Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byTidalInlfluence
LCW Conceptual Restoration Workshop #6
The document summarizes a public workshop that presented 3 conceptual restoration designs for Los Cerritos Wetlands. The workshop objectives were to: 1) update on the conceptual restoration plan's progress, 2) share the 3 conceptual designs, and 3) present results of analyzing the alternatives. The 3 alternatives varied in the degree of infrastructure consolidation, new tidal connections, grading, and habitat types created. Analysis of hydrology, habitat, and public access for each alternative under existing and future sea levels was presented. Key findings were that culverts may impact hydrology and habitats, and that while some alternatives were resilient to moderate sea level rise, significant rise may require additional measures like sediment addition to preserve wetlands.
More Related Content
Similar to LCW Conceptual Restoration Workshop #6
LCW Conceptual Restoration Workshop #6
- 1. Public Involvement WorkshopPublicInvolvement 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 PlanProgress 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 ofEntire LCW Complex Studebaker LLC
- 5. In February of2006, 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 CommunityTechnical 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 Membersof 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
- 11. • Workshop Goalwas: – 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
- 12. Alt 1 •Minor changesto 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
- 13. Alt 2 •Consolidate oilinfrastructure •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
- 14. Alt 3 •Consolidate oilinfrastructure •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
- 15. Alternatives Analyses Primary processesanalyzed 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
- 16. Results of theAnalyses • Hydrology – Chris Webb • Habitat – Matt James • Public Access/Interpretive Opportunities – Clark Stevens• Public Access/Interpretive Opportunities – Clark Stevens
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20. Tidal Elevations andRanges All Scenarios, No Sea Level Rise (Existing Sea Level)
- 21. Tidal Elevations andRanges All Scenarios, +1.5 Feet of Sea Level Rise
- 22. Tidal Elevations andRanges All Scenarios, +5.5 Feet of Sea Level Rise
- 23. Tidal Hydrology –Tidal Inundation Frequency At Steam Shovel Slough, Existing Sea Level
- 24. TIF Relates toElevation – Determines Habitat Distributions and Areas – Alt 1, North and Central Areas, Existing Sea Level
- 25. Alt 1, Isthmusand Southeast Area, Existing Sea Level
- 26. Habitat Distributions– Alt 1,North and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of +1.5 Feet
- 27. Alt 1, Isthmusand Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of +1.5 Feet
- 28. Habitat Distributions – Alt1, North and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of +5.5 Feet
- 29. Alt 1, Isthmusand Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of +5.5 Feet
- 30. Alt 2 -Moderate Alt Northern and Central Areas, Existing Sea Level
- 31. Alt 2 -Moderate Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Existing Sea Level
- 32. Alt 2 -Moderate Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
- 33. Alt 2 -Moderate Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
- 34. Alt 2 -Moderate Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
- 35. Alt 2 -Moderate Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
- 36. Alt 3 -Maximum Alt Northern and Central Areas, Existing Sea Level
- 37. Alt 3 -Maximum Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Existing Sea Level
- 38. Alt 3 -Maximum Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
- 39. Alt 3 -Maximum Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 1.5’
- 40. Alt 3 -Maximum Alt Northern and Central Areas, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
- 41. Alt 3 -Maximum Alt Isthmus and Southeast Area, Sea Level Rise of 5.5’
- 42. Tidal Hydrology DataUsed to Analyze Habitat • Habitat Distributions • Habitat Areas • Habitat Evolution Under Sea Level Rise
- 43. Habitats Coastal Restoration Consultants MattJames and Dave Hubbard
- 44. Habitat Modeling • Practicalquestions – 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?
- 45. Modeled Habitats Habitat CategoriesExamples 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
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50. Lesson #1: SeaLevel 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
- 51.
- 52. -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
- 53.
- 54. 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
- 55.
- 56. Sub-tidal Mudflat Low marsh Mid marsh Highmarsh Transition zoneTransition zone Upland Mixed FW wetland Brackish marsh Oil operations
- 57. Minimum Alternative • Resilientto 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?
- 58. Moderate Alternative • Resilientto moderate SLR* • Some resilience to significant SLR* • More salt marsh than Minimum Alt at current sea level • More natural topography than Minimum Alt
- 59. Maximum Alternative • Maximizationof 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
- 60. Lesson #3: PreferredAlternative? • 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
- 61. Lots of Project-specificFine 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?
- 62. Public Access New WestLand Company Clark Stevens
- 63. FLOWS: Existing Perimeterand Interior Circulation
- 64.
- 65.
- 66. Interpretive Center +Habitat Corridor + Revenue
- 67.
- 68. Heron Pointe toZedler: Interior Path Opportunity
- 70.
- 71.
- 72. FLOW + IDENTITY:Blurring the Boundaries
- 73. MARKETPLACE MARSH- LearningLandscape
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
- 86. Next Steps • Finalizereport that presents the restoration alternatives analyses and summarizes the project findingsfindings • Prepare project for preliminary engineering and subsequent environmental review
- 87.
- 88. Closing / LeaveBehindFinal Questions?Final Questions? Visit: intoloscerritoswetlands.org or Contact: info@tidalinfluence.com