ࡱ >
E@ @e bjbj ` [ h h h
r ~ ~ ~ 4 > > > h 8
2 H H H v z 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 $ : R = $ 8 ~ @ T " 8 ~ ~ H H )8 d < ~ H ~ H 7 7 Z 2 f, 4 ~ ~ 2 H {
+ > . > z4 t 8 T 8 .
=> 8 => | 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ => ~ 2 : 0 j ^ B 8 8
v dI Z dE v Z
2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 400, Berkeley, CA 94705 Phone (510) 848-8098 Fax (510) 848-8398
MEMORANDUM
Date:
March 234, 2004To:Jeff Sharp Company:
Napa County Conservation, Development & Planning Department
From:Maureen MasonSubject:Napa WIC Restoration FAQ
Jeff,
Included in this document are three additionalsix examples sections of FAQ content for the Napa WIC, pertaining to these restoration projects:
Non-native invasive plant removal
Biotechnical erosion control and stream bank stabilization
Fish passage barrier removal
Riparian revegetation
Meadow rewatering
Pest management
We would appreciate comments on the structure and content of these pages, including any suggestions for additional frequently-asked questions and Napa-specific information.
Thanks,
Maureen
Non-Native Invasive Plant Removal
What is non-native invasive plant removal?
The Napa River riparian corridor, like most California landscapes, is host to many non-indigenous species (NIS or invasives) of plants. Often introduced as ornamentals, invasives readily establish after escaping from landscaped settings and can spread rapidly. Other plants were presumably introduced accidentally through movement of livestock or in conjunction with introduction of more desirable plants. Even when active introduction halts, invasive plant species can continue to spread and invade new areas, outcompeting native plant species and increasing the areas vulnerability to further invasion. Some invasives, such as many Mediterranean annual grass species now found in California, are so widespread and well-established that many botanists consider them as new natives that are here to stay (and for which eradication or control efforts are likely futile except on a very localized basis). Non-native invasive plant species present in the Napa River watershed include:
Giant reed (Arundo donax),
Ivy English (Hedera helix), and Cape (Delairea odorata),
Tamarisk or saltcedar (Tamarix spp.),
Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.),
Himlayan blackberry (Rubus discolor)
Large periwinkle (Vinca major),
Purple star thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) and yellow star thistle (C. solstitialis),
French broom (Genista monspessulana) and Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius),
Giant waterfern (Salvinia molesta)
Eucalyptus spp.,
Acacia spp.,
Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp), and
Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima).
Invasives threaten natural habitat value by displacing native plant species and associated native animal species. Invasive plant species often are prolific reproducers that have higher tolerance for certain environmental conditions, such as frequent wildfires, drought or shade, which can give them a competitive edge over native species. Non-native plant species co-evolved with natural enemies (such as herbivores and seed predators) which are absent in the new habitat, allowing the species to expand rapidly. Some non-native invasive species, such as saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), can increase soil salinity under certain conditions and create environmental conditions that are inhospitable to growth and germination of native riparian plant species. Invasive riparian plants can affect terrestrial wildlife and fish species associated with the river corridor by altering fluvial geomorphic processes, stream temperature, nutrient cycling and food web dynamics.
The goal of sustainable weed management is the development and maintenance of healthy, desired native plant communities that have the ability to resist continued weed infestation. It incorporates a combination of preventative weed establishment strategies and weed management techniques that shape the composition and structure of the plant community. Common practices include prevention and early detection strategies that are effective in hindering spread and establishment into weed-free areas. Small or newly established patches are responsive to eradication programs. Large infestations require an integrated approach in management towards reestablishing healthy plant communities.
Methods of invasive plant eradication or control are commonly categorized as physical, thermal, biological, managerial, or chemical methods. Physical methods include manual and mechanical removal techniques. Physical methods are most effective when combined with another control method such as herbicide application. Thermal methods include broadcast burning or spot treatment with a flame thrower. Prescribed burning for pest plant control must be done in accordance with local fire regulations and the consequences of fire for native plants, soil chemistry, and air quality must be considered. Biological control involves the introduction of insects or pathogens which are highly selective for a particular weed species. Biological control has some risk of non-target impacts associated with it, though very few have been reported for biological control of weed pests. Currently, few biological methods have been approved for use by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Managerial weed control methods include prescribed grazing, covering with plastic or weed cloth, and the encouragement of competitive displacement by native plants. Chemical control includes both broadcast and spot application of herbicides or less toxic alternatives. Remember to use pesticides wisely: always read the entire pesticide label carefully, follow all mixing and application instructions and wear all recommended personal protective gear and clothing. Contact the California Department of Agriculture or the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner for any additional pesticide use requirements, restrictions, or recommendations.
The most desirable, and often most effective approach to controlling or eradicating noxious plants is that of an integrated weed management (IWM) plan. This involves the optimum use of several control strategies to control pest plants, such as the manual or mechanical removal of the woody plant material combined with the application of herbicide to the remaining stump. Integrated weed management is generally accepted as the most effective, economical, and environmentally sound long-term method of controlling or eradicating pest plants. If various control techniques are used, however, they must be compatible with one another to achieve the best results. Broadcast herbicide application, for example, may not be compatible with a weed control strategy relaying on competitive displacement by native plants.
What information should be gathered prior to attempting to control or eradicate non-native invasive plant species?
One should compare the benefit of removing the invasive plant to the potential negative impacts of the eradication effort (e.g., applying herbicide, burning, presence of erosion, etc.). For this type of analysis, the following information could be useful:
distribution of the invasive plant;
degree of invasiveness of the plant;
presence of sensitive plant and/or wildlife species in the project area that could be adversely affected by eradication effort;
appropriate control/eradication methods for the target plant species and project area;
knowledge of side-effects of control/eradication methods on project area and non-target species; and
preventative practices to hinder continued invasion.
What are relevant permits and regulations? Which agencies will need to be involved?
Controlling and/or eradicating non-native invasive plants can require compliance and/or coordination with:
Work in or near streams:
California Environmental Quality Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/" http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/) (Required compliance with CEQA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
National Environmental Policy Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm" http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) (Required compliance with NEPA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
Compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (involves San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm" http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm)
Use of pesticides/herbicides:
Napa County Agricultural Commission ( HYPERLINK "http://www.co.napa.ca.us/Gov/Departments/DeptDefault.asp?DID=26400" http://www.co.napa.ca.us/Gov/Departments/DeptDefault.asp?DID=26400)
California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/" http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/)
U.S. Department of Agriculture ( HYPERLINK "http://www.usda.gov/" http://www.usda.gov/)
California Department of Agriculture ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/" http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/)
Endangered species:
California Department of Fish and Game ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/)
Compliance with state and federal endangered species acts (involves CDFG, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html and HYPERLINK "http://endangered.fws.gov/" http://endangered.fws.gov/)
Other:
California Department of Boating and Waterways Aquatic Pest Control Division ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dbw.ca.gov/aquatic.htm" http://www.dbw.ca.gov/aquatic.htm)
Private property access agreements
Local fire agency, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.baaqmd.gov/index.asp" http://www.baaqmd.gov/index.asp) (if prescribed burning seems appropriate)
What are potential funding sources?
CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program ( HYPERLINK "http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem.shtml" http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem.shtml)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ( HYPERLINK "http://partners.fws.gov/" http://partners.fws.gov/)
Fishery Restoration Grants Program, California Department of Fish and Game - Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/fishgrant.html" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/fishgrant.html)
Five-Star Restoration Matching Grants Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nfwf.org/programs/5star-rfp.htm" http://www.nfwf.org/programs/5star-rfp.htm)
USDA NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/)
Napa County Flood Control District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.napaflooddistrict.org/" http://www.napaflooddistrict.org/)
Where can I find out more about materials and methods for controlling and/or eradicating non-native invasive plants?
The Napa County Resource Conservation District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.carcd.org/" http://www.carcd.org/) and the California Natural Resources Conservation Service ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/" http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/) are both good places to find out more about when non-native invasive plant removal is appropriate, what methods would work best, approximate costs, and required permits.
The following website links may also be useful for learning more about materials and methods for controlling and/or eradicating non-native invasive plants:
The California Invasive Plant Council ( HYPERLINK "http://www.caleppc.org/" http://www.caleppc.org/)
The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Teams Weed Control Methods Handbook ( HYPERLINK "http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html" http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html)
Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu" http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu)
Calweed Database (California Noxious Weed Control Projects Inventory ( HYPERLINK "http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/weeds/" http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/weeds/)
Team Arundo del Norte ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/tadn/" http://ceres.ca.gov/tadn/)
The following website links may be useful for learning more about general plant characteristics (both native and non-native):
USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 ( HYPERLINK "http://plants.usda.gov" http://plants.usda.gov)
California Native Plant Societys Invasive Exotic Plants ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cnps.org/links/exotics_links.htm" http://www.cnps.org/links/exotics_links.htm)
USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Distribution Information ( HYPERLINK "http://nas.er.usgs.gov/plants/index.html" http://nas.er.usgs.gov/plants/index.html)
How can adaptive management and monitoring be incorporated into controlling and/or eradicating non-native invasive plants?
Baseline conditions of the project area should be documented before any work is done in order to compare post-project and long-term site conditions to pre-project conditions. Criteria that could be tracked and periodically compared to baseline conditions to monitor project effectiveness and success and feed into an adaptive management process include: continued absence of eradicated invasive plant species and natural recruitment in the eradication areas by native riparian plant species (to be determined through photo documentation and riparian plant monitoring), and increased presence of native riparian vegetation (to be determined by vegetation surveys).
Periodic or event-driven (following a major disturbance) monitoring of the project area will ensure that any project maintenance needs are noted and corrected in a timely manner. Maintenance requirements could potentially include reseeding the area, and the removal/treatment of resprouts and/or new invasive species that may encroach on the study site.
What are examples of previous similar projects?
The Napa Land Trust ( HYPERLINK "http://napalandtrust.org" http://napalandtrust.org), California Conservation Corps ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ccc.ca.gov/cccweb/index.htm" http://www.ccc.ca.gov/cccweb/index.htm), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/), Napa County Resource Conservation District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.naparcd.org/" http://www.naparcd.org/), and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.napaflooddistrict.org/" http://www.napaflooddistrict.org/) have all implemented non-native invasive plant removal projects in Napa County.
Biotechnical Erosion Control and Stream Bank Stabilization
What is biotechnical erosion control and stream bank stabilization?
Biotechnical erosion control and stream bank stabilization projects use live native vegetation, or a combination of vegetative and structural materials (a hybrid solution), to protect stream banks and reduce the input of fine sediment to the watercourse in three ways: (1) the physical presence of the vegetation cover adds roughness to the bank, reducing near-bank flow velocities and decreasing erosion by fluvial entrainment; (2) the structural strength of the vegetation root wad acts to bind the bank materials together to safeguard against bank failure; and (3) the water uptake of the plant during growth acts to drain the bank and reduce the occurrence of bank saturation, reducing vulnerability to failure. Successful biotechnical methods become more effective as the vegetation grows and establishes a permanent vegetative cover which can shade the stream and provide habitat for birds and other species. Installation of boulders and rootwads or other structures can provide bank protection and additional habitat complexity while the vegetation establishes. Disadvantages may include continued channelization of the stream, discouraging its natural tendency to meander along the floodplain. Where feasible, explore options such as widening the riparian corridor through conservation easements or through recreating floodplains terraces.
Biotechnical methods are an alternative to conventional erosion control methods (e.g., riprap, gabions) and aim to provide effective streambank stabilization while minimizing damage and disruption to instream and terrestrial habitats. They are also considered generally more cost-effective than conventional methods, especially when long-term maintenance and repair are factored in because they are designed to be strong initially and grow stronger as the vegetation becomes established. Biotechnical methods are considered especially appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas such as parks, woodlands, riparian areas, and scenic corridors where aesthetics, wildlife habitat, or native planting may be critical.
What information should be gathered prior to stabilizing a stream bank using biotechnical methods?
The condition of the stream banks should be assessed to identify where erosion control is necessary and where biotechnical methods are feasible. To adequately assess bank conditions, data must be collected on historical channel conditions, local hydrology, geomorphology, and bank geotechnical properties. Required data may include: historical photos, flow magnitudes, flood frequencies, bank material composition, channel substrate composition, vegetation composition and extent, channel cross-section data, photo documentation, and water quality (particularly turbidity) data. These data will also be valuable in providing a baseline understanding of the project site by which to evaluate project long-term effectiveness potential effects upstream and downstream of the site. Typically, in-stream biotechnical bank stabilization projects should be designed under the direction of a certified or licensed professional or through consultation with the NRCS.
What are relevant permits and regulations? Which agencies will need to be involved?
Stabilizing stream banks using biotechnical methods can require compliance and/or coordination with:
California Environmental Quality Act ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/" http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/) (Required compliance with CEQA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
National Environmental Policy Act ( HYPERLINK "http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm" http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) (Required compliance with NEPA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (involves U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm" http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm)
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/RHA_summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/RHA_summary.html)
State and federal endangered species acts (involves CDFG, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html and HYPERLINK "http://endangered.fws.gov/" http://endangered.fws.gov/)
California Department of Fish and Games Streambed Alteration Agreement ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html)
Private property access agreements
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit ( HYPERLINK "http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/other/faq/faq.htm" http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/other/faq/faq.htm)
It should be noted that biotechnical methods are considered especially appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, it is often easier to obtain environmental clearance and necessary permits for stabilization projects that incorporate biotechnical and habitat enhancing elements in their design.
What are potential funding sources?
Agricultural:
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/)
CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program ( HYPERLINK "http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem.shtml" http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem.shtml)
Fisheries and wildlife enhancement:
Community-Based Habitat Restoration ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/" http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ( HYPERLINK "http://partners.fws.gov/" http://partners.fws.gov/)
Pacific Grassroots Salmon Initiative ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nfwf.org/programs/PGSI_RFP.htm" http://www.nfwf.org/programs/PGSI_RFP.htm)
California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wcb/california_riparian_habitat_conservation_program.htm" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wcb/california_riparian_habitat_conservation_program.htm)
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ( HYPERLINK "http://budget.fws.gov/CFDA/2000cfda15615.pdf" http://budget.fws.gov/CFDA/2000cfda15615.pdf)
CALFED Watershed Management Program ( HYPERLINK "http://baydeltawatershed.org/" http://baydeltawatershed.org/)
Fishery Restoration Grants Program, California Department of Fish and Game - Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/fishgrant.html" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/fishgrant.html)
Habitat Conservation Fund ( HYPERLINK "http://www.hctf.ca/" http://www.hctf.ca/)
General property protection:
Napa County Flood Control District - Bank Stabilization and Repair 50/50 Cost-share Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.napaflooddistrict.org/" http://www.napaflooddistrict.org/)
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants ( HYPERLINK "http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/POLLUTE.nsf/0/61a7b5d26283377b88256226007326ee?OpenDocument" http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/POLLUTE.nsf/0/61a7b5d26283377b88256226007326ee?OpenDocument)
Water Quality Planning Grants ( HYPERLINK "http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/ofundsrc.html" http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/ofundsrc.html)
Urban Streams Restoration Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/" http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/)
Where can I find out more about materials and methods for restoring and stabilizing stream banks?
The Napa County Resource Conservation District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.carcd.org/" http://www.carcd.org/) and the California Natural Resources Conservation Service ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/" http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/) are both good places to find out more about biotechnical erosion control and stream bank stabilization methods and materials. Most RCDs and the NRCS have knowledge and information on when biotechnical erosion control and/or stream bank stabilization are appropriate, what method would be most suitable for different sites, what materials are required, approximate costs, and required permits.
The following website links may also be useful for learning more about materials and methods for biotechnical stream bank stabilization and erosion control:
California Department of Fish and Games Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch: California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/manual.html" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/manual.html)
Klamath Resource Information System: Riparian Restoration ( HYPERLINK "http://www.krisweb.com/restore/riparian.htm" http://www.krisweb.com/restore/riparian.htm)
You may also try contacting a local Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cpesc.net" http://www.cpesc.net), although not all CPESCs are trained in biotechnical methods.
How can adaptive management and monitoring be incorporated into stream bank restoration and stabilization projects?
Pre-project data should be gathered, including success criteria, baseline surveys, design rationale, design drawings, and as builts which reflect the project implementation. Criteria that can be tracked and periodically compared to baseline conditions to monitor project effectiveness and success and feed into an adaptive management process include:
ability of the project to protect important streamside infrastructure (determined through photo monitoring);
survival of plant cuttings and increased presence of native riparian vegetation (determined by vegetation surveys);
flow velocities sustained by project (determined through flow monitoring);
channel cross-section adjustments (determined through cross-section surveys of the project area);
improved water quality and channel substrate composition (determined by turbidity monitoring and instream channel condition surveys); and
availability of instream habitat and its use by aquatic species of concern (determined through habitat and fish surveys).
Periodic or event-driven (following a major disturbance) monitoring of the project area will ensure that any project maintenance needs are noted and corrected in a timely manner.
What are examples of previous similar projects?
The Napa River Flood Protection Project, which is being implemented by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers along approximately 6.9 miles of the Napa River, includes biotechnical bank stabilization in its suite of flood management features ( HYPERLINK "http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/civ/napa/index.html#" http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/civ/napa/index.html#).
The City of Petaluma and the Petaluma Watershed Foundation recently received funding through Department of Water Resources Urban Streams Restoration Program to continue property acquisition and riparian habitat restoration of a floodprone section of riverfront property upstream of downtown Petaluma. Restoration activities include recreating floodplain terraces to increase capacity, stabilizing banks using bioengineering methods, restoring riparian habitat, and installing a river trail to allow public access.
Several Napa County vineyards have implemented biotechnical erosion control and/or stream bank stabilization methods to reduce erosion and fine sediment input to local creeks. At Domaine Chandons Carneros Vineyard, work is underway to use cemented dams, rock dams and velocity dissipaters (stepping stones) to reduce downcutting and help stabilize the stream. The Napa County Resource Conservation District has worked to stabilize the banks of Huichica Creek in the Huichica Creek Sustainable Vineyard ( HYPERLINK "http://www.naparcd.org/huichicavineyard.htm" http://www.naparcd.org/huichicavineyard.htm) using willow revetments and cuttings to trap sediment and reduce erosion. With grants from NRCS EQIP, Napa County Flood Control, and CALFED, extensive biotechnical techniques consisting of live willow brush mattresses, willow revetment, and live willow/rock groins were used along the Napa River and Selby Creek near Larkmead Vineyards in Calistoga to stabilize and revegetate eroding banks.
Fish Passage Barrier Removal or Modification
What is fish passage barrier removal?
Fish passage barrier removal involves either removing or modifying instream structures that are known to block fish passage. In addition to dams, in-channel structures (such as flow diversions, culverts, and road crossings) may create steep drops in the channel that cannot be jumped by fish or may concentrate flows to such a degree that fish cannot overcome the current to move upstream. Barriers that fish are able to pass after some effort may be of significance if the level of effort required exhausts fish and reduces their reproductive fitness or longevity. Barriers that delay fish from reaching upstream spawning habitat may reduce their ability to spawn if flows become inadequate and can make them more susceptible to predation. Although most attention is typically focused on barriers to upstream passage, some structures may also impair downstream movement of juvenile salmonids, outmigrating smolts or steelhead kelts.
Barriers to fish movement can cause significant adverse impacts to fish populations within a basin by hindering movement to and from upstream spawning habitats by anadromous fish, and by restricting access to habitats and resources within the system for rearing juveniles and resident adults. The impact of barriers on salmonids should ultimately be assessed with respect to: (1) the quantity and quality of upstream habitat that is being permanently blocked to spawning anadromous fish; and (2) any partial or temporary barriers to fish movement during the freshwater phase of the life cycle. By disrupting habitat connectivity, even a small number of barriers can have a disproportionately large impact on a population if the barriers obstruct access to large amounts of habitat.
Fish passage barrier removal can involve the following actions: removal of the structure; installation of a grade control with in-stream rock; and reshaping the channel and stabilization of the banks with bioengineered techniques as necessary. Examples of fish passage barrier modification include installation of fish ladders, replacement of culverted bridges with free span crossings, and re-creation of step plunge pools for migration and spawning.
What information should be gathered prior to fish passage barrier removal?
Before removing a suspected fish passage barrier, restoration practitioners should fully verify and document all potential barriers (both natural and constructed) on streams with potentially important salmonid habitat. Suitable fish habitat should then be documented in relation to natural and constructed barriers, to help prioritize allocation of resources for barrier removal efforts. Particular emphasis should be given to constructed barriers that obstruct access to large amounts of suitable habitat.
Sediment stored behind a barrier can influence access even after the barrier is removed, by potentially blocking upstream passage until the wedge of stored sediment is mobilized by flows. Mobilization of stored sediment can affect downstream habitats for many years. When deciding whether to remove a barrier, how to remove a barrier, or evaluating potential phasing strategies in lieu of barrier removal, consideration should be given to the amount of sediment stored behind the barrier and its potential effects on upstream passage and downstream habitats.
To learn more about Stillwater Sciences focused study of fish passage barriers in the Napa River watershed, see Section 6.4.1 of the Napa River Basin Limiting Factors Analysis .
What are relevant permits and regulations? Which agencies will need to be involved?
Removal and/or modification of fish passage barriers can require compliance and/or coordination with:
California Department of Fish and Games Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code Section 1600) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html)
California Environmental Quality Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/" http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/) (Required compliance with CEQA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
National Environmental Policy Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm" http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) (Required compliance with NEPA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
Compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (involves San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm" http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm)
Compliance with state and federal endangered species acts (involves CDFG, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html and HYPERLINK "http://endangered.fws.gov/" http://endangered.fws.gov/)
Private property access agreements
What are potential funding sources?
Urban Streams Restoration Program, Department of Water Resources ( HYPERLINK "http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/" http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/)
CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program ( HYPERLINK "http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem.shtml" http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem.shtml)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ( HYPERLINK "http://partners.fws.gov/" http://partners.fws.gov/)
Pacific Grassroots Salmonid Initiative ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nfwf.org/programs/PGSI_RFP.htm" http://www.nfwf.org/programs/PGSI_RFP.htm)
Fishery Restoration Grants Program, California Department of Fish and Game - Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/fishgrant.html" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/fishgrant.html)
How can adaptive management and monitoring be incorporated into fish passage barrier removal projects?
Baseline biological conditions of the project area should be documented before any work is done in order to compare post-project and long-term site conditions to pre-project conditions. Criteria that could be tracked and periodically compared to baseline conditions to monitor project effectiveness and success and feed into an adaptive management process include: fish population abundance, diversity, peak and base flow conditions, and habitat use both upstream and downstream of the barrier for various life stages; and assessment of habitat quantity and quality. Periodic or event-driven (following a major disturbance) monitoring of the project area will ensure that any project maintenance needs are noted and corrected in a timely manner.
What are examples of previous fish passage barrier removal projects?
Several fish passage barrier removal projects in the Napa River watershed have recently been funded by California Department of Fish and Games Fisheries Restoration Grant Program for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003. The Napa County Resource Conservation District received funding for the removal of four fish barrier structures, installation of two railway flatcar bridges, construction of eight rock vortex weir structures and 120 feet of streambank stabilization and upper bank revegetation on Heath Canyon Creek. The City of St. Helena received funding for the following projects on York Creek:
removal of York Creek Dam and accumulated sediment behind the dam to increase access for steelhead to historical spawning and rearing habitat upstream of the dam site;
improvement of adult steelhead passage at the York Creek Diversion Structure; and,
elimination of entrainment of juvenile steelhead into a municipal diversion while maintaining diversion operability.
For more information on these projects, click here: ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/2002_2003_Approved_Projects.htm" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/2002_2003_Approved_Projects.htm) and ( HYPERLINK "http://www.amrivers.org/damremoval/damremovals2002.htm" http://www.amrivers.org/damremoval/damremovals2002.htm).
Other sources of information
The California Department of Water Resources Fish Passage Improvement Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.isi.water.ca.gov/fish/fishindex.shtml" http://www.isi.water.ca.gov/fish/fishindex.shtml) identifies and evaluates the potential to modify or remove instream structures that impede migration and spawning of anadromous fish species within the Central Valley and Bay Area of California. The program utilizes interdisciplinary teams of fish biologists, hydrologists, engineers, environmental scientists and interagency staff to conduct barrier inventories and to identify and evaluate fish passage opportunities. The program can then provide environmental documentation, feasibility studies, and planning to implement fish passage enhancement projects. Coordination and consultation with stakeholders and the public ensures that the program considers all feasible opportunities to optimize fish passage while providing reliable water supplies for water users.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Fish Passage Program ( HYPERLINK "http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/fishpassage/" http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/fishpassage/) is a voluntary, non-regulatory program that provides funding and technical assistance toward removing or bypassing barriers to fish movement. A fish passage project can be any activity that directly improves the ability of fish or other aquatic species to move by reconnecting habitat that has been fragmented by barriers.
The USDA Forest Service has produced a software package, FishXING (pronounced "Fish Crossing"), which is intended to assist engineers, hydrologists, and fish biologists in the evaluation and design of culverts for fish passage. It is free and available for download at HYPERLINK "http://stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/" http://stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/. The FishXING website also provides an excellent annotated bibliography on fish passage through culverts.
Riparian Revegetation
What is riparian revegetation?
Riparian corridors are a critical component of stream ecology in the Napa Valley and provide an important transition between upland areas and aquatic environments. Comprised of flood-tolerant trees, shrubs and herbs, riparian vegetation helps stabilize streams by holding soils, containing and distributing sediment, and attenuating floods, and reducinges sedimentation and water pollution by filtering runoff from upland areas. Riparian areas provide critical habitat for a number of terrestrial wildlife species which depend on riparian areas for cover, food, and migration corridors. Aquatic species such as steelhead and coho salmon depend on riparian canopies to moderate water temperatures through shading of the water surface and to provide in-stream cover in the form of large woody debris.
When riparian vegetation is disturbed or lost due to development, agriculture, and other land use practices, there can be dramatic changes in channel form, bank stability, and flood patterns. Non-native invasive plant species may colonize disturbed sites quickly, competing with native plants for light and space. The result is a significant loss in habitat value for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species and potential property loss or damage due to erosion.
Riparian revegetation projects attempt to address these issues by re-establishing native vegetation at degraded sites to reproduce a natural riparian zone and restore natural physical and biological processes and functions. While there are numerous methods and techniques used to implement riparian revegetation, two primary approaches are used in most restoration projects: horticultural restoration and natural recruitment.
Horticultural restoration relies on active planting of young plants or seeds to re-establish a riparian area. This approach usually involves the use of keystone species, such as cottonwood and willows, which can jump-start restoration by providing immediate benefits including stream shading and soil retention. This method typically requires some form of irrigation during an initial period to avoid desiccation of new plantings. The natural recruitment method relies on the natural processes of seed dispersal, flooding, and seedling establishment to re-establish native riparian vegetation. Both methods may require ongoing removal of non-native plant species that can slow or inhibit the establishment of native plants. Some revegetation projects may require the use of soil-stabilizing techniques to control erosion while vegetation is re-established.
What information should be gathered prior to replanting riparian vegetation?
Detailed project planning should take place before riparian restoration projects are implemented. Initial information gathering should focus on the following at a minimum:
Identify and map existing vegetation. Many disturbed riparian areas contain a mix of non-native invasive plant species and native plant species. Take advantage of existing native riparian plants at your site by identifying and flagging stands of native species, and then design a plan to remove and control invasive non-native plants .
Survey for Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Speciesspecies. To protect special-status species from restoration activities, a qualified biologist or botanist should conduct a survey for rare, threatened, or endangered plant and wildlife species at your site.
Understand the landscape context. To the extent degree possible, attempt to understand the extent and composition of current and historical riparian vegetation in the area. This information will be important in determining how your project fits within the surrounding landscape. How did the riparian vegetation at your site provide connectivity to other riparian areas upstream, downstream, and to upland vegetation? Which species were typical of your site and nearby areas? How do riparian areas develop over time (i.e., what is the natural successional process) in the area? Are there relatively pristine riparian areas nearby that could be used as reference sites? Reference sites can provide a template for restoration and may be useful in providing a benchmark for measuring the success of your project.
Understand site-specific causes of riparian degradation. Identify the underlying causes of habitat degradation at your site and be sure to address them in your restoration design.
Understand local topography, hydrology, geomorphology, and soils. River hydrology and geomorphology play a major role in the establishment and maintenance of riparian vegetation. Site-specific conditions will determine which plant species are appropriate for a given flood regime and whether they will persist over time. How often is the site flooded? Is the site subject to excessive sediment deposition or erosion during floods? Soil properties such as salinity and texture can be important and will affect plant growth and survival depending on the species. Local topography will dictate drainage and water flow, and where wetlands may develop. Depth to groundwater will determine whether seedlings will have a readily available water source during the dry season.
Determine a plant/seed source. If horticultural methods are being used, local seeds or cuttings should be used for planting materials to preserve genetic diversity and utilize local genotypes that may contain unique adaptations to local conditions. Seeds or cuttings can be gathered near or at the site, then taken to a nursery and grown out for planting at an appropriate size. Identify and contact local native plant nurseries for guidance in gathering and growing plants for your project.
What are relevant permits and regulations? Which agencies/organizations will need to be involved?
Riparian revegetation projects may require compliance and/or coordination with the following environmental laws and agencies:
California Environmental Quality Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/" http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/) (Required compliance with CEQA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project);
National Environmental Policy Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm" http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) (Required compliance with NEPA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project);
Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C 1251, et seq. (involves U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm" http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm);
Section 404 permits for fill of waters of the United States or associated wetlands
Section 401 waiver of water quality certification from the RWQCB
Compliance with state and federal endangered species acts (involves CDFG, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html) and ( HYPERLINK "http://endangered.fws.gov/" http://endangered.fws.gov/); and
Private property access agreements.
What are potential funding sources?
A comprehensive list of stream and riparian restoration funding sources can be found on the Urban Streams Program website ( HYPERLINK "http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/money4cks/" http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/money4cks/). The Urban Streams Program is managed by the California Department of Water Resources to fund stream restoration projects using Proposition 40 funding. Additional funding source information is available on CERES ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/funding/funding_table.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/funding/funding_table.html).
Where can I find out more about materials and methods for riparian revegetation?
The following organizations can provide further information regarding riparian revegetation, including guidance for site selection, restoration design, timing of project (e.g., spring or fall), and appropriate plant species:
Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group ( HYPERLINK "http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/" http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/);
Team Arundo del Norte ( HYPERLINK "http://www.teamarundo.org" http://www.teamarundo.org);
River Partners ( HYPERLINK "http://www.riverpartners.org" http://www.riverpartners.org);
California Department of Water Resources ( HYPERLINK "http://www.isi.water.ca.gov/fish/riparian.shtml" http://www.isi.water.ca.gov/fish/riparian.shtml);
California Conservation Corps Napa Nursery ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ccc.ca.gov/cccweb/DISTRICT/PACBAYS/NAPA/napa.htm" http://www.ccc.ca.gov/cccweb/DISTRICT/PACBAYS/NAPA/napa.htm);
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/); and
Napa County Resource Conservation District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.naparcd.org/" http://www.naparcd.org/).
How can adaptive management and monitoring be incorporated into riparian revegetation?
Baseline information on pre-project conditions (as described above) and ongoing monitoring will be critical in assessing project success. To utilize adaptive management concepts in your project, pre-project planning should include the establishment of success criteria, thorough baseline surveys, a design rationale, and complete restoration design drawings which reflect the project implementation. After project implementation, periodic or event-driven (following a major storm event or other disturbance) monitoring should be conducted to measure progress and assess the need for changes to the restoration design.
What are examples of previous similar projects?
The Natural Resources Projects Inventory ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/nrpi" www.ice.ucdavis.edu/nrpi) lists the following riparian revegetation projects in the Napa River watershed:
City of Napa/Friends of the Napa River. Cost: $997,000. The project involves acquisition and restoration of a 7.2- acre parcel of riparian habitat. Hydrologic connectivity will be reestablished between the floodplain areas and active river channel through the breaching of existing levees along the property. Native revegetation will be undertaken where needed. This effort is part of the much larger Napa River Flood Protection Project.
Napa River Riparian Restoration Project (2001). Cost: $46,250. Decrease erosion/stream sedimentation; decrease stream temperature; increase gravel recruitment; increase large woody debris (LWD) recruitment to stream; increase nutrient (plant material) input to stream; increase pools; increase shading.
Napa River at Larkmead Streambank Stabilization and Riparian Revegetation Project (2001). Cost: $95,802. Decrease erosion/stream sedimentation; improve refuge cover; improve spawning habitat; improve water quality; increase riparian wildlife habitat; increase stream bank stabilization/protection.
Assessment of Giant Reed and Restoration Planning, Napa River Watershed (2002). Cost: $79,650.00. Identify giant reed populations in the Napa River basin; map and analyze data; generate acreage figures; estimate control and restoration costs; develop prioritized plan for control and restoration of invaded sites.
Napa River RCD - Implementation of Stewardship Program. Cost: $250,000. To eEnhance and restore the following CALFED priority habitats in the Napa River Watershed: seasonal wetland and aquatic habitat, instream aquatic habitat, and shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
Meadow Re-watering
Often refers to riparian, wetland and wet meadow. Either need to explain upfront how these three are related, or be more specific when each term is used. For example, a wet meadow is a type of wetland but not all wetlands are wet meadows.
What is meadow re-watering?
Wet meadows are a type of wetland, and can include both seasonally inundated floodplains or spring-fed upland areas. Wet meadows occur where groundwater is at or near the surface most of the growing season, following spring runoff. Wet meadows at all elevations generally have a simple structure consisting of a layer of herbaceous plants. Shrub or tree layers are usually absent or very sparse but may be an important feature of the meadow edge. Hydrologically, they occupy lotic, sunken concave, and hanging sites (Ratliff 1985).
Lotic sites are those with main input flow (other than precipitation) from upstream sources (Gosselink and Turner 1978). Downstream runoff is the principal output flow. Lotic sites are topographic basins but have a slight slope, which permits drainage of surface water. Percolation is nil due to the saturated or slowly permeable nature of underlying materials (Ratliff 2003).
Sunken concave sites also receive water input from upstream sources, but evapotranspiration is the main output flow. Percolation is slowed by heavy-textured soils and/or shallow bedrock; however, in contrast to lotic and hanging sites, soil of sunken concave sites may dry to considerable depth by fall (Ratliff 2003).
Hanging sites are watered by hydrostatic flows as springs or seeps. They frequently occur on rather steep slopes, and downstream runoff is the main output flow (Ratliff 2003).
The single most important characteristic of a wet meadow is its hydrology. Seasonality and reliability of yearly water inflows and outflows largely determine the vegetational stability of wet meadows. Hydrology is the primary forcing function idriving force in wetland and wet meadow and riparian systems and is the critical element in wetland and riparianwetland and wet meadow system restoration and management efforts. Hydrology is particularly critical in riparian systems since it is the primary mechanism by which mass and energy are transported between uplands and downstream environments; it is the primary control on the pathways and rates of biogeochemical processing of dissolved and particulate matter; it provides multidimensional environmental gradients that support diverse metazoan populations which serve as critical pathways and mechanisms by which energy is transferred in riparian food webs; and it plays critical roles in vegetation recruitment and persistence.
Wet meadows provide important ecological benefits including breeding and foraging habitat for birds and invertebrates and habitat for wetland plants. Meadows near small thermal hot springs in Napa County support the remaining two populations each of Calistoga popcornflower (Plagiobothrys strictus) and Napa bluegrass (Poa napensis). These two seasonal wetlands are underlain by a gravelly loam intermixed with clay, and water tables are close to the surface. Concentrations of boron, arsenic, and sulphates are high in these areas and a unique flora has evolved in them. Urbanization and viticulture have extirpated one historic occurrence and eliminated much of the species' habitat.
Streambank instability caused by degradation of riparian vegetation can be mitigated in part by meadow vegetation. Measurements by Micheli and Kirchner (2002) indicate that streambanks colonized by wet graminoid meadow vegetation were on average five times stronger than those colonized by dry xeric meadow and scrub vegetation.
Overgrazed wet meadows have more forbs and fewer grasses and grasslike species than properly grazed or ungrazed (by livestock) meadows, and taller species are replaced by lower growing types. Channel erosion lowers the water table, causing succession to species characteristic of dryer habitats. Meadows can become dewatered due to a drop in the groundwater table, often driven by changes in land use. The introduction of livestock grazing can denude vegetation and increase channel erosion, causing subsequent channel incision and lowering of the water table. Overgrazed wet meadows have more forbs and fewer grasses and grasslike species than properly grazed or ungrazed (by livestock) meadows, and taller species are replaced by lower growing types. Channel erosion lowers the water table, causing succession to species characteristic of dryer habitats. Meadows can become dewatered due to a drop in the groundwater table, often driven by changes in land use. Water diversion can also damage wet meadows by lowering the water table. Thus, meadow re-watering often necessitates large-scale stream restoration as a mechanism to restore the local water table to pre-disturbance conditions.
Meadow re-watering involves the restoration of complex hydrologic, vegetative, and geomorphic processes. Meadow re-watering projects may include a variety of actions to restore the pre-disturbance water table, including:
changes in livestock grazing regime
channel and floodplain reconstruction
changes in water diversion regime
revegetation of meadow surface
Meadow rewatering involves the restoration of complex hydrologic, vegetative, and geomorphic processes. Meadow rewatering projects have included a variety of actions to restore the pre-disturbance water table, including: channel and floodplain reconstruction, changes in the water diversion regime, revegetation of meadow surfaces, and changes in grazing or other land use management.
In a positive feedback mechanism, degradation of riparian vegetation can result in streambank instability. Measurements by Micheli and Kirchner (2002) indicate that streambanks colonized by wet graminoid meadow vegetation were on average five times stronger than those colonized by dry xeric meadow and scrub vegetation.
Current distribution of wetlands in the Napa Watershed:
Approximately 4,780 acres (1.7 % of the total watershed area) of wetland have been identified in the Napa River Watershed, including 4,388 acres of emergent herbaceous wetlands (areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for 75-100 percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water) and 392 acres of woody wetlands (areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for 25-100 percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water) (USGS, land use/land cover GIS coverage (based on 1992 Landsat imagery) and USGS NLCD Land Cover Class Definitions based on Cowardin et al. 1979).
What information should be gathered prior to implementing a meadow rewatering project?
Detailed project planning should take place before meadow rewatering projects are implemented. Initial information gathering should focus on the following at a minimum:
Identify current and historical land uses. In order to identify the underlying causes of habitat degradation at your site, current and historical land use practices should be understood and addressed in your restoration design. These may include: grazing intensity, forestry, agriculture, and urban development.
Identify and map existing vegetation. Many disturbed riparian areas contain a mix of non-native invasive plant species and native plant species. Take advantage of existing native riparian plants at your site by identifying and flagging stands of native species, and then design a plan to remove and control invasive non-native plants .
Survey for Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Spspecies. To protect special-status species from restoration activities, a qualified biologist or botanist should conduct a survey for Rrare, tThreatened, or eEndangered plant and wildlife species at your site.
Understand the landscape context. To the extentdegree possible, attempt to understand the extent and composition of current and historical meadow vegetation in the area. This information will be important in determining how your project fits within the surrounding landscape. Which species were typical of your site and nearby areas? Are there relatively pristine meadow areas nearby that could be used as reference sites? Reference sites can provide a template for restoration and may be useful in providing a benchmark for measuring the success of your project.
Understand local topography, hydrology, geomorphology, and soils. River hydrology and geomorphology play a major role in the establishment and maintenance of riparian vegetation. Site-specific conditions will determine which plant species are appropriate for a given flood regime and whether they will persist over time. Hydrologic information should be gathered, including: flood frequency information, water table elevation and characteristics, and water rights and diversions. Geomorphic information should be gathered, including: channel morphology, stream bank stability, sediment transport capacity, meadow soil and channel substrate characteristics, and sediment supply to the reach. Soil properties such as salinity and texture can be important and will affect plant growth and survival depending on the species. Local topography will dictate drainage and water flow, and where wetlands may develop. Depth to groundwater will determine whether seedlings will have a readily available water source during the dry season.
Determine a plant/seed source. Local seed or cuttings should be used for planting materials to preserve genetic diversity and utilize local genotypes that may contain unique adaptations to local conditions. Seeds or cuttings can be gathered near or at the site, then taken to a nursery and grown out for planting at an appropriate size. Identify and contact local native plant nurseries for guidance in gathering and growing plants for your project.
What are relevant permits and regulations? Which agencies/organizations will need to be involved?
California Environmental Quality Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/" http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/) (Required compliance with CEQA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project);
National Environmental Policy Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm" http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) (Required compliance with NEPA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project);
Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C 1251, et seq. (involves U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm" http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm);
Section 404 permits for fill of waters of the United States or associated wetlands
Section 401 waiver of water quality certification from the RWQCB
California Department of Fish and Game ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/);
Compliance with state and federal endangered species acts (involves CDFG, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/summary.html and HYPERLINK "http://endangered.fws.gov/" http://endangered.fws.gov/);
Private property access agreements;
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 (cultural resource surveys);
California Department of Fish and Games Streambed Alteration Agreement ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html); and
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.
What are potential funding sources?
Potential funding sources for meadow rewatering projects include:
Five-Star Restoration Matching Grants Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nfwf.org/programs/5star-rfp.htm" http://www.nfwf.org/programs/5star-rfp.htm)
Wildlife Conservation Board: California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wcb/california_riparian_habitat_conservation_program.htm" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wcb/california_riparian_habitat_conservation_program.htm)
USDA NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/)
USDA NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/)
California Forest Stewardship Program ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/financial.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/financial.html)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ( HYPERLINK "http://partners.fws.gov/" http://partners.fws.gov/)
A comprehensive list of stream and riparian restoration funding sources can be found on the Urban Streams Program website ( HYPERLINK "http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/money4cks/" http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/money4cks/). The Urban Streams Program is managed by the California Department of Water Resources to fund stream restoration projects using Proposition 40 funding. Additional funding source information is available on CERES ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/funding/funding_table.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/funding/funding_table.html).
Where can I find out more about materials and methods for meadow rewatering projects?
The following organizations can provide further information regarding wet meadow restoration, including guidance for site selection, restoration design, and required permits.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/);
Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group ( HYPERLINK "http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/" http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/);
Napa County Resource Conservation District ( HYPERLINK "http://www.naparcd.org/" http://www.naparcd.org/).
Meadow rewatering involves the restoration of complex hydrologic, vegetative, and geomorphic processes. Past meadow rewatering projects have included a variety of actions to restore the pre-disturbance water table, including: channel and floodplain reconstruction, changes in the water diversion regime, revegetation of meadow surfaces, and changes in grazing or other land use management. Specific details on project implementation methods are described in the discussion of previous similar projects, below.
How can adaptive management and monitoring be incorporated into meadow re-watering projects?
Clear objectives and success criteria for the project should be defined during the project planning process, and before project implementation. Baseline biological and physical conditions of the project area should be documented before any work is done in order to compare post-project and long-term site conditions to pre-project conditions. Channel and floodplain design drawings should be prepared prior to implementation. Immediately following implementation, as built conditions should be documented in order to accurately reflect the project implementation.
Follow-up information that should be gathered include periodic or event-driven (following major storms or other disturbances) monitoring, use of supplementary historical data, and secondary analysis to determine project success over different time scales. Criteria that could be tracked and periodically compared to baseline conditions to monitor project effectiveness and success and feed into an adaptive management process include: increased presence of wet meadow plant species (to be determined by vegetation surveys), rise of water table to pre-disturbance conditions (to be determined through water table monitoring with piezometers), maintenance of channel and floodplain morphology (to be determined through repeated cross-sections and channel surveying).
Monitoring of the project area will ensure that any project maintenance needs are noted and corrected in a timely manner. Maintenance requirements could potentially include reseeding the wet meadow area, and installing grade controls in the channel to minimize downcutting.
What are examples of previous similar projects?
The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project in north central Idaho is a multi-phase ecosystem enhancement effort that began in 1994. The project is sponsored by Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District and funded by Bonneville Power Administration. Natural physical and biological processes and functions were restored to stabilize the stream and meadow and reestablish high quality fish and wildlife habitat. In 1997, a long-term, effectiveness monitoring program was initiated to measure, evaluate, and document the success of restoration techniques. A majority of the channels structural, hydrologic, and habitat features are evolving as expected and preliminarily meeting performance criteria. Subsequent monitoring will continue to track the recovery of this wet meadow ecosystem, to identify the most effective restoration techniques, and to transfer information to other natural resource managers and stewards. More information about the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project is available at these websites: HYPERLINK "http://www.redriver.uidaho.edu/" http://www.redriver.uidaho.edu/
HYPERLINK "http://www.redriver.uidaho.edu/facts/RRFACTS_092001.pdf" http://www.redriver.uidaho.edu/facts/RRFACTS_092001.pdf
The Big Flat Meadow Restoration Project was designed to restore a section of Cottonwood Creek, a small stream in Northeastern Plumas County. Cottonwood Creek once kept Big Flat meadow watered as it flowed from the East side of the Sierra Nevada mountain range to join the Feather River. Over the last 60 years, a combination of livestock grazing, fire, and timber harvesting led to channel erosion, with the channel cutting down from its former meadow height into a gullied channel, 15 feet deep in some places. As the creek eroded down through the meadow soil, it lowered the water table, allowing undesirable dry-site vegetation such as sagebrush to replace grasses and sedges which need more moisture. To re-water Big Flat meadow, the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group designed a project which combines an innovative technique of stream and meadow restoration with changes in the grazing system of the Forest Service's grazing allotment. Feather River CRM members designed a monitoring plan to test the effectiveness of the project at restoring the Big Flat Meadow. Information was collected on stream and meadow characteristics in 1994 and 1995 to have a baseline against which to test the projectsfuture success. More information about the Big Flat Meadow Restoration Project is available at these websites:
HYPERLINK "http://www.feather-river-crm.org/factsheets/fact6.htm" http://www.feather-river-crm.org/factsheets/fact6.htm
HYPERLINK "http://www.feather-river-crm.org/pdf/ieca.pdf" http://www.feather-river-crm.org/pdf/ieca.pdf
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/CA.htm#2" http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/CA.htm#2
The Bear Creek Meadow Restoration Project, near Dana, California, is a component of the California Trout Conservation Plans Upper Fall River Watershed Restoration Project. Several actions have been proposed in order to address sedimentation problems in the Upper Fall River, including restoring and protecting high priority stream and meadow systems in the Bear Creek Watershed, and implementing Bear Creek Meadow restoration between Spaulding Bridge and the Fall River Confluence. Project implementation was completed during the summer of 1999, and included channel and floodplain reconstruction, excavation of ponds, gravel augmentation, meadow revegetation, and bank and grade stabilization. More information about the Bear Creek Meadow Restoration Project is available at these websites:
HYPERLINK "http://www.caltrout.org/consact/consplan/PG24.PDF" http://www.caltrout.org/consact/consplan/PG24.PDF
HYPERLINK "http://www.cas.usf.edu/geology/people/faculty/rains/research.html" http://www.cas.usf.edu/geology/people/faculty/rains/research.html
HYPERLINK "http://www.streamwise.com/ProjectInvolvement/Bear.asp" http://www.streamwise.com/ProjectInvolvement/Bear.asp
The Stevens County Restoration Project, in northeastern Washington State, is a success story of the Washington Wetlands Reserve Program. A partnership was formed with NRCS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, and the landowner to restore the wet meadow, which had been drained and converted to agricultural use. Restoration efforts in the meadow involved relocating streams, plugging various drainage ditches, and deleveling the relatively flat topography of the site. More information about the Stevens County Restoration Project is available at this website:
HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/states/success_wa_stevens.html" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/states/success_wa_stevens.html
Other sources of information related to wet meadows:
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group ( HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr/pdfs/WTM.pdf" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr/pdfs/WTM.pdf)
Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group ( HYPERLINK "http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/" http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/);
References Cited
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat of the United States, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Gosselink, J. G., and R. E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in fresh water wetland systems. Pages 63-67 In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater wetlands, ecological processes and management potential. Academic Press, New York.
Micheli, E. R. and J. W. Kirchner. 2002. Effects of Wet Meadow Riparian Vegetation on Streambank Erosion: Measurements of Vegetated Bank Strength and Consequences for Failure Mechanics. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27, 687697 (2002).
Ratliff, R. D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. (Berkeley, Calif.), Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84.
Ratliff, R.D. 2003. Wet Meadow. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Dept. of Fish and Game. 4 pages. Available online: HYPERLINK "http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr/pdfs/WTM.pdf" http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr/pdfs/WTM.pdf
Pest Management
What is pest management?
A pest species can be any species that humans consider undesirable. Any organism that reduces the availability, quality, or value of a human resource can be classified as a pest. This designation in no way reflects the organisms role in the natural ecosystem but is more an indicator that they are in conflict with humans. Plant pests, also referred to as weeds, are included in the discussion of Non-native Invasive Plant Removal .
A pest in one area may not be considered a pest elsewhere. Often organisms rise to pest status because they escape normal control by natural regulating agents. This is achieved through direct or indirect importation to a new region or by human activities which reduce or eliminate the efficiency of their natural enemies. Without controls on population growth, organisms can rapidly achieve levels at which damage is caused thus becoming pests (e.g., locust swarms stripping landscapes bare). However, organisms do not need to exist in large numbers to be a pest. For example, the codling moth (Cydia pomonella) does not lay many eggs compared to many insects and often produces only one generation each year (Begon et al. 1996). However, because it blemishes apples, making them commercially undesirable, the codling moth is considered an important agricultural pest.
Pest management is therefore a means to reduce pest numbers to an acceptable threshold. An acceptable threshold, in most cases, refers to an economically justifiable threshold where application of pest control measures reduces pest numbers to a level below which additional applications would not be profitable (i.e., where additional costs of control exceed additional benefits). Pest eradication (i.e., complete removal) is usually not a viable option.
Methods of control can be categorized as chemical, biological, cultural, physical/mechanical, or genetic, and are discussed in further detail below.
Chemical. Chemicals (e.g., insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides) can be broad-spectrum (non-selective) or narrow-spectrum (selective), and can be organic or inorganic. Chemicals used to regulate pest abundance can act as nerve toxins (for insects and mammals) and growth regulators/inhibitors. Chemicals can also be used to affect pest abundance through more indirect means, such as releasing pheromones to disrupt breeding behavior and interfere with mating. Chemical pesticides are often toxic to non-target organisms including the pests natural enemies, can persist in the environment affecting water supply, soil productivity, and air quality, and can be biomagnified in the food chain. Inappropriate use of pesticides can result in target pest resurgence from killing off natural enemies, secondary pest outbreaks by removing natural enemies of other organisms and allowing them to rise to pest status, and evolved resistance to the pesticide.
Biological. Due to any number of reasons, including those mentioned in the Chemical and Cultural sections, compromising the effectiveness of natural enemies often allows potential pest organisms to experience virtually unregulated population growth and enables them to reach pest status. Biological control involves the use of a pests natural enemies (e.g., predators, pathogens, parasites and parasitoids), to control pest abundance. Measures to conserve or enhance the impact of natural enemies should be attempted first. Perhaps biological control is most known for importation of natural enemies, often from the pests area of origin, to control non-native pests (e.g., importing vedalia bettles to control cottony cushion scales which were attacking California citrus orchards). A number of safeguards are necessary before implementing importation actions to ensure imported organisms will not pose additional threats to non-target organisms. A third approach to biological control involves augmenting natural enemies through rearing and periodic releases and can be inoculative (natural enemies are released early in the season) or innundative (natural enemies are released as a biological pesticide).
Cultural. The effectiveness of natural enemies can be compromised by human practices. Application of broad-spectrum pesticides which kill off natural enemies in addition to target pest species, the type of crop plant, the crop environment, and cropping practices. Modern crop varieties often inadvertently create conditions which favor pest species (e.g., pest species which have bored deeper into larger fruit making them inaccessible to natural enemies). Crops are often monocultures, consisting of a single crop species, which creates a homogenous habitat often lacking key requirements of natural enemies, thus favoring pest species. Moreover, many harvesting practices prevent natural enemies from persisting in annual crops. Examples of cultural practices that encourage natural enemies and discourage pest persistence include intercropping (multiple crops in the same field) to make it more difficult for pests to find a host plant, planting trap crops which attract pests away from harvest crops and which can later be treated with select application of pesticides, and delaying planting times to coincide with times where pests have emerged and died off for the season.
Physical. Manual or mechanical removal, or installation of physical barriers can be used to exclude pest species. Removal methods include use of animal traps, sticky cards for insects, manual removal of insects from plants (e.g., hand picking or spraying with a hose), removing diseased or infected materials (e.g., pruning branches or removing diseased litter). Physical barriers such as fences, nets, mulch, and tree trunk guards can exclude pests and reduce the damage they inflict.
Genetic. Genetic alteration to reduce pest impacts is not as widely known or publicly available as other control options. Autocide is one type of genetic control and involves using the pest itself to induce increased mortality rates. Sterile males are introduced into the population, which, after mating with females, creates infertile eggs. This is an expensive option with many limitations including potential for reduced competitive viability of the introduced sterile males versus naturally occurring fertile males. Straightforward genetic manipulation to create pest resistant plant strains is another form of controlling pest impacts. However, genetic manipulation research and development is costly, and introduces a whole other series of ethical and environmental issues that are not easily addressed. Genetic manipulation is not a viable control option for the general public.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an increasingly popular process for controlling pests. IPM considers the ecosystem as a whole and takes into consideration a balanced mix of the aforementioned control methods to produce the most effective and least damaging plan. All the methods are mutually augmentative with chemical control means as the last resort in the plan. Ideally, an IPM plan would result in a sustainable system without need for much costly follow-up maintenance.
A number of insects and pathogens have been identified as pests particularly for their impacts to vineyards, orchards, and other agricultural industries important to Napa Countys economy. The following table presents a number of important pest species in Napa County as well as their deleterious effects.
PestTypeEffectsPierces Disease
Xylella fastidiosaFungusA lethal disease of the grapevine which is often spread by insects with piercing/sucking mouthparts that feed on xylem sap such as the glassy-winged or blue-green sharpshooter.Oak Root Fungus
Armillaria mellea
FungusParasitizes the roots of orchard trees, oaks and many other woody plants including grapevines sometimes causing sudden death.Botrytis Bunch Rot
Botrytis cinereaFungusDirectly affects grape bunches reducing yield and quality of grapes. Infected fruit causes off-flavors and aromas in wine, and is unsuitable for most wine production.Powdery Mildew
Uncinula necatorFungusDamages or destroys berries, reduces photosynthesis and can affect wine flavor and quality.Grape Leafhopper
Erythroneura elegantulaInsectDamage vines by inserting their stylets to suck out the contents of leaf cells reducing the vines photosynthetic ability, and are often a nuisance to vineyard workers during harvestSpider Mites
Tetranychus pacificus,and Eotetranychus willametteiInsectDestroys grapevine leaf tissue feeding on the lower surface of the leaf reducing photosynthesis and other physiological functions. Pocket Gopher
Thomomys bottae
MammalDamages vines by chewing on roots while tunneling underground, and above-ground portions as well. Gophers cause other problems by chewomg on plastic irrigation pipes, and building burrows which can divert and concentrate runoff, causing significant erosion problems in the vineyard as well as lawns and gardens.Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
BirdStarlings, in addition to a number of birds, including house finches, and robins, flock consume ripening and mature grapes causing significant damage. In Napa County, flocks of starlings can reach numbers in the thousands, and damage from them can be the most severe.Deer
Genus odocoileusMammalDamages vines by grazing on the foliage, often stripping canes clean of leaves causing extensive damage and stunting of vines.Source: Napa Sustainable Winegrowing Groups Integrated Pest Management Field Book ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nswg.org/ipmmanual.htm" http://www.nswg.org/ipmmanual.htm).
What information should be gathered prior to pest management?
Prior to implementing any sort of pest management program, it is important to understand the extent of your problem. Vital information about the pest species should be collected to determine the best means of treatment, including:
What specifically is the pest species? This is important to know so you can avoid misapplication of control measures.
What is the extent of the problem? Knowing the extent of the infestation will determine the effort involved to control pest levels (e.g., cosmetic damage versus viable crop production), and which areas should be prioritized for treatment.
What are the beneficial species associated with the pest? As discussed in the control methods above, it is important to know what other organisms, including potentially beneficial ones, may be affected by various control measures so you can avoid secondary pest outbreaks.
What is the pests life history? Knowing the life history can help you with the timing and selection of control treatments.
What are the site conditions that allowed introduction initially and continue to favor the target species? Understanding the type of habitat requirements of the target species, and the environmental conditions which promote its growth will help you reduce those conditions and create an environment inhospitable to the pest species.
Answering these questions should narrow down your treatment choices. Evaluating the pros and cons of each treatment choice will enable you to make an informed pest management decision.
What are relevant permits and regulations? Which agencies/organizations will need to be involved?
California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/" http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/)
Napa County Agricultural Commissioner ( HYPERLINK "http://www.co.napa.ca.us/GOV/Departments/DeptPage.asp?DID=26400&LID=41" http://www.co.napa.ca.us/GOV/Departments/DeptPage.asp?DID=26400&LID=41)
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/index.htm" http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/index.htm)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/" http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/)
Compliance with the California Food and Agriculture Code ( HYPERLINK "http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fac" http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fac)
USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and CDFG (for endangered species consultation)
Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C 1251, et seq. (involves U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm" http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm)
Section 404 permits for fill of waters of the United States or associated wetlands
Section 401 waiver of water quality certification from the RWQCB
California Environmental Quality Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/" http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/) (Required compliance with CEQA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
National Environmental Policy Act compliance ( HYPERLINK "http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm" http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) (Required compliance with NEPA depends on funding source and potential impacts of project)
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/RHA_summary.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/RHA_summary.html)
Private property access agreements
California Department of Fish and Games Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code Section 1600) ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/alterations.html)
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit
What are potential funding sources?
The following websites list potential sources of funding:
Department of Pesticide Regulation ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/dprgrants.htm" http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/dprgrants.htm)
Western Regional IPM Center ( HYPERLINK "http://www.wrpmc.ucdavis.edu/Research/index.html" http://www.wrpmc.ucdavis.edu/Research/index.html)
UC IPM Grants Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/fundedprojects.html" http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/fundedprojects.html)
Funding Matrix for Northern California Watershed Activities ( HYPERLINK "http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/funding/funding_table.html" http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/funding/funding_table.html)
Funding Sources for Environmental Restoration Projects ( HYPERLINK "http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/money4cks/" http://www.watershedrestoration.water.ca.gov/urbanstreams/money4cks/ )
Where can I find out more about materials and methods for a pest control project?
The following websites may be helpful in learning more about pest control:
National Foundation for IPM Education: Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program ( HYPERLINK "http://www.pesp.org/" http://www.pesp.org/)
NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management: Information for Pest Managers ( HYPERLINK "http://www.pmcenters.org/Producers/index.cfm" http://www.pmcenters.org/Producers/index.cfm)
U.S. EPA: Pesticides and Controlling Pests ( HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/controlling/index.htm" http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/controlling/index.htm)
Napa Sustainable Winegrowing Groups Integrated Pest Management Field Book ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nswg.org/ipmmanual.htm" http://www.nswg.org/ipmmanual.htm)
USDA NRCS Backyard Conservation Tip Sheet: Pest Management ( HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/backyard/pestmgt.html" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/backyard/pestmgt.html)
Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/freepublications.html" http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/freepublications.html)
How can adaptive management and monitoring be incorporated into pest control?
Baseline conditions of the project area should be documented before any work is done in order to compare post-project and long-term site conditions to pre-project conditions. Criteria that could be tracked and periodically compared to baseline conditions to monitor project effectiveness and success and feed into an adaptive management process include continued absence or tolerable levels of pest species, natural recruitment in the treated areas by the pests natural enemies (to be determined through photo documentation and visual monitoring of treatment areas), and increased presence of natural enemies (to be determined by visual surveys).
Monitoring of the project area will ensure that any project maintenance needs are noted and corrected in a timely manner. Maintenance requirements could potentially include reapplication of treatment at or below initial levels of application, and the removal/treatment of new generations of the target pest, and/or new pest species that may encroach on the project site.
Where can I find some examples of previous similar projects?
You can search for previous pest control projects at the following websites:
NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management: Index of Projects ( HYPERLINK "http://www.pmcenters.org/Projects/index.cfm" http://www.pmcenters.org/Projects/index.cfm)
Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California: Research and IPM Results of Funded Projects ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/researchresults.html" http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/researchresults.html)
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation: 1995-96 Pest Management Grant Summaries ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/grants/95-96/96grants.htm" http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/grants/95-96/96grants.htm)
Sharpshooter Spotter (Napa County) ( HYPERLINK "http://www.bugspot.org/napa.htm" http://www.bugspot.org/napa.htm)
Although stream implies watercourses of a small size, the guidance presented here is also applicable to larger rivers and reservoirs.
FILENAME \p F:\206.00 ACOE Napa WIC\2300 Restoration Pages\draft pages\Napa WIC Restoration FAQ 1-6.doc\\Menehune\Projects\206.00 ACOE Napa WIC\2300 Restoration Pages\draft pages\Riparian Veg.doc
% 8 9 b c d k q s u ȱȱȱȱș|iVi= 0 h/ hx 5@* CJ cH dh dh dhԄ&