by publication in the January I and 8, 1998, issues of the Sierra Sun and by circulation to interested agencies on January 2, 1998, gave notice of the proposed issuance of a Negative Declaration and invited agency and public review and comment. II. The Truckee Sanitary District hereby finds that the proposed annexation will not 1 have a significant effect on the environment and adopts the Negative Declaration and directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Nevada County Recorder's Office and the Office of Planning and Research. Truckee Sanitary District has made the following findings: A. The Truckee Sanitary District has prepared an initial environmental study and finds that annexation of the 1,382.34 acres would not significantly impact the environment. B. Extending the Truckee Sanitary District boundaries as shown on Exhibit "B" is a logical extension of the Truckee Sanitary District boundaries. C. The Truckee Sanitary District recognizes the current zoning of the 1 1,382.34 acres and the Town of Truckee General Plan Designation, as shown in the Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration. Page 1 of 3 D. The Truckee Sanitary District also recognizes that the owner of this property, Hopkins Boca Sierra, L.P., is in the process of preparing a specific plan for consideration by the Town of Truckee at this time. Development of the property will require public sewers. Because of the existing zoning, surrounding land uses, and the availability of services, any development of this property should consider the benefits and limitations of the Truckee Sanitary District in providing sewer service to the area. Therefore, annexing the 1,382.34 acres into I the boundaries of the Truckee Sanitary District at this time would ensure that all future development would recognize the requirements of the Truckee Sanitary District. E. The Truckee Sanitary District further recognizes that by adopting a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation at this time, any future development would be subject to Environmental Review in conformance with the CEQA, compliance with existing or proposed Town General Plan and approval from the Town of Truckee Planning Agency. F. In considering the above, the Truckee Sanitary District finds that a Negative Declaration is applicable for the Truckee Sanitary District's request to amend its boundaries to include the 1,382.34 acres as shown on Exhibit `B." 1 G. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before Truckee Sanitary District that the proposed annexation will have a potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources defined as all wild animals, birds, plants, • fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities including the habitat on which the wildlife depends for its continued viability. (Fish & Game Code 711.2). ' WHEREAS, this Board certifies that pursuant to Section 99(b) of the Tax & Revenue Code, this change of organization will not result in an exchange of service responsibilities, and the service area and/or service responsibilities of the Town of Truckee will not be affected. This being the case, the Truckee Sanitary District accepts the master property tax apportionment exchange formula as expressed in Nevada County Board of Supervisor's Resolution 81 -316; and WHEREAS, this Board certifies that, pursuant to Section 56837 (c) of the Government Code the Truckee Sanitary District authorizes Nevada County LAFCo to waive the conducting authority proceedings for the Hopkins Annexation. Truckee Sanitary District certifies that the territory is uninhabited and that the proposal has 100% landowner consent; and WHEREAS, the subject territory, upon annexation to the Truckee Sanitary District, shall thereafter also be annexed to the Tahoe - Truckee Sanitation Agency (T -TSA) pursuant to Water Code Appendix 114, Section 375 et seq., and be subject to T -TSA rules and regulations, charges made, and assessments levied, pursuant to the provisions of the T -TSA Act, and shall also be subject to all revenue bond charges, taxes, assessments, rates and charges hereinafter levied by T -TSA for any T -TSA purpose; and WHEREAS, Truckee Sanitary District's and T -TSA's connection charges shall be paid in ' full prior to the issuance of a sewer permit by Truckee Sanitary District and a sewer connection application receipt by T - TSA. 1 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ' THE TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS: I. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the Board of 1 Directors of the Truckee Sanitary District, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B," according to the terms and conditions stated below and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. III A. It is desired that no Truckee Sanitary District taxes or service charges be levied upon any of the property within the proposed annexation until final map(s) for development of areas within the subject territory are recorded in the office of the County Recorder. • B. Truckee Sanitary District will charge Annexation Fees of $50.00 per acre, which will be due and payable at the time each final map for development is recorded in the office of the County Recorder. C. The annexation completion date will be the date the Local Agency Formation 1 Commission of Nevada County records the Certificate of Completion with the County Recorder. is PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Sanitary District at a regular meeting of the Board, held on the 19th day of February, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Adkerson, Affeldt, Gilmore, Sweet NOES: None ABSENT: b ' f G v ABSTAIN: Non None i Robe t r t. Affeldt, President of the Board of Directors 1 :A r ,. . 1 ,'�, O.R. Rutteiie. , - , • -1 Sf the Bpard s' , 4 i r• Vrt I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of the Resolution No. 98 -104, duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Sanitary District, County of Nevada, on February 19, 1998. 0 103ukterhadd Cierk-o[tljpard- 1 �l 1 Page3of 3 I Attachment 3 . 1 N otice of Determi • To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Ageney)TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 (Address) 12304 JMERGER DRIVE Sacramento, CA 95814 TRUCKEE, CA 96161 • XX County Clerk _ County of NEVADA ' 950 MAIDU AVENUE I NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 Subject: • Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. , 1 HOPKINS PROPERTY ANNEXATION Project Title I - 98012008 TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT /O.R. BiJTTERFIELD 530 - 587 -3804 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code /Telephone /Extension (If submitted to Clearinghouse) • Contact Person I Project Location (include county): THE 1,382.34 ACRES IS LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF STATE HIGHWAY 89 NORTH OF INTERSTATE 80 IN NEVADA COUNTY, TRUCKEE, CA. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, APPROXIMATELY 320 - ACRES, IS LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80 JUST NORTH OF THE OLYMPIC HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. Project Description: • • ANNEXATION OF A 1,382.34 ACRE AREA CONSISTING 0F21 SEPARATE PARCELS INTO THE . BOUNDARIES OF THE TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT. This is to advise that the TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT has approved the I [XX] Lead Agency [ ] Responsible Agency above described project on FEBRUARY 19, 1998 and has made the following (Date) determinations regarding the above described project: I I. The project [[ ]will [XX]will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. [ ] An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. I [XX] A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [[ ]were [XX]were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [[ ]was [XX]was not] adopted for this - project. 5. � Findings [[XX]were [ ]were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. I -- ..This is to4firtify -That the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of annexation approval is a'aifable tgfhe 0etteral Public at: I •TR KEG' SANITARY DISTRICT 1 JOERGER DRIVE T' UCKEE CA 96 61 / �• r ;i f February 20, 1998 Clerk of the Board I SignaikVe'(Public Agency) . Date Title Fish & Game Impact Fee -'S Exempt (see oaee two) . • I Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1989 1 1 Page I of 2 Nevada County 1 Local Agency Formation Commission Application Form 1 — LAFCo use only — Agency-Project Short Form Designation 1 — To be completed by applicant — - Use supplemental pages as necessary, and reference all attachments on the attachment list 1. Subject Property - Name of project: Parcel Number Acreage Boca Sierra Estates 19- 37 -12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 1,382.34 23, 24, 25 & 26. 19- 400 -08 &09, 1 19- 410 -09 & 14, and 19- 430 -14, 15, 16 &17. Address or location: 1 North & South of Interstate 80 and on both sides of State Highway 89. (see attached map for Assessor's Parcel Numbers and acreage.) 1 2. Proposal Applicants request the following change of organization: Annex the subject property into the Truckee Sanitation District. 3. Applicants LAFCo will send copies of the staff report on the proposal to the following (maximum of 3): Truckee Sanitation District Sylvester & Creighton, Inc. 1 12304 Joerger Drive 101 Providence Mine Road, #202 Truckee, CA 96161 Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 587 -3804 (530) 265 -5841 1 Hopkins, Boca Sierra, L.P. c/o Bank of California 475 Sansome Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 296 -6690 4. Authority to File Application ❑ Petition of landowners or registered voters 3' Resolution of Application of an affected agency 1 1 Certified copies of the Petition or Resolution of Application are included as 1 Attachment N/A . Petitions and Resolutions of Application must meet certain legal requirements. The Application Instructions include samples for applicant use. 5. Statement of Justification ' Provide a Statement of Justification for and explain the purpose of each request for change of organization. Include in the statement reasons why the proposal is more effective than the present organization and /or what services to the area are to be enhanced by the project. If any terms or conditions are proposed for this project, include them in the statement A Statement of Justification for this proposal is included as Attachment 1 . In the late 1980s, the zoning classification for the Hopkins ownership was governed by the Martis Valley General Plan. At that time, portions of the Hopkins ownership within Township 17 North, Range 16 East, and being the majority of Section 6 was designated with a land use density that would allow 1- dwelling unit per every 2- acres. When the Truckee Sanitation Assessment District No. 6 was established, it recognized that density and allocated sewer assessments to that property to accommodate future development. Since that time, those assessments have been paid by the ownerships of the Hopkins Property. After Truckee incorporated, a new General Plan was established which designated the Section 6 Property as 1 Open Space/Resource Conservation. For the most part that zoning eliminated any residential development. Based on the Town of Truckee's newly adopted General Plan the properties within this subject application are designated for some form of development (see Initial Study). • The properties outside this application within SAD 6 are not. Therefore, the Hopkins ownerships are requesting the Truckee Sanitation District boundaries be adjusted to coincide with the planned development patterns shown on Truckee's General Plan. 6. Boundaries a. An 8.5 x 11 map of the subject territory meeting the specifications listed in the Application Instructions is included as Attachment 2 b. A legal description of the boundaries of the subject territory meeting the specifications listed in the Application Instructions is included as Attachment 3 . c. Describe how the boundaries of this proposal were determined: The boundaries were established by using the perimeter boundaries of the Hopkins 1 ownerships as shown on the attached Annexation Exhibit Map. • d. This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of all the affected agencies. 1 2 I e. Describe access to the area: 1 Multiple - access - points - are - provided -for_ this property, _they_include- State -Highway 89, Prosser Dam Road, Glenshire Drive, access through Olympic Heights, and access off Alder Dam Road. 7. Neighboring Properties a. A Public Notice List meeting the specifications listed in the Application Instructions is included as Attachment 4 . b. Have surrounding property owners been canvassed for participation in the proposal? No. Results of any survey of surrounding property owners are included as Attachment NIA . 8. Land Use 1 a. Describe existing land use within the subject property: The entire 1,382 acres are undeveloped. However, the property has been subdivided into 21- separate parcels. b. Does this proposal conform to the General Plan designation for the territory? This proposal does conform with the land use designations of Truckee's General Plan (see Page 2 of the Initial Study, which outlines the zoning and general plan designations for this property.) The following chart shows the location and density permitted by Truckee's 1 General Plan: Section Zoning General Plan Designation 1 1. Section 10 RA -5 -PD (Residential Residential .5 dwelling units Agricultural, 5 -acre minimum per acre_ density size, Planned Unit Development). 2. Section 2 & 11 RA- 5 -PD -SC (Residential PC -2 (Planned Community 1 Agricultural, 5 -acre density 2), which allows for Planned Development with destination resort mixed use Scenic Corridor Combining development. District). 3. Section 12 RA- 2.5 -OP (Residential OSR 1 Agricultural, 2.5 -acres per unit with Open Space). 3 1 1 c. Have any zoning changes, General Plan amendments, subdivision maps, or conditional use permits been applied for on the subject property? Yes, in 1988 a Final Map Subdivision entitled Boca Sierra Estate FM88 -11 was recorded through the County of Nevada subdividing the property into 21- separate parcels with varying acreage size. Copies of any such maps and /or applications are included as Attachment 5 . d. Will any such applications be made after approval of this proposal? Yea ' If yes, please explain: It is anticipated after annexation of this property that a Government Specific Plan for development of areas within the boundaries of PC -2 designation on Truckee's General Plan will be submitted for review by the Town of Truckee. e. If this proposal is for an annexation to a city, a prezone map is included as Attachment N/A . f. Does the project involve agricultural or open space lands? Yes, There are portions within this property that will be subject to open space. The General Plan mandates a certain amount of acreage to be dedicated for open space and • scenic setbacks be established along State Highway 89. 9. Public Services a. Please indicate which agencies presently provide public services to the subject 1 territory, and which are proposed to provide service. If you are uncertain, you may leave spaces blank i Service Presently provided by Proposed provider Fire Protection Truckee Fire Protection District Police Protection Nevada County Sheriffs Office _ Domestic Water Service Truckee/Donner PUD Agricultural Water N/A Service Sewer Service Truckee Sanitation District Solid Waste Nevada County Road/Street Maintenance Town of Truckee/Caltrans • Snow Removal Town of Truckee Power Truckee/Donner PUD Street Lighting N/A Planning & Zoning Town of Truckee Authority Schools Tahoe/Truckee Unified School District 1 4 • b. What effect will approval of this proposal have on the type or level of services within 1 the subject property? The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have an effect on any of the Districts 1 outlined above. Development of the property under Truckee's General Plan may have an effect on these Districts. However, prior to any development approval, an environmental review must take place to determine the magnitude and intensity of impacts. c. What effect will approval of this proposal have on public services outside the subject property? We have contacted most of the districts outlined above and most have included, or are anticipating some form of development on this property in the near future. Most Districts have considered some type of development on this property their Master Plans or have committed some type of public improvements on this property such as the Highway 267 1 Bypass, Tahoe Donner Connector Road, storage water tanks, power line improvements, and future school sites. It is important to note that this property is considered a vital link to providing adequate services to surrounding developments that border the Hopkins properties. Without providing sewer services to this area continual groundwater degradation resulting from the use of septic tanks in adjacent properties will further impact the Truckee River Drainage Basin. There are also limitations to power and water services available to the surrounding 6 properties. The Truckee Donner Public Utility Districts Master Plan proposes upgrades to those services and many of the Districts improvements are on Hopkins land making this property an integral part of infrastructure planning for the Truckee Region. d. Will approval of this proposal place additional burdens on a public service provider? If so, what revenue will the change in organization generate to compensate the provider for the additional services? It is not anticipated that this annexation will place additional burdens on service providers in the area All agencies contacted to date recognize that this property is integral in their future planning and therefore have recognized that a certain level of development will occur on this property. 1 e. Have the affected agencies been notified of this proposal (per G.C. 56828 (b)? Yes, the affected agencies have been contacted regarding this annexation by written correspondence provided by the Truckee Sanitation District in processing the Negative Declaration proposed for this annexation. A list of agencies who have received notification is included as follows: • State Clearing House • Truckee Fire Protection District • Truckee Donner Public Utility District • Truckee Donner Parks & Recreation District 5 1 1 • Tahoe Truckee Unified School District • Nevada County Board of Supervisors • Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency • California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region • Town of Truckee • Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) 10. Population Estimate whether the subject territory contains: ❑ 12 or more registered voters. (t Less than 12 registered voters. 1 11. , Property Tax Exchange Government Code 56000 et seq. requires that a determination on property tax exchange 1 be in place prior to LAFCo approval. The Tax and Revenue Code requires negotiations to be completed within 30 days of initiation, or the LAFCo application is considered null and void. In order to accommodate these short timelines, LAFCo requires applications to be accompanied by documentation that the property tax negotiations have been completed. a. If this application includes a Resolution of Application, does the Resolution include documentation that the agency is in agreement with the standing Master Tax Exchange Agreement? N/A b. If this application includes a petition, any documentation of applicants' request that the affected agencies initiate tax exchange negotiations is included as Attachment N/A _ 12. Feasibility of Proposal a. What revenue will this proposal require for the accomplishment of its goals and what are the prospective sources of such revenues? The anticipated forms of revenues from development of this property include the following: LProperty Tax 2. Sales Tax 3 Road Mitigation Fees 4.Annexation Fees 5.Sewer Connection Fees 6.Water Connection Fees If the proposal involves a consolidation, incorporation, or formation, a 3 year projected budget is included as Attachment N/A . 1 6 1 1 b. Is a new tax or assessment being proposed as a part of this project? No If so, a thorough discussion of how the service will utilize the tax or assessment, as well as the legal authority for the agency to utilize the tax or assessment is included as Attachment N/A 1 c. Have agreements to mitigate the financial effects of this proposal been established with present service providers? No If so, signed copies of these agreements are included as Attachment N/A . 13. Environmental Compliance Proposals where the Conducting Authority acts as Lead Agency or Responsible Agency a. Is the Conducting Authority acting as Lead Agency or Responsible Agency? 1g Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency b. Indicate what the Lead Agency has done to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ❑ Categorical Exemption from CEQA at Negative Declaration ❑ Environmental Impact Report ❑ Other, please specify: 1 c. Copies of the complete environmental documentation prepared by the Lead Agency (including the initial study, any technical reports, and any written comments or recorded public testimony relative to the environmental documents), and a copy of the Notice of Determination, showing the date filed with the County Clerk are included as Attachment If you are not sure what constitutes the complete environmental documentation, consult with the appropriate staff at the Lead Agency. d. Was the environmental documentation circulated to the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission prior to adoption by the Lead Agency? %f Yes ❑ No If yes, copies of any comments made by LAFCo relative to the project, and any Lead • Agency responses are included as Attachment Proposals where LAFCo acts as Lead Agency a. In limited circumstances, LAFCo will act as Lead Agency for CEQA purposes. These circumstances are listed in LAFCo's CEQA Guidelines, and include situations where the Conducting Authority is unable or unwilling to act as Lead Agency. b. If the Conducting Authority has declined to act as Lead Agency, and the applicant wishes LAFCo to assume this responsibility, applicant must complete a Request for LAFCo to Act as Lead Agency (this form may be obtained at the LAFCo office). 1 Completed Request for LAFCo to Act as Lead Agency is included as Attachment N/A . 1 • 1 7 1 Certification Applicants request that proceedings as described in this application be taken in accordance with the provisions of Government Code sections 56000 et seq. and herewith affix their signatures: Tlate Sigatiire Printers Marne Title 1. 2 /18 /c8 6,16. Edwin C. Callan Chairman 2 . 3 . Note: Applications may not be accepted without the signature of one or more of the following: 1) the legal owner(s) or official agents with Power of Attorney or written authorization to sign, 2) Chief Petitioners, 3) Chair of the Legislative Body submitting a Resolution of Application. Applicants must also sign and date an Agreement to Pay form. 1 1 r 1 i r 1 1 1 1 8 MAR. 10' 90(TUE) 11.03 TOWN OP TRUCE TGL•5305027110 Attachment 4 Town Council - Department Headr , Ran Florin Mayor T Stephen L Wright Town Afahagrr TR;JCIE Dennis Crabb Town Attorney Josh Surinam - J. Thomas E Covey, Public Works W. Robert Drake Jon A. Lander. Town Engineer Don McCormack _ ..*„ i ;i �.. T.�C; { r Tony Lashbrook Community Development Jodi 1.. Afaia Schneider : .r te , ll r, s'. Jill R. Olsen. Admintslmtive SOVleer 'se 1 March 10, 1998 SR Jones Nevada County LAFCo Via telefax Re: Hopkins Annexation to the TSD Dear S.R., 1 The annexation requested by the Hopkins family is intended to facilitate, the, movement of sewer units from section 6 to sections 2, 11 and 12. The Tsuckce General Plan establishes section 6 as Resource Conservation/Open Space and seeks to minimize development in this area. Planned Community 2 is located in sections 2 and 11 and section 12 is designated Open Space Recreation. Both of these Iand uses provide development potential that will require sewer. As you know, no development projects have been submitted to or approved by the Town for these areas. Truckee General Plan Land Use Element policy 3.2 directs the Town to "work with the applicable special districts to develop a program allowing transfer of service rights from areas designated Resource Conservation/Open Space or Open Space Recreation to areas designated Residential Commercial, Industrial or Planned Community ". It appears that this annexation 6 request supports this policy. In addition, any residential subdivision in the Open Space Recreation that involves the creation of 4 or more units will require the connection to public sewer pursuant the General Plan Land Use Policy 3.4. A clustered residential project was recently approved by the Town in the Open Space Recreation which required connection to the TSD sewer facilities. • Based upon these factors, Town staff is supportive of the annexation request. If you need more information please give me a call. Sincerely, oyv its rook community Development Director 1 Cc Truckee Sanitary District • Town Administrative Center - - - U x 0 z W a la _ are as _ _ _ Si N _ _ 1111111 in MN • _ _ • 1 REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL H. REMY - 1944 - 2003 OSHA R. MESERVE 1 455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 210 JENNIFER S.HOLMAN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 ANDREA IC LEISY TINA A. THOMAS TIFFANY K. WRIGHT JAMES G. MOOSE Telephone: (9l6) 443 -2745 WILLIAM C. BURRE 1 - WHITMAN F. MANLEY CHRISTOPHER H. CALFEE ANDREA A. MATARAZZO Facsimile: (9I6) 443 -9017 ASHLE T. CROCKER • E- mail: info @rtmmlaw.com wiw.rtmm MARY E. HANDEL http://www.rimmlaw.com SABRINA V. TELLER BRIAN J. PLANT DIANA L RACHAL • OF COUNSEL September 7, 2003 . Brendan Vieg _ . . Pacific Municipal Consultants. I 140 Independence Circle Chico, CA 95973 SEP - g 2003 Re: Gray's Crossing 701E[IVE 1 . Dear Mr. Vieg: . Comment 10 -38 on the Gray's Crossing Draft EIR accuses the Town of deferring I the analysis of certain impacts. We disagree with that accusation. In all instances, the EIR identifies performance standards with which project plans inust comply. CEQA does not require the applicant or Town to develop plans at an engineering level of detail. 1 Instead, CEQA requires enough information to conclude that the impact in question can; in fact, be mitigated by adhering to relevant performance standards. (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20.) We believe the EIR meets that standard. . In any event, some of the information requested by the commenter has already ' been obtained. Mitigation measure 4.5.7 states: "Prior to approval of subsequent site plans and/or tentative maps, the project applicant shall prepare aPhase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the project site. The Assessment shall be conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E -1527- 97 guidelines. If in the course of the Assessment substances are detected at • concentrations that could pose a health hazard, remediation of the affected I area shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Califomia Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region." The commenter states the Town cannot defer preparation of a Phase I environmental assessment. Again, we disagree. In any event, the point is moot; the 1 applicant has, in fact, obtained a Phase I site assessment. In the transmittal letter. 1 1 Brendan Vieg September 7, 2003 Page 2 accompanying the assessment, the consulting finn concludes: "Our investigation did not reveal evidence that incidents involving hazardous or potentially hazardous materials have impacts the property." A copy of the transmittal letter and cover page from the assessment are enclosed. No 1 hazardous conditions were found. Thus, the applicant has already complied with mitigation measure 4.5.7. 1 We hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to call with any questions. Very truly yours, 1 Whitman F. Manley ' u Enclosure cc (w /o enclosure): Rick McConn • Dale Creighton 30908035.001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRE & FKH CONSULTING ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS • Project No. 40179 -01 • December 4, 2000 • • Mr. Roger Lessman' I • East West Partners PO Box 2537 Truckee, California 96160 Reference: Proposed Planning Area Two APNs 19- 400 -08 and 19- 400 -09 Truckee, California 1 Subject Phase I Environmental Site Assessment • Dear Mr. Lessman In accordance with our proposal dated November 2, 2000, we have completed our Phase environmental site assessment (ESA) for the proposed Planning Area Two in Truckee, ' California. The Nevada. County Assessor's parcel numbers for the project site are 19 -400 08 and 19. 400 -09. The property is currently undeveloped, 1 Our report summarizes our research and review of available records pertaining to the site, interviews with the current site owner and previous owners and our site reconnaissance. • Our investigation did not reveal evidence that incidents involving hazardous or potentially hazardous materials have impacted the property. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned._. Sincerely, HOLDREGE & ULL G gret4 (1 SP IV id Connie Garret Holdr rt R ir Staff Environmental Specialist C.E.G. 180• r? OF °L0 6 reT , i copies: 4 to Roger Lessman; East West Partners 1 to Dale Creighton; Sylvester, Creighton & Ozanich j: \wpdocs\rpt \40179- O1.esa - • • i (530) 478 -1305 • FAX (530) 478 -1019 • E- mad::handk @Handk.net • 792 Seals Avenue • Nevada City, CA: 95959 • A California Corporation IL >°sYi,ir l", s ✓ z r Ta az b 04,4o-4444,w; "g la } H : h'x . h 'z .. F • {RT' • ' mk$ • •y = •,e S � yY ;.'T y f 3v h.f -4,r/ I, Etwte k -4 3.' s r d 4 • to r .� yes rx r45w' 'i + 0_a " +." *4r•,. 4 e F f v Ti } , s ". n,."V F 1 `" a t ' • �" ' n y r esi t f, � 3 �r h r :e h h s '4„ ka ' y x' 4 ` > 'r L- r3 '' %.-.4r,'""" t 3 ± +» • ' r ' L,.4, .5! le 3' # r r T q.Jr 34', 4: �''�.' F " k ' T ` t # [ s .� } w j � Y asa " 'mss ,PlIASE1ENV/RO IMENT.4L SITE ASSES r '` ' K i et s � �\e YiXH os a fq 6i �vv }.1 ., , "• r a v ° L q ^ M 7 YS irr M G ' x F n t Fr - .s.. w q r r 4 , C < . ... .. ' r�s�ff i S fOr+€� -.^ , � f ■ } C v a J "e. '}e yk,l fg xF^*,.. yz k e TWO y ,, { c ,• n , art• yH {y x.fr rY ` L i _ a S ri a rJ�APNs # • ' 19- 08 and 19 400 09 r ; f '_ E " s ,; X44. ; l4 � ,z py.. S s 3 s s J rY` ??� r �qq } l l4c rd 5 i^ s J { i �} ¢- n� l laC [eet- fra!ifrua ( y N r.�yy '� e f, s p . Y 41C'# tt . ' Y 4- ry } : - ` y° aY. t' =- ' 2:a `� . 5" " A fit xo- v f y+"3 4• . . . <5491177.!" 1 uL r Y '$a Ty 3 f } : Y , , r + . c '-. r y h .. -F. its -` a" a 9i s4+ trti`.k u, s.�Y r .y.µ y Sur Py g¢ ..s?s E r { 'F�' i. R9 tjr ii'u - . awi , t't` j si Gf k '1v. • 'Ler`fO>t ea - �:N e4:-4 a " a 9.:I 'E � ;uri,ftP .",. r � ya: -' -2, I t a[ j y wI "Y'r4 '1 i. S4 t,i r r e:. T sY t $s Satine • •s� er fi its t ..!ie C a' a rr - vL" 6;17- . � a8 � Ft,� d Wow ° � s rr i� '�'.'_ '4 �,. , �a rckee y a tfd n .96 ' ` 4 r w i t tics 4 �,4 a r / t } rr I r'GS t n i `''Ta Gw� G�,e *�. �fla E jar r U x �Ci`J ' y 'r 4 # 1 .V Prepared by ' r , Hoidrege; &`Kull 15695 Donner Pass Road, Suite 211 Truckee, California':: 96161 Project No. 40179 -01 December 4, 2000 Holdrege & Kull Nevada City • Davis • Oakdale • Truckee www. Hand K.net X 0 Z W CL E INN r r N or r r N -. u r s m — e ■■m am 1 GRAYS CROSSING !� CLUSTERED ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT AERIAL PHOTO ' �'�J�ij".f(� 1 t /,f 1Jy a % , i / N 1 �c ;i'tP�/ e3 c rfrti. e , N , ; '7- . F° . ` er 1R n i,—Fa F 8 3 0 _'.r= � ,^ n;'!t f; K ! r . 1 ; Jt 'a. ?„,t,4.7,41. p ;- ` 2 "11 . As > , r _ / C/ F .` 7 , r /!��4Y ! > :! r 1 x /., a ,c }f e E , • oT y . `r .,p D y` i 1 s Ir d i 8 3 < h l /� ✓` #$ r •'` '/I• tt( If. re '-'.11.'' l r . pp a 401 t ' ,,,,.:.4•44-. - 10.0: � 3 S . , 40" S 4 c '25-':;;;--14.:4- ' 1 i a r ' r , q Y?L / : //4 /' ': f l,t, -;� t l'r y � x { rz. t t�< 31 p Y .�k y�4 �, : S I IL Z � ,rye a ? ' \.sz.� d.', n � ' .r : � YO yX :: - V .i 4.< ) si '. �• i ofd ft Y _ tr .� e e '.ev ; a ; :t N; ' ~ r�' ' • 1 1 1•'Rf if /I F ' ! % / l l Fi r� !� Y ,Y ^ `^ ✓ '.+'•: • 4f +R { r Y Fx �v M/ "4 3 F A /' 3 ' , A ` y r3C /` f a / c /' .'; r n ♦ s'r' ,,. "c if s 1 /��� Y' • 1 � i • � F r '" P II. f lS}It l r^ , y4 +! ,/"r I� t / :l '4 -i'`. •� w ✓� { f >' As ..,x S f}r s � �f�1h i Y� i F J -� � �' . d I ' �t/ 111 % 5'C tier/ . w /. � '.. >. � j 1" w + 1 '7 I, »`c 1 ; ,� _ 1 ✓ r ^1• n : ...7.::./.4 , --..,.‘ :4:7.2.?;! .S+Y1 t P,�< �3�P Sr�/Fi � � 4 � !/ iw l I ;;..;?,-4-: 3 �!l u. '4.‘..5:-,.',., -: ' f ‘..2,--.,!..i; 'f . 11° e. SM ` i' `I�,' l r,' . - ay % �� ( + • f f A: --1 . -, . a L . 7 f , ' R` �3 P +-t '� atyi F a • 'k '�` ' l • . s e dtfiu - �y Greetj 1l_ •_ �i. i I �1 I /f ; P ' A li JY } f i 1 - t tf ���� -7 t }? '-( S F It prnmrnd:r ,r / ' / "F / t 1 Y 9 r aj t w ,.>; , y s c $ ^ 1 ! � � ' c � LOCaonn of. '. r4, - 1. ,, hip • J/'' _ F.,f -. .� `'k F ' 1 - t 9 ? 'S � "-.1: r . I �M4 x i : �� �. I� AJ � - t V I ?„ t ! C arch see i's la . � ., `. f ' : .1 + . ` r ° � - i�... - P: p y / Z � '• .1 �s b " +I ��, I t / / a • to n �„ �� g J V F e n FY rr• — r.f s P'4 :. .1 1/ d ��Y44 r '. 4 • ! .," .., - i :l f ,. Q I l 3 a "- r. • �'. a , R Y r 3111,' ir , 1 t / � , : _ y 1ek t ! ' 1 : . :) J n r Q y ," vii• ” r :4 r '4 .• i,' y •• 4,, V ,a ! i L A 5 4 ..4., r � 7 _ rr L 7 <• 3 � } 7 l /' � 1 . . 19 . s L� a } c.: E.^ � 7� �, - r7.�� t ./ /x c 34 1 . .. ° fr J `` �'K lt 0 �' f t j t r x".',- .tt -1 7Y #, , r >r 4 d� ;,, I I , • k }.t "o ` .,'/+ F Y, e. l ' N .J S s y1 y- - ,r. , . `'l �'.. r. _. y4 4 - - • • N y � h -- -, { y ''l � I /,. I i .'JS < V .h d m r 4.✓- 'C ! > .S{sP ate ax. i. I � ,P.ts y a '.fat("..--' 'Fy y , ' ., s l $ i fit I t rt �� � 1 �X 4 a rC T R i v 1 `1 I, S Y. e ;� 4 �R f / � {° jr Y � Z Location of SChoa� 4 r �U"n " <f`� t . ti '1% :r i/ �` _ " 4 '-)� + � � � / i {� W F !i ; „'1 C "�n. }' t �.. ,A27 ✓ y,r < > y +a f, lL r' • (,) 1 c r 1 k } C 'K J { h? } { , c-',./1".. A 64 \ � / r ! ,.. , , i Y �4 f • F i fi 7 `SL r t{� $ l�t // + f: ,rj'x rt)ti •T� Z . s s ' ixT F 4 - . s , � c , i,./..2- ,, ,:14‘.....,.:" .1 ' \ ` .,. .r. -k`,;: �, v{ . C • �' ,,} } r. � t+ Yr o �Z - .. y t:� ,4 <: sF r tj; Sf /,f k Y s rf . .•; ea/ ✓'� r 5 s •i 4 ^ }Y a Y / U • 1 1 . .3. )1). / tt \ :\ ' c \d. / / > : c' j Air t ,x � C�, l '� ' '` l'- : i { '1 ?'} •^ \ W Open Space � i i; El ',2•Sw.`„ . : # /} l , > 1 a S• A t . S. • \ 4 • P rogram to be r B '4 d s _,� i7 Y -T..iy ;N I.. i S \�,x'. �" I G ', �� • • l , �T j2 l � • Determined by Town c` an hr n� • I to .5 t✓f t X4 r s 11 Y ` p /, c 1� x '4 • ` 1` ^1 n''' Visioning Process s k• Sy 1V S�>� S k 1 t 1 T / \ t 4 47 . ( 11 '\ 4 } `� r � Z 1 - ❑ ✓ • 1 0•,.. A ,141 Lw «'�`{"'� . �� IF ` !.. A 1•, - `ti. {`� `! e �. .3 I \ Tf. t • � i, -- r .� 4 / ale S ' "411 t fir t • t F 4� 'k t/ _J -ibis /_rn..lo foo I f r , 4 — t - , � v ti y �, • ,t Q Y 1 � 9 h • f 4 t A i l �,0` . 1 J • mMe, ze F a 5H e« *� ' iu l , , 'vq`' ' \t4 Es O 1 _ _. _ .� - 1 k+ri I .:... /.' 'It/V . 1/4•,,,,' + - y i W • U W M0.99GM➢IN0 GPCPoSEGGPNMIINIiY M0.V GRADING CO 520' 040ENWAY 470 1 Wilx Y « _ FILL 1Pr E %ISiINGGMOE - FINISH GRADE _ • - GRAM : J m tr.. Jr r5 WWII. — —.— FlLLxr �'`'.b:v r' -_Uw o :LJ TNI 5s .T• _ _. "_ _ _ ,r) 0 G. t_ -- 4 F 2 ^a, — FINISH WUCE _ . y WixS SECTION 1 - SEE BELOW 's W 000 00 00 &W MW 0 M O 00 2 NGG SECTION 33.00 Sa.W 00 30 00 r� Q ' 4x00 43,00 mw mw 4 4.00 4 4,00 30.00 51 .m 35,00 30.00 *MOO 44.00 42.00 v 1 0 SECTION A ON 2 - SEE BELOW U Lii ca I MASS GRADING cn 500 2 O CO w tu 1 CC 5920 f L i "'F •ym7 atlu.P` ,:..'F - m� _� _ _ C.) o 0 5880 CUT 12'- FILL 12' • 1 FINISH GRADE • 3 10 +00 11 +00 12 +00 13 +00 SECTION 1 14 +00 15 +00 1 — MASS GRADING °" 14701 FINISH GRADE Y ;� e,. SEj uc t,c t� n� - ham 1 4,-......,.-11.1 - .Y46- Y. ...�,c XIST G c D ∎4 ar — _le t,� - -_ - �� 1 r .. Mg Iv 924 m V IM Flag r�•lil� i+;, 5 �it i Csia . . �i 13�: �4.em :.:�ilY E fiYm IN . 54112111 n . n. �np>' a - — - -- _ F INISH. GRADE. _. , _ CUT 25'- 1 FILL 25 . . EXISTING GRADE _ • - - -' p i is! ly 24 +00 25 +00 26 +00 27 +00 28 +00 29 +00 30 +00 31 +00 32 +00 33 +00 34 +00 35 +00 36 +00 37 +00 38 +00 I SECTION 2 mo X 6 z. W . 0 Q. �. __— m n En e —.I _ e a w i ■N a s ' 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 02/25 I r I 8 11� - by;r ;.-1 i t .I t. i yt �( u ' 0 1c , Vii5t .J 1:11Y 7= 1 , d:: ' - :•12,;,.-!3/4; i tL ,4 $v + 3 ;4 -*::- ' , NORTH TAHOE / TRUCKEE 1 p A A MPLOYER COMMUTE SURVEY J s 21 ' ?`` g Y 1 i 1 i 4 3 I, O L ... .... ... I 1 1 North Lake Tahoe Resort Association s • s 1 �. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. ., t i i 1 r 1 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ANC 1 1 i - — 1 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 03/25 1 1 NORTH TAHOE / TRUCKEE 1 EMPLOYER COMMUTE SURVEY 1 1 Final Study Report 1 1 1 Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association 1 1 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1 P.O. Box 5875 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C Tahoe City, California 96145 530/5834053 1 1 February 6, 2002 1 LSC #017660 North Tahoe Thicket Employer Survey Report Rcvisad.wpd 1 1 1 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 04/25 Table of Contents 1 Chapter Page Number 1 Introduction 1 2 Survey Methodology 2 3 Survey Results 3 ' Appendix A — Survey Form 32 North Tahoe- Truckee Region Employer Commute Survey 33 Appendix B — Employer Organizations Responding to the Survey 37 North Tahoe - Truckee Employers Returning Survey Form 38 List of Tables Table Page Number ' 1 Question 1 — How many persons do you employ, by season? 12 2 Question 2 - Where do your employees live, by season? 13 ' 3 Question 3 — Summary of Employment Location vs. Residence Location - Summer 14 4 Question 4 — Summary of Employment Location vs. Residence Location- Winter 15 1 5 Question 5 — Summary of Employment Location vs. Residence Location -Off Season 16 ' 6 Question 3 — What hours of the day do your employee shifts start, by season? 17 7 Question 4 — What hours of the day do your employee shifts end, by season? 17 8 Questions 5 and 6 — What are the start and end dates of your peak summer and winter employment periods? 18 1 9 Question 7 — Do your employee's schedules change substantially during the seasons? 19 ' 1 0 Question 8 — Do your employees use their private vehicles at work as part of their job? 19 1.1 Question 9 — Do your employees have a disability that prohibits driving? 19 ' North Tahoe/ Truckee Employer Commune Srtrep LSC7'ransponation Consultants, Inc. Prepared for the North take Tahoe Reson Association Page t 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 05/25 1 12 Question 12a — What employee beginning shift times are the most important to serve with a commuter bus service? 20 13 Question 12b — What employee ending shift times are the most important to serve with a computer bus service? 21 14 Question 13 — What communities are most important to serve with a commuter • bus service? 22 15 Question 14 — Would your employees use a commuter bus service to and from work? 22 16 Question 15 — Would your employees use a carpool program to commute to work? 23 17 Question 16 — How often would your employees use a commuter bus service? 23 18 Question 17 — What day of the week would your employees use a commuter bus service? 24 19 Question 18 — What hours of the day would your employees use a commuter bus service? 24 20 Analysis of High- Potential Commuter Corridors 25 1 21 Analysis of High - Potential Commuter Corridors Internal to the Region 26 1 List of Figures Figure Page Number 1 1 Summer/Winter Commute Pattern: Squaw /Alpine 27 2 Summer/Winter Commute Pattern: North Tahoe, CA 28 3 Sutmer/Winter Commute Pattern: Incline/Crystal Bay 29 4 Summer/Winter Commute Pattern: Truckee/141artis 30 5 Sununer/Winter Commute Pattern: Donner Summit 31 1 1 1 tiara Tahoe/ Truckee Emnlorer Commute Survey LSC Transportation Consultants, Me. Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page ti 1 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 06/25 1 Chapter Introduction ' With changes in the employee housing situation in the North Tahoe - Truckee region, employee transportation is becoming an increasing concern of the business community, as well as the community at large. Growth in the local economy, rapid increases in housing cost, and the high ' costs and long "lead times" associated with construction of new affordable housing appears to be increasing the amount and length of commuting activity. As a first step in evaluating the expansion of transportation options for employees, the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, in ' association with the Truckee Donner Chamber of Comrnerce, retained LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. of Tahoe City to conduct a survey of major employers in the North Tahoc- Truckee region to determine employee transportation needs. 1 The survey results are intended to be used for the following: ❑ Provide a better understanding of existing commuting patterns both within and to /from the North Tahoe/Truckee region. ' ❑ Provide the quantitative basis on which to obtain grant funds for employee commuter services, such as bus service from Reno, Carson. City, or the foothills area to the west. With this infonnation, the local business community can approach groups such as Caltrans, Placer ' County Transportation Planning Agency, and Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission for funding. ' D Gauge the level of interest among local employers with regard to participation in employee commute programs. It should be noted that this document presents the results ofa survey of employers, rather than employees, as an employer survey is a much less time- consuming and costly means of developing useful planning information. As such, it does not provide information regarding individual travel 1 patterns, but rather relies in part on employers perceptions of their employees travel characteristics and needs. However, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. believes that the resulting information is of adequate accuracy to base decisions regarding potential need and 1 ridership on future services. Finally, please note that tables and figures are collected at the end of text sections in order to 1 increase the readability of the report, due to the large number of such tables and figures. 1 1 1 ' North Tahoe /Truckee Employer Commute Survey LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc Prepared for the North bake Tahoe Reran Association Page 1 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 07/25 ' Chapter 2 Survey Methodology The survey population for this survey was designated as major employers in the region encompassing the North and West Shores of Lake Tahoe, the Town of Truckee, and the Donner Summit Region to the west. In order to be cost - effective, the list of survey participants was limited to employers with a peak season employment of approximately 25 or more. Membership lists of both the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association ( NLTRA) and the Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce were obtained firm the respective organizations. These lists were merged, and duplicates eliminated. As no "official" figures regarding number of peak - season employees was available, LSC personnel estimated the number of employee either by personal experience, or by phone contact with "borderline" employers. In. addition, NLTRA provided the list of major employers in the Incline Village / Crystal Bay area to be included in the survey. A draft list of survey questions was developed by LSC, and reviewed by staff of both the NLTRA 1 and the Truckee — North Tahoe Transportation Management Association. Based upon this input, a final survey form encompassing 39 questions on a total of four pages was prepared, as presented in Appendix A. As the North Tahoe - Truckee Region is a resort community, key questions required the respondent to provide information for their summer, winter, and off season employment periods. On October 18, 2001, a total of 108 survey forms were mailed to major employers in the North Tahoe - Truckee Region. Survey recipients were requested to return their completed survey form by October 26, 2001. Survey recipients who did not retum their completed survey form were contacted during the week of October 29, first by telephone, then sent the survey form again via facsimile. Survey recipients were requested to return the completed survey form by November 9. This scenario was repeated two additional times, with survey forms to be returned on November 26 and finally December 7. For the latter "rounds," personal phone calls from NLTRA and Truckee — Donner Chamber staff members were also used to encourage participation. A Minimum of four contacts (mailings, faxes and/or phone calls) were made with each desired survey participant. A total of 63 survey forms were returned, representing a 58 percent return rate. A list of 1 organizations responding to the survey is presented as Appendix B. The survey results are discussed in the following chapter. Note that all respondents did not answer all questions; all valid responses for each questions are included in the analysis. 1 1 1 North Tahoe /Truckee Employer Commute Survey LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. .' Prepared for 1118 North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 2 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 08/25 1 Chapter 3 Survey Results Straight Tabulation of lndividual Questions 1 Considering the responses of each survey question individually yields the following: 1 1. How many persons do you employ, by season (Summer, tinter, Off Season)? As presented in Table 1, survey respondents report a total of 5,462 summer employees, 8,444 winter employees, and 2,687 off season employees. These totals are only representative of the employee population surveyed, and does not reflect the total number of employees in the North Tahoe - Truckee region. As indicated in the total, the areas with the largest proportion of 1 employees represented in the survey varies by the season. For summer employment, the largest proportions of employees work in Incline Village/Crystal Bay (33 percent), Truckee (21 percent) and Northstar/Martis Valley (12 percent). For the winter, the largest proportion of employees work in Squaw Valley /Alpine Meadows (28 percent), Northstar/Maxtis (19 percent), Incline Village/Crystal Bay (15 percent) and Donner Sturunit (13 percent). Reflecting the fact that casino employment has less "seasonality" than other major employers, Incline Village / Crystal 1 Bay employers represent the preponderance (55 percent) of off - season employees in the survey. 2. Where do your employees live, by season (Summer, Winter, Off Season)? 11 Respondents were provided with a list of 24 potential locations stretching as far as Minden/Gardnerville, Plumas County, and Auburn, as well as "other." Table 2 shows the results 1 of where employees are reported to live during the summer season, winter, and off - seasons. As shown, a total of 91 percent of all employees were reported to live within the North Tahoe / Truckee (including Donner Summit) in the summer, falling slightly to 90 percent in the winter 1 and 89 percent in the off-seasons. The largest number of summer employees were found to reside in Incline Village (1,015) and 11 Tahoe Vista / Kings Beach (885). Other areas with large populations of sununer employees are Truckee - other (571), Tahoe City / Dollar Hill (506), Truckee - Glenshire (494), and Truckee - Tahoe Donner (479). The largest winter population areas include Tahoe Vista / Kings Beach with 985 employees, Incline Village with 973 employees, and Truckee - Tahoe Donner with 868 employees. Truckee - Glenshire ( 806), Truckee - other (796), and Tahoe City / Dollar Hill (606) also house a significant number of employees. In the off- seasons, the two areas that house the largest number of off season employees arc Incline Village (723), and Tahoe Vista / Kings Beach (517). With regards to residential locations outside of the North Tahoe / Truckee region, the survey results indicate the following: 1 ❑ The highest number of employees were reported to reside in the Reno /Sparks areas, with up to 306 employees conunuting from these areas in the winter. Summer commuter (137) and 1 off- season commuter (72) numbers were reported to be substantially lower. 1 North Tahoe/ Truckee Employer Cammutc Survey LSCTnrnspanation Consultants Inc Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Pane 3 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 09/25 1 O No other external location was found to generate 100 or more commuters in any season, 1 though western Nevada County was found to generate 99 commuters in the winter. Another relatively high external commuter figure was reported for Carson City in the winter (95) and in the summer (79). ❑ Significantly for transportation planning in the Tahoe Basin, the number of employees reported to be residing in South Lake Tahoe / Meyers was reported to be only 49 in the winter, 43 in the summer, and 28 in the off - seasons. Overall, the South Shore generates less than 1 percent of total commuting to North Tahoe / Truckee employment sites. 1 Cross tabulations were also analyzed between employment location versus employee residence. location. These cross - tabulations are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5 for summer, winter, and the off - seasons, respectively. The proportion of employees commuting from each residential area to the major employment zones for the summer and winter seasons is also depicted in Figures 1 through 5. Review of this data indicates the following: 1 ❑ The proportion of employees residing outside the North Tahoe / Truckee region ranges from a low of 0 percent for the West Shore employers to a high of 30 percent winter / 16 percent summer for the Donner Summit employers. Cl The most significant external commuter trip is reported to be from the Reno / Sparks/Verdi 1 area to Squaw /Alpine, with a total of 180 winter commuters. An additional 62 commuters to Northstar/Martis Valley and 39 commuters to Truckee also come from Reno /Sparks/Verdi in 1 the winter. O Commuters coming from Carson City and Minden/Gardnerville are largely going to work in Incline Village / Crystal Bay. Of the total of 155 winter and 110 summer commuters from these areas, 81 percent and 71 percent work in Incline Village / Crystal. Bay, respectively. O Unlike other potential commute corridors, the number of commuters to Incline Village / 1 Crystal Bay from both Reno Sparks and from Carson City / Minden. / Gardnerville remains relatively strong year - round. Even in the off seasons, the number of commuters from these areas is reported to be 72 and 91, respectively. O Another relatively strong commute pattern is generated by Donner Summit employees living in Nevada City / Grass Valley / western Nevada County, with a total of 83 employees making the commute in the winter. In the other seasons, this figure falls off to very low levels. ❑ Within the region, the data reflects the importance of Truckee as a "bedroom" community for 1 employers elsewhere. For instance, in the winter, Truckee is identified as the residence location of 45 percent of Northstar/Martis employees, 37 percent of Tahoe City employees, 35 percent of Donner Summit employees, and 27 percent of Squaw /Alpine employees (in addition to 66 percent of Truckee employees): 1 1 North Tahoe/ Truckee Employer Commute Survey LSC Trans portalton nsulfanls Inc , Prepared far the North lake Tahoe Resort Associatio Page 4 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 10/25 I 3. What hours of the day do your employee shifts start, by season (Summer, Winter, Of)`' Season)? Table 6 indicates that, during the summer season, more employees start their shifts between 8:00- 9:00 AM (1,323), and between 7:00 -8:00 AM (1,115). Other shifts with large numbers of employees include shifts between 6:00 -7:00 AM (558), 2:00 -4:00 PM (400), and 4:00 -5:00 PM (306). The three winter starting shift times employing the most people are between 7:00 -8:00 AM (2,926), between 8:00 -9:00 AM (2,418), and between 6:00 -7:00 AM (934). Off season starting shift times employing the most persons are between 8:00 -9:00 AM (602), and between 7:00 -8:00 AM (424), In general, more employees are icpsrted to travel to work during the traditional morning commute period in the winter than in the other seasons. ' 4. What hours of the day do your employee shifts end, by season (Summer, Winter, Off Season)? As shown in Table 7, of the total summer employees, 1,510 employees end their shift between 4:00 -5:00 PM, followed by 906 employees ending their shift between 5:00 -6:00 PM. Other shift I times with large numbers of employees are between 10:00 -12:00 PM (706), and between 2:00- 4:00 PM (701). Winter ending shift times with high employment are between 5:00 -6:00 PM (2,354), 4:00 -5:00 PM (2,207), and 2:00 -4:00 PM (1,419). Finally off season ending shift times I with the most employees are between 5:00 -6:00 PM (542), 10 :00 -12:00 PM (400) and 4:00 -5:00 (376). Again, winter shift end times are more consistent with traditional commuting patterns than those of other seasons. 5. Ifyour employee levels vary by season, what are the start and end dates of your peak summer employment period? As presented in Table 8, May 15 is the peak summer start date with a total of 830 employees. The peak summer end date is September 5 with 1,849 employees. 6. If your employee levels vary by season, what are the start and end dates of your winter employment period? I As also shown in Table 8, November 15 is the peak winter start date with 3,415 employees; April 15 is the peak winter end date with 2,533 employees. ' Z Do your employee's schedules change substantially on a day - by-day or week -by -week basis, which might make it difficult for employees to participate in a commuter bus 1 service? If Yes, what percent of your employee's schedules change? As shown in Table 9, only 19 percent of responding employers indicate that employees shifts ' change over the course of a season. Weighted by the number of employees for each respondent, 91 percent of employees in the winter are employed by an employer with consistent work shifts, dropping to 87 percent in tether seasons. As a changing work schedule is typically a factor that reduces the propensity to use a commuter transit service, this relatively high stability in work schedules indicates that this factor would have only a limited impact on potential transit service ridership. I North Tahoe /Truckee Employer Commute Survey J-SC Transportation Consu( /ants, Ina Prepared for the Monk Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 5 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835968 LSC TAHOE PAGE 11/25 8. What percent of your employees use their private vehicle at work as part of their job? 1 Another factor that typically reduces commuter transit ridership is the need for their car while on the job. As shown in Table 10, the majority of employers (57 percent) indicate that 0 to 10 percent of employees need a car while at work. Weighted by the number of employees, this figure ranges from 27 percent in the off-seasons through 34 percent in the summer to 71 percent in the winter. Contacts with respondents after the conclusion of the study indicated that at least several were confused by this questions, indicating the highest proportion of employees requiring use of a private vehicle while at work when they actually intended to indicate the lowest proportion. 9. How many of your employees have a disability that prohibits driving? ' The preponderance of respondents indicated that either "None" or "0 to 5 percent" of their employees have a disability that prohibits driving (98 percent). Only one respondent indicated that "over 1.0 percent" have a disability, while no respondents indicated that "5 to 10 percent" of employees have a disability. 10. Of the employees with disabilities, how many use a wheelchair or other walking aid? Of respondents answering this question, 22 indicated that no employees use a wheelchair or other wallcing aid, while 17 indicated that "0 to 5 percent" use such an aid. 11.. By percentage, how do your employees currently commute to work, by season 1 (Summer, Tinter, Off Season)? As shown in Table 11, 73.7 percent of all summer employees drive alone to work, 10.4 percent ' carpool, 8.5 percent use public transit, 6.8 percent walk or bike, and the remaining 0.7 percent commute by "other" means. In comparison with typical urban travel mode splits, this reflects a relatively high proportion of Truckee / North Tahoe employees conunute by bus, carpool and walk/bike, and a relatively low (though still preponderant) proportion commute by work alone. In other seasons, the overall proportion driving alone is relatively high, though it is worth noting 1 that the number and proportion of employees commuting by bus is highest during the winter (619 employees, or 10.2 percent). 12. If an employee commuter service to and from your business was available, what employee shift times would be most important to serve? e Respondents reported that the most important beginning shift times to serve with a commuter bus service for summer, winter and off seasons are between 6:00 and 9:00 AM, and 3:00 PM, as Table 12 shows. As shown in Table 13, the most important ending shift times to serve with a commuter bus service for summer, winter and off seasons are between 3:00 and 7:00 PM, and 11:00 PM. The element of commuters working evening shifts would be relatively hard to serve with traditional public transit. North Tahoe /Truckee Emnroo C o mute Su rvey I SC Transnor aflon Co leants Ina Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 6 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 12/25 13. Ilan employee commuter service to and from your business was available, what communities would be most important to serve? ' Respondents reported that the six most important communities to serve with a commuter bus service are the North Shore (27.8 percent), Truckee ( 23.8 percent), Tahoe City and the West ' . Shore (both at 13.5 percent), Incline Village / Crystal Bay (6.3 percent), and the Tahoe City Corridor (5.6 percent), as shown in Table 14. Of all communities mentioned, 93 percent are within the region, while the remaining 7 percent are outside the region. Of these external service ' points, Reno was mentioned three times, service to the west on I -80 and/or SR 20 was mentioned twice, and no other location was mentioned more than once. 14 What percentage of your employees would use a commuter bus service to travel to and from work? As shown in Table 15, the largest proportion of respondents across all three seasons indicated that 25 to 50 percent of their employees would use a commuter bus service. Weighting the responses by the mid -point of the response ranges, a rough estimate based upon this data is that the respondents believe the overall proportion of employees that would make use of a connnuter 'bus service would equal. 32 percent in the summer, 30 percent in the winter, and 35 percent in . the off seasons. Though the total employment changes substantially between seasons, it is worth ' noting that the proportion of employees that would use a bus remains relatively constant throughout the year. 11 What percentage of your employees would use a car pool progrant to commute to work? The highest proportion of respondents (weighted by number of employees) reported that 10 to 25 percent of their employees would use a car pool program during the summer and winter, while the highest proportion of responses in the off- season indicated that 25 to 50 percent would use 1 such a program, as shown in Table 16. Weighted by the mid -point in each range, the data indicates that roughly 27 percent of summer employees, 23 percent of winter employees, and 28 percent of off - season employees would make use of a carpool program. It is interesting to note that these latter figure are significantly lower that the proportion that would use a commuter bus program. 16 If available, how often would your employees use a commuter bus service? As shown in Table 17, 77.9 percent of summer employees would use a commuter bus service to commute to work on a daily basis. This number increases to 79.7 percent for winter employees, and to 81.5 percent for off season employees. 17. What day of the week would your employees use a commuter bus service? (Cheek all ' that apply.) As shown in Table 18, respondents indicated that a commuter bus would be used relatively t consistently on all days of the week. Particularly in winter, Saturday and Sunday usage would be relatively close to weekday usage, at approximately 88 percent of weekday ridership. ' North Tahoe /Truckee Employer Commute Sarver LSCTransPOrradonConsuttants, /nc Prepared for the North rake Tahoe Reson Association Page 7 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 13/25 18. What hours of the day would your employees use a commuter bus service? , Table 19 indicates that the majority of summer, winter and off season employees would use a commuter bus service in the traditional commuter periods of roughly from 7 :00 to 9:00 AM and from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. However, other important times to serve are before 7:00 AM, and from 6:00 to 9:00 PM. Less than 10 percent of employees would utilize bus service from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, and after 9:00 PM. 19. Would your company contribute monks to a public commuter program for employees in your area? (Deductible as an operating expense.) Of the 47 organizations responding to this question 19 (or 40) percent answered in the affirmative. 20. Would your company be willing to pay all or a portion of the bus fare your employees who use the public commuter service to travel to and from work? (Tax deductible up to $65.00 per month per employee.) A total of 56 organizations responded to this question: 18 (32 percent) indicated positively, 27 (48 percent) indicated negatively, and the remaining 11 (20 percent) indicated `maybe" or "unsure." ' 21. Does your organization have any other resources that could be useful in getting a commuter bus program started, such as buses (before and after peak visitor transit need periods), vans, shelters, marketing expertise, etc? Ifso, please describe: Comments generated by this question consist of the following. , ❑ "We are already doing it (contributing vehicles, shelters, marketing, funding) ❑ "Last year we already served more than 5,000 passenger -trips to and from Reno" , ❑ "Employees earn $3 for every day they come to work without driving a car" ❑ School transportation program already provides these resources 22. Additional Comments: ❑ Provide more frequent service, and snake it free to the passengers. 1 ❑ Providing service only along the highways will also provide a disincentive for transit riders, as they need to then walk to and from their homes. ❑ Lack of frequency is the reason more employees don't use existing transit services. ❑ Many employees like split shifts, with time for recreation in the middle of the day — so they need their cars. ❑ "We hire hundreds of international and out -of -state employees with no cars." ❑ "Most of our employees live within or very near their work site." ❑ Concerned that subsidizing a commuter bus program would reduce funding for TART ❑ "Good luck — we need itl" ❑ Service needed to County office buildings for persons doing business with Sheriff/DA/Courts ' North Tahoe /Truckee Emploter Commute Survey INC Transportation Consultants, Ina Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 8 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 14/25 1 Preliminary Analysis of Survey Data by Potential Commuter Route Into Region ' The survey data described above can be used to provide a planning -level estimate of potential ridership generated by the respondents to the survey, for a variety of potential commuter transit mutes extemal to the North Tahoe / Truckee region. ' Based upon the responses to the individual survey questions, as presented above, the following potential service corridors have been evaluated: ❑ The 1 -80 East Corridor from Reno /SparksNerdi to employment in Truckee/Squaw Valley /Alpine lvleadows/Martis Valley; C1 The Mt. Rose Highway Corridor between Reno /Sparks and Incline Village; ❑ The SR 28/US 50 Corridor between Carson City and Incline Village; and ❑ The 1 -80 West / SR 20 Corridor between western Nevada County and Donner Summit. As the data does not allow more detailed evaluation, this analysis assumes that reported characteristics are uniform throughout the workforce. For instance, the impacts on potential 1 commuter ridership associated with an employer providing housing in a specific area for temporary workers (which may well have no access to an automobile for commuting) is not reflected in this evaluation. As shown in Table 20, this analysis consisted of the following steps: • 1. The number of employees by employment area versus residence area, by season, were identified from Tables 3 —.5. 2. A series of factors were applied to reflect employee characteristics that tend to preclude transit use. Cross tabulations by employment area were used to develop location -specific survey data for (a) the proportion of employees that start work during the periods likely to 1 be served by a bus system, (b) the proportion of employees for whom work schedules do not change substantially, and (c) the proportion of employees that do not need their private vehicle while at work. 3. The number of employees was then multiplied by the proportion of employees that would ' potentially use a transit service (based upon each of the three factors), to estimate the total number of potential transit users. I 4. Experience in other similar commute corridors indicates that not all potential transit users would actually make use of a service, for a variety of reasons. A reasonable planning upper bound for the proportion of commuters actually making use of transit service is 35 percent. This figure is in line, for example, with the 30 to 35 percent transit "mode split" for employees commuting to Aspen, Colorado. It is also in line with the proportion of employees that the individual employers responding to this survey indicated would make ' use of a transit service. ' North Tahoe / Truckee Employer Commute Survey LSC Tranrpgrfalion Consultants, Me. Prepared far the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 9 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 15/25 I 5. The total potential transit users was (1) multiplied by this 35 percent figure identified above, (2) factored by 5/7 to reflect the assumption that individuals report to work five days per week, and (3) multiplied by 2 to reflect two one -way trips per work day, to yield the estimated daily transit ridership (as measured in one -way passenger - trips). As shown, the results of this analysis are as follows: 1 O The highest potential commuter transit ridership is estimated to occur along the I -80 Fact corridor between Reno /Sparks/Verdi and the Truckee/Martis/Squaw /Alpine area in the winter, with a potential for 93 one -way passenger -trips per day. Summer ridership on this corridor falls to (a still relatively high level of) 32 one -way passenger -trips per day, while 1 the off - season ridership is only 7 one -way passenger -trips per day. ❑ Interestingly, the second- highest potential ridership is estimated for service between westem Nevada County (including Grass Valley / Nevada City) and the Donner Summit area in the winter, with 33 passenger -trips per day. Ridership in the non - winter seasons would be minimal. Based upon the survey results that indicate that the proportion of Donner Summit employees that live along the 1 -80 corridor to the west (Colfax, Auburn, etc.) is only 43 percent of that living long the SR 20 corridor, potential ridership on. the I- 80 west corridor would be approximately 14 one -way passenger -trips per day. ' • Potential ridership between Canon City / Minden / Gardnerville and Incline Village is estimated to equal 31, 25, and 23 one -way passenger -trips per day for the winter, summer, and off - seasons, respectively. o Potential ridership on a "Mt. Rose" corridor between Reno /Spar and Incline Village would range between 11 and 14 one -way passenger -trips per day. It should be stressed that these figures do not consider the potential increases in ridership that could accompany efforts on the part of employers to encourage transit utilization among employees. These efforts could include (1) prohibiting employee parking, (2) subsidizing employee transit fares, or (3) providing seasonal employee housing along the transit routes. Any of these approaches could substantially increase ridership potential. These figures, moreover, are for employees only, and do not include other potential sources of ridership. Visitors to ski areas, gaming establishments, and other recreational attractions may well be interested in using a direct transit service to major destinations in the Truckee - North Tahoe region. In particular, experience in other mountain resort areas indicates that winter 1 services operating to the ski areas could generate substantial ridership among skiers living in Reno /Sparks, Grass Valley/Nevada City and Carson City. In the long run, moreover, the presence of a transit service could shift employee residential locations, generating additional transit ridership. As an example, the provision of a commuter service from Carson City to Incline Village could well provide a greater opportunity for Canon City residents to access jobs on the North Shore. Based upon the survey results and this preliminary analysis, the following services warrant r further planning and discussions: Norm Tahoe /Truckee Employer Commute Susses _ LSCTransportation Consultants, Ina 1 Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort A.gsaciarton Page 10 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 16/25 1 17 Winter transit service between Reno /Sparks and Truckee via Verdi, with continuing or connecting service to Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows and Northstar -At- Tahoe. This service could also potentially be expanded to include summer season service. O Winter transit service between Grass Valley / Nevada City and Donner Summit. 1 ❑ Year -round transit service between Carson City and Incline Village / Crystal Bay, designed to provide a direct connection with the Pride service operating between Carson • City and Minden / Ganinerville. This service could start with . a schedule designed to meet the typical day shift, with later expansion to also serve the evening shift. Alternatively, support by major employers could be used to initiate service for both shifts. 1 All of these services would benefit from the availability of park -and -ride lots in the residential areas, as well as from the strong support of employers. 1 Preliminary Analysis of Survey Data by Potential Conunuter Route Within The Region A similar analysis was also conducted for the major commute corridors within the region. This analysis, presented in Table 21, focused on commuting within the region to the following major employment centers: Truckee, Donner Summit, Squaw / Alpine, Maths Valley (including 1 Northstar) and Incline Village / Crystal Bay. The analysis procedure was identical to that presented above, except that a maximum realistic transit mode split level of 15 percent was assumed, rather than the 35 percent assumed for the longer external trips. As shown in Table 21, the highest ridership potential is generated by Squaw Valley / Alpine Meadows employees living on the West and North Shores (both California and Nevada) with a 1 potential wintertime transit demand of 255 rides per day, a summertime demand of 44, and an off-season demand of 9. Other corridors with relatively high demand consist of Truckee to Squaw /Alpine (125), Truckee to Mantis Valley (114), and the North Shore / West Shore to Martis 1 Valley (113). Smaller but still significant winter demand is estimated for Truckee to Donner Summit (61) and for the California North Shore/ West Shore to Incline Village / Crystal Bay (49). In the summer, the highest demand is from Truckee to Mantis Valley (68) followed by the 1 California North Shore / West Shore to Incline Village / Crystal Bay (58). These results generally track the existing pattern of ridership on services within the region, with 1 the highest activity on the SR 89 corridor, followed by the SR 267 corridor and then the 1 -80 corridor. This analysis underscores the need for convenient commute services in both directions ' along the SR 89 corridor between Truckee and Tahoe City, as well as the need to provide improved services on SR 267 to serve employees of both Truckee and Martls Valley. 1 1 • 1 1 North TahoeI Truckee Rmaloper Commute Summit LSC Transportation Consukanzs. Inc Prepared far the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 11 w �n m w S lJ ti N �D p � x �* * 1 W 4 TABLE 1: Question 1— How many persons do you employ, by season? cn a e Employer Location Tahoe Vista/ Incline West Tahoe City/ Squaw/ Donner Northstar Kings Beach / Village? Shore Dollar Hill Alpine Truckee Summit /Mart's Cam. Bay Crystal Bay Total Total Summer 370 469 488 1,156 130 635 431 1,783 5,462 Winter 287 492 2,340 1,082 1,070 1,305 294 1,574 8,444 Off Season 28 269 156 191 120 197 249 1,478 2,687 Percentage Summer 6.77% 8.58% 8.94% 21.10% 2.38% 11.63% 7.89% 32.64% 100.00% Winter 3.40% 5.82% 27.71% 12.82% 12.67% 15.46% 3.49% 18.64% 100.00% Off Season 1.05% 10.01% 5.81% 7.10% 4 A8% 7.34% 9.28% 54.92% 100.00% Based upon survey or 63 major employers In North Tahoe J Truckee/ Donner Summit / Incline Village region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Jn December, 2001, NTT Sunray osln o E W 1 a n w alp all Oa UM MI 111111 MO MIS MI S. IS M. UM s MI IS ON I a MN MIN r r all MI m rn b• m 4 Oi TABLE 2: Question 2 - Where do your employees live by season? cc i Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees N) c c Location # % # % # % s Bear Valley (Alpine Meadows) 18 0.3% 34 0.4% 3 0.1% m t' Carson City 79 1.5% 95 1.2% 83 2.5% m Pr a C edar Flat/Camellan Bay 131 2.5% 262 3.2% 50 2.0% co o Colfax/Aubum/WestAlong I-80 44 0.8% 59 0.7% 24 1.0 in r. Crystal Bay 117 2.2% 202 2 .5% 88 3.6% m n Donner Summit 47 0.9% 484 5.9% 23 0.9% o Homewood 113 2.2% 327 4.0% 27 1.1% x S incline Village 1,015 19.3% 973 11.9% 723 29.2% o c MindeniGardnerville 31 0.6% 60 0.7% 28 1.1% o Nevada Cit3IGrass ValleyWestern Nevada Co 15 0.3% 99 1.2% 9 0.4% Plumes County(Graeagle, Portals, Quincy) 6 0.1% 27 0.3% 2 0.1% Reno/Sparks 137 2,6% 306 3.7% 72 2.9% Sierra County(Slerravllle, Calpine, Loyelton) 33 0.6% 33 0.4% 8 0.3% Squaw Valley 96 1.8% 170 2.1% 25 1.0% South Lake Tahoe/Meyers 43 0.8% 49 0,6% 28 1.1% r Sunnysfde 131 2.5% 417 5.1% 36 1.5% Tahoe Pines 80 1.5% 227 2.8% 28 1.1% D Tahoe Cit 1Dollar Hill 506 9.6% 806 7.4% 210 8.5% Tahoe Vista/Kings Beach 885 16.9% 985 12.1% 517 20.9% Tahoma 117 2.2% 181 2.2% 37 1.5% Truckee (Gtenshlre) 494 9.4% 806 9.9 143 5.8% • Truckee (Tahoe Donner) 479 9.1% 868 10.8% 97 3.9% i Truckee (Other) 571 10.9% 796 9.7% 200 8.1% n Verdi 26 0.5% 48 0.6% 14 0.6% Other 35 0.7% 59 0.7% 17 0,7% o Total Empoyees of Responding Employers 5 8,173 2,472 o Subtotal: Within the Truckee/North 4,798 91.4% 7,338 89.8% 2,207 89.3% Tahoe/Donner Sumrdt Region 0 Based upon surveyof 63 major employers in North Tahoe / Trude° / Danner Summit/ Indlne Village raglan conducted byLSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. In December, 2001. NIT Survey Resulls Tabtesvb3/02 Table m °a c 'n n :i m F- m N 01 CD LO . i--• '13 (J1 N 1 S m CD r . F TABLE 3: Summary of Employment Location vs. Residence Location- Summer 0 R L N a Employment Location 1D k Incline g" 9 Tahoe Tahoe Vista/ Village/ m y West City/ Squaw/ Donner Northstar Kings Beach Crystal Percent U Residence Location Shore Dollar Hill Alpine Truckee Summit /Marks / Cam. Bay Bay Total Total w co N g 3 Within the Ramon m kn a a West S hore 101 48 69 89 0 82 63 11 443 8% h Tahoe City/ Dollar Hill 93 75 68 77 2 62 102 38 507 10% 3, c Squaw/ Alpine 17 8 49 8 1 0 29 0 112 2% a Truckee 51 139 184 705 5B 335 27 38 1,538 29% 5. Donner Summit 0 .0 0 18 26 3 0 0 47 1% Northstar/Martis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Tahoe Vista/ Kings Beach /Cam. Bay 77 128 70 91 0 52 163 435 1,016 19% Incline Village/ Crystal Bay 16 17 12 29 0 29 24 1,006 1,133 22% Subtotal: Within the Region 355 415 452 998 87 553 408 1,528 4,798 91% r Percent Residing Within the Region 100% 92% 96% 90% 70% 91% 99% 89% 91% 0 Outside the Realer), D Carson City 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 71 79 2% a Minden/Gardnerville 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 23 31 1% . South Shore 0 2 0 6 0 4 1 30 43 1% 1 Reno /Sparks 0 10 6 38 2 31 0 50 137 3% Verdi 0 2 6 10 2 3 0 3 26 0% Sierra/Plumas Counties 0 6 5 20 5 3 0 0 39 1% Westem PlacerlNevada Counties 0 11 0 1 6 29 3 0 0 59 15 Other 0 1 0 14 0 13 0 7 35 1% q Subtotal: Outside the Region 0 35 17 112 38 57 6 184 449 9% _ . Percent Residing Outside the Region 0% 895' 4% 10% 30% 9% 1% 11% 9% i TOTAL 355 450 469 1,110 125 610 414 1,712 5,245 100% a 5 Based upon survey of 63 major employers in North Tahoe/Truckee/Donner Sum mil/Incline Village region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. in Decem ber, 2001. NTT' Survey Oats 02E.wt3&acaBOn CT I o I D G) +` m 0 ,n M an MB v we ma — ems a as ems as sr is INN 'm ow a sei son 1 NMI MI M MI. ,— s r- MB M r MI r M.. M SW r NM M r c Fa 01 P S m W TABLE 4: Summary of Employment Location vs. Residence Location- Winter o j. N o n Employment Location to � Incline Tahoe Tahoe Vista! Village/ w West City/ Squaw/ Danner Northstar Kings Beach Crystal Percent m y o Residence Location Shore Dollar Hill Alpine Truckee Summit /Mart's 1 Cam, Bay Bay Total Total m o 01 a ; Within the Region m o 1 West Shore 254 30 483 82 10 276 50 9 1,154 14% a m Tahoe City/ Dollar Hill 10 71 203 73 10 132 76 32 607 7% a L Squaw/ Alpine 0 5 150 7 17 0 25 0 204 2% P Truckee 0 177 613 888 366 567 20 39 2,470 30% Danner Summit 3 0 7 17 457 0 0 0 484 6% NorthsterlMartis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Tahoe Vista/ Kings Beach /Cam. Bay 11 110 398 90 10 153 90 385 1,247 15% Incline Village/ Crystal Bay 0 13 189 27 0 81 19 867 1,178 14% Subtotal :: Within the Region 278 408 2,023 984 670 1,189 280 1,332 7,342 90% r Percent Residing Within the Region 100% 86% 89% 92% 64% 94% 98% 87% 90% n Outside the Region D Carson Clty 0 1 7 4 0 0 2 81 95 1% oS m Minden /Gardnerville 0 2 14 2 10 0 2 30 60 1% South Shore 0 2 7 5 0 12 1 22 49 1% Reno/Sparks 0 9 144 33 10 61 0 49 . 306 4% Verdi 0 2 38 6 0 1 0 3 48 1% n Slerra!PlumasCounttes 0 5 14 13 27 1 0 0 80 1% 3 Western Placer/Nevada Counties 0 10 21 8 119 0 0 0 158 2% Other 0 39 0 13 0 0 0 7 59 1% b, Subtotal: Outside the Region 0 70 243 84 166 75 5 192 835 10% a Percent Residing Outside the Region 0% 15% 11% 8% 16% 6% 2% 13% 10% TOTAL 278 476 2,266 1,048 1,038 1,284 285 1,524 8,177 100% Z C S Based upon survey of 63 major employers to North Tahoe/TruckeelDonner Sum mit/incline Village region .11 a Sunray conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. In Decem her, 2001. NTT Suey Data 02E.wb3tluofon Cr , D ti m N CD ■ N 01 0 Co N 01 0 0 CO LO i. kas r TABLE 5: Summary of Employment Location vs. Residence Location- Offseason m v i ; in . t . Employment Location No } ' $ Indine * • Tahoe Tahoe Vista/ Village! N West City/ Squaw/ Donner Northstar Kings Beach Crystal Percent CU a ^ Residence Location Shore Dollar Hill Alpine Truckee Summit /Malts / Cam. Bay Bay Total Total m O ` CO a , Within the Region n o West Shore 6 28 9 2 0 42 34 9 130 5% m a L Tahoe City/ Dollar Hill 12 45 30 6 2 19 65 32 211 9% c Squaw/ Alpine 0 5 4 0 1 0 18 0 28 1% P. Truckee 0 63 78 122 56 78 15 30 442 18% o Donner Summit 0 0 0 3 20 0 0 0 23 1% Northstar /Margs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Tahoe Vista/ Kings Beach/Cam. Bay 8 65 18 12 0 23 80 363 567 23% Incline. Village/ Crystal Bay 0 13 0 4 0 9 14 772 812 33% Subtoae/ Within the Region 26 219 137 149 79 171 226 1,206 Z213 89% Percent Residing Within the Region. 100% 88% 95% 85% 71% 94% 9894 89% 89% m n Outside the Radon - i Carson City 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 61 53 3% _ Minden/Gardnervllle 0 2 0 0 0 - 0 2 24 28 1% m South Shore 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 22 28 1% Reno/Sparks 0 9 4 9 2 9 0 39 72 3% Verdi 0 2 3 4 2 0 0 3 14 1% n Sierra/Plumas Counties 0 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 10 0% e Westem Placer/Nevada Counties 0 10 0 0 23 0 0 0 33 1% Other 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 8 17 1% Subtotal: Outside the Region 0 29 7 27 32 11 4 155 265 11% B Percent Residing Outskte the Region 096 12% . 5% 15% 29% 696 2% 11% 11% o - a D TOTAL 26 248 144 176 111 162 230 1,361 2,478 100% B a Based upon survey of 53 major employers In North Tahoe/Truckee/Donner Sum mit/Incline Village region a ,> conducted by LSC Transportation Consuttants. Inc. in Decem her, 2001, N17 Survey Data 02Ewb3/Lomllan CT • 1 a ' rri N ■-` M N a s■s ® , a s i a s , INS al a sss sir a' a s r a II 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 22/25 1 TABLE 6: Question 3 - What hours of the day do your employee shifts star4 by season? Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees I Starting Shift # % # % # 8:00 -7:00 AM 558 11.7% 934 11.8% 243 10.3% 7 :00 -8:00 1,115 23.4% 2,926 36.9% 424 17.9% ' 6:00 -9:00 1,323 27.8% 2,418 30.5% 602 25.4% 9:00 -10:00 148 3.1 % 130 1.6% 96 4.1% 10:00 -12 :00 209 4.4% 112 1.4% 67 2.8% 12:00 -2:00 PM 111 2.3% 58 0.7% 54 2.3% I 2 :004:00 400 8.4 °/, 373 4.7 °h 209 8.856 4:00 5:00 306 6.4% 292 3.7% 217 9.2% 5:00 -6:00 135 2.8% 310 3.9% 122 5.2% ' 6:00 -7:00 60 1.7% 44 0.8 ° h 40 1.7% 7:00-8:00 121 2.5% 71 0.9% 71 3.0% 8:00 -10:00 97 2.0% 80 1.0% 80 3.4% , 10:00 -12:00 72 1.5% 95 1.2% 58 2.4% 12:00-6:00 AM 5 0.1% 4 0.1% 4 02% Other 81 1.7% 82 1.090 61 3.4% Total Employees of 4,761 7,929 2,368 1 Responding Employers Based upon survey of 63 major employers In North Tahoe / Truckee / Donner 1 Summit 1 Incline Village region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, In In December, 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3/Q3 Table TABLE 7: Question 4 - What hours of the day do your employee shifts end, by season? I Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees Ending Shin # % # % # % 1 6:00 -7:00 AM 241 5.0% 215 2.7% 206 9.3% 7:00 -8:00 103 2.2% 104 1,3% 83 3.8% 8:00 -9:00 65 1.4% 65 0.8% 66 3.0% 9:00 -10:00 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% I 10:00-12:00 0 0.0% 51 0.6% 6 0.3% 12 :00 -2:00 PM 25 0.5 56 199 2.5% 12 0.5% 2:00400 701 14.6% 1,419 17,9% 267 12.1% 4:00 -5:00 1,510 31.5% 2,207 27.9% 376 17,0% 5:00 -6:00 906 18.9% 2,354 29.8% 542 24.556 6:00 -7:00 257 5.4% 167 2.1% 72 3.3% 7:00 -8:00 38 0,8% 154 1.9% 18 0.8% 8:00 -10:00 184 3.8% 300 3.8% 149 6.7% 10:00 -12:00 706 14.7 56 506 6.4% 400 18.1% 12:00 -6:00 AM 39 0.8% 14 0.2% 3 0.1% I Other 13 0.3% 154 1.9% 13 0.6% Total Employees of 4,788 7,909 2,213 Responding Employers 1 Based upon survey of 63 major employers In North Tahoe / Truckee / Donner Summit / Incline tillage region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc In December, 2001, NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3/Q4 Table 1 - 1 North robot/ Troche e Employer Commute tSCTransrwrlarfpnConsuhanrs7na Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 17 • 0 ,n 1 rr N. b N b d = m 3, m • R. W A l ■ in • m N n up A x- - a (n W n _ m in o TABLE 8: Questions 5 and 6 - What are the start and end dates of your peak summer and winter employment period? CO n CI Lb 0 3 Summer Season Dates / No. Employees Winter. Season Dates / No. Employees m a g B egin # % End # % Begin # % End # % o c 03/01 70 2.0% 08/31 200 5.2% 10/01 600 8.8% 02/28 700 10,3% 5 05/01 555 15.5% 09/01 578 15.1% 11/01 232 3.4% 03/01 100 1,5% a 05/15 830 23.2% 09/05 1,849 48.3% 11/15 3,415 50.1% 03/31 51 0.7% 06101 775 21.6% 09/15 590 15.4% 11/20 195 2.9% 04/01 1,391 20.4% 06115 380 10.6% 09130 95 2.5% 11/30 78 1.1%, 04/10 195 2.9% 07101 232 6.5% 10101 105 2,7% 12101 664 9.7% 04/15 2,533 37.2% 07104 740 20.7% 10/15 90 2.3% 12/15 1,564 23.0% 04130 215 3.2% r 10/31 110 2.9% 12120 25 0.4% 05101 93 1.4% in o 11101 115 3.0% 12/26 40 0. 6% 05/10 135 2.0% 11/15 30 0.8% 05/15 1,400 20.5% _ 12/01 70 1.8% . r° Total (1) 3,582 3,832 6,813 6,813 f Note 1: Total Employees of Responding Employers 3 Based upon survey of 63 major employers In North Tahoe / Truckee/ Donner Sum mlt/ Incline Village y region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. In Decem ber, 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3/Q5 6 Table O C i . r o 3 N a 'b a 0o M • N CO 1 N Lil a MIS a 11.1 11111111111tallINIMMINUMNIIIIIIIIM1111111111•1' NMI OM MB UM 1 1 09/15/2003 09:29 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 24/25 1 TABLE 9: Question 7 - Do your employee's schedules change substantially during the seasons? It so, what percent? 1 - Number of Response Weighed by Number of Employees by Season Summer Winter Off Season Respondents Employees Employees Employees Schedule Change # % # T. # % # % No 51 81.0% 4.753 87.0% 7,676 90.9% 2,323 86.5% Yes 12 19.0% 709 13.0% 768 9.1% 364 13.5% . Total 63 100.0% 5.462 8,444 2.687 I Proportion of Employees O to 10% 6 9.5% 26 3.3% 31 3.4% 14 4,9% 10 to 25 % 1 1.6% 6 0.8% 3 0.3% 3 1.0% I 25 to 50 % 3 4.8 °/a 47 6.0% 50 . 5.4% 22 7.6% 50 to 7596 1 1.6% 22 2.8 °k 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7513100% 0 0.054 0 0.056 0 0.034 0 0.034 '� Based upon survey S63 major employers In Noon Tahoe / Trudroe i Donner st Inane Wage region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants. Inc. In Dec 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3107 Table 1 TABLE 10: Question 8 - Do your employees use their private vehicles at work as part of their Job? Response Weighted by Number of Employees by Season Number of Summer Winter Off Season Respondents _ Employees Employees Employees • Private Vehicle Use # °Y° # % # % # % 0 to 10 % 35 56.5% 489 33.6% 1.777 71% 175 26.834 ' 10 to 25 % 3 4.8% 40 2.7% 40 2% 10 1.5% 25 to 50 % 2 3.2% 156 10.7% 130 5% 130 19.9% 50 to 75 % 4 6.5% 87 6,0% 149 6% 53 8.1% 75 to 100% 18 29.0% 683 46.9% 391 16% 284 43.6% ' Total 62 100.0% 1,455 2,487 652 . Beaad upon survey of 63 major employers In North Tahoe 1 Tnukea 1 Donner � I incline age region conducted by LSC Transportation Con=ulta,ts,I c.Inc 2001. NTT Sunray Rest T ablaswb3/Q6 Table ' TABLE 1 t: Question 9 - Do your employees have a disability that prohibits driving? Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees I Disability # % # % # % 0to5 °k 65 85.5% 152 98.1% 31 91.2% 5to10% • 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Over 10 % 11 14.5% 3 1.9% 3 8.8% 11 • None 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Don't Know 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% • Total Employees of 76 155 34 ' Responding Employers Based upon survey of 63 mats employers In North Tahoe / Truckee / .Donner Summit/ Incline VWage region conducted by LSC Transpona5on I Constltanta, Inc. In December, 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.w14/Q9 Table I North Tahoe /Truckee Employer Commute Survey LSC Transportation Consn[�ants, lag Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 19 m en 01 01 • N a m 1 m O 0 w TABLE 12: Question 12e - What employee beginning shift times are the most important n la ' to serve with a commuter bus service? ;. K Beginning Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees 01 Shift Times # % # . % # % m 0 12:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.09° 0 0.0% w ■ .. 01: AM 0 0.0% 0 0. 0% 0 0.0% in a - 02:00 AM 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% m P 03:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 04:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.09 0 0.0% o c 05:00 AM 10 0.3% 7 0.1% 5 0.3% ^ c 06:00 AM 677 18.896 1,332 19.8% 290 15.996 z 07:OOAM 1,021 28.3% 2,232 33.2% 307 16.8% 08:00 AM 803 22.3% 1,637 24.4% 470 25.7 96 , 09:00 AM 397 11.0% 920 13.7% 220 12.0% 10:00 AM 63 1.8% 42 0,0% 37 2.096 11 :00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% r 12:00 PM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% co 01:00 PM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -1 02:00 PM 10 0.3% 15 0.2% 0 0.0%. _ 03:00 PM 452 12.5% 435 6.5 °h 410 22.4% mm 04:00 PM 72 2.0% 65 1.0% 59 3.2% 05:00 PM 45 1.2% 10 0.1% 10 0.5% 06:00 PM 45. 1.2% 10 0.1% 10 0.5% 0740 PM 13 0.3% 13 0.2% 13 0.7% 08:00 PM 0 0,0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% a 09:00 PM 0 0.0% 0 a.0% 0 0.0% 10:00 PM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11:00 PM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total (1 ) 3,007 6,717 1,829 a Note 1: Total Employees of Responding Employers Based upon survey of 63 major employers In North Tahoe/ Truckee / 'b i Donner Summit / Incene Village region conducted by LSC - o ° ° g ` Transportation Consultants, tree. in December. 2001. NTT Survey Results Tsbles.wb3l012 Table D. ti m o l' N cn [ MO a ' MO n 111111 am as ow so a as as alt ma aa a am i � a I a Imo. 1 111111. a a a .r. a a a a 111111‘ - a :i. .r. a MB c in it x cm R. ca Pi 4 � TABLE 13: Question 12b - What employee ending shift times are the most important R cn to serve with a commuter bus service? o n m 2 Ending Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees _ Shin Times # °k # % # % m 9 " 12:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% m 0 01:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% i s , z _ 02:00 AM 0 0.090 0 0.0°/s 0 0.0% m o f 03:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Q1 y ;, 04:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% n Q's 05:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% `a' 06:00 AM 0 0.054 0 0.0% 0 0.0% a 07:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 08:00 AM 65 2.0% 65 1.0% 65 4.0% 09:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0e%° 0 0.0% 10:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11:00 AM 0 0.0% 0 OM% 0 0.0% 12:00 PM 40 1.2% 0 0.0% 5 0.3% r 01:00 PM 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -i 02:00 PM 100 3.0% 65 1.0% 55 3.4% _ 03:00 PM 465 14.1% 466 7.2% 113 7.0% o 04:00 PM 447 13.5% 999 15.4% 199 12.2% 05:00 PM 739 22.4% 2,866 41.0 34 280 17.3% 06:00 PM 452 13.7% 1,067 16.4% 245 15.1% r1 07:00 PM 237 7.2% 425 8.5% 112 6.9% • 08 :00 PM 0 0.0% 0 0.014 0 0.0% 09:00 PM 49 1.5% 93 1.4% 43 2.6% 10:00 PM 169 5.1% 115 1.8% 55 3.4% q 11:00 PM 542 16.4% 548 8.4% 453 27.9% T Total (1) .3,304 100.0% 6,508 100.0% 1,624 100.0% Note 1: Total Employees o Responding Employers a Based upon survey of 63 major employers in North Tahoe /Truckee/ M - Donner Summit/ Incline Village region conducted by LSC Transportation i Consultants. Inc. In December. 2001. NTT Survey Reeulls Tabies.wb3/Ql2 Table m n, - i m m m 09/15/2003 09:50 5305835%6 LSC TAHOE PAGE 02/18 , TABLE-14 :- Question -13 - -What communities are most -important to serve with a commuter bus service? Responding Organizations Communities # °/a Carson City 1 0.8% ii Donner Summit 2 •1.6% Incline Village / Crystal Bay .8 6.3% Tahoe Vista / Kings Beach 2 1.6% Minden / Gardnerville 1 0.8% North Shore 35 27.8% Reno • 3 2.4% South Lake Tahoe 1 0.8% Truckee 30 23.8% , Tahoe City 17 13.5% Tahoe City Corridor 7 5.6% Weston 1-80 or SR 20 2 1.6% West Shore ' 17 13.5% Total Responses (1) 126 Subtotal: Within North Tahoe / 117 92.9 % Truckee Region Subtotal: Outside of North Tahoe / Truckee Region 9 7.1% 1 Note 1: Some employers dense more Mon one location. Based upon survey of 63 major employers in North Tahoe 1 Truckee / Donner Sum mit / In dine Il Village region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. in Decem bar, 2001. NTT Sunny Rends Tablee.w03/013 Tub's II • 1 TABLE 15: Question 14 - Would your employees use a commuter bus service to and from work? Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees Commuter Service Use # % # % It • % O to 10% 39 3.5% 30 1.7% 22 3.8% 1 10 to 25 % 453 40.7% 821 45.8% 168 28.8% 25 to 50 % 521 46.8% 852 47.5% 323 55.3% 50 to 75% 47 4.2% 47 2.6% 30 '5.1% 75 to 100 % 53 4.8% 44. 2.5% 41 7.096 Total Employees of 1,113 1,794 584 Responding Employers • Based upon survey of 63 major employers hi North Tahoe / Truckee / Donner Summit/ Incline Village region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. In December. 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3 /014 Table 1 North Tahoe / Truckee Emp loyer Commute Survey LSC Transpoyratitto Consultants. Inc. Prepared for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Page 22 1 09/15/2003 09:50 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 03/18 I I TABLE 16: Question 15 - Would your employees use a carpool program to commute to work? 1 Summer Emplotees Winter Employees Off Season Employees Carpool Program Use # % # °!o # °!o 0 to 10 % 78 7,794 133 9.916 49 10.0% 10 to 25 % 436 43.3% 783 58.4% 161 32.7% 25 to 50 % 453 45.0% 416 3t0% 275 55.9% . 50 to 75 % 40 4.0% 9 0.7% 7 1.4% I 75 to 100 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% • Total Employees of 1,007 1,341 492 Responding Employers II Based upon survey of 63 major employers in North Tahoe / Truckee / Donner Summit / Indine Vtlege region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. In December, 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3/415 Table 1 1 1 TABLE 17: Question 16 - How often would your employees use a commuter bus service? Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees Bus Service # IN # °/a # ° r6 Daily 3,506 77.9% 5,941 79.7% 1,808 81.5% Weekly 236 5.2% 1,015 13.6% 93 4.2% Monthly 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 6 0.3 % ' Other 755 16.8% 494 6.6% 312 14.1% Total Employees of 4,503 7,456 2,219 Responding Employers 1 Based upon survey of 63 major employees In Nardi Tahoe / Truckee / Donner Summit/ Indine Village region Conducted by LSC Transportation ii Consultants. Inc In December, 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3 /Q16Table 1 1 1 Narfhlhhoe / Truckee .Emvlover Commute Survey /SC Transportation Consulraxa, Inc Prepared for the North Lodi Tahoe Resort Association Page 23 • m ,n C N Ct A" TABLE 18: Question 17 - What day of the week would your employees use a commuter bus service? m a.- . Lo Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees up it Dally Bus Service # oh # % # % a Monday • 1,928 15.6% 3 ,359 15.8% 763 15.4% m ui a " ° Tuesday 1,988 16.1% 2,719 12.8% 718 14.4% � Wednesday 1,988 16.1% 2,719 12.8% 718 14.4% cn ^- • o Thur sday 2,038 16.5% 3,419 16.1 % 768 15.5% m cri n 9 Friday 1,963 15.9% 3,494 16.5% 768 15.5% m CU a P Saturday 1,237 10.0% 2,783 13.1% 624 12.6% `" n a 1 Sunday 1,203 9.7% 2,746 12.9% 810 12.3% m a 0 o Based upon survey of 63 major employers in North Tahoe / Truckee / Donner B. „ Summit/ indtne Village region conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, a Inc. in December, 2001. NTT Survey Results Tables.wb3/Q17 Table TABLE 19: Quesflon 18 - What hours of the day would your employees use a commuter bus service'? N 0 • Summer Employees Winter Employees Off Season Employees Hours of Bus Service # % # °h # % m Before 7 AM 1,311 14.5% 2,051 13.1% 743 14.9% 7 to 9 AM 2,781 30.7% 5,061 32.3% 1,261 25.4% 9 to Noon 645 7.1% 958 6.1% 445 9.0% a Noon to 3 PM 547 6.0% 419 2.7% 388 • 7.8% 3 to 6 PM 1,967 21.9% 3,747 23.9% . 1,067 21.4% ° i 6 to 9 PM 963 10.6% • 2,679 17.1% 564 11.3% 's After 9 PM 745 8.2% 650 4.2% 425 8.5% n Other 81 0.9% 81 0.5% 81 1.6% • 0 4 Based upon survey of 63 major employers to North Tahoe /Truckee / 'a a Donner Summit 1 Incline Village region conducted by LSC aa 2001. N Transportation Consuitants, inc. In Decem ber, 2001 Survey Results Tablas.wb3 /Q18 Table rn a m A co S a .a a ,M, 111111• ,E ;M, , fl at ie,t NW 'AIM: t•IIINE NM tom' MI SS +! cD b N 0 � CO .p TABLE 20: Analysis ofItgh- Pot Corridors m Lo L.-- Carson City / Minden / Western c' Residence Area Reno/ Sparks / Verdi Reno/Sparks m Gartinervifle Nevada Co. Truckee/ Martis /S uaw/ Donner Employment Area q Incline Village incline Village w Alpine Summit m o : Season Winter Summer Offseason Winter. Summer Offseason Winter Summer Offseason Winter m a o Total Number of LO Employees • 292 94 29 49 50 39 111 94 8 5 • 83 m at i - Proportion Starting Work E Shift 7 AM to 9 AM or 2 71% 88% 63% 58% 56% 57% 58% 56% 57% 82% PMto4PM(1) Proportion of Work Schedules That Do Not 95% 97% 95% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% Change Substantially Proportion of Employees r cn That Do Not Need Car at 94% 82 /e 78 /0 96% 100 95 /° 0 e a ° % o e 96% 96% 95% 95% n Work --1 - _ 0 Total Estimated Potential 185 64 14 27 28 21 61 50 46 65 m Transit Users Realistic Estimate of • Proportion That Would 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Actually Use Service Daily Estimated Average Daily 93 32 7 14 14 11 31 25 23 33 . Passenger -Trips (2) Note 1: Latter start period asurred for Incline Village service only • Note 2: Assuring each commuter makes two one -way trips five days per week, that all shit starling times presented above are served, and that employers do not subsidize or require employees to use transit sending. 1 ' NTT Surrey Raper Tabba2.wb3 13 :1' m . 0 (P CO • m • Lo 1 • y 01 G fn ' b a m m • • co 4 ci a- , R m rn a s TABLE 21: Analysis of Hlgh- Potential Commuter Corridors Internal to the Region al o e, - 0 a * S togy oWaW rk Prep°r8al of Wort Prapar5on af Total Reek&E.Iinn al Es*relae Schadue ThetOe Employees That Es6rn to aled Propan That Would Average Dally TotetNumber Ahlm2P le Nal Cage Oa Not Need Car Potential Actual/ Um See Passenger. W Employment Key Highway of Employees gP2pM Subelaralaty e1Wo.k Trarsb Users Day Trips (2) m a o Alen Resklen5elArea Canklor Same n Q Truckee West Share f Tahoe 9R 89 Summer 164 86% 1 93% 76% 71 15% 15 [ - ti 1 CSy, Squewt Alpine wintry 142 72% 94% 84% 15% 18 R m z 3 Offseason 0 54% 95% 72% 9 18% 1 Q1 • • ��. Kings Beach Tahoe Sommer 120 85% 93% 78% 65 15% 12 Trucheo Metal Maalsl Marne SR267 Winter 117 72% 94% 84% 87 15% 14 2 JCB - Ofhei an 19 59% 9514 72% 6 75% t Summer 18 65% 93% 76% 9 1554 - 2 o Truckee OannerSummh t -80 . Winter • 17 72% 94% 84% 10 I 15% 2 Offseason 3 54% 95% 72% 1 15% 0 North Share )Wait Summer 219 9:1% 97% 99% 196 16% 42 S 1B Shore /lathe/ CB SR 50 Wbaer 1253 96% 99% 99% 1,189 15% 265 • Ofheasal 55 9015 69% 10054 44 t5% 9 Summer 184 93% 97% • 99% 165 1 15% 35 Squaw Abtne Truckee SR89 tower 013 96% 99% 94% 582 I 15% 125 r /7 Oeseesm 78 90% 5964 1005 62 15% 13 n Summer 58 79% 100% 95% 44 15% 9 1 Donner Summit Truckee 1430 Winter 360 87% 100% 96% 286 15% 61 = Ofheesee 58 84% 100% 95% 44 15% 9 O Inane V6kgaf North Shore 7Wes1 Summer 484 ` 99% 96% 269 15% 56 fn Crystal Bay Store 3R 26 *Nor 425 55% 99% 96% 227 15% 49 1 Offseason 404 57 % 99% 95% 218 15% 47 Inane Wage TluakeeJManta Bummer 38 60% 99% 98% 21 15% 5 • Crystal Say Valley SR 267 Wiser 39 58% 9954 96% 21 15% 5 `- 0fhaeson 30 57 % 99% 95% 15 15% 3 t• Summar 335 95% 100% 99% 318 15% fill o Manfs Valley Tnlckee SR267 1 WP16er • 587 95% - 106% . 9995 834 15% 114 a Oseeeson 78 95% 100% 90% 73 1b% • 16 a _ Summer 166 55% 100% 99 -. • 175 15% 38 P Marti Valley shay Share 9R 257 Winter 551 95% 100% 99% 528 lb% 113 064ees5rt 84 1 96% 100% 99% 79 tb% 17 Et No 1: Latter seat yoke assumed for Incite Yrbge service eery. • Q a. Nate 2:Assuming each commuter makes loye b.o aneway spa five days per week, that all slag starpng Base praaeaad above are served, end that enlebyers do not subsidize ar require a ` employees to use transit service. D ea q . rn 0 . On . CO • a Ma a a a Imo. a fl 1M :I! al' M' 11111, — —) Milt St re 't 09/15/2003 09:50 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 07/18 FIGURE 1 SUMMER/WINTER COMMUTE PATTERN: SQUAW /ALPINE IERRA AND te .. PLUMAS COUNTIES Y L .�'�a^•" 1 •,.:'..!•,,,. F .: EITHER 9 ''�.L 694/0%0 f }r ) • y' )' RENOISPARKS //" -' {J 0.4z_,. a f , ti , r�� k k r lr .. L VERDI � tt'L' n`[ 6•.-1.:, . �` [ ifr 1 � 1 � J x v YR�� 1% Y 1 ry 4 . p mn R to i ✓W ESTERN NEVADA r I h' n i $ • .....4.4...-..t.- PLACER COUNTY 'G + +� , � X `� , 1 d 3 t' : + t d , Y � .. ) ` t ry 4. :=9,;;;i‘; v'. S f I . D "• �[ ^k t i 1 3 %a% i" -c �' ii q1L 1 - • I, . ' y rr„ f ^ � E ,� r t t a s 6 P' n I! $ at" 15 i •' E ,rF, i %,,., ul+`['i F t r if - fi r {y r , I � • ?5 t�' Y . ii 1 L n4 a r t' ' t 'Fty S i '� 4 ,1 a °4N' e«u ' - "��— TRUCKEE! NORTH TAHOE fi u ry •i ,,rty�^ MARTIS VALLEY CALIIFORNIA 1 r 5 .y t. ; Y - a„ a CRN L INE �i: a , . -, 3.36/8/ii, Y :r YSTAL BAY as a. 7, � } •, y y t ." D96 R 3 rR l% 9WL 1✓ ar L • ' 4V ,.1 ! rt 1 4 7. • fY 5 5 f t J S. I R t .. 5 1 !;Ydu. .5, r d f • 1 4rr E : Y ) + 7 + e -0t - . .: F,uf : y . SQUAW r _ ,. T tr" I ALPINE 4496./47 € a ��; ^ ^ r rR Lr9 r tl' J• � ` 4 ` yt a 1 x r , ,, �' 1 P `t' 'I CARSON "t } : i p q 'fir! 1 CITY >t f? +i S t f TT . ) t Y v f A 4 t 4 z : -M �' P iti E `: � ' SCALE F :S I VL III f t ItJ PAILF. LAKE TAHOE 096/1$b - F t . y}ti � g • ( r" d d a tp) r ! LEGEND - f ttt1 x R ) T , " . HICs}dWAYS '�" "r r, �° r C a • % �n —=— COU 8 0UNOARI Y .'- "t ` f ' + aa� 1 9J z6NE$ . . . WATER '` i ' ' " W ` � t :. .COMMUTE PATTERN: Iw �. ' c tt` • !74 PROPO O S UMMER EMPLOYEES F e x I -PROPOMTiONDF WINTER EMiPL01'EES .;1.1.,.;;;I:54,-.V. • • r W. IW R E S'ItoON D TO 1[LG ttENiES'Pl:tlll.P T t r MINDEN !' > G ARDNERVILLE ' r Js t •+ OVONb $bUTH► wN 9K a . q . . �!:1 SNORE I Truckee North Tahoe Employee Commute Survey LSC 7Fanspartailon Consultams. Inc. Prepared for the North Lake Resort Association Page 17 09/15/2003 09:50 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 08/18 • FIGURE 2 SUMMERIWINTER COMMUTE PATTERN: NORTH TAHOE, CA SIERRA AND )I PLUMAS COUNTIES y * �� , r , ,• ; 1 t; e. , 1 E%/4% �� I S • R E N W S • • • YERDI • 1r ) Ij i t e : .. . � I • iiric n my ' f M • '. F N ? P LACER COUNTY . v - '1, ::::1 . 1!, s • t0 • II NEVADA! • EI' C J 1%/1% . 't. " ,d Ct !r { rf' II 4� . +K N � N • 1 a ; i� ae IB' r i .: e �l J 1 �, 0. 4 _. �,• DONNER • y b' j -, �: ''',1,,..,144,14...' C' r { r , n I � , SUMMIT ...i�� Jrl�. 'Aki 4 W N' � :i F r � : 1 N 0.7H TAWOE I , "� a M • .Y "Q�!• MARTIS VALLEY■ j CALIFORNIA a a : q t • n{,aa . T'1. F INCLINE) ^J ..Y! 1. r • I v r % ,. w . 596/3% A. CRY STAL 9 AY ' 0 4; . '. • I`°^�" 79)✓1°/fr a.�', 4' i V . _ 1`..::1? y . • y 1 ' m . I v t •e , a L fir k .. r 1 . , . _ �d r.. v 5 I Y 4 = -q quN )�rV `' aI - ALPIN 496/3% i s A . P ti 2 1 r.S I �F9j� rF r Y� 11`a 1 �� ' v 1 p iT CARSON t Y :�;, ,/68 r,w i t S CITY 1 . s ` I '? 'y�, 1:. n ` , ev I . 1, a SCALE ,w ..4101? -.� • Y I I.J MILES •'(' y LAKE TAHOE �y'��r -. '� S f $ _ ox✓a% .;4): ; LEGEND I v LL LJ}C ) &-:: • --- HIGHWAYS P ` t ' . — ^ •COUNTY BOUNDARY -�+ I '+- .'� y, ' I - Y° WATER ' : .. P * i15 � � )` . � . • +� ':.. ,. 1 COMMII 'Rg "M1„ v ,' w O% PRORORtiON OF SUMMEti Ehe . �nll , t < ` fp% PROPORTION OP WINTER EMPLdttCS -,• > ^ I q, ... ALLPJGO S ROuOO T,tc *JEARESTI�Al,r . . NT d r MINDEN 'Cr)) tg2, GARDNERVILLE 5 a(+''�lEu i: k.�sT y • l 094•1096 SOU Y: 1 y 1 • 6 10. 'S r' " ' 47,-1 SHORE ` -17.-' . • . - a ""° y • • Thicken North Tahoe Employee Commute Survey LSC 71•anspnrtatfors Consvltaner, Inc. Prepared for the North Lake Resort Association Page 28 09/15/2003 09:50 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 09/18 FIGURE 3 SUMMER/WINTER COMMUTE PATTERN: INCLINE /CRYSTAL BAY S, It 0. wYi ! .S SIERRA AND ,„ PLUMAS COUNTIES ' � k � s t �ku 'ts • ' 4111.1=Fialli IA r p 11. RENO;SPARKS /�� VERDI . . � .5 i 1C . ::i�t ' ; r I 1 .. k Id Dv&te% D%/0% • ' t� : RN NEVADA! + , rA1 t! • q yp . E PLACER COUNTY `:. - r Fi ,� w4a Ij Ikr !t,�y,� 1,7,,,k...4 ' >S�i'.;h " t 'In� • A! Y, yy �, t f t �^ Y • 4f1 �'1 .. f� J �^'�� � 1 . :1:,,P' � ��� •; } n �V�IfA !K ( a � ,yrt 3 I i • 3 '! T ‘, *'` 1 .. M O i '9A' DONNER ` +� Z - :A' G I : t a ( ��r Ir }�> SUMMIT ✓'� , ! 14 TH TANDE b ; / r �:l t& t .- +• w�+TRR EI s CALIFORNIA [ p f:i' r�Yf r +ir hl' r.. 'r ely, MA RTIS VALLEY 1 . • Err::: • `k NE! s ij, • i N 3 _ ';r .01 _ 2%/3% INCLINE/ a ry +�y • t a ?d., � ,��L� ' t ' CRYSTAL BAY y •N S Is' .... • u : :ky 89 /�Q ss4/57% ...."..7.4-1,4117,11:..:' } xt c. ., y t. } '.1 hr 044.;. A „r.. F " R' M s a " hpy`• � ,! vm .: , G �,M d t se ' - t • Ly Vii A �W V /O �' S. t 4l , SOUAWfc - m .t . F.. ALPINE E` 3 T' ,�e '}{ • R h d li ��qq 'Z'44...:21:..,' { �� i 1V I ! F ,r > '7 ' .y } ✓x, ° ,! ' I '. CARSON • i:•;44,1 ryirl f1 f CITY 'I t ri f } ;k7 >L v a I y y ",„217.,".• k:,i4 SCALE 1 r + :!.•,: ' j hb �• • D 2 u t ri i M1 I. ^ k r IN NIII . Ct- I r9KE 7"4".10E „ v "�` ...... } T �P. }L2 • .�. • y }. ')J_ (7 1 196/2% !' � f 1 ppII 'R%i LEGEND i ' " i ` - ' a : ' yt' • -_ HIGHWAYS I YY x fry; N V 4 • --- COUNTY S O U : I �. COMMUYE PATTERN'. ' ` ::LV. . • I i t U°.G' - PROPORTION OF SUMMER EMPLOYEES ! , i IV% - PROPORTION OF WINTEri EMPLOYEES 1+ µ 7 ,� Ib „ Si N LPIDI: §ROUNDED r5 THE NEAREST ruts PERCENT y 4 , � I • T; r MINDEN 10 _ r4 GARDNERVILLE ^ • 7 • w M 1 1 . + k 1. A e y N8 � • rtn 1 4 , • . ' 4- C i ,:e 4 x_ : : Y f `l } s D-, ' ' � " !' SOU .iav ' IG � ! `T : " ' r a S b J+ r r : I SHORE "'M • Truckee North Tahoe Employee Commute Survey LSC Transportation Consultants. Inc. Prepared for the North Lake Resort Association Page 29 • 09/15/2003 89:50 5305835986 LSC TAHOE PAGE 10/18 F I G U R E 4 SUMMER/WINTER COMMUTE PATTERN: TRUCKEE/MARTIS • . . , . I .., .. ., 4. SIERRA AND _ - . r; i i:Ok - ': - );;; ) ': • l i: ). );: 4 4 , ) ; PLUMAS COUNTIES ilL_ :'21.1 1 2%/1% :• t:::: : '..'.''': : : :: : illikrIMIP :1 41 - • • ....::): - .41: z . • • RENCJILTARKS! /I . . '':.):-;) - P If .1? • ,... • . ' :;':` '': . : , l ira ng; W. .• It 5. 4.: ' ik'.r:, .. ;,::<::.;; ....: .......:',.:'. '" ,..4....;,,r 4 , :. , 1 • 1/2„,.A.:' • " - : ''''' '0 , -..., • • • . • . -- . . r.. • I . t'):11V; I i:4: 1 ■ 1%,0% -4: .....- ..:.... 5%/41": ' '' ::::•:,„ i .:;; it:.: • \ I • t-: , . ::: ... WEITESN NEVADA' •!..2::. LA , 4 ) , ..: , . ./. • 't,.. • ■■,)/.. ' Alt:: ''.„ .' J : 11 4 . • ' . -• ' ' . ..) '7'5:4:: '-' • — : ... t T. '' i, ) ': ) , )Z„ , :,:.,.! )) ;•11:::.. tql . , ':',::::: • : M. -„'.,.., 4: .- . , 'ik'', ,a$14‘," . 1 1%/ ''.,. , -. ',.. . 5';',... 7 : 2 04 4, 24;€ 1 n fr .."‘.:;';';;;.* . .'• : •:•- 1 .."... ' .' .:•.::. • 196//% '.. :J.::: , .,liti;;;;'.„, ,, '! : Ftti.:. : .i -4 .; * ,:l ",", .: .:." ' '"?.,..',.,i'l:'''' • . ‘.,,..-,...'." ik • . ':::' ; . p'. ;!',( 'r'ilRi'Vf&L'il ''''''' : • ' ' % ' ": 1 ": •• • r .,:,.•..7,,•:.1.,....,.•,,si.r..cie.4,2, ‘.•, ,,:.: . . ......... .., . . . , . , .. ....:: .. .:...:„..:••-:-.. tr. itt.t):::,17,..:.,,,,,... i. r. .. p„,:t.:cr...i.:,sirkr._27:tzt .. . .... , ..... .. • . rr,•.,.,..;._,,:.„•,.. 2 ....,,..4.:a:.,.:...::,......, ,„.. •••,:iy.f. r.Lk • ••.. • .. ... • ,, . . .7: . . . • • • • at7 .„:4, (.... ..,•-:;,:••••• -... 7 DONNER _ .4.. • • SUMMIT '- . t. a 'F MARTIS VALLEY . • ) ,V1i... ., ' .4 INCLINE' ' ., • .. iii , . .. s . . . • • - • '.• ' ' • • • - - -v• ,,,-.4';:- ....f ••• ',..7V..72 7. • :::`,4W ..'.: • s . :,..:::-.: .-. s..•:::F::;.: ...:0 -4, :..... ...,,,, .„..ir• r• :......#:).:• -71,r, . Apr. „,o, -, 74. •.,,,,,77•7 iLwe„ 7:It, , ....,.4, , :, . ... :i ........:w.:..?4,•,::„.2:.„::.,• : • ....+4..._; 1137 41.' e 4 ilip0..ir... ... . . . , .. , . . r., .. At: . -7:-•5'. #:..f..4: .11111‘ ,,..,..crt.tivit • • •“••• • • : ----:._ :,.,..-.:,•;:.: . . :E • 7.t..*:,..,: , ..4.•„•. : .„,....: , 1 . ,;,,_*•1, :4.2...:::-- ... 2- . -- -. •-•,, :,,...:,„ • 22; , zl: ,..1,P fr: ., - 2rt - o,,Ce. ?. C.! . rfr.. :::".:.; '' ' ''." ..:.. ''''. .: .'' ; • :4 '' : . fillt'r).41?-;1, . . "': rrntifi.:(... :::'; '.,.... I . ., .., . . . .. A. P .... . AL% ': ' : -....;:', heL-P‘.7!: %&.".....ri: :.'''.:''!"•:-. • vl 'DC -. . ".ikfT. : , 1. *'''' . ..:Y 1, • ' % .'''‘' .',4 . .H . ..+":: . : 1 :. , •i CARSON :1 : .„ i);A:.:::: ,),; .1,;i:;,Ii.:,' .. :::::V. ' • il rc:IRV:i Y..: ''L:41: 01 1) .. r.,:'"):::•:"),Vei , , :24 1 .,. :,:i ,-.,: ::;:.,..- .0:!.; ot .9- .,.....pm...,•::::..••:.y.: • I ti: e:'...11,....;`'' Cli.. ,..■•■• ;...4 44' , tiP v.: S‘{t L S■.' tt .: h.".: 1;;Y• ." ,'5nH ' !PC. . :' 1 / 4 1: ."- ',:q:'..',■',,,j..(104c.;",. -i r. 1 6 - 3 1 :...,:::.,5•::,. ii.:-••:;/:;: • A•*--rs•: ., net*: y .):,: , .•.;' s' . .•:;:i .'" -..• : ' . -tpi7J.7tw ?" 1.22 " , :W;t 1 '.. ;1 •'-', • . '.'Li. " F-:-I I Li. : - .:,:: :: . i: . & .. : ...,;;. LAKE 7:41-10E - ..-.; ' IN MILES . ,. .."Z':' :," ? 411:2 '' '51'1 . 14i ff i4 eS . 4 . ..4 7 ;,: ' ;'. t iA'. ; ,' : i.? - - ;....LTh ':1:• . E.‘6.?!=.' Y:.? a..:)../.... l t . • 0 ; , ) • -::: : ,• At' COUNTY touNbAkY• . - • • - : - . .... .• ... ....-'::,?;: '......_,.%•,-... . .:.:. t WATER ,g!,;.i..f..:.i.P!,;;Xl.i...,...1,,..V.?: : •1.4.4::::!:.f:i.■Kil..t...i:. • COMMUTE PATTERN . • , • • --,*:, • L..... i . 4._.- 1 .. • 016 pRophoRT301.0r$LININIEF:tEMpLoyte : 1 .' /6% PROP(trioN or tivintrEq 00rixittEs : 7,t.»4 : . : .,,,F :::,, ... ., • r 1 ALL ilStirtEtRODNDOTO:friiii,E1APEStFULLPECElfr GARDNERVILLE .... ' • - . . . , , ''.. :. i ..)-•:;:: '-`').,n; .. -:;14 ' a ,:i.-: ., :o.,rit• : „ . •:.:... .;;* 10:g•ti4. --) ' ,...'; . ..:.. !ie.. • .. 'A:- ..., sr • .• .: ' i iliell..p■. SHARE .. 1 t 5 ecaypip, - -; - - I :. ) ::)- 44.,i).±-„; - i• ..z.,i L ,':-...,.., : r LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Truckee North Tahoe Employee Commute Survey Prepared for the North Lake Resort Association Page 30 I 09/15/2003 09:50 5305835966 LSC TAHOE PAGE 11/18 I FIGURE 5 SUMMER/WINTER COMMUTE PATTERN: DONNER SUMMIT toa_ Jo"J _r Am fi r+ �. V t l . wt . : ; -.. / A SIERRA ANp lqY, PLUMAS COUNTIES �h� - l +a,. 4 { b I F ' s RENOISPARNS ' ~` V EROI Ili X'r i> t ti a I • , 4 • �, a9us% ?�4 '..� , 1 i 1 f=.7.. wn 39{,'196 uexs++ r P I l d 1 ! K' ;< +W ES ▪ TERN NE VAOAII 1 : y y . ' . t' 1 n ! ) • " t ,911449 PLACER COUNTY , t41y 4;0. 1' n :; '7-MPS"? , r is t y ^' • � � x , ;•;.'1. �c� ! •• sir .0'. t p � � I OONNER ✓ - 096 p 4:'" °.+'' y „ Ti.. 1 ' x5 n,.'.r '1� SUMMIT iB' N O RT H TANOE �IV " ' ' 0%/O% r TROCHEE/ CALIFORNIA (( y t - t a w _ c �� • MAR715 VALLEY - J ' ^1 ;xt ] % { k 5" l * y INCLINE{ i3 I �!g�n, d” �� CRYSTAL DAY 4 < < t tor*, 'n '' 196 • - i i'r'"1T '°.x At., ,, H., X,' • .'. '0-• s li c t t ry � "� ' t 2396- ? / • °;` : - �, ` '.t.. 4� y a a i , S4uww at �a , F �. • � :� - ALPINE r ,. 114,�4f R�` L w �, i �,i ' 1 ' y. 1F'I WV 3 7 .1 is t ,, � �� jr TT r JI B r�y9M t r i. $ . . (....A.)._ l 1 fey_ r s r,., � I � J l k CARSON 4-ti •. ' '' y ' ^ f F " N L " J .,,„.. r t 4:-4.4r '9. CITY :II 1 e" hV is W . , ' >n ... r 1 J CALF 1 y � U 11 plh s... ;la ;0 * N , IN MILE A. .. < I T t y e t' LAKE TAHO E 046/U°,o ti s ' • 1j L ,+' � } .:, : `• ur ¢" : V. W—' HIGHWAYS � J V � y `'p ' ° , --�� COUNTY BOUNDARY' l <` • t a ZONES N C e: - < �' WATER' • ,' ' : , � + „, . OOMMUTE PATTERN,:, - �` ,r' Y £ e l C% PROPORTION OF SUMMER EMPLOYEES " cn F •. - " < /0g6 PROPORTIONOFW1U1t EMPLOYEES 1 t NL : FIGURES RD4JNn f O THE NEARESTFFJLL P ERC . ENT tit � 9 y MINDEN :FIGURES r. " "aa. 6ARDNERVILLE a Y,. f •k 3pp ��' 3 � J S1_ 4 •� �+-�— „Ill • � �). s : T souT f�.`ra s z • SHORE P a J Truckee North Tahoe Employee Commute Survey LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Tr Prepared for the North Lake Reson Association Page 31