Willits Bypass Project - Ford 108-010-05
|Project Type||Compensatory mitigation||Location||Not Mapped|
|Project Area (Acres)||No Data||Last Updated||13 April 2022|
|Project Abstract||To address the impacts from the Willits Bypass Project, Caltrans has developed a compensatory mitigation strategy with extensive input from resource agencies. The vision of the project's compensatory mitigation strategy is to establish, rehabilitate, reestablish, and preserve a mosaic of high functioning habitats in perpetuity.|
|Project Groups||Willits Bypass Project|
|Administrative Region||North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board - Gil Falcone, Kaete King, NCRWQCB|
|Site Name||Phase||Activity||SubActivities||Habitat||SubHabitat||Acres||Activity Status||Water Regime|
|Habitat||Acres Lost||Type of Loss|
|Riparian Establishment||Completed||No Data|
|Targeted Grazing||Completed||No Data|
|Wetland Rehabilitation Type 5||In-progress/Implementation||No Data|
|Contact||Maureen Doyle||California Department of Transportation||Environmental|
|Visit Date||Version||Site Name||Wetland Type||Index Score|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Type 5 Wetland Rehabilitation –Plant survival by percentage survival of original number planted (includes replacement plants), of woody species criteria at monitoring year 3 is 70%, year 4: 60%, year 5: 60%.||2017-07-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Riparian establishment: - CRAM biotic attribute values for assessment areas with the scores 3 or 6 need to improve to a score of 9 or better for each CRAM attribute. At year three 10% of AAs need to have a score of at least of 9 or better, year five: 25%, year seven: 50%, and year ten: 75%. At each monitoring year 3, 5, 7, and 10, there is no degradation below baseline CRAM attribute scores.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Type 5 Wetland Rehabilitation -Monitoring years 1-10 the absolute percent cover by invasive species must be less than 2%.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Targeted Grazing – The performance standard for cover by invasive plants will be that the absolute cover will not increase over baseline for the monitoring years 0-10.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Targeted Grazing– The performance standard for absolute cover by other native plant species is demonstration of a stable or increasing trend in absolute cover by other native plant species, for monitoring year 0 - 10.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Riparian establishment: - Percent vegetation cover (i.e., absolute canopy cover) by native tree species for monitoring year 5 has a standard of 10% cover, year 6: 20%, year 8: 30%, and year 10: 40%.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Riparian establishment: - Plant vigor for monitoring years 1-4 has a performance standard average vigor score, by species, greater than 1.0. At monitoring year 5 the average vigor score, by species, is equal to or greater 2.0.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Riparian establishment: - Plant survival for monitoring year 1 has a standard of 70% survival, year 2: 70%, year 3: 70%, year 4: 60%, and year 5: 60%.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Type 5 Wetland Rehabilitation -Tree plant density per acre (both planted and volunteer plants) for monitoring year 5 is 120, year 6: 100, year 7: 80, year 8: 60, year 9: 50, and year 10 needs a minimum of 50 live woody plants per acre.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Type 5 Wetland Rehabilitation -Species richness of native species from list of target species for monitoring year 10 is 8.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Type 5 Wetland Rehabilitation -Relative cover increase in native wetland plant species from list of target species over baseline surveys: monitoring year 2 relative cover increase of 14%, year 4: 28%, year 5: 35%, year 7: 49%, year 9: 63%, and year 10: 70%.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Type 5 Wetland Rehabilitation -Relative cover by wetland plant species over baseline surveys: monitoring year 1 relative cover at 10%, year 2:15%, year 3: 25%, year 4: 40%, year 5: 50%, year 6:60%, year 7: 70%, year 8: 75%, year 9: 80%, and year 10:90%.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Riparian establishment: - CRAM physical attribute values for assessment areas with the scores 3 or 6 need to improve to a score of at least 6 or 9 for each CRAM attribute. At year three 10% of AAs need to have a score of at least 6 or 9, year five: 25%, year seven: 50%, and year ten: 75%. At each monitoring year 3, 5, 7, and 10, there is no degradation below baseline CRAM attribute scores.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Targeted Grazing - The performance standard for population distribution and abundance is demonstration of a stable or increasing trend in population distribution (area occupied) and abundance (absolute cover) after controlling for climatic variability. Climatic variability (precipitation, temperature) from the previous rain season will be used to identify trends in BM populations from year to year, for monitoring years 0-10.||2017-04-15|
|Criteria not evaluated yet||Riparian establishment: - Percent vegetation cover (i.e., absolute canopy cover) by native shrub species for monitoring year 5 has a standard of 10% cover, year 6: 20%, year 8: 30%, and year 10: 40%.||2017-04-15|
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Examine the HDC for each of the four CRAM Attributes;
- Identify the Attribute(s) scoring below the HDC;
- 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);
- Assume the low score of an Attribute is due to its low-scoring Metric(s);
- 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.