Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
LCW Conceptual Restoration Workshop #6
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

LCW Conceptual Restoration Workshop #6

1,451
views

Published on

Published in: Environment, Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,451
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Public Involvement WorkshopPublic Involvement Workshop March 20, 2014March 20, 2014
  • 2. • Workshop Goal: – Present Analysis of 3 conceptual restoration designs and invite questions • Workshop Objectives: Public Involvement Workshop #6 Theme: Life Mascot: Western Snowy Plover Color: Light Green • Workshop Objectives: 1. Update Conceptual Restoration Plan’s progress 2. Share 3 conceptual restoration designs 3. Present results of Alternative Analysis 4. Answer questions • Workshop Ground Rules
  • 3. Conceptual Restoration Plan Progress Update Planning Process 1. Collect data on existing conditions 2. Compile and analyze opportunities and constraints to restoration 3. Meet with the Public to brainstorm potential restoration3. Meet with the Public to brainstorm potential restoration alternatives 4. Determine preliminary restoration alternatives 5. Meet with Technical Advisory Committee and Public to identify final alternatives 6. Analyze each of the final restoration alternatives 7. Report results of restoration alternatives analyses and summarize the project findings
  • 4. Land Ownership of Entire LCW Complex Studebaker LLC
  • 5. In February of 2006, a joint powers agreement was adopted among the: Rivers & Mountains Conservancy, State Coastal Conservancy, & Cities of Long Beach & Seal Beach Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority = These agencies comprise the project’s Steering Committee
  • 6. Project Organization Chart Community Technical Advisory Steering Committee: RMC, Coastal Conservancy, Cities of Seal and Long Beach Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority: Project Manager Consulting Team Community Stakeholders Public Involvement Plan Technical Advisory Committee Staff from Applicable Public Agencies
  • 7. Technical Advisory Committee Members of each of these organizations provide regular advising throughout this project: • Rivers and Mountains Conservancy • California Coastal Conservancy • City of Long Beach • City of Seal Beach • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service • Counties of Los Angeles & Orange• Counties of Los Angeles & Orange • US Army Corps Of Engineers • Regional Water Quality Control Board • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • California Coastal Commission • State Lands Commission • Southern California Water Resources Research Project • Port of Long Beach • Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission • CSU Long Beach, Dept of Biological Sciences
  • 8. • Workshop Goal was: – Present 3 conceptual restoration designs • Workshop Objectives: Public Involvement Workshop #5 Theme: Fire Mascot: Coulter’s Goldfield Color: Red • Workshop Objectives: – Update on Conceptual Restoration Plan’s progress – Share 3 conceptual restoration designs – Discuss NEXT STEPS – Perform workshop activity to generate feedback on restoration design alternatives • Workshop Ground Rules
  • 9. Alt 1 •Minor changes to existing oil infrastructure •Utilize/improve existing tidal connections •Minor grading •Transitional & upland habitat along perimeters •Potential interpretive sites on OTD and/or State lands parcels Note: trail locations are in draft form
  • 10. Alt 2 •Consolidate oil infrastructure •New tidal connections to SGR and Haynes •Steam Shovel Slough expansion •Moderate grading •Transitional & upland habitat along perimeters •Potential interpretive sites on OTD and/or State lands parcels Note: trail locations are in draft form
  • 11. Alt 3 •Consolidate oil infrastructure •New tidal connections to SGR, Haynes, & Los Cerritos Channel •Fill & Grading of OC Retention Basin •Significant grading to remove fill material and create contiguous tidal channels •Maximizes tidal salt marsh habitat •Potential interpretive sites on OTD and/or State lands parcels Note: trail locations are in draft form
  • 12. Alternatives Analyses Primary processes analyzed and reported tonight are: • Hydrology • Habitat • Public access Additional items addressed in the reportAdditional items addressed in the report • Preliminary engineering designs • Infrastructure changes • Phasing • Possible construction methods • Maintenance • Consistency with project goals and objectives
  • 13. Results of the Analyses • Hydrology – Chris Webb • Habitat – Matt James • Public Access/Interpretive Opportunities – Clark Stevens• Public Access/Interpretive Opportunities – Clark Stevens
  • 14. Hydrology Moffatt & Nichol Chris Webb
  • 15. Sub-Areas
  • 16. Grading Plans Cross-Sections
  • 17. Tidal Elevations and Ranges All Scenarios, No Sea Level Rise (Existing Sea Level)
  • 18. Tidal Elevations and Ranges All Scenarios, +1.5 Feet of Sea Level Rise
  • 19. Tidal Elevations and Ranges All Scenarios, +5.5 Feet of Sea Level Rise
  • 20. Tidal Hydrology – Tidal Inundation Frequency At Steam Shovel Slough, Existing Sea Level
  • 21. TIF Relates to Elevation – Determines Habitat Distributions and Areas – Alt 1, North and Central Areas, Existing Sea Level
  • 22. Alt 1, Isthmus and Southeast Area, Existing Sea Level
  • 23. Habitat Distributions– Alt 1, North and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of +1.5 Feet
  • 24. Alt 1, Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of +1.5 Feet
  • 25. Habitat Distributions – Alt 1, North and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of +5.5 Feet
  • 26. Alt 1, Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of +5.5 Feet
  • 27. Alt 2 - Moderate Alt Northern and Central Areas, Existing Sea Level
  • 28. Alt 2 - Moderate Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Existing Sea Level
  • 29. Alt 2 - Moderate Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
  • 30. Alt 2 - Moderate Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
  • 31. Alt 2 - Moderate Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
  • 32. Alt 2 - Moderate Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
  • 33. Alt 3 - Maximum Alt Northern and Central Areas, Existing Sea Level
  • 34. Alt 3 - Maximum Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Existing Sea Level
  • 35. Alt 3 - Maximum Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
  • 36. Alt 3 - Maximum Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
  • 37. Alt 3 - Maximum Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
  • 38. Alt 3 - Maximum Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
  • 39. Tidal Hydrology Data Used to Analyze Habitat • Habitat Distributions • Habitat Areas • Habitat Evolution Under Sea Level Rise
  • 40. Habitats Coastal Restoration Consultants Matt James and Dave Hubbard
  • 41. Habitat Modeling • Practical questions – How does SLR affect habitat distributions? – How does plumbing affect habitats? – How do alternatives differ? • Philosophical questions – What is the ideal mix of habitats today? – In 50yrs? – In 100yrs?
  • 42. Modeled Habitats Habitat Categories Examples Sub-tidal Deep, shallow and eelgrass Mudflat Unvegetated Low marsh Cordgrass Mid marsh Pickleweed, marsh plain High marsh Glasswort, salt panne Transition zone Wetland-upland ecotone Upland Dune, CSS, grassland Mixed freshwater wetland Seasonal, bioswales, riparian Brackish marsh Artificial, natural? Oil operations Roads and pads, unvegetated
  • 43. SLR Resilience
  • 44. Current Sea Level
  • 45. +1.5 Feet SLR
  • 46. +5.5 Feet SLR
  • 47. Lesson #1: Sea Level Rise • Moderate SLR – Topography sufficient to provide resilience – Thoughtful grading of adjacent uplands • Significant SLR – Topography not sufficient for adaption to 5.5 ft. of SLR– Topography not sufficient for adaption to 5.5 ft. of SLR – Big temporal tradeoffs – wetlands now or in the future – Sedimentation will be needed to preserve current salt marshes over the next 100 years
  • 48. Tidal Connections: Culverts
  • 49. -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Series1 Series2 Series3 6 8 10 12 Series1 Series2 Current Sea Level +5.5 ft. SLR -5 -4 0 2 4 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Series2 Series3 +1.5 ft. SLR San Gabriel River Node 2
  • 50. Non-linear Habitat Conversion
  • 51. Lesson #2: Culverts • Must be carefully designed • Likely to lead to muted and perched tides – Culvert size and invert elevation – Narrowing and elimination of habitat zones • Adequate designs now might not be adequate with SLR• Adequate designs now might not be adequate with SLR • Habitat conversion may not behave linearly with SLR (models may not be sufficient) • Open channels generally don’t have these issues
  • 52. Three Alternatives: Summary
  • 53. Sub-tidal Mudflat Low marsh Mid marsh High marsh Transition zoneTransition zone Upland Mixed FW wetland Brackish marsh Oil operations
  • 54. Minimum Alternative • Resilient to moderate SLR • Culverts = funky hydrology • Fragmented habitats • “Unnatural” topography • Compatible with oil operations?• Compatible with oil operations? – Raising roads/pads = filling wetlands? – Vegetation-free buffers?
  • 55. Moderate Alternative • Resilient to moderate SLR* • Some resilience to significant SLR* • More salt marsh than Minimum Alt at current sea level • More natural topography than Minimum Alt
  • 56. Maximum Alternative • Maximization of salt marsh habitat • Most sub-tidal and mudflat • Generally steep wetland-upland transitions • Significant loss of high marsh and transition habitat with moderate SLRwith moderate SLR • Significant loss of vegetated marsh with significant SLR
  • 57. Lesson #3: Preferred Alternative? • Best design is probably a blending of different aspects of different alternatives • Not all possibilities captured – More sub-tidal (fish, turtles, some birds) – Entire levee removal– Entire levee removal – Hydro connection between north and central areas
  • 58. Lots of Project-specific Fine Tuning Still Needed • Soil contamination • Soil texture – Will it need to be amended? Import good soil? • Groundwater • Beneficial re-use of graded soils on site?• Beneficial re-use of graded soils on site?
  • 59. Public Access New West Land Company Clark Stevens
  • 60. FLOWS: Existing Perimeter and Interior Circulation
  • 61. Connectivity and Fragmentation
  • 62. Urban connectivity primary
  • 63. Interpretive Center + Habitat Corridor + Revenue
  • 64. Urban connectivity primary
  • 65. Heron Pointe to Zedler: Interior Path Opportunity
  • 66. Habitat function primary
  • 67. Urban connectivity primary
  • 68. FLOW + IDENTITY: Blurring the Boundaries
  • 69. MARKETPLACE MARSH- Learning Landscape
  • 70. Habitat function primary
  • 71. Habitat function primary
  • 72. Urban connectivity primary
  • 73. Habitat function primary
  • 74. Habitat function primary
  • 75. Urban connectivity primary
  • 76. Next Steps • Finalize report that presents the restoration alternatives analyses and summarizes the project findingsfindings • Prepare project for preliminary engineering and subsequent environmental review
  • 77. Intoloscerritoswetlands.org
  • 78. Closing / Leave BehindFinal Questions?Final Questions? Visit: intoloscerritoswetlands.org or Contact: info@tidalinfluence.com