ecesis newsletter, summer 2007 ~ california society for ecological restoration

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


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


3/12

Volume 17,Issue 2 Summer 2007 Ecesis 3

SERCALBoard of Directors

PRESIDENT Mark Tucker Tucker & Associates

[email protected]

PRESIDENT-ELECT Karen Verpeet H.T. Harvey & Associates

[email protected]

PAST PRESIDENT Regine [email protected]

SECRETARY Paul Kielhold LSA Associates,Inc.-Riverside

[email protected]

TREASURER Bo Glover Environmental Nature Center

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

UPLAND HABITAT Margot Griswold EARTHWORKS Restoration,

Inc. [email protected]

WETLAND & RIPARIAN Max Busnardo H.T. Harvey & Associates

[email protected]____________________

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR Susan Clark

[email protected]

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


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


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


5/12


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


6/12


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


7/12


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.,


8/12


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.


9/12


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 !


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


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


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

[email protected]


12/12

0120thStreet,BakersfieldCA93301-3334

ReturnServiceRequested

www.sercal.org

ecesis newsletter, summer 2007 ~ california society for ecological restoration

Documents