Moro Cojo Sough Restoration and Enhancement Project

Status Planning County Monterey
Project Type Non-mitigation Location 36.79347° N, -121.77423° W Map
Project Area (Acres) 422.0 Last Updated 16 March 2017

Project Identification

IDType
No Data

Habitat Plan

ActivityHabitatSubHabitatAcresActivity StatusWater Regime
Restoration Buffer area None 14.02 Construction completed
Creation Depressional Wetland Marsh and unvegetated flats 200.0 Construction completed
Creation Depressional Wetland Open water 13.60 Construction completed
Creation Depressional Wetland Unknown/Unspecified 0.40 Construction completed
Restoration Depressional Wetland Marsh and unvegetated flats 11.60 Construction completed
Restoration Estuarine Wetland Marsh 5.40 Construction completed
Acquisition/Preservation/Protection Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 175.0 Construction completed
Enhancement Vernal pools and swales None 2.00 Construction completed

Related Habitat Impacts

HabitatAcres LostType of Loss
No Data

Sites

NameStatusAcres
Calcagno's I Construction completed 2.50
Calcagno's II Construction completed 3.15
Calcagno's III Construction completed 2.00
Catellus Construction completed 202.0
Granite Rock Construction completed 13.47
Moon Glow Construction completed 6.70
Sea Mist Construction completed 192.2

Events

DateTypeDescriptionSite Name
2009-10-01 Project entered Project entered into database
2008-03-01 Groundwork end Estimated date Catellus
2008-03-01 Monitoring end Estimated date Catellus
2006-06-01 Monitoring start Estimated date Catellus
2004-07-01 Groundwork start Estimated date Catellus

People

TypeNameOrganizationDepartment
Contact Kevin O'Connor Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Not applicable/Unknown

Funding

ActivityFunderAmount
Creation State Water Resources Control Board

Related CRAM Assessments

Visit DateVersionSite NameWetland TypeIndex Score
2017-06-15 6.1 Moro Cojo at Highway 1 estuarine perennial saline 58
2013-05-30 6.1 calcagno 1 estuarine perennial saline 65
2012-08-11 6.1 Moonglow Marsh perennial/seasonal depressional 68
2009-07-10 5.0.2 Seamist 3 perennial/seasonal depressional 50
2009-07-10 5.0.2 Seamist 2 perennial/seasonal depressional 51
2009-07-10 5.0.2 Seamist 1 perennial/seasonal depressional 52
2009-07-07 5.0.2 Calcagno's 2 estuarine perennial saline 55
2009-07-07 5.0.2 Moonglow 4 perennial/seasonal depressional 60
2009-07-07 5.0.2 Calcagno 3 estuarine perennial saline 48
2009-07-06 5.0.2 Moonglow 3 perennial/seasonal depressional 69
2009-07-06 5.0.2 Moonglow 1 perennial/seasonal depressional 63
2009-07-06 5.0.2 Moonglow 2 perennial/seasonal depressional 52
2009-07-06 5.0.2 Granite Cottonwood Forest perennial/seasonal depressional 59
2009-07-02 5.0.2 Granite West perennial/seasonal depressional 61
2009-07-01 5.0.2 Granite North section perennial/seasonal depressional 56
2009-06-04 5.0.2 Calcagno 1 estuarine perennial saline 59
2009-02-04 5.0.2 Calcagno's 3 Post-restoration estuarine perennial saline 49
2008-11-12 5.0.2 Calcagno's 3 Pre-restoration estuarine perennial saline 48
2008-06-23 5.0.1 Moonglow perennial/seasonal depressional 57
2008-04-17 5.0.1 Granite Rock perennial/seasonal depressional 67
2008-04-16 5.0.1 Cattelus Site 1 perennial/seasonal depressional 51
2008-04-16 5.0.1 Cattelus Site 2 perennial/seasonal depressional 57
2008-04-15 5.0.1 Seamist perennial/seasonal depressional 51
2008-01-30 5.0.1 Calcagno's 1 estuarine perennial saline 60
2008-01-30 5.0.1 Calcagno's 2 estuarine perennial saline 52
2007-09-13 4.6 Moro Cojo estuarine perennial saline 46
2007-09-12 4.6 Moro Cojo estuarine perennial saline 48

Performance Criteria

StatusDetailsEvaluation Date
No Data

Project Description

Description
200 acres of the historic Moro Cojo floodplain were returned to a mixed wetland/prarie mosaic. Multiple ponds and channels were created and filled with adjacent agricultural runoff delivering water out into the floodplain. Mixed invasive species management techniques were used, resulting in the revival of a once thought to be extinct clover. Other project sites included native planting, invasive plant management, pond creation, hydrology management, cattle exclusion fencing, improvement of water quality from adjacent and piped agricultural runoff.
Upload files or links

No files found.

How to Use the Habitat Development Curve

Habitat Development Curves (HDCs) are used to determine the developmental status and trajectory of on-the-ground projects to create, restore, or enhance California wetland and stream habitats. Each HDC is based on assessments of habitat condition for different age areas of one habitat type that in aggregate represent the full spectrum of habitat development. The assessments of condition are provided by expert applications of the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). Visit the CRAM website for more information about CRAM.

For each HDC, reference condition is represented by areas of a habitat that consistently get very high CRAM scores, have not been subject to disruptive management practices, and exist within landscapes that are protected and managed for their natural conditions. The horizontal lines intersecting the top of an HDC represent the mean CRAM score and standard deviation of scores for 25 qualifying reference areas.

The age of a project is estimated as the elapsed time in years between the groundwork end date for the project and the date of the CRAM assessment. To add or update a groundwork end date, use the Project Events form in Project Tracker (ptrack.ecoatlas.org). The minimum age in years of a non-project area, including any natural reference area, is estimated from all available local information, including historical maps and imagery, historical written accounts, and place-specific scientific studies of habitat development.

An HDC can be used to address the following questions:

  1. At what time in the future will the area of assessed habitat achieve the reference condition or other milestones in habitat development? The HDC can answer this question if the CRAM score for the assessed area is within the confidence interval of the HDC. The answer is the time in years along the HDC between the current age of the assessed area and the future date corresponding to the intersection of the HDC and the reference condition or other milestone.
  2. Is the area of assessed habitat likely to develop faster, slower, or at the same pace as most other areas of the same habitat type? The habitat area is likely to develop faster, slower, or at the same pace if the CRAM score for the area is above, below, or within the confidence interval of the HDC, respectively.
  3. What can be done to improve the condition of the habitat area or to increase its rate of development? HDCs by themselves cannot answer this question. Possible answers can be inferred by the following analysis that involves HDCs:
    1. Examine the HDC for each of the four CRAM Attributes;
    2. Identify the Attribute(s) scoring below the HDC;
    3. For any low-scoring Attribute, examine the component Metric Scores (note: the Metric Scores for any public CRAM assessment in the CRAM database can be obtained through EcoAtlas);
    4. Assume the low score of an Attribute is due to its low-scoring Metric(s);
    5. Consider modifying the design or management of the habitat area in ways that will sustainably increase its score(s) for the low-scoring Metric(s).

For more information about CRAM Attributes and Metrics, including their scientific rationale, see the CRAM Manual.

Display Habitat Development Curves For Wetland Type:

CRAM Site Scores