Oak Tree Restoration, Management and GIS, Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Transcription

1 2017 Esri User Conference Applying the Science of Where Session Monitoring Wildlife Habitats Oak Tree Restoration, Management and GIS, Santa Ynez Valley, CA Daniel Razo Cachuma Project Water Agencies

2 Southern Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

3 National Marine Fisheries Service Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) Santa Maria San Diego

4 The Cachuma Project Bureau of Reclamation and Cachuma Member Agencies Objectives: Water delivery (reservoirs, tunnels, conduit, etc) Resource management (water and biological species/habitat) Lake Cachuma DISTRICTS Carpinteria Valley Goleta Montecito Santa Barbara Santa Ynez ID#1

5 Southern Steelhead Endangered Species List (1997) Cachuma Project Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2000) 15 Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs): Monitoring (migrant trapping, snorkel and redd surveys, diel and spot water quality and flow monitoring, habitat classification, etc) River target flows Passage supplementation Habitat quality improvement Migration barrier fixes Reporting Outreach Adaptive management LSYR Fish Management Plan (FMP) (SYRTAC, 2000) BO/FMP EIS/EIR (COMB, 2004)

6 Lake Cachuma Surcharge Project Installation of 4 foot extension (flashboards) to radial gates completed in May 2004 Enables surcharging of the reservoir by 3 feet which provides about 9,200 af of water All surcharged water is dedicated to rearing target flows, spawning flows, and passage flows downstream of Bradbury Dam

7 Surcharging Lake Cachuma Oak Tree Program 3 Feet = 9,200 af

8 Oak Tree Program Mitigate for dead and at-risk trees Program started in 2005: first year planting trees (9 years of planting) Mitigation Requirements: - 2:1 Success Rate at 20 years (2025) - Set mitigation numbers at 10 years: Lakeshore Survey (2015) 2014 estimates: ~900 dead and ~900 at-risk = 1,800 trees or a round mitigation number of 4,000 trees 4,332 planted trees as of 2017 (3586 alive) Consultant onward: Fisheries Division

9 Planted Tree Inventory with GPS Process: GPS locations and attribute data per tree Incorporate into the Program GIS database with attributes Conduct annual tree inventories Utilize the GIS database for workflow management and budget planning

10 Inventory Database Survey Year: 9 Yr-P ID S A-D/M Ht DCT DCM MLC W FP P Notes (yr) (#) (1/0) (1/0) (ft) (M,N,T) (1/0) (1/0) (1/0) (1/0) (#) M M M M M M M M Yr-P (yr) Yr-P: Year 1 Planted 1- year the tree 2.9 was planted, M not the 0 Fiscal Year ID (#) ID: Tree 1Tag ID # - 1tree tag identifier 2.3 on each M tree, for 0location see 0 GIS database, 0 Year 1Class in the th column S: Species 1 - (1) Coastal 1 Live Oak 1.7 or (0) Valley M S (1/0) Oak M A-D/M (1/0) - A-D/M: (1) Alive or (0) Dead/Missing M Ht (ft) - Ht: Height - recorded tree height in decimal feet to the 100th of a ft (3.52) M DCT: Deer Cage Type - (M) Metal, (N) Net, (T) Tube; no cage then ( DCT (M,N,T) 9015 ) M DCM (1/0) DCM: Deer 1 Cage Maintenance (1) needed M or (0) not 0needed; remove 0 cage 0if tree is over 1 6 ft tall MLC (1/0) MLC: Mulch 1 - (1) needed 1 or (0) 2not needed; M spread 4 0inches of mulch 1 between and 21 feet tree base W (1/0) W: Weeding 1 - (1) needed 1 or (0) 2.4not needed; M weed within 0 a 4 ft radius, 1 be careful 1 not to disturb 1 the tree 19 roots by pulling up too much 0 soil FP (1/0) FP: Formative 1 Pruning 1 - (1) needed 1.4 or (0) Mnot needed P (#) P: Photograph 1 number 1 taken for 1.5 each tree; M looking WEST 0 at tree 1 with stadia 0 rod visible Notes Notes: Record anything unusual or of concern M M M M M M M M M

11 Managing Workflows Completed watering Year Date completed Class Location Description 4/17/ West stability berm? 7 East stability berm 4/19/ Mohawk 4/25/2017 n/a QC-X4 4/27/ SB Park yurts, pool, strip, playground 4/28/2017 n/a QC-X3 5/1/2017 n/a QC-X1, 2, 6 and 7 5/2/ SB Park entrance to Kiosk 5/3/ SB Park 2 polygons 5/16/ WWTP 5/18/ Long Pool Flat 5/19/ Long Pool secondary Flat 5/23/ Hilton Creek road 5/24/ Old Hilton Creek trees 5/22/ West stability berm 5/23/ East stability berm 5/23/ Horseshoe center 5/25/2017 n/a QC-X0, X7, X4 5/30/ Sector 8 (back "L") Storke 6/1/ Sector 7 (front) Storke 6/7/2017 n/a QC-X0, X7, X4

12 Growth Rate 2012 to 2013

13 Success Rate Project Success 100% 95% 90% % 80% 75% 70% Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 ALL-YRS Total Melinda Planted 2256 Percent of Total Total in COMB Database 2250 Total Alive % Total Coast Live Oak 1893 Total Dead % Total Valley Oak 246 Total Missing % % Live Oak of Total 84.1% Total % Total Melinda Planted 2256 Percent of Total Total in COMB Database 2285 Total Alive % Total Coast Live Oak 1910 Total Dead % Total Valley Oak 236 Total Missing 7 0.3% % Live Oak of Total 83.6% Total %

14 Lakeshore Survey Dead and At-Risk trees (mitigation number) 21 Reaches Initial surveys to establish the baseline: 2005, 2007 and 2012 Final survey: randomly selected reaches and extrapolate Survey duration: 2 weeks

15 Project Costs To date: Fiscal Year Operator Cost Yr-1 05/06 COMB-consultant $116,731 Yr-2 06/07 COMB-consultant $117,620 Yr-3 07/08 COMB-consultant $138,786 Yr-4 08/09 COMB-consultant $137,872 Yr-5 09/10 COMB-consultant $136,900 Yr-6 10/11 COMB-consultant $137,878-11/12 COMB-consultant $79,439-12/13 COMB-staff $101,431-13/14* COMB-staff $36,949 Total: $1,003,606 *As of 3/31/14 # of trees planted: 2256 Cost per tree over a 6 year period: $ Estimated over next 2 years: (using 2012 survey numbers) Cost Labor $91,878 Materials $84,304 Maintenance $80,000 TOTAL: $256,182 # of trees planted: 1884 Cost per tree over a 2 year period: $136

16 Conclusions Fisheries restoration projects often have unforeseen twists an oak tree mitigation program for example GIS has been a powerful tool for managing, maintaining, reporting and evaluating program success Wildland tree mitigation programs are time consuming and costly Success rates are intrinsically linked to natural conditions; drought trumps all

17 Questions Smolts to Adults Thanks for your attention!