SHASTA VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT A look at changes over time

Transcription

1 SHASTA VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT A look at changes over time

2 Below Dwinnell Dam ~ Focus on 1. Block salmon passage ESA issues 2. Impound water, potentially increasing surface area leading to heat gain & cause increased transit time. 3. Encourage growth of rooted aquatic plants, potentially adding to night-time oxygen demand. 4 Trap organic sediment, adding summer-long sediment oxygen demand. 5. Replacement with something functional but better is complicated and expensive Livestock Exclusion Fencing 1. Grazing impacts on stream shading. 2. Hoof impacts on bank stability 3. Ongoing maintenance requirement to be effective The bottom line Water temperature data what does it show so far? Tree Planting 1. Increased stream shading essential to meeting TMDL targets 2. Poor natural recruitment of trees under current hydrologic conditions 3. Long lead time needed to reach shade targets 4. Difficult soil conditions 5. Beavers

3

4 Built 1889 Served Fiock Ranch only 4 State and Federal agencies 6 years planning to completion, with several missteps along the way Approximately $150,000

5 Araujo Flashboard Dam removal Summer 2007 Built in individual ranches 5 state and federal agencies 6 years (planning to construction) ~$2.5 million dollars

6 Hole in the Ground Ranch Flashboard Dam removal--~ 2006 Built 1928? 1 ranch removal funded by landowner Est. cost: ~$300,000

7 Shasta Water Association Flashboard Dam Built in individual users within irrigation district, plus 3 other diverters and 2 site owners 5 state and federal agencies 7 years (planning to construction) ~$5 million dollars

8 Remaining major agricultural impoundment structures: Novy-Rice Dam 1928 Shasta River Grenada Irrigation District Dam 1916 Shasta River ~Removal underway~ Cardoza Dam 1911 Parks Creek

9 Considerable progress made system wide Substantial changes apparent on the ground Shasta River at Montague Grenada Rd Crossing, (RM 15.5), May 1993 and September Fenced 1994

10 Shasta River at Montague- Grenada Rd Bridge (RM 15.5) 1993 and Fenced ~ 1995

11 Typical Results Herbaceous response in first season. Woody response (if any) readily apparent after ~ 15 years. Goals bank stabilization, filter strip and shade Shasta River near (RM 16) 1994 and Fenced 1994

12 Shasta River (RM 16) 1994 and Fenced Impenetrable, both banks. Height of trees in foreground~ 8 feet.

13 November 1995 and Sept Fenced Shasta at Yreka Ager Road (RM 10.9) looking downstream.

14 Fenced Trees planted 1996, irrigated 2 years. Good growth but limited survival Looking upstream at Yreka Ager Rd. (RM 10.9) 1994 and 2011

15 Road A-12 (RM 24.1), looking upstream 4/2001 and 9/2011. Fenced 2001

16 Road A-12 (RM 24.1), looking downstream 4/2001 and 9/2011. Fenced 2002

17 Shasta River at Louie Rd Bridge (RM 33.9). 10/97 and 9/11. Fenced 2009

18 Statistics Shasta Mainstem 83% of distance protected. Streambank distance remaining: 13 miles Parks Creek Complex-49% of distance protected (up from 34% last year!). Streambank distance remaining: 32.5 miles Little Shasta-60% of distance protected. Streambank distance remaining : 24 miles. Note these figures need additional field review and probably overestimate remaining fencing needed. Yreka Creek-20% of distance protected. Streambank distance remaining : 7.4 miles. Note streambank distance is 2X stream length Current costs: ~ $5.60+/ft./~$30,000/mile

19 Shasta, Dale and Eddy Creeks above Shastina 73% of stream length not accessible to livestock or no livestock present. Streambank distance remaining: 14 miles these numbers are rough guesses. Boles, Beaughan and Carrick Creeks (also above Shastina) no estimates made.

20 Protection can be in the form of fencing, non-agricultural land uses, or terrain Stream description Perennial stream length, feet Length of stream banks to protect(=2x stream length), feet Stream Bank length protected from livestock, feet Bank length needing protection, feet % not subject to livestock impacts Shasta mainstem below Lake Shastina 191, , ,532 64,096 83% Little Shasta River 155, , , ,703 60% Parks Creek (including Shasta Springs Creek) 168, , , ,476 49% Yreka Creek 61, ,938 24,639 39,015 20% Shasta R., Eddy and Dale Creeks Mainstem above Lake Shastina 134, , ,360 72,932 73% All above combined 712,213 1,424, , ,222 63% Note: All distances approximate; No estimates available for Carrick, Beaughton or Boles Creeks. Current costs: ~ $5.60+/ft./~$30,000/mile

21 On a good site, even 15 year old trees can provide considerable shade. Data below is from upstream of Yreka Ager Rd. Alder Cottonwood Red Willow Narrow Leaf Willow Water Birch Average Height 21' 31' 25' Range 8-30' 15-40' 15-32' 25' 8-12' Count

22 Overall survival even on this site not good enough probably ~ 20% Even for well established trees, survival is problematic. Seemingly, beavers never rest. More details on trees in Restoration Effectiveness Report.

23 Trees and shade Lessons to date 1. Alterations to the natural hydrograph effectively eliminates natural tree recruitment from seed along most of the mainstem Shasta. 2. Planting of trees with irrigation will be necessary to regain both very large tree species, and to recreate natural species diversity. 3. Gravely areas with suitable depths to water are most favorable but very uncommon. 4. Saline areas are very difficult or completely unsuitable for tree growth. 5. High dry banks or areas back from the stream will likely need planting, supported by multiple years of effective irrigation to re-colonize with trees. 6. Rate of growth and ultimate heights of trees quite variable. Shading equally so. 7. In order of preference, beavers eat: 1) cottonwoods, 2) red, arroyo and black willows, 3) narrow leaf willows, 4) alder, 5) water birch, 6) anything else herbaceous available, 7) wooden fence posts. Interestingly, order of preference approximately equals ultimate potential height and shade. We can t afford to turn hand-nurtured trees into beaver fodder. 8. Additional research is needed to boost survival, and while currently ongoing is constrained by lack of funding and needs to be expanded.

24 Newly completed preliminary analysis sifted through available temperature data from 1994 to 2011 to sort out normal annual variation (flow, air temp, etc.) from hoped for longer term trends in water temperature the length of the river. Key Findings: 1. Meaningful improvement is becoming apparent at A-12 and above, and possibly at Yreka Ager Rd. 2. Statistically the trends aren t as strong as one might like, but the available data is limited and the real world is very complex. Conclusions: 1. Successfully sorting out extraneous factors requires a very well thought out approach. We all need to give it more thought. 2. We need to do a better, more consistent job of collecting key data including temperature, flow, meteorological factors, etc. a proper monitoring plan. 3. Using Mean Weekly Maximum Temperature may not be the best approach to gauging progress or estimating impacts on cold water fish. We need to discuss.

25 Substantial progress to date on stream protection via fencing, especially on the mainstem Shasta. System wide, approximately 63% of stream banks not subject to livestock impacts. Trees and the shade they produce continue to be very challenging and need to be boosted along in every way we can if we are going to meet TMDL targets. Reducing impacts of impoundments is well underway and on track. The easier projects (and more cooperative people) have been largely addressed. Those remaining are progressively more difficult. Water temperatures system-wide are just beginning to show a response to the full array of restoration efforts, but conclusions are constrained by lack of sufficient data. Historically restoration work was most extensive in the lower portions of the river, allowing water quality to deteriorate before reaching improving sections. Recent restoration efforts near Big Springs and Lower Parks Creek should result in better water system-wide.