Upload
vunhi
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/22/2005River Partners3
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.
8/22/2005River Partners4
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
8/22/2005River Partners5
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.
8/22/2005River Partners6
Introduction: Location
2
8/22/2005River Partners7
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
8/22/2005 River Partners8
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
8/22/2005River Partners9
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
8/22/2005River Partners10
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.
8/22/2005River Partners11
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
8/22/2005River Partners12
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
8/22/2005River Partners13
Riparian Restoration Feasibility Study
� Examines site-specific riparian habitat restoration options to meet multiple habitat goals and minimize floodway impacts.
8/22/2005River Partners14
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
8/22/2005River Partners15
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 .
8/22/2005River Partners16
Site Assessment
� Location� Land-use history� Soils� Hydrology� Geomorphology� Vegetation� Wildlife� Conservation Efforts and related studies� Impacts and Concerns
8/22/2005River Partners17
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.
8/22/2005River Partners18
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
8/22/2005River Partners19
Successional Outcomes- no action
8/22/2005River Partners20
Successional Outcomes –Restoration
8/22/2005River Partners21
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.
8/22/2005River Partners22
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.
8/22/2005River Partners23
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.
8/22/2005River Partners24
Cross-section
5
8/22/2005River Partners25
Site Specific Design� Plant density the same,
composition different, tree density different.
8/22/2005River Partners26
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.
8/22/2005River Partners27
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
8/22/2005River Partners28
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.
8/22/2005River Partners29
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
8/22/2005 River Partners30
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
6
8/22/2005River Partners31
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
8/22/2005River Partners32
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
8/22/2005River Partners33
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.
8/22/2005River Partners34
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
8/22/2005River Partners35
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
8/22/2005River Partners36
Sampling (Vegetation and Bank changes).
7
8/22/2005River Partners37
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
8/22/2005River Partners38
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)
8/22/2005River Partners39
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)
8/22/2005River Partners40
Next steps:
� Prepare Interdisciplinary Monitoring Plan for review
� Finalize Restoration FS and Monitoring Plan