feasibility studies on the riparian restoration and ... studies on the riparian restoration and...

1

8/22/2005 River Partners1

Princeton, Codora, Glenn Irrigation District and Provident Irrigation District (PCGID-PID)

Riparian Sanctuary, Llano Seco Unit, Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge

Feasibility Studies on the Riparian Restoration and Pumping Plant

Protection

Technical Advisory Committee MeetingJuly 12, 2005

8/22/2005River Partners2

Meeting Outline� Introduction � Findings

– Pumping Plant Protection Feasibility Study– Overview of Riparian Restoration Feasibility Study

� Update on new phases� Present approach of Interdisciplinary

Monitoring Plan� Wrap-up


Introduction: Meeting Objectives

� Update TAC members on findings, � Gather review comments on Restoration

Feasibility Study,� Present and discuss approach for experimental

design, and � Outline timeline for reviews and next phases.


Introduction: Rules

� Use opportunities to learn about the project� Provide your ideas – no idea is a bad idea� Honor our time limits � Support constructive discussion


Project Overview: Project details� Proposal date: May 2000 (ERP-02-P39, Contract

#46000002881)

� Funder: CALFED/California Bay Delta Authority

� Fund source: Proposition 204 � Amount $289,784� Proposal title: #231 US Fish and Wildlife Service: Riparian

Restoration Planning and Feasibility Study for the Riparian Sanctuary, Llano Seco Unit

� Proposal online:http://ecosystem.calfed.ca.gov/WRRC/CalFed/proposals/selection_panel_report_static.


Introduction: Location

2


Decision Makers and Their Roles

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge (SRNWR)

Contact: Kelly Moroney

Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District and

Provident Irrigation District (PCGID-PID)

Contact: Lance Boyd


Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall

Draft Pumping Plant Protection Feasibility

Study

Final Pumping Plant Protection Feasibility

Study

Public Review

2004 | 2005

Project Overview: Timeline

Draft Interdisciplinary Monitoring Plan

Final Interdisciplinary Monitoring Plan

Review

Draft Riparian Restoration

Feasibility Study

Final Riparian Restoration

Feasibility Study

Public Review







Pumping Plant Protection Feasibility Study

� Describes the potential for meander and identify solutions to meet habitat restoration, flood control, and facility (PCGID-PID fish-screen and pumping plant) protection objectives.


Meander Modeling

Larsen, E. W. 2004. Draft Meander Bend Migration Near River Mile 178 of the Sacramento River. December 2004. Davis, California.

� Study approach� Significant findings� Data needs and data gaps� Next steps


Pumping Plant Protection FS (MBK)

� MBK Engineers. 2004. Draft Pumping Plant Protection Study. Llano Seco Unit Sacramento River Mile 178. December 2004. Sacramento, California.

� Alternatives considered� Significant findings� Data needs and data gaps� Next steps

3


Riparian Restoration Feasibility Study

� Examines site-specific riparian habitat restoration options to meet multiple habitat goals and minimize floodway impacts.


Riparian Restoration Feasibility Study (River Partners)

� Brief overview � Contents of Study� Conceptual Site Model� Alternatives

– No Action– Restoration- Full planting

(wildlife objectives)– Restoration – Site Specific

Planting (multiple objectives)� Implementation


1921

Historical Background1900’s – dense mixture of valley oak,

elderberry, cottonwood, and willow dominated the site.

1930’s – ~ 40% of the riparian vegetation cleared on project site for agriculture.

1950’s – remnant riparian vegetation removal continued (~15%).

1970’s – majority of the remaining native woody vegetation cleared (~40% of original riparian forest).

1991 – USFWS obtained fee title and added site to conservation lands .


Site Assessment

� Location� Land-use history� Soils� Hydrology� Geomorphology� Vegetation� Wildlife� Conservation Efforts and related studies� Impacts and Concerns


Conceptual Site Model

� Presents our understanding of the physical and biological factors that influence site ecology,

� Outlines our restoration strategy and alternatives, and

� Identifies ecological benefits and targeted wildlife species.


Restoration Alternative – No Action� Maintain current management

regime� Features: like current conditions� Benefits: low initial costs. � Disadvantages: poor habitat will

not meet Refuge objectives, supports invasive plants, relatively high long-term management costs.

4


Successional Outcomes- no action


Successional Outcomes –Restoration


Restoration Alternative – Full Planting Design

� Wildlife oriented design� Features: trees for structure,

elderberry bushes, trees and shrubs on eroding bank

� Benefits: provides high quality wildlife habitat, low management input.

� Disadvantages: does not address other management objectives.


Restoration designed for features for Targeted Wildlife

� See study for complete list � Example: Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo

belli)

Project features:� Thickets of willows (sandbar) and

other low shrubs (such as mugwort). Low dense riparian growth often in areas often near water. Associated plants include cottonwood, willow, coyote brush, or blackberry.


Restoration Alternative – Site Specific Design

� Considers multiple management objectives

� Features: compatible with pumping plant measures and flood control objectives (access roads, conveyance corridors, etc)

� Benefits: provides good quality wildlife habitat, displaces weeds, consistent with other objectives, modest management input.

� Disadvantages: does not maximize wildlife objectives.


Cross-section

5


Site Specific Design� Plant density the same,

composition different, tree density different.


Evaluation Criteria� Provide habitat for targeted wildlife species� Restore native vegetation� Cost effective� Technically feasible� Reasonable timeframe� Consistent with PCGID-PID protection options � Maintain flood control objectives� Maintain natural geomorphologic processes� Includes “experimental design” approach� Minimize impacts to archaeologically significant sites.


Hydraulic Model (Ayres)

Ayres Associates. 2005. Draft Two Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling. Riparian Sanctuary, Llano Seco Unit, Sacramento River Mile 173-194. Sacramento, California.

� Approach� Significant findings� Data needs and data gaps� Next steps


Major Findings

� Historically, the site supported a complex, mosaic of riparian forests.

� Currently, non-native plants dominate the project area.� No-action (with targeted weed control) is appropriate

on approximately 450 acres. � Active Restoration is appropriate on the remaining 500

acres. The site-specific design best meets the multiple objectives for the Riparian Sanctuary.







Phase I: Feasibility Studies (Current Phase)

2005 | ? | ? |

Project Overview: Potential Future Steps of Joint Project

Phase III Implementation

Operation and Maintenance

Phase II: Environmental Compliance and Design

http://ecosystem.calfed.ca.gov/WRRC/CalFed/proposals/selection_panel_report_static

6


Phase II - Tasks

Task Description .1 Administer Project Management 2 Conduct Outreach and Review3 Collect Site Data 4 Develop Hydraulic and Meander Evaluation5 Complete Environmental Compliance and

Permitting6 Project Design and Site Evaluation7 Develop Action Plan for Implementation


Phase II – Timeline

Oct-05 Apr-06 Oct-06 Apr-07

Date

Administer Project Management

Conduct Outreach and Review

Collect Site Data

Develop Hydraulic and MeanderEvaluation

Complete EnvironmentalCompliance and Permitting

Project Design and SiteEvaluation

Develop Action Plan forImplementation


Project Overview: TAC participation and Interdisciplinary Monitoring Plan

� Experts from CBDA, CSU Chico, DWR, PCGID-PID, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, USFWS, Wood Rodgers Consultants, and others reviewing project.







Past or Phase I monitoring� Avian point counts � Fish Screen Effectiveness� Gravel bar mapping and

topography� USFWS wildlife surveys� Vegetation (mapping and

permanent plots)� Others


Sampling (Vegetation and Bank changes).

7


Phase II studies

� Additional Hydraulic evaluations (with new inputs)

� Elderberry and VELB survey� Geotechnical and engineering studies� Topography and bathymetry� River Meander modeling � Various environmental compliance studies


Phase III monitoring

Short-term (Implementation) monitoring� Regular restoration monitoring (see FS)

– Performance goals– Monthly field reports– EOS monitoring (census and sampling)– Photo points– Wildlife (Avian point counts and USFWS surveys)


Phase III monitoring (Cont.)Long-term monitoring� Avian monitoring� Floodplain sedimentation� Native vegetation retention and recruitment� Sediment transport� Soil carbon� Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle� Other? (animals, flood hydrology,

groundwater)


Next steps:

� Prepare Interdisciplinary Monitoring Plan for review

� Finalize Restoration FS and Monitoring Plan

feasibility studies on the riparian restoration and ... studies on the riparian restoration and...

Documents