Riparian Restoration Plan for Jelly’s Ferry€¦ · 580 Vallombrosa Avenue Phone: (530) 894-5401 Chico, CA 95926 Fax: (530) 894-2970 [email protected] Prepared for:

580 Vallombrosa Avenue Phone: (530) 894-5401 Chico, CA 95926 Fax: (530) 894-2970 [email protected] www.riverpartners.org

Prepared for:

Bureau of Land Management The Wildlife Conservation Board

Riparian Restoration Plan for Jelly’s Ferry

Sacramento River Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern Tehama County, California May 13, 2014

Riparian Restoration Plan May 13, 2014 Jelly’s Ferry Unit Page i River Partners

TABLE OF CONTENTS RIPARIAN RESTORATION PLAN FOR JELLY’S FERRY ......................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

A. Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 1 B. Project Phases ................................................................................................................................. 1 C. Cooperative Relationships ............................................................................................................... 1 D. Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2

II. SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 3 A. Location ............................................................................................................................................ 3 B. Land-use History .............................................................................................................................. 6 C. Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 7 D. Topography .................................................................................................................................... 10 E. Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 12 F. Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 12 G. Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................ 14

III. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ......................................................................................... 15 A. Past Environmental Conditions ...................................................................................................... 15 B. Likely Successional Patterns without Restoration ......................................................................... 15 C. Comparison to Nearby Vegetation (Reference sites) .................................................................... 16 D. Restoration Strategies for the Jelly’s Ferry Unit ............................................................................ 16 E. Identification of Ecological Benefits and Targeted Wildlife species ............................................... 16

IV. PLANTING DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 19 A. Design Considerations ................................................................................................................... 19 B. Rationale for Plant Communities ................................................................................................... 19 C. Composition and Location of Plant Communities .......................................................................... 19 D. Planting Tiles and Baseline Data ................................................................................................... 25

V. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................... 25 A. NEPA Compliance ......................................................................................................................... 25 B. CEQA Compliance ......................................................................................................................... 25 C. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 25 D. Herbicide Permits ........................................................................................................................... 26

VI. FIELD IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................. 26 A. Field Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 26 B. Row Orientation and Plant Spacing ............................................................................................... 27 C. Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................. 27 D. Irrigation System ............................................................................................................................ 27 E. Plant Material Collection and Propagation ..................................................................................... 27 F. Plant Installation ............................................................................................................................. 28 G. Plant Maintenance ......................................................................................................................... 30 H. Access ............................................................................................................................................ 32

VII. MONITORING AND REPORTING ................................................................................... 32 A. Field Reports .................................................................................................................................. 33 B. End of Season Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 33 C. Photo Points ................................................................................................................................... 33 D. End of Season Memo ..................................................................................................................... 33 E. Final Report .................................................................................................................................... 33

VIII. SAFETY ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 33 A. Standard Field Procedures ............................................................................................................ 34 B. Flood and Fire Contingencies ........................................................................................................ 34

IX. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE ..................................................................... 34 X. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 36

Riparian Restoration Plan May 13, 2014 Jelly’s Ferry Unit Page ii River Partners

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of project goals, objectives and site-specific conditions of the Jelly’s Ferry

Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California ........................... 2 Table 2. Summary of typical soil conditions from the Soil Survey of Sutter County on soils found

on the restoration area of the Jelly’s Ferry Unit of the Sacramento River Bend. .................. 8 Table 3. Federal and state-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species occurring or

potentially occurring in the Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ............. 15 Table 4. Summary of neotropical migrant bird habitat requirements (RHJV 2004).................... 18 Table 5. Key plant design considerations of the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Tehama

County, California. ............................................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Summary of overall proposed plant species at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project,

Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ........................................................ 22 Table 7. Plant composition of the Valley Oak Savannah community at the Jelly’s Ferry

Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ........................ 23 Table 8. Potential Plant Species for the Upland Forb Association at the La Barranca II

Restoration Project .............................................................................................................. 24 Table 9. Understory composition of the valley oak savannah community at the Jelly’s Ferry

Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ........................ 25 Table 10. Potential herbicides to be used on the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento

River Bend, Tehama County, California. ............................................................................. 26 Table 11. Standard planting materials and times for native woody species to be used on the

Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ... 29 Table 12. Summary of potential herbivores and possible control methods on the Jelly’s Ferry

Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ........................ 32 Table 13. Timeline for the scope of work tasks at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project,

Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ........................................................ 35

List of Figures Figure 1. Location map, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama

County, California. ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Project boundary, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama

County, California. ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3. Circa 1930 photograph of the ferry crossing at Jelly’s Ferry ......................................... 6 Figure 4. Soils map, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama

County, California. ................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5. Photograph of remnant river channel (Low Impact Area) at the Jelly’s Ferry Riparian

Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. ........................ 10 Figure 6. Topography map, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama

County, California. ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. 1938 Aerial photo, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama

County, California. ............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Habitat value of native riparian plants (RHJV 2000). .................................................. 17 Figure 9. Planting communities on the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River

Bend, Tehama County, California. ...................................................................................... 21

Riparian Restoration Plan May 13, 2014 Jelly’s Ferry Unit Page iii River Partners

Cover Photo: Taken from western edge of Low Impact Area, facing east Suggested citation: River Partners. 2014. Riparian Restoration Plan for Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California. Acknowledgements The following individuals contributed to this restoration plan:

Name Affiliation Jennifer Mata Bureau of Land Management Rebecca Carr Wong Bureau of Land Management Chase Lentz Bureau of Land Management Helen Swagerty River Partners Michael Rogner River Partners Tom Griggs River Partners Erik Fintel Geographic Information Center Brad Henderson California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Riparian Restoration Plan May 13, 2014 Jelly’s Ferry Unit Page iv River Partners

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This plan describes River Partners’ plant design for the restoration of riparian vegetation and enhancement activities on 145 acres of riverside floodplain that comprises the Jelly’s Ferry Unit of the Sacramento River Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Tehama County, California. This restoration project is consistent with the goals and objectives of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan, Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Central Valley Habitat and Riparian Habitat Joint Ventures. River Partners evaluated soil properties such as texture, stratification and depth to water table, as well as past land-use and current site conditions. Based on the site assessment, two plant communities are proposed. A Valley Oak Savannah community will be planted on 124 acres and an upland herbaceous community will be planted on 17 acres. Native grasslands will cover 99 acres within the Valley Oak Savannah community. Approximately 1,860 native trees will be planted at a density of 13 plants per acre, while about 11,904 shrubs and non-woody plants will be planted at a density of 82 plants per acre. The planting design is focused on the habitat needs of target wildlife species which include California quail (Callipepla californica), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus diamorphus). On 17 acres where gravel was deposited by historic flood flows, River Partners will collect and direct seed plants which are suited to these poor growth conditions. This will create habitat for important pollinator species The project includes habitat enhancement on 5 acres of the Jelly’s Ferry Unit, which is comprised of remnant riparian forest. The primary focus of enhancement activities will be non-native species control in the areas of established native vegetation. Target species include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and plum trees (Prunus spp.) This restoration project is designed to increase the quality and continuity of riparian habitat within the Bureau of Land Management’s 18,000+ acre ACEC.

Riparian Restoration Plan May 13, 2014 Jelly’s Ferry Unit Page 1 River Partners

Riparian Restoration Plan for the Jelly’s Ferry Unit, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Project Overview In 2013, River Partners entered into a grant agreement (WC -1239TR) with the State of California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) to plan and permit the restoration and enhancement of native riparian wildlife habitat on 145 acres of the Jelly’s Ferry Unit of the Sacramento River Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The Unit is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is located in Tehama County. The current condition of riparian habitat in the restoration area is poor. The area was formerly used for agriculture and has been fallow for nearly 20 years. Natural regeneration of riparian habitat has been slow in most of the fallow area, with limited patches of oaks and native grasses scattered throughout. The area is dominated by various non-native annual grasses as well as broadleaf species, including yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and mustard (Brassica spp.). A thin band of remnant riparian forest bisects the site. This is comprised of a primarily native canopy and an understory of Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae). Non-native plant species such as prune (Prunus spp.) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) occur in scattered populations. Restoration on this site is important because it is a component of an 18,000+ acre block of contiguous habitat along the Sacramento River and restoring it will reduce habitat fragmentation. This restoration project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan, Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Central Valley Habitat and Riparian Habitat Joint Ventures.

B. Project Phases Current funding is secured through WCB for the planning and permitting of the Jelly’s Ferry project. Phase II funds to implement the plan have not been secured.

C. Cooperative Relationships The Jelly’s Ferry Unit is owned and managed by BLM. CalTrans is currently replacing a bridge immediately adjacent to the project area, and will be implementing mitigation measures adjacent to the Jelly’s Ferry project area. River Partners is working with CalTrans to potentially share a well as a water source. Previous restoration efforts immediately adjacent to the project area were implemented in 1996 by the CSU, Chico Research Foundation – Bidwell Environmental Institute, which was funded by BLM and the Chico State University Agricultural Research Initiative.


D. Project Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the project is to improve the quality of wildlife habitat on the Jelly’s Ferry Unit by establishing self-sustaining native plant communities within a three-year period. This will benefit a broad range of sensitive animal and plant species and also reduce habitat fragmentation within the ACEC. Table 1 describes the project goals, objectives and site-specific considerations.

Table 1. Summary of project goals, objectives and site-specific conditions of the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California

Project Goals

Restore and enhance riparian habitat on 145 acres and increase connectivity of the project area to existing riparian habitat (decrease fragmentation) and current restoration efforts.

Provide habitat for federal and state-listed species including, but not limited to, Swainson's hawk, western yellow-billed cuckoo, valley elderberry longhorn beetle; as well as benefit other wildlife species, with particular emphasis on neo-tropical birds, waterfowl and upland game birds.

Project Objectives

Establish self-sustaining native plant communities within a three-year period.

Plant approximately 6,820 native trees, shrubs and vines and 6,944 herbaceous plugs.

Reduce the extent of invasive weeds by planting a dense herbaceous understory.

Monitor the plants at the end of the growing season to assess survivorship and cover.

Evaluate the project using adaptive management.

Build partnerships with federal, state and local entities.

Site Specific Considerations

BLM is pursuing NEPA document. All River Partners staff will be briefed in NEPA compliance regarding this project.

Coordinate restoration efforts with BLM management to maximize habitat benefit and cost savings.

Aggressively control existing populations of invasive species.

Use local seed sources.


II. SITE DESCRIPTION

A. Location The 145-acre Jelly’s Ferry project is located approximately 11 miles north of Red Bluff, California on the left (east) bank of the Sacramento River at River Mile 266 (Figure 1). The project area (Figure 2) is near the southern end of the nearly 18,000 acre Sacramento River Bend, which is owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. It is approximately 6 miles downstream of the proposed WCB Rancho Breisgau habitat restoration project. The Jelly Ferry’s Unit is in the canyon reach of the Sacramento River, and is one of the few large open areas with alluvial soils which is not being farmed. This will make it one of the largest blocks of riparian habitat in this reach, as the majority of the riparian is confined to thin bands along the river due to the topography. The mouth of Battle Creek is approximately four river miles upstream. The Coleman National Fish Hatchery (established 1942) is on Battle Creek, and this hatchery produces over 13 million fish each year. The hatchery was established to help mitigate the loss of natural salmon to historical spawning areas. The primary species are Chinook salmon and steelhead, which migrate past Jelly’s Ferry. The Jelly’s Ferry property is an important source of large woody debris as well as access to the floodplain during high water events, though the majority of the current project area is out of the floodplain. There is a remnant river channel bisecting the project area which is hydrologically connected during high water events (CSU, Chico 2005), and this will provide valuable floodplain refugia for anadromous fish. The location provides access to the Sacramento River through a developed boat launch as well as hiking trails. Both the boat launch and hiking trails are publically accessible via the parking area that is located beneath the current Jelly’s Ferry bridge. This one-lane bridge is being replaced by CalTrans, though the parking area and facilities will remain.


Figure 1. Location map, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.


Figure 2. Project boundary, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.


B. Land-use History The project area is located in a region utilized by memwaylaka “water north language” Nomlaki population (Northeast Information Center, 2013). River Nomlaki populations used the local region for seasonal and permanent settlement, as well as for the gathering of plants, fishing for salmon, and hunting game. Andrew Jelly settled at the Jelly’s Ferry site in approximately 1850. He purchased the area using script from the Mexican Army, which entitled the holder to 160 acres of land. The project site was cleared and then farmed for over 100 years. Historically, the site produced row crops as well as walnuts. A 1938 aerial photo (Figure 7) shows extensive trees on the north side of the property, which have since been cut. Mr. Jelly also began operating a ferry (Figure 3) at this site in 1857, and the crossing was on the California Stage Company route between Red Bluff and Shasta. The county took over the operation of the ferry in 1890. The ferry was rendered unnecessary with the construction of the Jelly’s Ferry bridge in 1950. After the construction of the bridge, the ferry was floated downriver and became the Red Bluff Marina. Figure 3. Circa 1930 photograph of the ferry crossing at Jelly’s Ferry

In 1997, the Bureau of Land Management acquired the Jelly’s Ferry project area as part of a 2,000 acre land exchange. Once acquired by BLM, this land was incorporated into the Sacramento River Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern. In 1996, the CSU, Chico’s Department of Agriculture and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) completed a 46 acre restoration project immediately adjacent to the project area. This restoration is primarily valley oak (Quercus lobata) and elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), with scattered patches of California rose (Rosa californica).


C. Soils

1. General Soil Series Information The 1967 Soil Survey of Tehama County (Gowans, 1967) classified soils on the project area into four types: Riverwash (Rr), Columbia fine sandy loam (Cm), Cortina complex (Czx), and Zamora loam (Za) (Table 2). According to Gowans, the southern portion of the project area is dominated by Columbia fine sandy loam bordered by Riverwash toward the southeast along the Sacramento River. A band of Cortina complex runs across the central portion of the site in a former channel of the Sacramento River. The northern portion of the site is dominated by Zamora loam. The majority of the restoration will occur on the Columbia fine sandy loam, and the Zamora loam soils (Figure 4). These are both well drained soils which can support dense riparian vegetation in areas of shallow water tables. Due to the depth to water within the project area however, these soils are limited to the support of oak woodland and oak savannah. Zamora and Columbia soils formed in alluvium from material weathered from mixed sedimentary rocks. These soils are valued for orchard production. Cortina complex soils formed in gravelly alluvium.

2. Soil Pit Results Site visits were conducted between May 15th and May 25th, 2005 by CSU, Chico to verify soil characteristics at the site. Soils data were gathered from 15 auger holes using a hand- auger across the project area. Textural analysis was performed following the texture- by-feel method (Thein, 1979) at one-foot increments. Samples were taken up to 10 feet (one pit was excavated to 20’) or until refusal (gravel, water table or unconsolidated sand). Depth to refusal was noted for each sample point, along with any noteworthy characteristics. Observations from the soil pits and cores include:

Soil texture and structure, Stratification, and Depth to water table.


Table 2. Summary of typical soil conditions from the Soil Survey of Sutter County on soils found on the restoration area of the Jelly’s Ferry Unit of the Sacramento River Bend.

Soil Property Columbia fine

sandy loam Zamora loam Cortina complex

Mapping unit CmA Za Czx Percent slope 0-3 0-3 Level

Texture Moderately

coarse Moderately fine Coarse

Drainage Moderately well

drained Well drained Excessive

Permeability Moderately rapid Moderately slow Rapid Available water holding capacity

High High Moderate

Plant growth limitations None None 50-90% gravel

CS, Chico excavated five pits north of the remnant stream channel, and all five pits were consistent with Zamora loam soils. There was no refusal at 10’, and the water table was not found, despite digging to a depth of 20’ in one of the pits. No pits showed signs of any features which would inhibit root growth, such as gravel or sand lenses. Five pits were dug in the vicinity of the remnant streak channel which runs west to east across the property. All five pits were consistent with Cortina complex soils, and none were excavated deeper than 5’ to due gravel layers. The final five pits were located south of the remnant stream channel, and all five pits were consistent with Columbia fine sandy loam soils. All were dug to 10’ and none showed signs of refusal.


Figure 4. Soils map, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.


D. Topography The Jelly’s Ferry project area ranges in elevation from approximately 330 feet to 355 feet. The lowest elevations are in the remnant river channel (Figure 5) which bisects the site, while the terraces to the south are the highest elevations. A topographic map showing areas falling within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 100-year flood plain is provided in Figure 6. The FEMA 100-year flood line depicts the boundary within which there is a 1% chance flooding will occur within any given year. Figure 5. Photograph of remnant river channel (Low Impact Area) at the Jelly’s Ferry Riparian Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.


Figure 6. Topography map, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.


E. Hydrology The Sacramento River is the largest river in California, with a basin of over 27,000 square miles and an outflow in excess of 7 trillion gallons per year (Domagalski and Brown 1994). It is also the longest river in the state, measuring approximately 458 miles in length. Alteration of the river’s natural processes have been dramatic and include multiple dams and diversions, an extensive levee system, and a hydrograph altered to fulfill the demands of modern water use policy. Winter and spring water from the upper drainage area of the Sacramento River has been stored behind Shasta Dam (since September, 1943) and released during the summer and fall. As a result, winter flows have lessened and summer flows have increased, resulting in a flattened hydrograph. Since the high waters of winter and spring are a driving factor behind riparian forest succession, this altered system has influenced the pattern and distribution of riparian habitat along the river. The Jelly’s Ferry Unit is in the Keswick Dam – Red Bluff reach of the river. This reach is highly altered resulting from operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The operation of the CVP includes the dams near Redding, California, as well as diversion of the Trinity River and Clear Creek water to Keswick Reservoir. CVP operation reduces winter flows, and increases summer flows by as much as 400% (DWR 1981). Due to the CVP, most of the project site has been cut off from hydraulic processes since the construction of Shasta Dam. The southern two thirds of the site lie within the FEMA 100-year flood zone. Within this zone, the old river channel experiences flooding and high, rapid flows during the winter (CSU, Chico 2005). The water enters the site from a low spot on Jelly’s Ferry Road and passes west to east through the old river channel. This is also the only area where native vegetation has established, and this is due to the semi-natural riverine processes. During high flow events, this could be an important source of large woody debris into the system.

F. Vegetation

1. Pre-Development Conditions An historical aerial photo (Figure 7) from 1938 show that the south field was already in agricultural production, though it is unclear what crops were being farmed. At that time, the remnant channel contained much more oak woodland habitat than is present today, and most of the north field was oak woodland.


Figure 7. 1938 Aerial photo, Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

2. Current Conditions

The existing vegetation in the project area is dominated by various nonnative annual grasses and forbs. Winter vetch (Vicia villosa) is abundant across the entire site, and star thistle is abundant across the southern half of the site.

An abandoned river channel separates the project area into northern and southern halves. A thin band of trees runs along the southern bank of the old river channel. Vegetation here consists primarily of large valley oaks which give way to a thin band of planted black walnuts (Juglans californica) toward the west.

There is a defined moisture gradient along the length of the old river channel; conditions being summer xeric (dry) on shallow soils in the higher western stretch and increasingly mesic (wetter) toward the lower, eastern portion of the channel. Vegetation within the channel reflects this gradient. The western reach of this channel is dominated by a mix of native and nonnative annual grasses and forbs.


Toward the eastern portion of the abandoned river channel, vegetation is increasingly dominated by remnant wetland and riparian vegetation, including Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Gooding’s black willow (Salix goodingii), and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), as well as several rush (Juncus spp.) and sedge (e.g. Carex spp., Eleocharis, and Cyperus spp.) species within and around ephemeral pools of standing water.

Populations of several native forb species occur along the length of the abandoned river channel, including: purple clarkia (Clarkia purpurea), Valley-tassels (Castilleja attenuate), and johnnytuck (Triphysaria eriantha) on shallow, drier soils in the west and Ithuriel’s spear (Triteliea laxa), Santa Barbara sedge and pale spike-rush (Eleocharis macrostachya) in the deeper, wetter soils toward the east.

G. Wildlife The Jelly’s Ferry Unit is a part of the nearly 18,000 acre Sacramento River Bend area which attracts a diverse assortment of riparian-dependent species. No formal wildlife surveys have been completed, but the area supports a wide array of riparian and upland wildlife, including mountain lion (Puma concolor), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), river otters (Lontra canadensis), and many migratory and resident bird species. The project area is in the transition zone of foothills from the Sacramento valley to the Sierras. Many bird species which occur in scattered populations at lower or higher elevations are common in the foothills. These include phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), and Lawrence’s goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei).


Table 3. Federal and state-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species occurring or potentially occurring in the Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Name Scientific Name Status

Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter-run ESU

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FE. CE

Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run ESU

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT, CT

Chinook salmon, Central Valley Fall-run and late fall-run ESU

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FC, CSC

Steelhead, Central Valley ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss FT Green sturgeon SDP Ascipenser medirostris FT, CSC Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus diamorphus FT Least Bell’s vireo (extirpated) Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FC, CE Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FSC, CE Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii FSC, CE Bank swallow Riparia riparia FSC, CT Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni FSC, CT Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii CSC

ESU – Evolutionary Significant Unit CE – California State-listed Endangered Species FE – Federal-listed Endangered Species CT – California State-listed Threatened Species FT – Federal-listed Threatened Species CSC – California Species of Concern FC – Federal Candidate Species FSC – Federal Species of Concern

III. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

This conceptual site model: Presents our understanding of the physical and biological factors that influence

site ecology, Outlines our restoration strategy, Provides an overview of the plant design, and Identifies ecological benefits and targeted wildlife species.

The principles described in this section will guide the implementation of the project.

A. Past Environmental Conditions There are few references for historical conditions, but based on the site assessment and historical photos Jelly’s Ferry once was likely large oak woodland and oak savannah with a thin band of lush riparian vegetation near the abandoned river channel. The soils are alluvial, meaning they were deposited during flood events. Most of the site was likely covered with native grasses and forbs, and oaks in varying densities. Now, upstream dams have disconnected the higher terraces from the river.

B. Likely Successional Patterns without Restoration The site has been fallow for many years, yet little native vegetation exists beyond scattered tree species. These trees show little sign of recruitment, so future conditions will become even more dominated by non-native plant species. Without flooding, there are few mechanisms for the establishment of new riparian vegetation.


The oaks within the remnant river channel show little sign of successful recruitment, likely due to browsing and girdling by rodents. As the current large trees age and diminish, the limited habitat value will become even more degraded.

C. Comparison to Nearby Vegetation (Reference sites) Much of the Sacramento River Bend Area contains healthy oak woodland and other riparian communities. Though the native understory is mostly depauperate, the shrub and tree layer throughout much of the River Bend is still intact. Reference conditions show oak woodland and oak savannah dominated by an overstory of valley oak. The mid-story and shrub layers are diverse, and includes western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), California rose, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua).

D. Restoration Strategies for the Jelly’s Ferry Unit We recommend the following strategies for the Jelly’s Ferry Unit:

Employ active restoration techniques to establish riparian vegetation. Active restoration employs modern farming techniques to efficiently and rapidly establish riparian vegetation. Tasks include site preparation, native plant species propagation and planting, weed control and supplemental irrigation.

Develop a plant design based on current site conditions, flood management, and management objectives to address wildlife habitat. River Partners will develop a plant design to address wildlife needs, hydraulic considerations, neighbor requirements and other factors. The plant design is not based strictly on a ‘climax’ vegetation target, but is intended to provide high quality early succession-stage habitat for targeted wildlife.

Use an adaptive management approach to the project. River Partners uses an adaptive management approach (River Partners 2005) to provide a framework to evaluate project progress and respond to new information. These practices have resulted in high plant survival rate, accelerated natural recruitment of native species (through changes in microclimate and presence of seed sources), and documented wildlife benefits in short periods of time (three years).

E. Identification of Ecological Benefits and Targeted Wildlife species

Riparian ecosystems harbor the most diverse bird communities in the arid and semi-arid portions of the western United States (Knopf et al. 1988, Dobkin 1994, Saab et al. 1995), and may also provide the most important avian habitat in California (Manley and Davidson 1993). Therefore, a restored site will provide vital habitat and conditions for neo-tropical migratory birds and other riparian dependent avian species (Figure 8). The Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV) has identified several species of birds as indicators of ecologically healthy riparian systems (RHJV 2004). These species are termed riparian focal species and collectively their habitat requirements serve as an umbrella for all riparian bird habitat needs. Table 4 describes some of the habitat requirements for each of these species. There is a wide range of spatial and structural habitat requirement among this diverse assemblage of riparian bird species.


Figure 8. Habitat value of native riparian plants (RHJV 2000).


Table 4. Summary of neotropical migrant bird habitat requirements (RHJV 2004). Bird Species Territory/Patch Size Proximity to Water Vegetation Structure Nesting

Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)

0.8-1.2 ha (2-3ac); >250m wide patch

Within 300m Dense willow shrubs 3-5m tall; mugwort understory

Nest low, within 1m of ground

Black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus)

200m x 50m 50-300m Vertical complex - Cottonwood, willows, wild grape

Nest height 3-4m

Blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea)

---- In riparian zone Low herbaceous, upright stems, open canopy

Nest height 0.6-3m

Common yellow-throat (Geothlypis trichas)

0.4-2 ha (1-5 ac) In riparian zone Tall emergent wetland edges Nest height 0-0.6m

Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

Variable Near, within 50m Open canopy; dense herbaceous layer; gumplant, evening primrose

Low to ground; <1m

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

Variable, depending on proximity to foraging habitat

Not riparian obligate Tall trees in riparian zone near open foraging areas

Nest in tall trees

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

<1.0 ha (<2.5 ac) Nests near water Dense willows; 0-3m height of dense cover, low tree cover

Nests near water; height 0.6-3m

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)

<5 ha (<12 ac) Prefers near wetlands Dense thickets of willows and blackberries

Nests in vines and shrubs

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccycus americanus)

8-40 ha (19.8-98.8 ac) Nests near or over water

Willow-cottonwood thickets Nest 1.3-13m high

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia)

0.06-0.75 ha Wet areas Willows, cottonwoods, early Successional

----


IV. PLANTING DESIGN

River Partners has developed a site-specific planting design that represents a synthesis of the available information on site conditions, using the principles of landscape ecology (Silveira et al. 2003, USFWS 2005), project objectives and PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) recommendations (Geupel et al. 1987). Plant communities are based on the terrestrial natural community descriptions of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)/Holland classification system (Holland 1986). The CNDDB/Holland classification system includes descriptions of site factors and distribution that allows us to fit the appropriate vegetation with site specific characteristics. The community concept provides a useful descriptive label but does not specify arrangement, density, or other quantifiable factors that must be addressed to translate the conceptual design to field implementation. Plant communities of the same name will differ in species composition (especially plant species frequency) and density due physical factors and management considerations. The following sections will layout those factors for this project.

A. Design Considerations River Partners considered the physical factors (soils, topography and hydrology) and historical vegetation of the site to determine what vegetation would potentially grow. The design also incorporates essential habitat elements to conserve, restore and enhance riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species, songbirds, waterfowl, other migratory birds, anadromous fish, and resident native wildlife and plants, which is consistent with the mission of BLM. Additionally, recommendations from PRBO (Geupel et al. 1997) are integrated into the design in order to provide quality habitat for focal bird species. Table 5 lists key considerations of the plant design of the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project.

B. Rationale for Plant Communities Using knowledge of the site factors and design considerations, River Partners developed three different plant communities. The physical layout or pattern of individual plants will follow the recommendations from PRBO. Studies by PRBO suggest that shrub cover is the most important variable influencing nest site and there is a positive relationship between tree and shrub richness and bird diversity (Small et al. 2000, Geupel et al. 1997). River Partners expects at least 70% survival of its restoration plantings at the end of the three year maintenance period. Over the years after maintenance, we expect some mortality based on differences of soil textures and water table depths. Plant mortality creates areas of open canopy, patchiness, and snags, all of which create structure and habitat for birds and other wildlife.

C. Composition and Location of Plant Communities Two different plant communities are proposed for the site based on the varying hydrological and biological conditions of the site: valley oak savannah, and upland


herbaceous (Figure 9, Table 6). An integral component of the design is a native understory. River Partners plants in a grid-like tile design. The tiles are repeated across the site and vegetative diversity and structure inherent in the tile design are applied to the entire site in the same proportions.

Table 5. Key plant design considerations of the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Tehama County, California.

Objective/Factor Example of Project Design Considerations

Provide immediate (< 3 years) habitat benefits and high probability of long-term survivorship

In the short term, relatively transient species (cottonwood and willows) will provide several generations of targeted bird species with nesting and foraging habitat. Planting a mixed riparian forest, maximizes quality habitat as the slow growing, but shade tolerant oaks mature.

Minimize sources of weeds, provide habitat along project edges

Use native plants to displace weeds in areas outside the main plantable area. Spreading plants (e.g., native blackberry) and native understory species will be used to outcompete invasive species that currently occur on site.

Maintain high plant species and vegetative structural diversity

PRBO data suggest that bird diversity is highest in areas with 5-7 shrub species over a 50-m2 area. Design considerations include varying densities across the site to allow light gaps and create structural differences (grouping trees together will create pockets of shade and light gaps), creating vegetation patches (grouping small shrubs together will mimic larger plants and may attract desirable wildlife species faster than if they were grown apart), and considering herbaceous plantings between plant rows. Also included are open areas of herbaceous species such as grasslands and broadleaf meadow species, which will attract native pollinators.

Compliment neighboring restoration efforts

The aesthetics of the plant design will be harmonious with the neighboring restoration efforts

Provide foraging and nesting sites for Swainson’s hawks and other birds of prey

Tall riparian trees will provide nesting and perching areas. Perennial grassland (RHJV 2000) provides consistent access and good availability of prey.

Provide valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) habitat while minimizing potential impacts to neighbors

Plant elderberry shrubs across the site.

Minimize disturbance to wildlife Use vegetation as a screen and plant in curved rows.

Minimize future impacts to maintenance areas.

No elderberry will be planted within 20 feet of any fence, road, or other infrastructure.


Figure 9. Planting communities on the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.


Table 6. Summary of overall proposed plant species at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Common Name Scientific Name Species

Composition (%)

Density (plants/

acre)

Estimated Number

Tree Species

Valley oak Quercus lobata 14 15 1,860

Total Trees 14 15 1,860

Shrub Species

California blackberry Rubus ursinus 4 4 496

California rose Rosa californica 8 9 1,116

Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis 8 9 1,116

Elderberry Sambucus mexicana 10 11 1,364

Posion oak Toxicodendron diversilobum

6 7 868

Total Shrubs 36 40 4,960

Herbaceous Species

Deer grass Muhlenbergia rigens 4 4 496

Gumplant Grindelia camporum 8 9 1,116

Narrowleaf milkweed Asclepias fascicularis 8 9 1,116

Santa Barbara sedge Carex barbarae 8 9 1,116

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa 8 9 1,116

Western goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis 6 7 868

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 8 9 1,116

Total Herbaceous Plants 50 56 6,944

TOTAL PLANTS 100 111 13,764

1. Valley Oak Savannah

The Valley Oak Savannah association is appropriate for large areas of the JFPA with deep loamy soils, but which the water table is too deep for many riparian plants to tolerate. Composition of this association emphasizes species that are relatively tolerant of dry summer conditions, but often do well in somewhat mesic environments, or under broken canopy. The Valley Oak Savannah is designed to develop into scattered pockets of valley oaks and elderberries, with populations of California rose, California blackberry, and poison oak (Toxidendron diversilobum) growing in their shade. The understory will be a mix of native grasses and broadleaved perennial forbs.

124 acres will be planted with Valley Oak Savannah (Table 7). The planting rows will be spaced 40’ apart, with an in-row spacing of 10’ between plants.


Table 7. Plant composition of the Valley Oak Savannah community at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Common Name Scientific Name Species

Composition (%)

Density (plants/

acre)

Estimated Number

Tree Species

Valley oak Quercus lobata 14 15 1,860

Total Trees 14 15 1,860

Shrub Species

California blackberry Rubus ursinus 4 4 496

California rose Rosa californica 8 9 1,116

Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis 8 9 1,116

Elderberry Sambucus mexicana 10 11 1,364

Poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum

6 7 868

Total Shrubs 36 40 4,960

Herbaceous Species

Deer grass Muhlenbergia rigens 4 4 496

Gumplant Grindelia camporum 8 9 1,116

Narrowleaf milkweed Asclepias fascicularis 8 9 1,116

Santa Barbara sedge Carex barbarae 8 9 1,116

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa 8 9 1,116

Western goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis 6 7 868

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 8 9 1,116

Total Herbaceous Plants 50 56 6,944

TOTAL PLANTS 100 111 13,764

2. Low Impact Area The low impact area is the lowest elevation channel which bisects the site, and could potentially be considered a stream. In order to avoid impacts to potential Waters of the US no ground disturbing activities will occur in this area. Enhancement activities in this area will focus on the removal of Himalayan blackberry utilizing a masticator to grind up the above-ground vegetative portion of the plant. This will be followed by herbicide treatment of re-sprouts. Other weeds, including prunes, will be spot treated with herbicide. The irrigation system will have to pass through the low impact area in order to access the northern portion of the site. No trenching will be done in this area. Instead, lay-flat irrigation tubing will used to pass the mainline through this area above ground. No temporary roads will pass through the low impact area.


3. Upland Herbaceous The upland herbaceous association will occupy approximately 17 acres on the west side of the project. Due to extremely thin soils in this area which are not only insufficient to support woody vegetation, but also doubtful to support deep rooted native grasses. Soils of this nature are prevalent across the Sacramento River Bend (outside of the project area), and where they occur they support of wide array of upland associated native forb species. Seeding rates will be determined following seed collection. Seeds will be direct broadcasted in the fall following the first rains of the season.

Table 8. Potential Plant Species for the Upland Herbaceous Association at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project. Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California Total Acres: 17

Common name Scientific name

Forb Species Calycadenia Calycadenia sp. ( ciliosa) False goldenaster Heterotheca oreganus Fitch’s spikeweed Centromadia fitchii Gumplant Grindelia camporum Naked buckwheat Eriogonum nudum Sky lupine Lupinus nanus Telegraph weed Heterotheca grandifloa Wright’s buckwheat Eriogonum wrightii

4. Native Grass Understory To prevent establishment and limit the extent of weed invasions, a dense, aggressive understory will be planted throughout the restoration. Incorporation of herbaceous plants will create important wildlife habitat, provide native seed sources, and inhibit the establishment of invasive species. Native grass will be planted in row centers. These grass species will provide dense cover for California quail and many other wildlife species. Seed from local ecotypes will be purchased for the understory. The valley oak savannah, which will have a mostly open canopy, will be drilled with four species of native grasses at 13 pounds pure live seed (PLS) per acre: creeping wildrye, blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) and meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum) (Table 9).


Table 9. Understory composition of the valley oak savannah community at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Common Name Scientific Name Density (lbs/

acre) Total acres

Total Pounds

Creeping wildrye Leymus triticoides 4.0 106.4 425.6

Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus 3.0 106.4 319.2

Purple needlegrass Nassella pulchra 4.0 106.4 425.6

Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum 2.0 106.4 212.8

TOTAL 13.0 106.4 1383.2

D. Planting Tiles and Baseline Data River Partners has developed a computer database system that identifies the plant species at a particular row and planting location within the field. This planning tool allows for the development of a site specific planting pattern that will create a vegetation mosaic of structural patterns within the restoration planting (e.g. dense thickets, light gaps, groves of taller trees, etc.) and match plants to specific field conditions (e.g. flood tolerant species in wet areas) or management objectives (e.g. dense vegetation to serve as a wildlife screen). Each planting location will receive a computer-generated label that lists its field, row and plant number, species name, and number code. The labels are installed in the field prior to planting, providing clear communication of the plan to the planting crew. The database is an important adaptive management tool because it allows for the determination of patterns in a plant species’ survival rate or growth patterns across the field.

V. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

A. NEPA Compliance BLM is completing the Environmental Assessment during the current phase of planning activities for Jelly’s Ferry.

B. CEQA Compliance The project must comply with all of the California Evironmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements prior to the star of project implementation. All appropriate paperwork is on file with the State, under the clearinghouse number: XXX. The lead agency is the Tehama County RCD.

C. Cultural Resources Several cultural resource sites are located within the Sacramento River Bend Area. BLM and River Partners consulted with tribal members, in order to ensure that these areas not be disturbed, and that they be protected in perpetuity. The exact locations of these sites will not be detailed in this plan.


In the event that archeological resources are uncovered during ground preparation activity, River Partners staff will stop all activity within the vicinity of the discovery. The area will be flagged off in an effort to protect the discovery. After activity has stopped, staff will immediately contact River Partners’ main office and BLM. Written confirmation will also be submitted to BLM. Activities may resume after receipt of notice from BLM.

D. Herbicide Permits River Partners will use only herbicides approved for use on California BLM lands and will abide by county and state herbicide permitting and reporting requirements. A Pesticide Use Proposal will be prepared for any herbicides not already approved for use on Redding Field Office BLM Lands. Roundup (glyphosate) and 2,4-D are likely to be the most commonly used herbicides on the project. Table 10 outlines the potential herbicides that will be used.

Table 10. Potential herbicides to be used on the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Herbicide Active Ingredient Purpose Round-up® Glyphosate Broadleaf and grass control on berms and in row

centers. 2,4-D 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid Broadleaf control in grasslands.

Goal® Oxyflurofen Broadleaf and grass control on berms and in row centers.

Garlon® Triclopyr Woody species control in enhancement areas. Poast® Sethoxydim Grass control in broadleaf understory. Telar® Chlorosulfuron Perennial broadleaf control in areas without plantings. Prowl® Pendimethalin Broadleaf and grass control (pre-emergent) in row

centers.

VI. FIELD IMPLEMENTATION

This section provides field managers with information needed to implement the plant design. The subsections describe the planting area, field layout and an approximate sequence of activities that will be carried out over the three-year term of the restoration project.

A. Field Descriptions This section describes the characteristics and conditions at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project.

1. North Field and South Fields A remnant river channel bisects the site from west to east, and the field descriptions are based off of that channel. The large, open are on the north is the ‘north field’, while the large, open are to the south is the ‘south field.’ The north and south fields total 124 of 145 restoration acres. Planting berms will be pulled with a ridger, and the berms will be 40’ apart. All woody species and herbaceous


plugs will be installed on the berms. Native grasses will be drilled with a Truax seed drill in row centers (the area between the berms).

2. Low Impact Area The low impact area is the lowest elevation channel which bisects the site, and could potentially be considered a stream. In order to avoid impacts to potential Waters of the US, no ground disturbing activities will occur in this area. Enhancement activities in this area will focus on the removal of Himalayan blackberry utilizing a masticator to grind up the above-ground vegetative portion of the plant. This will be followed by herbicide treatment of re-sprouts. Other weeds, including prunes, will be spot treated with herbicide.

B. Row Orientation and Plant Spacing The Sacramento River channel flows west-east and then curves to the north toward the south end of the site, but the river is well off the project boundary. All woody trees and shrubs will be planted in rows in a north-south orientation with slightly curving rows.

C. Site Preparation The project area will be maintained with various forms of weed control up to the time of planting. Annual grasses and other weeds will be mowed, and a fire-break will be maintained around the perimeter of the primary planting area. Existing native trees and shrubs, as well as large patches of native herbaceous growth such as creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides), Santa Barbara sedge, and mugwort (Artemesia douglasiana) will be left untouched. Any elderberry shrubs found within the project area will be staked off with t-posts and surrounded with orange barrier fence. The site will be disked to break up the top 4-6 inches of soil, and then floated (smoothed out). A ridger will be used to install planting berms for the woody species.

D. Irrigation System An irrigation system will be installed which consists of a mainline and several lateral lines to deliver water to all parts within the planting area. Above ground dripline will be installed on the planting berms for water delivery. The exact layout of the irrigation system will be determined in the next funding phase of the project (implementation). Prior to implementing the project, an existing well on the property will be tested to determine its water delivery capability. If it not feasible to use, a new well will be drilled to deliver water to the proposed drip irrigation system. The woody species will be drip irrigated. There will be three emitters per plant, supplying water at a rate of 1.8 gallons/hour.

E. Plant Material Collection and Propagation

All plant material should come from within the watershed and from as close to the project as possible. Sources of field cuttings of cottonwood and willows should be demarcated during the growing season, and collected in January or February when the


trees are dormant. Seeds for the herbaceous understory will be collected from sources near the project site, or purchased from a seed purveyor who carries the appropriate ecotypes.

F. Plant Installation Once site preparation is complete and the irrigation system is in place, plant installation will begin. Woody species plant locations are staked and labeled according to River Partners’ database system. The location of woody species within the rows is dictated by the planting tiles of the specific community types.

1. Woody species Cottonwood, willow and mule fat cuttings should be planted in February or March. Potted stock should be planted in the spring or fall when conditions are cool and moist (Table 11).


Table 11. Standard planting materials and times for native woody species to be used on the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Species Nursery Grown Directly Planted Planting Time Seeds Cuttings Seeds Cuttings (primary

method) Arroyo willow Feb-Mar Black willow Feb-Mar Fremont cottonwood Feb-Mar Mule fat Feb-Mar Box elder Oct-Apr Buttonbush Oct-Apr California blackberry Oct-Apr California rose Oct-Apr Clematis Oct-Apr Coyote brush Oct-Apr Dutchman’s pipevine Oct-Apr Elderberry Oct-Apr Poison oak Oct-Apr Oregon ash Oct-Apr Western sycamore Oct-Apr Valley oak Nov-Dec Primary Method: Secondary Method:


2. Herbaceous species

a) Native Grasslands Native grass seed will be purchased from stock collected from the same ecoregion as the restoration project and will be planted with a no-till drill. Seed will be drilled in late-fall, likely October or November, coinciding with the beginning of the rainy season.

G. Plant Maintenance

1. Plant protectors Plant protectors (one-quart milk cartons, or similar) should be installed with roughly two inches of wood shavings applied as mulch to hold soil moisture and minimize weed growth. These help protect the plant from desiccation, herbivory, and drift from herbicide applications.

2. Weed Control Weed control is necessary for successful native plant establishment and habitat improvement. The weeds of greatest concern at the site are annual grasses and yellow star thistle. Various methods will be used to control these species depending on the phase of the project. Once the woody species are planted, the berms will be sprayed with non-selective herbicides targeting all weeds. The berms will be subject to weed control throughout the life of the project. The row centers will undergo one season of general weed control before understory species are planted, which will include mowing at appropriate stages of weed growth followed by spraying non-selective herbicides. Once understory species are planted, selective herbicides will be used. In the case of this project, the understory consists entirely of broadleaf species. Herbicides such as Poast® (sethoxydim) will be used to target non-native grasses. Early season mowing will also take place to help control fast-growing annual grasses and broadleaf species and favor the establishment of the perennial understory. Weed control in the native grasslands will consist of early season mowing to target annuals. Selective herbicide applications, such as 2,4-D, will be used to target broadleaf weeds. The enhancement areas will undergo weed control as well. Non-native woody species will be the primary target in these areas. Removal of species such as Himalayan blackberry and prunes will be followed up with applications of Garlon® (triclopyr) on resprouts.

3. Irrigation schedule

Because of the typically dry summers, irrigation will be required for plant establishment and survival. Irrigation will be applied with the goal that plants will become self-sufficient by the end of the third growing season. In the first growing season, the rapidly growing seedlings have roots only in the surface (the top 1-2 feet) of the soil profile. The rooting zone must be kept moist through the season to ensure optimum growth and survival. Because of the excessively deep water


table, the soil moisture of the fields planted with woody species will need to be closely monitored. The intervals between irrigations are dependent upon soil texture, depth to water table, the weather conditions and plant water stress. Because of the mixture of species with different water demands, the plants must be carefully observed to maintain a balance of soil moisture that is acceptable for xeric species like valley oak and elderberry as well as more mesic species like cottonwood and willow. The strategy for the second and third year is to train the roots to grow deep. Roots at depth (5-15 feet) will need less water and, in spots, may be able to tap into the water table on the site and outcompete more shallow-rooted weeds. Less frequent, deep watering will encourage roots to grow deeper, well below the roots of the weeds, allowing the tree exclusive use of this deep moisture. As the tree’s roots grow deeper, the times between irrigations become longer; this allows the soil surface layers to dry, thereby reducing weed vigor. We anticipate that with the rich soils and deep groundwater present on the site, the plantings will require frequent irrigations and careful observation of water stress. These areas may dictate the frequency of watering on the site. Field managers should use a combination of methods including evapotranspiration estimates, soil probes and plant water stress signs to assess soil moisture and alter the irrigation regime.

4. Herbivore Control A number of measures can help control or minimize the effects of herbivores on young plants (Table 12). Cultural practices such as mowing or spraying can discourage most of these herbivores. One of the advantages of active restoration is that more plants are planted than the herbivores can eat. Some damage by herbivores is tolerable and should not impact the success of the planting.


Table 12. Summary of potential herbivores and possible control methods on the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

Herbivore Type of Damage Comment on measure(s) or plant

response Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Browse saplings. Use trees to rub velvet off antlers.

Install heavy-gauge metal hoops and garlic capsules or other deterrent. Saplings can resprout.

California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi)

Dig up and shred plants and protectors. Eat the bark of willow and cottonwood saplings and limbs.

Flooding or disking can reduce populations.

Pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae)

Eat root systems (probably killing more saplings than any other vertebrate pest).

Control of weed cover allows predators to hunt gophers. However, gophers can persist in an open, weed-free field. Frequent disking, weed mulch control, or flooding reduces populations. A variety of birds will prey on gophers if given the opportunity. Raptor perches and owl boxes may increase predation.

Rabbits and Hares (Family Leporidae)

Browse early spring growth.

Most seedlings resprout.

Voles (Microtus sp.)

Eat bark and cambium at the base of sapling, usually girdling the entire stem. Dig-up and eat recently planted acorns.

Saplings resprout, unless vole population is high. Voles live only in dense herbaceous (weed) cover and never stop moving when in the open to avoid predators. Remove dense weed cover through herbicides or mowing.

H. Access Public access is via the public parking area on Jelly’s Ferry Road, immediately east of the Sacramento River. Three locked gates off of Jelly’s Ferry Road provide access for trucks and heavy equipment.

VII. MONITORING AND REPORTING

River Partners has developed a science-based adaptive management program to respond to new information and changing conditions in order to ‘close the loop’ between monitoring and project implementation (River Partners 2008). For each restoration site, River Partners staff makes monthly activity reports throughout the year, and an annual quantitative survey between June and August. Towards the end of the growing season, monthly reports and the annual monitoring results are summarized and reported in an End of Season memo. Recommendations for changes in field management are also reported in the memo. During the implementation phase of the project, monitoring results will be recorded in the following ways:

Monthly field reports, End of season monitoring, Annual photo points,


Annual end of season memos, and Final report.

These methods are described briefly below, and explained more fully in our monitoring program plan (River Partners 2008).

A. Field Reports Field managers and biology staff complete monthly reports documenting field activities and observations. These reports generally note planting and maintenance activities, irrigation schedules, weed pressure, plant growth, soil moisture, vandalism, and rodent damage. Soil moisture data (qualitative and/or quantitative) is also collected during the growing season.

B. End of Season Monitoring At the end of the first growing season, a complete census of all woody species is conducted. The data collected during the census are recorded in the plant database and used to calculate survivorship and to determine any changes to the planting design. During years two and three, woody species are sampled in random permanent monitoring plots to determine survivorship, growth and coverage. If the budget allows, herbaceous understory plantings will be sampled as well.

C. Photo Points Biology staff will take pre- and post-planting photographs, which provide qualitative information on vegetation changes at the restoration site. The photographs are taken annually at established photo points late in the growing season.

D. End of Season Memo The End of Season Memo documents the monitoring data, reviews site activities, provides a budget analysis and recommends future management actions. River Partners will also document observations related to natural processes such as flooding (erosion, sedimentation and debris deposition). These are produced following the end of season meetings as in-house documents to help managers prioritize the project’s needs. These memos will be available to any interested agency and stakeholder personnel.

E. Final Report The final report summarizes the project, including information developed in the End of Season Memos. Activities will be analyzed in terms of the restoration plan and provide long-term management suggestions. The final report will be submitted to WCB and BLM upon completion of the project.

VIII. SAFETY ISSUES

The health and safety of our employees are an integral part of our work. Prior to any work on the unit, River Partners staff will be briefed on safety issues associated with the site.


A. Standard Field Procedures All employees will have a safety binder that describes safe work practices, and they will be responsible for complying with these practices. In case of injuries or illnesses while on the job, employees will:

Call 911, or Call St. Elizabeth Community Hospital, (530) 529-8000, located at 2550 Sister

Mary Columba Drive, Red Bluff, California, and Contact the River Partners office at (530) 894-5401.

In addition, River Partner employees will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government code Section 8350 et seq.).

B. Flood and Fire Contingencies River Partners will remove all farm equipment from the site during the flood season (November 15 to April 15). Throughout the implementation of the project, River Partners will periodically mow between rows and clusters, and along the perimeter of project areas, to reduce potential fire hazards.

IX. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

The timeline for all implementation tasks discussed in this plan is shown in Table 13.


Table 13. Timeline for the scope of work tasks at the Jelly’s Ferry Restoration Project, Sacramento River Bend, Tehama County, California.

2014 2015 2016 2017

TASK fall winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall

Project Management

Planning

Field Prep

Irrigation Install

Planting

Maintenance Monitoring and Reporting Well Decommission

Riparian Restoration Plan Jelly’s Ferry Unit River Partners

X. REFERENCES

CSU Chico 2005. Riparian Restoration and Monitoring Plan for the Bureau of Land Management's Jelly's Ferry Restoration Project. Chico, CA. Department of Water Resources (DWR) 1981. Upper Sacramento River Baseline Study: Hydrology, Geology, and Gravel Resources. Northern District. Oroville, California. Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2004. Cow Creek to Jelly's Ferry Bridge Geomorphic Baseline Investigation, Red Bluff. Dopkin, D.S. 1994. Conservation and management of Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. University of Idaho Press, Moscow. Geupel, G.R., Ballard, G., Nur, N., & King, A. 1997. Population status and habitat associations along riparian corridor of the Lower Sacramento River: Results from 1995 field season and summary of results 1993 to 1995. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. Gowans, K.D. 1967 Soil survey: Tehama County, California United States Agriculture Department. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of terrestrial natural communities of California. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T.Rich, F.B. Samson, and R.C. Szaro 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 100:272-284. Kraft, J. & B. Woodrum 2005 Historical Overview of the Tehama-Shasta Bend District California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Redding, CA Manley and Davidson. 1993. A risk analysis of Neotropical migrant birds in California, U.S. Forest Service report, Region 5. San Francisco, CA Northeast Information Center. 2013. Jelly’s Ferry Records Search. CSU Chico Research Foundation. Chico, California. Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2004. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. Partners in Flight. River Partners. 2008. 2008 Monitoring Program Plan for River Partners. Chico, CA. Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S.Dobkin 1995. Livestock grazing effects on migratory land birds in western North America. Pages 311-353 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, New York. Silveira, J.G. , F.T. Griggs, D.W. Burkett, K.Y. Buer, D.S. Efseaff , G.H. Golet, S.L. Small, R. Vega, and J.E. Isola. 2003. An ecological approach to restoring riparian habitats at the Llano Seco Unit, Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge. Pp. 239-252. In Faber, P.M. (ed.) 2003. California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplains Management, Ecology, and Restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitats and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.

Riparian Restoration Plan Jelly’s Ferry Unit River Partners

Small, S.L., N. Nur, A. Black, G.R. Geupel, D. Humple, and G. Ballard. 2000. Riparian bird populations of the Sacramento River system: Results from the 1993-1999 field seasons. PRBO Report to The Nature Conservancy and US Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, & California State Water Resources Control Board (USDOI) (2003). Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report. July 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Final June 2005. Prepared by California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, CA and Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Willows, CA.

Documents

Riparian Restoration Plan for Jelly’s Ferry€¦ · 580 Vallombrosa Avenue Phone: (530) 894-5401 Chico, CA 95926 Fax: (530) 894-2970 [email protected] Prepared for: