-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
1/12
Ecesis is published quarterly by
the California Society for
Ecological Restoration,a
nonprofit corporation, as a
service to its members.
Newsletter contributions of all
types are welcome and may be
submitted to any of the
regional directors (see p. 2).
Articles should be sent as a
word processing document;
and accompanying images
sent as jpg or tif files.
ABOVE Sacramento River levee.
Courtesy Harry Oakes.
RIGHTThe confluence of the
Sacramento River and
American River depicting the
difference in leveed
floodplain width. Courtesy
Airphoto USA.
In this issue:
Restoration Potluck
2... The Guadalupe River
Project
6... Successful Mitigation and
Monitoring Techniques
8... Riparian Vegetation on
Levees
Plus
3... SERCAL Contacts
11... Natural Resource Events
10-11... Membership
Ecesisecesis \I-se-sus, i-ke-sus\ noun [from Greekoikesis meaning inhabitation]: the establishment of an animal or plant in a new habitat.
The Quarterly Newsletter of the California Society for Ecological RestorationSummer Solstice 2007 Volume 17, Issue 2
The original theme of this newsletter was intended to focus on performance monitoring. Instead it
has morphed into a restoration potluck a little of this, a little of that.
The feature article focuses on the monitoring program for the Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project in San Jose, California. This flood protection project and the mitigation and monitoringplan were developed through a collaborative process with resource agencies and other stakeholders
that sought to balance flood protection while minimizing effects on the natural river channel andoverhead shaded riverine aquatic cover vegetation.
The second article focuses on implementing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Habitat Mitigationand Monitoring Proposal (HMMP) for projects that impact wetlands and other waters of the United
States. This article describes how to incorporate the HMMP process into the project design processand includes some lessons learned during the development and implementation of HMMPs.
The final article focuses on the treatment of riparian vegetation on flood protection levees. In theaftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has placed increased emphasis on
the treatment of woody vegetation on flood protection system components. The Corps has drafted aguidance paper outlining a directive that could have significant effects on riparian habitat andassociated wildlife and fish resources along leveed waterways. This articles describes what the
implications of these potential actions could mean for California.
Harry Oakes, Region 2 Director
Restoration Potluck
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
2/12
2 Ecesis Summer 2007 Volume 17,Issue 2
IntroductionEffectively identifying the success or failureof mitigation for landscape-level projects
usually requires a comprehensive, ecosystem-based monitoring program. Key componentsof ecosystem monitoring programs are 1)
ongoing coordination with stakeholders; 2)identification of mitigation goals and
objectives; 3) identification of entitiesresponsible for implementation; 4)
identification of ecological indicators andmeasurable objectives for those indicators; 5)development of monitoring methods and
schedules; 6) development of a datamanagement system; 7) analysis, evaluation,
and reporting of data; 8) implementation ofan adaptive management process; and 9)
identification of corrective actions. TheGuadalupe River Flood Protection Project inSan Jose, California, provides a case study for
the development and implementation of acomprehensive monitoring program.
BackgroundThe Guadalupe River Flood ProtectionProject (Project) was developed through a
collaborative process with resource agenciesand other stakeholders that sought to
balance flood protection while minimizingeffects on the natural river channel andoverhead shaded riverine aquatic cover
vegetation. As implemented by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento
District (Corps), as the lead Federal sponsor,and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) as the lead nonfederal sponsor,the Project provides up to the designthreshold of 17,000 cubic feet per second
flood protection to downtown San Jose andsurrounding areas while mitigating adverse
effects on anadromous fish, specificallysteelhead, and riparian habitat, including
shaded riverine aquatic cover vegetation. Arecreation component is also included aspart of the Project.
Construction of the Project began in 1992and was substantially completed in 2006.
Flood protection components were
constructed in phases along 2.6 miles of the
Guadalupe River in downtown San Jose.Project flood protection components includeriver channel and bank armoring,
underground bypass construction, earthenbypass construction, bridge removal and
replacement, and trail/maintenance road andstairwell construction. Mitigation
components include installation of riparianand shaded riverine aquatic cover vegetationplantings, construction of a low-flow
channel in armored channel sections, anddevelopment of instream habitat through the
inclusion of geomorphic features in the
constructed low-flow channel.
Mitigation for the loss of riparian vegetationincludes planting approximately 21 acres of
riparian vegetation within the earthen bypasschannels and planting approximately 22,000
linear feet of shaded riverine aquatic covervegetation. The implementation ofmitigation was phased to match the timing
of newly constructed portions of the Projectand as mitigation sites became available. Two
offsite mitigation areas were implemented tosupplement onsite mitigation. The offsite
mitigation sites include a 1.2-mile section ofthe Guadalupe River downstream of theProject area (Reach A) and a 1.6-mile section
of Guadalupe Creek, a tributary to theGuadalupe River. Mitigation monitoring,
based on the mitigation and monitoring plan(MMP), began in 2001 and will continue for
40 years.
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
DevelopmentConditions of the Projects Clean Water Act
Section 401 water quality certificationrequired that an MMP be developed toaddress adverse effects on anadromous fish
and riparian habitat. The MMP includesenvironmental mitigation and monitoringrequired as part of the water quality
certification and environmental mitigationand monitoring required under Section 7 of
the Federal Endangered Species Act.
The MMP was developed in coordination
with resource agencies and otherstakeholders. The MMPs monitoringprogram identified 28 ecological indicators
and related measurable objectives torepresent the overall success of the
mitigation effort. Because of the complexnature of the Project and the number of
stakeholders involved in the development othe MMP, a multi-step process was used asdescribed below.
Step 1: Coordinating with Resource
Agencies and Other Stakeholders
The development of the MMP involvedcollaboration with six resource agencies an
eight stakeholder groups. All parties wereeither directly or indirectly (via a designate
representative) involved throughout thedevelopment of the monitoring program.Very active involvement was necessary on
behalf of the participants because of anaccelerated Project construction schedule
and the need for real-time decision makingIn addition to meeting on a regular basis an
providing review of written materials, man
of the stakeholders helped to performtechnical analyses, including selecting
indicators and related measurable objectivedetermining monitoring methods, and
determining monitoring schedule andfrequency. The collaboration of all
participants on the MMPs monitoringprogram helped to proactively addresspotential conflicts and enable the Project to
move forward with broad support.
Step 2: Identifying Mitigation Goals and
ObjectivesTo initiate the development of a successfulMMP monitoring program, one goal andseveral objectives were identified:
Goal: Set guidelines and account for the
management,operation,and reporting of mitigat
values over the life of the Project.
Objective 1: Implement a technically sound
monitoring program for the Project for riparian
vegetation,spawning gravel,and other componen
The Guadalupe River Project:Development & Implementation of a Comprehensive Monitoring Programby Karen Leone, Jones & Stokes; Mario Parker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Ryan Heacock, Santa Clara Valley Water Distr
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
3/12
Volume 17,Issue 2 Summer 2007 Ecesis 3
SERCALBoard of Directors
PRESIDENT Mark Tucker Tucker & Associates
PRESIDENT-ELECT Karen Verpeet H.T. Harvey & Associates
PAST PRESIDENT Regine [email protected]
SECRETARY Paul Kielhold LSA Associates,Inc.-Riverside
TREASURER Bo Glover Environmental Nature Center
Directors
REGION 1 Mark Stemen (Appointee) California State
University-Chico [email protected] NORTHERNINTERIOR (Lassen,Modoc,Shasta,Siskiyou,Trinity)
REGION 2 Harry Oakes (Appointee) Jones & Stokes-Sacramento
[email protected] SACRAMENTO VALLEY (Butte, Colusa,Glenn, Lake,Sacramento, Sutter,Tehama,Yolo,Yuba)
REGION 3 Karen Verpeet H.T. Harvey & Associates
[email protected] BAY AREA (Alameda,ContraCosta, Marin,Napa, San Francisco,San Mateo,S anta Clara,
Solano,S onoma)
REGION 4 Open SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (Amador,Calaveras,Fresno,Kern,Kings,Mariposa,Madera,Merced,San Joaquin,
Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne)
REGION 5 Margot Griswold EARTHWORKS Restoration, Inc.
[email protected] SOUTH COAST (Los Angeles,Orange,San Diego,Ventura)
REGION 6 Dave Hubbard (Appointee) Coastal Restoration
Consultants [email protected] CENTRAL COAST (Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara,S anta Cruz)
REGION 7 Nick Pacini (Appointee) soilsnick@h otmail.com NORTH COAST (Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino)
REGION 8 Michael Hogan Integrated Environmental Restoration
Services,Inc. [email protected] SIERRA ( Alpine,El Dorado,Inyo, Mono,Nevada, Placer,Plumas, Sierra)
REGION 9 Paul Kielhold LSA Associates,Inc.-Riverside
[email protected] SOUTHERN INTERIOR(Imperial, Riverside,San Bernardino)
Guild Chairs
COASTAL HABITAT Vince Cicero California Department of Parks
& Recreation [email protected]
EDUCATION Mark Tucker Tucker & Associates
UPLAND HABITAT Margot Griswold EARTHWORKS Restoration,
Inc. [email protected]
WETLAND & RIPARIAN Max Busnardo H.T. Harvey & Associates
[email protected]____________________
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR Susan Clark
2701 20th St.,Bakersfield 93301
tel.661.634.9228 fax 661.634.9540
NEWSLETTER EDITOR Julie St.John [email protected]
WEBMASTER Steve Newton-Reed [email protected]
of anadromous fish habitat in fulfillment of
regulatory requirements.
Objective 2: Provide ongoing monitoring and
accounting of all mitigation measures throughout
the life of the Project to ensure that the realized
benefits of mitigation measures comply with
mitigation requirements.
Objective 3: Allow for adaptive management of
the Project so that corrective actions can be
implemented if onsite and offsite mitigation doesnot perform as expected.
Step 3: Identifying Responsible Entities
for Monitoring Program
ImplementationAll stakeholders agreed that the MMPs
monitoring program needed to clearlyidentify responsible entities for all
components of the program to ensure thatlong-term commitments would be carried
out. Identifying responsible entities was
especially important for the Projectbecause the Corps and SCVWD would besharing some responsibilities and tradingoff other responsibilities over time,
depending on the mitigation site.
Key components for which a responsible
entity was identified included:
Data collection,
Data analysis and evaluation,
Monitoring report preparation,
Monitoring report review and certification,and
Corrective action implementation.
Step 4: Identifying Indicators and
Measurable ObjectivesFive major resources were identified to be
monitored under the MMP:
Riparian vegetation,
Shaded riverine aquatic cover (including instream
and overhead cover components),
Anadromous fish spawning habitat,
Anadromous fish passage and rearing habitat, and
Anadromous fish occurrence.
Indicators and measurable objectives werethen developed to determine if the target
resources were on track to successfullyestablish and reach measurable objectives.
Indicators are environmental conditionsor variables that can be measured; they areidentified based on scientific literature,
reference sites, and environmental models.Measurable objectives define the
performance thresholds for indicators andare therefore quantifiable and temporal;
measurable objectives are identified basedon regulatory requirements, scientificliterature, reference sites, and
environmental models.
Guadalupe Creek Restoration Project, San Jose,California.
continued next page
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
4/12
The MMPs monitoring program identified
28 indicators and related measurableobjectives. The indicators for each resource
category covered under the MMP include:
Riparian vegetation:
Survival
Health and vigor
Native vegetative cover (line intercept method)
Nonnative vegetative cover (line intercept
method)
Nonnative vegetative cover (visual estimation)
Tree height
Tree basal area
Shaded riverine aquatic cover
Survival
Health and vigor
Nonnative vegetative cover
Natural recruitmentBank stability
Instream cover
Channel bottom stability
Measured water temperature
Solar heat transfer
Stream channel geometry
Stream flow
Simulated water temperature
Short-term thermal suitability
Monthly thermal suitability
Anadromous fish spawning habitat
Spawning gravel abundanceSpawning gravel quality
Anadromous fish passage and
rearing habitat
Depth and velocity/vertical barriers
Rearing habitat diversity
Anadromous fish occurrence
Adult migration and spawning
Juvenile rearing
Fry emergence
A sample indicator and its measurable
objective from the MMPs monitoringprogram are shown below:
Indicator: Spawning gravel abundance
Measurable objective: Spawning gravel coverage
in the Project area must be at least 20,000 square
feet (80% of preproject level).In addition,the
4 Ecesis Summer 2007 Volume 17,Issue 2
postproject vertical distribution of gravels
(measured as cumulative gravel abundance for ea
1-foot elevational contour) must be at least 75%
preproject cumulative abundance.
Step 5: Developing Monitoring Methodsand SchedulesThe MMPs monitoring program will last f40 years after each phase of mitigation is
implemented. The monitoring frequency fmost indicators is higher during the earlystages of the monitoring program with less
frequent check-ins during the latter stageof the monitoring program. Because staff
changes are anticipated duringimplementation of the monitoring program
monitoring methods need to be reproduciband consistent. Therefore, standardized,
accepted methods were used wheneverpossible. Monitoring methods were carefuldocumented in a step-by-step approach,
supported by detailed graphics (Figure 1),and data collection forms were developed t
facilitate complete and consistent datacollection across monitoring years.
The schedule for the Project monitoringprogram is complicated not only by the
many indicators that are monitored but alsby the phasing of the mitigation. Thisphasing may result in two mitigation sites
adjacent to one another but in differentmonitoring years because of their installati
date. A series of spreadsheets was developethat lists each mitigation site, the monitori
that should be conducted according to thecalendar year, and the monitoring yeardesignation.
Step 6: Developing a Data Managemen
SystemIn addition to accuracy and precision, thevalue of good data is determined by the ea
at which collected data are accessible. TheMMPs monitoring program generates madifferent data types that require careful
management and organization to maximiztheir usefulness (e.g., the Project has 28
indicators, 400 monitoring locations, and a40-year timeline). These data are key todetermining whether measurable objective
have been met. The GuadalupeEnvironmental Monitoring System (GEMS
was developed in response to the challenge
Guadalupe River Project continued
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
5/12
Volume 17,Issue 2 Summer 2007 Ecesis 5
of organizing and safeguarding Project
monitoring data.
GEMS consists of a relational database that
connects to the JSATEMP streamtemperature model, geographic information
system (GIS) database, and ground-level andaerial photograph libraries (Figure 2). To
maintain the quality of the data entered intoGEMS, database data entry screens mirrorfield data collection forms. Also, GEMS has
quality assurance checks, including lookupvalues and numeric range checks, which
allow only the input of valid values into thedatabase. These characteristics increase the
accuracy, precision, and accessibility of thedata.
An electronic copy of the GEMS GISdatabase is provided to the adaptivemanagement team (AMT) a group
consisting of the Corps, SCVWD, federaland state resource agencies, and other
stakeholders in the Projects annualmitigation monitoring report (MMR). The
MMR is produced using ArcReader 9.1, afree mapping application that allows the userto view, explore, and print maps developed
in ArcGIS. Although the MMR data areprovided in the form of tables, figures, and
hardcopy maps, ArcReader allows for moreinteraction with and customization of the
entire data set (e.g., bank stability data acrossall monitoring years can be viewedsimultaneously and in concert with channel
bottom stability and spawning gravelabundance and quality data) to see
relationships and trends discussed in theMMRs.
Information technology will change over the
course of the MMPs monitoring program.
The current system requirements for GEMScomputer hardware and software representappropriate equipment for the immediateterm. Although the computer hardware and
software will change, GEMS has beendesigned to allow data to be converted to
new computer systems without loss of data.This flexibility is especially important to
SCVWD, which will maintain GEMS overthe bulk of the monitoring period. SCVWDis planning to expand GEMS to cover data
collected from other projects along the
Guadalupe River.
Step 7: Analyzing, Evaluating, and
Reporting DataThe data collected during each monitoring
year are entered into GEMS and automatedreports and other analyses are generated to
compare monitoring results for eachindicator to its measurable objective.Graphics are an important tool for
interpreting the results. Data collected fromreference sites are also used to put the results
in the context of local environmental
conditions and confirm acceptable trends.
An MMR is prepared for each monitoringyear and includes:
Monitoring method changes;
Data analysis and presentation of results;
Comparison of present year monitoring results to
measurable objectives;
Comparison of present year monitoring results with
previous results (i.e.,trend analysis);
Recommendations (e.g., corrective actions and/or
changes in methodology) based on the
environmental monitoring data collected in each
monitoring year;and
A system-wide assessment of the river based on
progress toward meeting mitigation objectives of
the mitigation program.
The intended audience of the MMR is theAMT, a group consisting of the Corps,SCVWD, federal and state resource agencies,
and other stakeholders.
Step 8: Implementing an Adaptive
Management ProcessFrom the early planning stages of the MMPsmonitoring program, it was determined that
an adaptive management process needed tobe incorporated to address uncertaintyrelated to GR Project effects on water
temperature and the related effects onanadromous fish. In addition, because the
GR Project is a large-scale, multiyear, phasedproject, flexibility was needed to adjust
mitigation efforts if early results suggestedalternative efforts may be more successful.
An adaptive management process and anadaptive management team was identified in
the MMP. The general adaptive managementprocess provided in the MMP has beenfurther expanded into formal operating
protocols to guide the AMT. AMT members
include the Corps, SCVWD, federal and stateresource agencies, and other stakeholders.
Periodic workshops, run by an objective
facilitator, are held to provide a forum forthe AMT to discuss as a group the annual
MMR, including major issues,recommendations to address the issues, andconsensus on the recommendations. Issues
and recommendations are succinctly andobjectively summarized using bulleted text,
tables, and graphics, to ensure that all AMTmembers have a clear understanding and any
supporting data prior to final decisions beingmade. Key outcomes from these workshopsare carefully summarized and become an
important part of the AMTs decision recordTo reinforce the AMTs connection to the
Project and keep members focused on thereality of what is happening on ground, field
trips to the Project site are planned at keydecision points during the adaptivemanagement process. The combination of
continued next page
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
6/12
6 Ecesis Summer 2007 Volume 17,Issue 2
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)issues Department of Army Permits, under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which inmany cases contain special conditions
requiring compensatory mitigation forunavoidable impacts on wetlands. Mostcompensatory wetland mitigation projects
require a detailed Habitat Mitigation andMonitoring Proposal (HMMP) for work
involving the creation, restoration, and/orenhancement of aquatic resources. Many
Corps Districts have developed District-specific HMMP guidelines and outlines. Thisarticle describes some of the lessons we have
learned during the development and review
of HMMPs.
Incorporating the HMMP Process
into the Project Design ProcessHMMPs are a requirement of the Corpspermit, which is issued during the laterstages of the planning and design process. It
is important to remember during the earlystages of project design that an HMMP will
be required whether your project is arelatively small-scale bridge replacement
project with temporary impacts on wetlandsor a large-scale off-site restoration project. Asconsultants, restoration planners, and
designers we need to plan early in the projectdesign phase for what will be required in the
HMMP. The best way to do this is bydiscussing the project and possible
mitigation requirements with the Corps earlyin the design process.
Mitigation of wetland impacts typically
includes compensating for permanent andtemporary impacts. Mitigation of permanent
impacts may occur on site (if possible), at anoff-site location, through a Corps-approved
in-lieu fee program, or at a Corps-approvedmitigation bank. An HMMP must address
the proposed mitigation methods andmonitoring procedures for all impacts and
describe the mitigation sites, constructionmethods, and monitoring and reporting
guidelines in the same level of detail for eamitigation site. If an in-lieu fee program o
mitigation bank credits are purchased, theproject proponent must state in the HMMfee program mitigation bank from which th
credits will be purchased the HMMP doesnot need to include detail-specific mitigatio
and monitoring methods being used by theprogram mitigation bank.
Mitigation of temporary impacts typicallyincludes restoring on-site wetlands or othe
waters of the United States to preproject
conditions. It is easy to overlook theseimpacts and mitigation requirements durin
the early planning phase of the project.However, in some cases it may be more
efficient to include portions of therestoration design into the construction
documents (plans and specifications).
Successful Mitigation and Monitoring Techniques
forWetland Mitigation Areasby Jonathan Foster and Harry Oakes, Jones & Stokes
facilitated in-office workshops and field trips to see first hand anyissues has been very effective in bringing about AMT consensus and
practical recommendations.
Step 9: Identifying Corrective ActionsThe AMT, as a result of their review of the MMR and groupdeliberations, may make changes to the monitoring program,including changes to an indicator, its monitoring method, frequency
and schedule, and/or its measurable objective. Generally, changes toa measurable objective are considered very carefully since the
measurable objective is tied to the Project goals and objectives and achange in the measurable objective may not be appropriate if lack of
performance is the issue. In keeping with the spirit of adaptivemanagement, corrective actions are often implemented on a small
scale and use a structured process for learning based on the scientificmethod. The AMT seeks to avoid trial and error learning, as it can beexpensive, both in economic and ecological costs and schedule
delays. For each corrective action, a responsible party is designated,with backup from a subgroup of the AMT. Depending on the
complexity of the corrective action, a work plan and schedule may beprepared for the entire AMTs review to ensure the actual action as
proposed has maintained its focus.
Summary Implementation of the Monitoring
ProgramThe sixth year of monitoring was recently completed for the GR
Project and a new MMR is in preparation to present the monitorinresults. Monitoring results for each indicator are being compared to
that indicators measurable objectives to determine mitigationperformance for the monitoring year. Previous years monitoring
results are also being reviewed for ecological context andidentification of trends.
Because the GR Projects monitoring program was developedcollaboratively with resource agencies and other stakeholders using
the process described above, the following efforts have been possibthe use of clearly described and practical monitoring protocols toensure data collection is reproducible; the collection and review of
data from reference sites and other sources for environmentalcontext; and the use of clearly described data management protoco
including the GEMS relational database, to manage the large data swith confidence in the datas integrity. The efforts, which culminatin the preparation of the MMR, continue to provide the AMT with
reliable and important information to use when identifying necessacorrective actions.
Guadalupe River Project continued
continued next page
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
7/12
Volume 17,Issue 2 Summer 2007 Ecesis 7
For the purpose of this discussion we willconsider a pipeline project that intersectsseasonal wetlands and drainages. Restoration
of temporarily affected seasonal wetlandstypically requires that existing wetland soils
be stockpiled and reapplied to the restored
wetland basin and that the disturbedlandscape is restored to preprojectconditions. By including these requirementsin the pipeline construction documents,
instead of solely providing the informationin the HMMP, all the pertinent grading
requirements are in one place and describedin clear, concise bid language. This will
facilitate the bid process and ensure that themitigation requirements are not overlooked.
Easements
Temporary wetland impacts often occurwithin the temporary constructioneasements (TCE). A TCE gives the project
proponent rights to use others property for aspecified period of time. TCEs usually areobtained to allow access to a work site and to
provide additional workspace during theconstruction process. Because the habitat
restoration phase often occurs after theconstruction project is completed, it is
important to consider the following points ifwetland restoration will occur within a TCE:
The time period of the TCE should allow sufficienttime to construct mitigation features after the
construction project is completed.
The TCE agreement should include access rights for
mitigation monitoring.The monitoring period may
extend 510 years beyond the construction phase.
If temporary wetland restoration occurs within TCEs
on private land,the project proponent cannot
provide assurances that the mitigation areas will be
preserved in perpetuity.It is important that the
HMMP state this condition and that the Corps and
other applicable resource agencies be made aware
of this condition during the permitting stage.
Monitoring and ReportingMonitoring techniques are an essential piece
of the HMMP that the Corps and otherfederal and/or state agencies must approve
prior to implementation. The Corps typicallyrequires at least 5 years of monitoring forwetlands and approximately 10 years when
forested or riparian wetlands are involved.
The Corps has identified commonmonitoring report problems that usually aretied to the following reporting
inconsistencies.
The Corps expects problems to arise with
compensatory mitigation projects;therefore,each
monitoring report should include proposed
remediation with a remediation schedule.
Monitoring reports should be submitted on time and
in electronic format and with GPS data,if possible.
Additionally, it has been observed that short
monitoring periods (e.g.,
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
8/12
8 Ecesis Summer 2007 Volume 17,Issue 2
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and
other recent large storm events, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has placedincreased emphasis on the treatment ofwoody vegetation on flood protection systemcomponents, such as levees, floodwalls,
dams, and embankments. Woody vegetationprovides habitat for common and special-
status species, protects against soil erosion,provides aesthetic value, and provides many
other benefits; however, according to theCorps, this vegetation could also havedetrimental effects on levee systems, which
could result in the loss of life or property.The Corps has drafted a guidance paper
outlining a directive that could havesignificant effects on riparian habitat and
associated wildlife and fish resources alongleveed waterways. Under the directive, local
sponsors responsible for maintenance offederal levees could be required to removewoody vegetation from hundreds of miles of
waterways in California alone.
The directive is being prepared following a
review by the Corps of their Levee SafetyProgram, which identified numerous levee
systems with deficiencies that, if leftunchecked, could result in levee failure. On
February 1, 2007, the Corps released a list ofnationwide levee units considered to haveunacceptably maintained levees.
Approximately one-third of these levee unitsoccurred in the Corps Sacramento District.
The presence of woody vegetation on leveesand in areas designated as vegetation-free
zones adjacent to levee toes or floodwallsdoes not meet the current guidance for
Today, the federal government often builds
or funds local flood protection projects;
however, most local levee systems aremaintained by a local sponsor (e.g.,reclamation districts, water districts).Following completion of a flood protection
project, the Corps prepares an operationsand maintenance manual, which is used by
the local sponsors to maintain and managethe levee system. Implementation of the
operation and maintenance manual by thelocal sponsor ensures that the projectfeatures retain federal funding and
certification under the National FloodInsurance Program.
Guidelines for Treatment of
VegetationThe proposed directive is expected toidentify and summarize the existing Corps
guidelines for levee system maintenance.These guidelines include maintaining
vegetation-free zones and root-free zones olevee slopes and along the toe of levee slopThe purpose of these zones is to allow
federal and local inspectors to haveunimpeded views of the levees to look for
trouble spots (e.g., boils, slumps) and toallow for emergency access.
In vegetation-free zones, which include thelevee slopes and areas adjacent to the levee
toe, herbaceous vegetation, preferably grasis the only vegetation permitted to grow.Woody vegetation on levees can comprom
the structural integrity of a levee by causinlocalized scour around trunks or fallen
vegetation, creating voids in the protected
Riparian Vegetation on LeveesBalancing the Need for Public Safety and Environmental Protectionby Harry Oakes, Jones & Stokes
LEFT TO RIGHT Riparian vegetation on the waterside and landside of the Sacramento River levee. Bank protection and riparian vegetation Sacrame
River levee. Urban encroachment on the Sacramento River levee and floodplain.
reducing risks to levee systems. If local
sponsors do not comply with the proposed
directive, they may be ineligible for federalassistance to repair levees. If vegetation isremoved, however, local sponsors would berequired to provide funding for the
environmental compliance and mitigationprocess.
The final directive, which is expected to bereleased later this year, is expected to identify
and summarize existing Corps guidelines forlevee system maintenance. These guidelines
include maintaining vegetation-free zonesand root-free zones on levee slopes and
along the toe of levee slopes. The purpose ofthese zones is to allow federal and localinspectors an unimpeded view of the levees
to look for trouble spots (e.g., boils andslumps) and to ease emergency access.
Brief History of Corps Role in
Flood Damage ReductionThe Flood Control Act of 1917 firstauthorized the Corps to participate in flood
control activities. This purpose of this actwas to provide for the control of the floods
of the Mississippi River and of theSacramento River, Calif., and for otherpurposes. Since that time, numerous flood
control acts and other acts have been passedthat further expand the Corpss role in flood
protection. The Flood Control Act of 1936directed that the federal government beprimarily responsible for providing flood
protection and gave the responsibility formost federal flood protection projects to the
Corps.
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
9/12
Volume 17,Issue 2 Summer 2007 Ecesis 9
levee surface when vegetation is uprooted
and creating passages along larger rootsurfaces or where roots have decomposed.
The root-free zone is the greatest extent ofsurface area where woody plant roots are not
permitted. This zone provides a clearancearea that protects the levee structure from
being affected should a tree uproot. Theroot-free zone also reduces the risk of largerroots penetrating the levee core and causing
potential piping areas during periods of highflow. The Corps Engineering Manual 1110-
2-301 provides figures that illustrate thevegetation-free and root-free zones.
Implications for CaliforniaThe Corps maintenance guidelines weredeveloped for levee systems throughout the
United States but do not take into accountvariations in localized levee system design orclimatic conditions. Unlike some areas of the
country, where broad floodplains are extantbetween levees and the low-flow river
channel, most of Californias levees areconstructed adjacent to the low-flow river
channel or otherwise have narrow floodwaycross sections. In the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Valleys, the narrow cross section of
these floodways were in most casesdeliberately designed and constructed in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries for anumber of objectives, including:
To concentrate flow to flush sediments deposited
during the hydraulic mining era,
To increase channel depth to allow sufficient draft for
commercial navigation,and
To direct water pathways to reclaim land for
agriculture and settlement.
The narrow river corridor subjects
Californias levees to higher channelvelocities and make any nick-in-the-armor a
serious concern from a flood protectionstandpoint. Californias Mediterranean
climate, combined with the dominance ofannual grasses and forbs on many levee
surfaces, does not support the dense standsof grasses permitted under the Corpsguidelines.
Woody vegetation along Californias leveesystems provides important habitat for many
special-status species, including salmonids,Swainsons hawk, other raptors, and valley
elderberry longhorn beetle. Woody
vegetation also provides important nesting
and foraging habitat for migratory birds. TheCorps, local flood protection agencies, and
the other resource agencies charged withprotecting our natural resources recognizethe importance of woody vegetation in
riparian areas and have incorporatedriparian mitigation into levee reconstruction
designs. Implementation of the Corpssvegetation management practices according
to the directive represents a substantialpolicy change that could affect the ability touse levee slopes for planting riparian
vegetation mitigation along Californiaslevees.
In addition to the potential loss of riparianhabitat, local sponsors and local
governments are struggling with determiningfunding responsibilities for implementing
the inspection and possible vegetation
removal process, the loss of flood insuranceprotection eligibility, Federal Emergency
Management Agency mapping assessmentmodifications, and environmental impacts
and mitigation.
The Corps is expected to release the final
guidelines later this year, and a California-specific standard could follow. Until that
time, the Corps and local sponsors willcontinue the delicate balancing act between
public safety and environmental protection.
BibliographyWeiser, M. 2007. Tree-laden levees flunk
federal inspection, state seeks compromise to
save riverside habitat. Sacramento Bee.(Sacramento, CA). April 7. Available:
www.sacbee.com/101/story/150966.htmlAccessed: May 6, 2007.
Heath, B., P. ODriscoll, and E. Bazar. Fixing
levees isnt easy or cheap. USA TODAY.February 1, 2007. Available:
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-01-
levees_x.htm Accessed: May 6, 2007.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000.Guidelines for landscape planting and
vegetation management at floodwalls, levees,
and embankment dams. Engineer Manual1110-2-301. January 1. Available:
www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-
manuals/em1110-2-301/toc.htm Accessed:May 7, 2008.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi
Valley Division. 2004. Open Channels.Volume 2. No. 3. March. Available:
www.mvd.usace.army.mil/offices/pa/
OpenChannels/2004/Vol%202%20Issue%203.p
df Accessed: May 6, 2007.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. LeveeOwners Manual for Non-Federal Flood
Control Works. The Rehabilitation andInspection Program. Public Law 84-99.
March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Levees ofMaintenance Concern. February 1. Available:
www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/releases/
leveelist.pdf. Accessed: May 6, 2007.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Fact
SheetNational Levee Safety Program. Date
unknown. Available: www.hq.usace.army.mil/
cepa/releases/ leveesafetyfactsheet.pdf
Accessed: May 6, 2007.
SERCALCoastal Habitats
Guild Workshop
SERCALs Coastal Habitats (formerly
Dunes) Guild Chair, Vince Cicero is
in the process of organizing a
workshop to be held on the
Mendocino Coast in mid-August.
Planning is focused on a number of
ongoing dune restoration projects at
10 Mile Dunes in MacKerricher State
Park and Manchester State Park.
Some of the issues being
considered for discussion include
species recovery status, survey and
monitoring methods and challenges,
and other recovery needs such as
standardization of data collection,
reporting, and the need for a central
repository for reports. You wont
want to miss this valuable
opportunity to meet and network.
As workshop details are finalized,
information will be posted on the
SERCAL website, www.sercal.org.
Stay tuned !
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
10/12
Welcome! to our New Membersthrough 10 June 2007
Ann Sever, Wallace Group, Nipomo
Stanley Spencer, LSA Associates, Riverside
Brynne Lazarus, UC Davis
Ernest Bryant, Bryant Ranches, Santa Barbara
Stephanie Pacheco, Fountain Valley
10 Ecesis Summer 2007 Volume 17,Issue 2
Salmon River Dives & 2nd AnnualSpring-run Chinook Symposium atNordheimer Campground, SalmonRiver, CA July 24-27
Salmonid Restoration Federation is proud tojoin with the Salmon River Restoration Council
in offering training and dives, workshops, field
tours and presentations on challenges and toolsspecific to Spring-run Chinook restoration inCalifornia, including fish identification, snorkelsurveys, fish habitat improvement and fish
passage barrier removal projects. Renownedfisheries biologist, Peter Moyle, will offer a
presentation on Spring-run Chinook recoveryefforts. Stay Saturday July 28 for the Jammin for
the Salmon benefit concert.
10th Annual Coho Confab August 17-19,2007 in Petrolia, CA on the North Coast
Salmonid Restoration Federation, Trees
Foundation, Mattole Restoration Council, MattoleSalmon Group and Sanctuary Forest aresponsoring a symposium to explore watershed
restoration and learn techniques to enhancerecovery of salmon and steelhead. The Confab
brings together community members, landowners,activists, scientists, and restoration ecologists for a
weekend of innovative skills-building workshops,hands-on tours of restoration projects, communitynetworking, and fun. Workshops include
underwater fish identification, water flow
monitoring, conservation easements and storiesand songs of salmon. Field tours include site visitsfrom the headwaters to the estuary of the Mattole
watershed.
For more information on either of these events, contact SRF at
707.923.7501 or [email protected] or visitwww.calsalmon.org .
BUSINESS: $250Restoration Resources,Chris Swift, Rocklin
Full Circle Compost, CraigWitt,Minden, NV
Ecological Concerns, Inc.,Joshua Fodor, Santa Cruz
Prunuske Chatham, Inc.,Occidental
Palos Verdes PeninsulaLand Conservancy,
Rolling Hills EstatesValley & Mountain
Consulting,VirginiaMahacek, South LakeTahoe
EDAW, Inc., Sacramento
Coastal RestorationConsultants, Inc., MattJames/Dave Hubbard,Santa Barbara
Hedgerow Farms, JohnAnderson, Winters
Hydro-Plant, Inc., RobMcGann, San Marcos
Pacific Coast Seed, Inc.,Livermore
S & S Seeds, Carpinteria
Stover Seed Company, LosAngeles
Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine
Vandermost ConsultingServices, Julie Vandermost,San Juan Capistrano
RECON Native Plants, Inc.,Ryan West, San Diego
Integrated EnvironmentalRestoration Services, Inc.,Michael Hogan, Tahoe City
Golden Bear BioStudies,Santa Rosa
2007 Contributing Members
2007 Sustaining Members
Many, Many Thanks
INDIVIDUAL: $100
Albert Knight, Glendale
Peter Warner, CaliforniaDepartment of Parks &Recreation,Mendocino
Bo Glover,Environmental NatureCenter,Newport Beach
BUSINESS: $500
Tallac Applied Ecology & Design,Gerald A. Dion, South Lake Tahoe
Tree of Life Nursery, San JuanCapistrano
Pacific Restoration Group, Inc.,Corona
EcoSystems RestorationAssociates, San Diego
Many thanks to our
2006 Conference sponsors
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
11/12
Volume 17,Issue 2 Summer 2007
SERCAL 2007 MembershipApplication/Renewal Form
Annual Membership DuesSERCALs newsletter, Ecesis, is received with ALL rates.
INDIVIDUALS BUSINESS
Student $15 Nonprofit Organization $45
Regular $35 Contributing $250 *
Joint Individual (Discounted) Sustaining $500 *
SERCAL + Cal-IPC $60 Summit Circle $1000 *
SERCAL + CNGA $70
All 3 organizations $100 * Receive quarterly recognition
Sustaining $100 * in Ecesis
Cal-IPC is the California Invasive Plant Council andCNGA is the California Native Grasslands Association
The following members receive additional benefits:
Copies of each No. of discounted ratesCategory Ecesis issue ** at SERCAL events
Nonprofit Organization 2 1
Contributing Business 3 3
Sustaining Business 4 4
Summit Circle 6 6
**When completing this membership form, you may designate
specific individuals to be included on the mailing list.
________________________________________________________NAME DATE
________________________________________________________COMPANY/AFFILIATION
________________________________________________________ADDRESS
________________________________________________________CITY ZIP COUNTY
________________________________________________________PHONE EMAIL
Check enclosed (please make payable to SERCAL)
Please charge my credit card: __Visa __MasterCard
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ Exp: _ _ / _ _
Billing address (if different than address above):
________________________________________________________
Complete form and payment to SERCAL
and mail to: SERCALAdministrative Office,
2701 20th St., Bakersfield CA 93301
WANTED:SERCAL Grant Writer, 2007- 08.Paid Position.
Please submit resume and
fee requirements to the
SERCAL Board of Directors c/o
SERCAL Administrative Office at
2701 20th Street, Bakersfield, CA
93301 or email to SERCAL
Administrative Director, SusanClark at [email protected]
NoteworthyNaturalResourcesEventsJun 1822: Sustainable Watershed Management,
Five-day Short Course presented in two modules (Bren
School of Environmental Science & Management, UCSantaBarbara). Info:www.unex.ucsb.edu/watershed
Jul 10: Abstract Submittal Deadline for SERCALs 14th
Annual Conference, October 2326, Restoration from Sea toShining Sea(Marina Village Conference Center, San Diego).
Info:www.sercal.org/SERCAL_2007_conference.htm
Jul 2426 Still Battling the Inland SeaExploring Solutions for CaliforniasComplex Water Issues (workshop on flood damage reduction co-sponsored by
the Am. Society of Civil Engineers & the Society of Am. Military Engineers,Sacramento). Info: samesacramento.org/calendar/2007leveeconference.html
Aug 57: ESA/SER Joint Annual Meeting, Ecological Restoration in aChanging World(San Jose). Info:www.esa.org
Sep 1922: Cal-IPC Annual Symposium, Conservation & Communication:
The Human Dimension in Invasive Plant Management(Bahia Resort Hotel,San Diego). Info:www.cal-ipc.org
Do you know of anupcoming event that would be
of interest to SERCAL members?Send specifics to Ecesisvia
-
8/9/2019 Ecesis Newsletter, Summer 2007 ~ California Society for Ecological Restoration
12/12
0120thStreet,BakersfieldCA93301-3334
ReturnServiceRequested
www.sercal.org