Coastal Restoration Consultants Restoration Plan by danielle.siano

Aug â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;06

Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Restoration Plan El Nido Ventura River Preserve

for the

prepared for: Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, PO Box 1092, Ojai, California 93024 California State Coastal Conservancy, 11th Floor, 1330 Broadway, Oakland, California 94612

Aug â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;06

Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Restoration Plan El Nido Ventura River Preserve

for the

prepared for: Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, PO Box 1092, Ojai, California 93024 California State Coastal Conservancy, 11th Floor, 1330 Broadway, Oakland, California 94612

prepared by: Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. 808 California Street, Santa Barbara, California 93103 805 451 4573 www.coastalrestorationconsultants.com all photos taken by Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. except: p. 23 Dan Dugan (steelhead), p. 25 & 155 B. Isensee (rancho), p. 43 Rich Handley (river at flood) designed by: Danielle Siano Graphic Design danielle.siano@gmail.com

cite this document as: Ojai Valley Land Conservancy. 2006. Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve. Ojai, Califonia. 154 pp. w 2006

Table of Contents i. List of figures 6 ii. List of tables 7 iii. Authors of the plan 8 iv. Acknowledgements 9 v. Executive summary 10

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Introduction to the plan 14 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Purpose of this plan 16 The need for restoration 17 Objectives of this plan 18 OVLC mission and background 18

Ch 2 Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 19 2.1 Overview of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 21 2.2 Regional setting 2.3 Land use history 25 2.4 Stakeholders 29 2.4.1 Owners 29 2.4.2 Easements 31 2.4.3 OVLC uses 31 2.4.4 Public use 31 2.5 Regional planning efforts 36 2.5.1 Ventura River Parkway 37 2.5.2 Matilija Dam removal 37

Ch 3 Natural ecosystem process 38 3.1 The importance of natural ecosystem processes 40 3.2 Physical factors 40 3.2.1 Geology 40 3.2.2 Topography 41 3.2.3 Hydrology 43 3.2.4 Climate 43 3.2.5 Soils 46 3.3 Biological factors 46 3.3.1 Invasive non-native plants 46 3.3.2 Food web dynamics 47 3.3.3 Vegetation structure 48

Ch 4 Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 49 4.1 Biological communities 51 4.1.1 Chaparral 51 4.1.2 Coast live oak woodland 51 4.1.3 Deciduous riparian woodlands 53 4.1.4 Alluvial scrub 55 4.1.5 Coastal sage scrub 55 4.1.6 Mulefat and willow scrub 56 4.1.7 Native scrub bunchgrass grassland 57 4.1.8 Special status species 57

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Rice Creek restoration 60 5.1 Rice Creek restoration 62 5.2 Important ecosystem processes to be restored 62 5.3 Goals 63 5.4 Actions needed to accomplish goals 63 5.5 Guidelines for accomplishing actions 65 5.6 Restricted activities and BMP’s 75 5.7 On-site monitoring during construction 75 5.8 Signs and fencing 75 5.9 Post-implementation site clean up guidelines 76 5.10 Post-project maintenance needs 76 5.11 Permitting needs 77

Ch 6 Orange grove restoration 78 6.1 Orange grove restoration 80 6.2 Important ecosystem processes to be restored 80

6.3 Goals 81 6.4 Actions needed to accomplish goals 81 6.5 Guidelines for accomplishing actions 83 6.6 Restricted activities and BMP’s 88 6.7 On-site monitoring during construction 88 6.8 Signs and fencing 89 6.9 Post-implementation site clean up guidelines 89 6.10 Post-project maintenance needs 90 6.11 Permitting needs 90

Ch 7 Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements 91 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

Riparian and coast live oak woodland understory enhancement 93 Important ecosystem processes to be restored 93 Goals 95 Actions needed to accomplish goals 95 Guidelines for accomplishing actions 95 Permitting 96 Funding 96

Ch 8 Invasive non-native plant control and eradication 97 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Invasive non-native plant removal 99 Weed management areas on the VRP 101 Prioritization of non-native plant control and eradication 101 Permitting 103 Funding 103

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants 106 9.1 Control methods for specific invasive non-native plants 108 9.2 General strategies for invasive non-native plant eradication 109 9.2.1 Annual weed control 109 9.2.2 Invasive tree eradication 110

Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management 111 10.1 Erosion and sediment management 113 10.2 General guidelines for erosion and sediment management during restoration 113 10.3 Erosion and sediment control measures 114

Ch 11 Revegetation strategies 116 11.1 Native plant propagation 118 11.1.1 Greenhouse and nursery facility 118 11.1.2 Seed collection 118 11.1.3 Growing native plants from seed 118 11.1.4 Growing native plants from divisions 119 11.1.5 Growing native plants from cuttings 119 11.2 Direct transplanting of native plants 119 11.3 Installing native plants at a restoration site 120 11.3.1 Planting techniques 120 11.3.2 Plant protection 120 11.3.3 Planting densities 120 11.3.4 Microhabitats and species selection 121 11.3.5 Irrigation 121

Ch 12 Restoration monitoring 122 Ch 13 Project organization and management 125 Ch 14 Timelines 129 Ch 15 Budget 133

vi. References 138 vii. Appendices 140 Appendix A. Native plants of the Ventura River Preserve. 141 Appendix B. Non-native plants of the Ventura River Preserve. 144 Appendix C. Birds of the Ventura River Preserve. 145 Appendix D. Special status wildlife species in the region of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve. 146 Appendix E. Guidelines for using nursery stock provided by a vendor 148 Appendix F. 1859 map of the Rancho Santa Ana landgrant 149 Appendix G. 1929 map of Rancho Matilija with 1961 additions 152 Appendix H. CallPC Invasive Species Watch List 151

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 8.1

List of figures

The El Nido Ventura River Preserve and surrounding areas 22 The El Nido Ventura River Preserve 24 Ventura River mean daily streamflows 1929 - 2005 26 Ventura River mean daily streamflows 1968 - 1969 26 Ventura River peak daily streamflows 1933 - 2005 27 1929 map of Rancho Matilija with 1961 additions 28 1939 aerial photo of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 30 1945 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River 32 1960 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River 33 1969 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River 34 2003 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River 35 Trailheads and trails of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 36 Aerial views of the VRP before and after July 1985 wildfire 42 NRCS soil classification map of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 44 General vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 52 Arundo donax distribution and density on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 54 Current vegetation communities within the Rice Creek and orange grove restoration areas 64 Current and proposed alignment of Rice Creek below CMWD canal 66 Restoration actions within the Rice Creek and orange grove restoration areas 68 Current conditions within the Rice Creek restoration area 70 Target vegetation communities within the Rice Creek restoration area 72 Target vegetation communities within the Rice Creek and orange grove restoration areas 82 Two representative elevation cross-sections through the orange grove 84 El Nido Ventura River Preserve weed management areas 100

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

List of Tables

5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 14.1

Planting list for Rice Creek restoration project 74 Planting lists for orange grove restoration project 86 Planting lists for Rice and Wills Canyon enhancement project 94 Invasive non-native plants to watch for on the VRP ranked by invasiveness 102 Timelines 132

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

ii.

iii.

Authors of the plan

Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. of Santa Barbara specializes in planning, managing and implementing large-scale habitat restoration projects and developing long-term management strategies for natural reserves.Â All of our projects emphasize the importance of defining clear restoration goals and using a research-based adaptive approach to attain those goals. Our approach integrates restoration of natural processes with principles of landscape ecology to design self-sustaining projects. We believe that the best projects not only restore ecosystem functions and values but also engage and educate the local community and address the long-term management needs of land owners. Matthew James is a restoration ecologist with over a dozen years experience in wetland and upland restoration in southern California. First introduced to restoration ecology while an undergraduate at UCI, Matt went on to earn his M.S. at SDSU where he focused on the ecology and restoration of the salt marsh-upland transition at Tijuana Estuary. After working on restoration in academic settings for several years at the Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (SDSU) and the Museum of Systematics and Ecology (UCSB), Matt became a founding partner in Coastal Restoration Consultants of Santa Barbara. He and his firm now focus on planning and implementing sustainable, large-scale restoration projects for non-profit organizations throughout southern California.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

David Hubbard has designed, managed and monitored restoration projects in a variety of habitats including: vernal pools, freshwater wetlands, riparian corridors, coastal dunes, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and oak woodlands. Dave managed natural areas, restoration projects and a student internship program for six years at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dave also organized the Restoration Ecology seminar for five years, co-taught the Fieldwork in Restoration Ecology class, presented workshops and gave guest lectures. He has also worked with a variety of local government agencies and non-profits in planning and implementing restoration projects.

iv.

Acknowledgements

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

We would like to thank the many people who helped us prepare this plan. Peter Brand and Bob Thiel provided important guidance on the project from the beginning. Rich Handley, OVLCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Preserve Manager, provided many of the details of the history of the VRP and current management activities, and reviewed draft material. Derek Poultney, OVLCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Project Manager, provided invaluable guidance in framing the plan and reviewing drafts. Denise Steurer and other members of the OVLC Restoration Committee generously volunteered their time to review a draft of the plan. We especially thank Larry Rose, Ken Niessen and Casey Burns of NRCS for their careful reviews of the draft and their insightful comments.

Executive summary

The 1,591 acre El Nido Ventura River Preserve (VRP) includes three miles of the Ventura River (~20% of the river) and most of four small tributary watersheds. The property was used for grazing and agriculture for decades and was the subject of multiple commercial development battles over the last 30 years. Because of the incredible ecological and recreational value of the land, it was an acquisition priority for the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy (OVLC) for many years. With a willing seller, the property was finally purchased in 2001 with a $3.1 million grant from the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC). This plan, funded by the SCC grant, is a guide to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of ecological resources on the VRP. The primary goal of this plan is to provide practical guidance to the OVLC on effective strategies for the management and restoration of natural communities on the VRP. This plan identifies areas with intact native plant communities that represent high conservation priorities (e.g., the El Nido Meadow native bunchgrass grassland) and outlines suggestions for the continued management of these habitats. Areas from which stressors have been removed (e.g., coast live oak woodlands historically impacted by cattle grazing) provide opportunities for ecological enhancement through planting of natives and/or controlling or eradicating invasive non-native plants. A few, relatively small areas of the preserve were severely impacted by humans and are in need of intense ecological restoration (e.g., the orange grove and lower Rice Creek). The majority of this plan addresses these ecological restoration needs on the VRP and details the techniques that will be necessary for restoring natural ecosystem processes to these degraded areas.

In Section I, we document the current and historic land uses of the VRP and how they have altered natural ecosystem processes and vegetation communities. Next we have included background information on the vegetation communities of the VRP and which processes are important for their persistence. In Section II, we use this background information to set realistic and appropriate goals for the restoration and enhancement projects and outline the actions needed to accomplish those goals. In Section III, we provide guidance on the most appropriate techniques for implementing and managing the projects. This plan focuses considerable attention on the most disturbed area of the VRP, the 64 acre orange grove including the lower portion of Rice Creek. For the orange grove, we provide a strategy for restoring self-sustaining alluvial scrub and coast live oak woodland habitats on an alluvial terrace along the Ventura River that has been dominated by Valencia orange trees and invasive non-native plants for nearly a century. Alluvial scrub habitat will be restored after removing orange trees and controlling invasive non-natives over approximately 41 acres of the orange grove. We recommend planting coast live oaks and appropriate shrub species, which will act as â&#x20AC;&#x153;nursery plantsâ&#x20AC;?, in a five-acre area of the grove. Approximately 17 acres will be restored to riparian woodland and buffer along the

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Throughout this plan, we emphasize the overriding importance of intact natural ecosystem processes in sustaining native ecological communities. Over most of the VRP, the major stressor to natural processes, cattle grazing, has been essentially removed. These habitats will slowly recover on their own, but we have identified opportunities to speed up the recovery through enhancement actions. Where ecological restoration is necessary, we have detailed the actions that will be needed to restore natural processes and appropriate native plant communities.

historical alignment of Rice Creek. A greenhouse and nursery operation will be set up on the site of the former homestead. When the orange grove was first planted in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Rice Creek was channelized and diverted due east, along the shortest path to the Ventura River. The channelized creek was planted with giant reed (Arundo donax), which now dominates the drainage and is considered to be a significant source of Arundo propagules to the lower Ventura River. Historically, the creek ran somewhat southeast, emptying into the river approximately onehalf mile downstream of its current terminus. Half of this former course is now planted with orange trees. Mature native riparian trees dominate the lower half of the drainage with a few small patches of Arundo mixed in. We propose to eliminate all of the Arundo, re-align the creek to its former course and restore riparian woodland habitat along its length. Alluvial scrub will be restored at the site where the channelized portion is filled in. We have included general guidelines for implementing the enhancement and restoration projects. We have focused on the most efficient and cost-effective techniques for controlling and eradicating non-native plants, acquiring and installing native plants and managing such large-scale restoration projects. A detailed restoration plan will need to be completed for each aspect of these projects as they are funded. One of the objectives in creating this plan is to provide a cohesive set of goals that subsequent plans will implement.

There are several watershed-scale restoration and planning projects underway on the Ventura River. For instance, as part of the anticipated removal of Matilija Dam (three miles upstream of the VRP) there is expected to be watershed-scale removal of Arundo and other invasive non-native plants. The SCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ventura River Parkway effort is seeking to conserve and restore land along the entire river. These and other regional planning efforts are all on somewhat uncertain timelines. We have focused this plan on projects that will be compatible with these efforts but will not duplicate their proposed work. This plan provides the OVLC with the information and guidance necessary to seek funding and obtain permits for several clearly defined, self-sustainable ecological restoration and enhancement projects on the VRP. We have provided background information, strong biological rationale, project goals, necessary actions and rough budget figures and timelines for multiple high-priority projects. It will now be the OVLCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibility to seek funding and obtain permits for these projects. In this plan, we seek to provide them with all the information that is necessary to prepare grant proposals and begin the permitting process, saving the OVLC considerable time and significantly accelerating the process of restoring and enhancing the unique ecological resources of the VRP.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

This plan does not focus on restoration or enhancement issues within the Ventura River itself or its immediate floodplain. While there are very important conservation issues related to the river including invasive non-native plant removal and southern steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss iridius) enhancements, these issues must be addressed on a watershed scale. For instance, it would be unsustainable to remove Arundo on the VRP while there are still significant sources of propagules upstream. Similarly, southern steelhead enhancements need to be planned on a watershed scale. These and similar issues are identified in this plan, but proposals for dealing with them are beyond its scope.

Section I

Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

he goal of ecological restoration is to bring back self-sustaining native plant and animal communities on land that has been severely disturbed. This tends to be a very difficult process, both in terms of achieving ecological success and obtaining funding and permits for the work. This plan is meant to provide the OVLC with the background information and guidance necessary to take on these next steps. Section I of this plan is devoted to laying out a justification for the goals of the ecological restoration projects we have proposed. A wide range of background information needs to be analyzed in order to assure the goals are both ecologically realistic and compatible with the mission of the OVLC. The background information in this section, including the nature of historic and ongoing land use practices and disturbance, the degree to which ecosystem processes can and need to be restored and the vegetation communities that currently exist on the preserve, was used to determine which types of habitats can and should be restored in different areas of the preserve. a

Ch 1

Introduction to the plan

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Introduction to the plan 1.1 Purpose of this plan 1.2 The need for restoration 1.3 Objectives of this plan 1.4 OVLC mission and background Ch 2 Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 3 Natural ecosystem processesâ&#x20AC;&#x192; â&#x20AC;&#x192; Ch 4 Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management Ch 11 Revegetation strategies Ch 12 Restoration monitoring Ch 13 Project organization and management Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

Fairy lantern

California quail

Ventura River near the Rice Canyon trailhead

Bush poppy in alluvial scrub along the Ventura River

1.1 Purpose of this plan This plan is a guide for restoration and enhancement of disturbed habitats within the El Nido Ventura River Preserve (VRP). The 1,591-acre VRP has been owned and managed by the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy (OVLC) since its purchase in 2001 with funds from the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) and private donations. The VRP includes three miles of the main stem of the Ventura River and most of four small tributary watersheds (Rice, Wills, Olive and Sycamore Canyons). This plan addresses four major restoration and enhancement issues within the VRP. 1) Restoration of Rice Creek to its former course. Rice Creek was diverted and channelized along its lower reach in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The invasive weed giant reed (Arundo donax) was planted in the channelized drainage where it thrives and is now considered to be a major source of Arundo propagules for the lower river. The re-alignment of Rice Creek coupled with re-vegetation efforts will restore over onehalf mile (17 acres) of riparian habitat and eliminate Arundo from the entire Rice Creek watershed. 2) Restoration of 46 acres of alluvial scrub and coast live oak woodland along the western edge of the Ventura River in what is now an orange grove. Valencia orange trees were planted on the re-contoured alluvial terrace in the early 1900s. The OVLC stopped irrigating all but approximately three acres of the orchard in 2004 and today, the majority of the trees are dead or dying. The trees should be removed and the entire area re-vegetated with native shrubs and trees. 3) Enhancement of the oak understory and riparian corridors in Rice and Wills Canyons. Intense cattle grazing in the years before the OVLC acquired the property reduced the diversity of the understory in the coast live oak woodlands and may have contributed to low riparian plant diversity and stream bank erosion along Rice and Wills Creeks. This plan addresses enhancement opportunities for these areas.

Section I of this plan includes the information used to plan self-sustaining restoration and enhancement projects on the VRP. This includes 1) documentation of historical land uses that degraded or altered the native vegetation communities, 2) current land uses that could limit the range of restoration activities that are feasible, 3) analysis of the important natural ecosystem processes that structure vegetation communities on the VRP and 4) a description of the current vegetation communities on the VRP. Section II of this plan details the goals of the restoration and enhancement projects and the actions needed to accomplish those goals. Setting clear goals is the most important aspect of planning an ecological restoration project. The goals for each project were developed so as to create self-sustaining, diverse habitats with minimal long-term maintenance needs. The actions for accomplishing the goals of each project are based on the latest understanding of ecological restoration practice and focus on the most costeffective and efficient methods.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

4) General strategy for the control and eradication of invasive non-native plant species on the VRP including identification of the greatest threats and setting priorities for ongoing control and management. This will help protect adjacent native habitats from invasion and preserve their high level of ecological functioning.

Section III of this plan provides details related to the implementation of the restoration and enhancement projects. While the suite of techniques and strategies we address is in no way exhaustive, we have included it to provide the OVLC with guidance in working with restoration contractors on these and other projects. We have also outlined an effective strategy for managing the large-scale projects detailed in this plan along with rough timelines and budgets for the projects. The OVLC will now need to seek funding for implementing the proposed projects, as the majority of the work outlined is not currently funded. We have organized this document so to provide the majority of the information necessary to prepare grant proposals for several clearly defined projects. The information in this plan will also help in preparation of the environmental documentation and regulatory permitting needed before implementation of the proposed projects. Restoration plans with considerably more detail than this document will need to be developed as aspects of the restoration receive funding. These subsequent plans will need to narrow down the appropriate methods for carrying out restoration actions, provide detailed timelines and budgets and address the specific needs and desires of each granting agency and any permit requirements. One of the primary purposes of this plan is to set the overall goals for restoration and provide a reference point so that all the subsequent detailed plans have a common set of goals.

1.2 The need for restoration The VRP has long been recognized to contain habitats of extremely high ecological value. Conservation of these ecological resources is a fundamental goal for the OVLC and is a primary reason why the SCC funded the acquisition of this property. Ecological restoration and ecological enhancement are tools for protecting and enhancing the ecological value of landscapes.

More significant stressors still exist in other areas of the VRP. Without intervention, these areas would take decades or centuries to recover naturally. This is especially the case in the abandoned orange grove where landforms, hydrology and vegetation were altered for agriculture in the early 1900s. Though the OVLC has ended most of the agricultural operations in this area, the invasion of the disturbed soil by invasive nonnative plants will greatly limit recruitment of natives. These areas will require intense ecological restoration including earthmoving to restore landforms and hydrology, aggressive non-native plant eradication, and planting tens of thousands of native plants. Conservation of intact native habitats is of vital importance on the VRP. This can be done primarily through control and eradication of invasive non-native plant species that grow on disturbed soils in adjacent areas. Most of the intact native habitats are relatively immune from invasion but natural disturbances such as landslides and wildfires can open windows to invasion. Once invaded, natives will be slow to re-colonize, causing a slow ratcheting-up of non-native cover in the landscape and a declines in ecological functions. A short and long-term strategy for control and eradication of priority nonnative plants will help conserve the important native habitats on the VRP.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Many of the natural ecosystem processes within the VRP have been altered to some extent over the last 300 years. These alterations or â&#x20AC;&#x153;stressorsâ&#x20AC;? have altered the native vegetation communities over much of the VRP. A major stressor on much of the VRP, cattle grazing, was removed around 2000 and many habitats are recovering naturally. In these areas it may be useful to speed up this natural recovery through relatively simple enhancement actions. Such actions save the time and money compared to full blown ecological restoration.

1.3 Objectives of this plan 1. Provide a comprehensive restoration plan for the VRP 2. Document the historic land uses of the VRP 3. Identify the important ecosystem processes that control vegetation patterns in the VRP including those that can and need to be restored 4. Provide an overview of the vegetation communities on the VRP 5. Identify the specific goals for restoration 6. Identify the actions needed to accomplish those goals 7. Identify the best methods for implementing the necessary actions 8. Suggest a project management structure that allows the projects to be implemented in light of the limited amount of OVLC staff time available for new projects 9. Provide rough timelines and budgets for the proposed restoration projects

1.4 OVLC mission and background

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The Ojai Valley Land Conservancy was incorporated in 1987 with the mission of preserving open space, scenic vistas and wildlife habitat in the Ojai Valley. The Conservancy currently manages nearly 2,000 acres of environmentally significant lands in five preserves. Over 20 miles of hiking trails are open to the public on three of the preserves on a daily basis. The Conservancy is supported by 700 active members, numerous business sponsors and over 100 volunteers. The OVLC employs five staff members. The Preserve Manager and Project Manager are responsible for maintaining and restoring the preserves and for pursuing federal, state and local grants to fund maintenance and restoration efforts. The Conservancy employs summer interns who assist the Preserve Manager with tasks including GIS mapping, trail maintenance and public outreach. More information can be found at the OVLC website: www.ovlc.org

Ch 2

Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Introduction to the plan

Ch 2 Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 2.1 Overview of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 2.2 Regional setting 2.3 Land use history 2.4 Stakeholders 2.4.1 Owners 2.4.2 Easements 2.4.3 OVLC uses 2.4.4 Public use 2.5 Regional planning efforts 2.5.1 Ventura River Parkway 2.5.2 Matilija Dam removal Ch 3 Natural ecosystem processes Ch 4 Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Riverview trailhead

Native bunchgrass grassland at El Nido Meadow on the VRP

Looking west along the Wills Canyon trail near the mouth of the canyon

2.1 Overview of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve The VRP extends over 1,591 acres and includes three miles (~20%) of the main-stem of the Ventura River and its floodplain (Fig. 2.1). The preserve has more than 1,000 acres of riparian, coast live oak woodland, native grassland and chaparral habitats. The VRP shares boundaries with the Los Padres National Forest (to the west and north), the community of Meiners Oaks to the east, and the Rancho Matilija community to the south (Fig. 2.2). The VRP is divided into eastern and western sections by a narrow strip of property containing a canal that carries water from the Robles Diversion on the Ventura River to Lake Casitas (Fig. 2.1). The Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) manages this property. The land to the east of the canal includes a 64 acre orange grove and the Ventura River channel, floodplain and alluvial terraces. To the west of the canal, the landscape is steep and includes most of four tributary watersheds; Wills, Rice, Olive and Sycamore Creeks (Fig. 2.2). The Ventura River and its tributaries drain 235 square miles of rugged terrain in Ventura County. The river responds rapidly to rainfall and flows are highly variable. Within the VRP, the Ventura River is a wide braided channel with bars and terraces. Mulefat scrub is the dominant vegetation type along the active channel with alluvial scrub and coast live oak woodland higher in the floodplain and on the terraces. The VRP contains some of the most important southern steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss iridius) habitat on the Ventura River. The National Marine Fisheries Service and For the Sake of the Salmon both identified this reach of river as extremely important rearing and spawning habitat for southern steelhead (Coastal Conservancy 2003). The VRP also provides an important link for wildlife moving between the National Forest and the river.

2.2 Regional setting The VRP is located in the Ojai Valley in Ventura County, California (Fig. 2.1). The valley lies within the Transverse Ranges (the only east-west oriented mountain ranges in the continental United States). Elevations on the VRP range from 540 feet in the Ventura River channel at the southern end of the preserve to the highest point, in the Wills Creek watershed, of 1327 feet. This high topographic relief within the relatively small area produces very steep hillsides, typical of the Transverse Ranges. The VRP includes three miles of the Ventura River. The river drains 235 square miles of the Transverse Ranges in a generally southerly direction to the Pacific Ocean. The river is fairly steep through the VRP with the drop averaging about 70 ft/mile (California

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The majority of the watersheds of Rice and Wills Canyons are included within the VRP, the remainder of each falling within the Los Padres National Forest (Fig. 2.2). Wills Canyon contains some of the finest examples of intact coast live oak woodland anywhere along the Ventura River. The spring-fed Wills Creek is an important source of year-round water and attracts a large diversity of wildlife including mountain lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Native bunchgrass grassland, complete with a wide diversity of native wildflowers, can be found in upper Wills Canyon (â&#x20AC;&#x153;El Nido Meadowâ&#x20AC;?) and near the mouth of Rice Canyon (Fig. 2.2). A mixture of chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats dominate dry south facing slopes. Rice and Wills Creeks are lined with large riparian trees however overgrazing by cattle (as late as 2000) has caused some incision of the creeks and is likely the cause of the relatively low plant diversity within the riparian corridors. Virtually all habitats above the canal on the VRP are recovering from grazing and invasive non-native plants are very sparse. Overall, native cover is high.

The El Nido Ventura River Preserve and surrounding areas

Figure 2.1

s tain ) n u o es a M Rang p o at se Top nsver (Tra

Ventura County

map area

Matilija Reservoir

Ojai Ventura

Robles Diversion

or es t

Ventura River

re s

Orange grove restoration area

Meiners Oaks El Nido Ventura River Preserve

CMWD canal

Lake Casitas N

1 Mile Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

RWQCB 2002). River flows on this stretch vary greatly year to year with rainfall (Fig. 2.3). During large storms, river flows can increase from almost nothing to thousands of cubic feet per second (cfs) within a few hours (Fig. 2.4). A 100-year flood event downstream at Foster Park is 75,184 cfs (Ojai Valley 1992) though large floods are fairly common (Fig. 2.5). The Mediterranean climate of this region produces dry, hot summers, and mild, rainy winters. Between May and August, precipitation averages less than 0.25 inches and high temperatures average 80°F – 90°F. Average annual precipitation over the last 80 years is about 22 inches but annual totals vary greatly (between 7.7 and 53.3 inches). Virtually all precipitation falls as rain, often as extremely heavy downpours associated with northern Pacific cold fronts drawing on subtropical moisture. Rainfall rates up to one inch per hour and one-day storm totals over 5 inches are not uncommon. One storm dropped 4.04 inches of rain in just 15 minutes a few miles upstream in Wheeler Gorge (California RWQCB 2002). Virtually every rainy season in southern California is characterized by a “midwinter drought,” a period of four to eight weeks without rainfall. There are two major control structures up-stream of the VRP. In 1947, the Ventura County Flood Control District built Matilija Dam approximately three miles upstream from what is now the VRP Young of the year southern steelhead. (Fig. 2.1). The dam once had a capacity of Photo by Dan Dugan 7,020 acre feet (AF) of water. Large storm events soon delivered massive amounts of sediment following wildfires in the upper watershed (USACE, 2005). Today the structure holds less than 500 AF of water (USBR 2000). It is slated for removal by the US Army Corps of Engineers within the next 10 years (see USACE 2005). Dam removal would significantly alter the sediment regime of the river.

The trapping of sediment by these structures has caused the Ventura River channel to erode down as much as 10 feet. After the removal of Matilija Dam, channel elevation will probably return to pre-dam levels within 10 years (USACE 2005). This will have significant effects on the flooding and sediment regimes in the broader floodplain and alter water table elevations along the river. This changing regime will alter plant communities in the area, as well as southern steelhead passage and habitat. The VRP borders the Los Padres National Forest (formed in 1938) along its northern and western periphery (Fig. 2.1). The watersheds of Rice and Wills Canyons serve as an important wildlife corridor between the National Forest and the Ventura River. The community of Meiners Oaks is east of the preserve (Fig. 2.1). This is primarily a rural residential community with some remaining agriculture, primarily small citrus groves. Farther east is the city of Ojai. The Rancho Matilija community was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Fig. 2.2).

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The second structure is the Robles Diversion. The diversion has been operated by the Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) since 1960. Robles Diversion is immediately upstream of the VRP (Fig. 2.1). It diverts up to 500 cfs into a canal and delivers it to Lake Casitas (Fig. 2.1). Most diversions take place between January and March. The CMWD is required to pass the first 20 cfs surface flows down stream before diverting any water (California RWQCB 2002). A fish ladder was added to the structure in 2005.

The El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Figure 2.2

N es r d

tio

s re o F

P os

Rice Creek

Wills Creek Sycamore Creek

Ventura River

Olive Creek

Rancho Matilija

Meiners Oaks

2,000 feet Ventura River Preserve Water course Orange grove restoration site Casitas Municipal Water District property

Hwy 150 Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

2.3 Land use history The earliest known occupants of what is now the VRP were Native Americans. Small village sites are known to have existed to the east and south of the preserve and there is archeological evidence of Chumash use at one site within the VRP (Kottler 1993). The primary uses by these residents were probably limited to hunting game and gathering acorns and other food. The Mexican government granted Rancho Santa Ana (21,522 acres including the VRP) to Crisogono Ayala and Cosme “Pablo” Venegas in 1837. The property was mapped by the US Surveyor General in 1859 (Appendix G) and their ownership was subsequently confirmed by the United States government. The property was eventually divided and portions were sold off into the 1880’s (Kottler 1993). These early ranchers grazed cattle, planted fruit and nut orchards, row crops, alfalfa and oat hay in and around the Ojai Valley.

The 1929 map of Rancho Matilija with updated information added in 1961 (Fig. 2.6) is the earliest detailed map of what is now the VRP. This map (see Appendix H for full map) shows the original ranch house near the mouth of Rice Canyon, an apparently realigned Rice Creek, a re-contoured area with irrigation that we know was already planted with orange trees and an abandoned oil well (Fig. 2.6). This map also shows small dams in virtually all of the small watersheds in the area including Rice, Wills and Olive Creeks (Fig. 2.6). The water stored behind these dams provided drinking water for cattle and was piped to nearby orchards for irrigation. There is no evidence of these ponds in the 1939 aerial photo of the area (Fig. 2.7). They were likely abandoned fairly soon after 1929 as water was more easily acquired by pumping groundwater. The 1939 aerial photo also shows clear evidence of agriculture along the southern margin of the VRP and mature orange trees in the orange grove (Fig. 2.7). There was considerable agricultural activity around the mouths of Rice and Wills Canyons in 1945 (Fig. 2.8). Several areas show evidence of grazing and olive and orange orchards are evident as well. The Baldwin’s ranch house burned in the 1932 Matilija Fire but was rebuilt, along with several outbuildings, by 1945 (Fig. 2.8). It is assumed that cattle grazing continued in the canyons during the Dandy and Baldwin family ownerships. To the west of Rancho Matilija, Alexander Wills established a homestead on federal land near El Nido Meadow (Fig. 2.7) in the early 1900’s. The Wills raised cattle and farmed hay until his widow sold the land to the Soper family in the mid 1900’s. In 1957, the United States Bureau of Reclamation purchased a strip of property through the area from Florence G. Baldwin. The land was used for a canal (Fig. 2.9) that carries water from the Ventura River to Lake Casitas (Fig. 2.1). In 1959, the Robles

The Old Rice Rancho 1928. Photo by B. Isensee

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

In the late 1880’s, D.W. Rice purchased a large parcel including the VRP. His property was known as El Nido Ranch and it is likely that cattle continued to be grazed in Rice and Wills Canyons and along the Ventura River during his time. In 1912, the Dandy family purchased part of Rice’s land including Rice and Wills Canyons and the adjacent Ventura River channel (Kottler 1993) and probably continued to raise cattle. The Baldwin family purchased the property in 1927. It was during the Dandy family ownership or early in the Baldwin years that the area became known as the Rancho Matilija.

Daily Mean Streamflow, Cubic Ft./Sec.

Figure 2.3

Ventura River mean daily streamflows at Foster Park 1929 - 2005

Ventura River Daily Mean Streamflow 1929 - 2005

25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

1940

1952

1964

1976

Daily mean streamflow

1988

2000

Estimated streamflow

USGS Station 11118501; Five miles downstream of the VRP Lat: 34째21'08", Long: 119째18'27" Graph Generated at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/rt

Figure 2.4

Ventura River mean at Foster 1968 - 1969 Ventura River daily Daily streamflows Mean Streamflow 1968Park - 1969

Daily Mean Streamflow, Cubic Ft./Sec.

30,000 20,000 Figure

10,000

1,000

100

Jan 1968

April 1968

July 1968

Oct 1968

Jan 1969

April 1969

July 1969

Oct 1969

Jan 1970

USGS Station 11118501; Five miles downstream of the VRP Lat: 34째21'08", Long: 119째18'27" Graph Generated at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/rt

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

Figure 4

Diversion was built just north of the Baldwin Ranch. The canal, pipeline and adjacent access roads were built along a gently sloping route on the Bureau’s strip of land. The water goes underground before it reaches the mouth of Wills Canyon and does not re-emerge until it is south of the VRP. Construction of the canal did not significantly alter the agricultural operations in adjacent areas as all the orchards and grazing areas evident in 1939 were still in use in 1960 (Fig 2.9). All of the tributaries draining watersheds west of the canal were altered during construction of the project (Fig. 2.9). The flow of Rice Creek was diverted into a 60-inch culvert that passes under the canal. During high flows, excess water may spill into the canal via a 30-inch culvert. By 1969, a new area of orange trees was planted along the southeastern edge of the orange grove (Fig. 2.10). The 1969 aerial photo (Fig. 2.10) also shows flooding of the Ventura River and Rice Creek associated with the record storms and floods of January and February 1969 (Fig. 2.4). What today serves as the main channel of the river was apparently cut by these floods (Figs. 2.9 – 2.11). The homestead and associated outbuildings were removed some time between 1960 and 1969, probably after the Baldwin’s sold Rancho Matilija in the mid 1960’s. The Baldwin’s were the last owners whose primary purpose on the land was agricultural and between 1969 and 2003 there is some evidence of natural habitats recovering (Figs. 2.10 & 2.11) though grazing and farming continued into the 21st century. Michael Mohseni purchased Rancho Matilija from the Baldwin’s and planned to develop the entire 2,770-acre property (including the VRP) into the Rancho Matilija housing community in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. His concept included

Figure 2.5

Ventura River peak daily streamflows at Foster Park 1933 - 2005 Ventura River Peak Annual Streamflow 1933 - 2005

Streamflow, Cubic Ft./Sec.

60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

1940

1952

1964

1976

1988

2000

USGS Station 11118501; Five miles downstream of the VRP Lat: 34°21'08", Long: 119°18'27" Graph Generated at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/rt

Figure 5

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

Figure 2.6

1929 map of Rancho Matilija with 1961 additions

Irrigation lines in orange grove

Reservoirs

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Abandoned oil wellâ&#x20AC;?

Current El Nido Ventura River Preserve (approximate) No scale given.

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

estate style housing on large lots, a golf course and a small shopping center. The environmental review process identified significant impacts to the environment and community. The project did not go forward. It was recommended that most of the area (including most of what is now the VRP) be preserved as open space due to its steep slopes and high habitat values (Kottler 1993). A relatively small portion of the proposed project eventually went forward and is known as the Rancho Matilija housing community (Fig. 2.2). The Farmont Corporation acquired the undeveloped portion of the property in 1987. They planned to develop 204 acres on the southern portion of the property (already under agricultural use) and set aside approximately 1,700 acres under an environmental easement to be held by the OVLC. The proposed project successfully underwent environmental review and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was granted in February 1993. The project allowed construction of an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse as well as a residence for the owner on a 10-acre parcel. The permit also allowed continued operation of agricultural uses but prohibited grazing within the easement and set aside an 18-acre site dedicated to ceremonial use by Native Americans (Kottler 1993). Local citizens who opposed the development tied the project up in court and by the time the lawsuits were settled, the Farmont Corporation chose not to construct the project. The Farmont Corporation sold the land to Intell White Plains, LLC (based in New York) in 1998 for $4.3 million. Intell planned to go forward with the approved development under the CUP issued to Farmont. Intell faced considerable opposition to the proposed development as well, and in April 2002 they gave up on their plans and sold the property. Both Farmont and Intell leased grazing rights on their land. Periods of very intense grazing continued through the 1990s. The orange orchard operation was also preserved while the development project was held up in the courts. Jurgen Gramckow purchased 405 acres south of the VRP from Intell (including the site where the golf course was proposed) for $4.5 million. The OVLC purchased 1,431 acres of the Intell property for $3 million and obtained an open space easement on 160 acres that is still owned by Intell (Fig. 2.12). The OVLC obtained $3.1 million from the State Coastal Conservancy to make the purchase and conducted a highly successful fund raising campaign to obtain additional funds for stewardship and management of the property. Cattle were removed from the property and the orange orchard operation was scaled back considerably (oranges were harvested in 2002 and 2004).

Various stakeholders will need to be consulted during different phases of the proposed restoration. The OVLC owns all the land on which restoration is proposed in this plan. However several entities have easements on or through the property and their activities will need to be coordinated with the changes in land use. Additionally, the OVLC relies on its own easements for vehicular access (and any access when the Ventura River is running high) to areas of the VRP west of the river.

2.4.1 Owners Owners of adjacent land will be important stakeholders in the restoration process. Most important will be Rancho Matilija and the CMWD. The OVLC owns easements of ingress and egress through these landownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; properties that will be crucial in providing access to the restoration sites during construction, implementation and maintenance phases. No access problems through other properties onto the VRP are foreseen,

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

2.4 Stakeholders

Figure 2.7

1939 aerial photo of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Rice Creek

El Nido Meadow Orange grove

Former reservior sites Wills Creek

Farming

Orchard not included in draft

Meiners Oaks

Ventura River N

Current El Nido Ventura River Preserve (approximate) No scale given.

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

however, adjacent landowners should be kept informed as plans develop and more frequent access to the site is needed.

2.4.2 Easements Several entities have easements for various purposes on or through the VRP. Easements for access to groundwater wells are held by Henry and Ethel Libby, Rancho Matilija Mutual Water Company, Inc. and Jurgen and Geraldine Gramckow. Easements for sewer line access are held by Meiners Oaks Sanitary District, Olaf and Lonella Bohannan and the Ventura River County Water District. Southern California Edison has an easement to access utility pole lines. The Ventura County Watershed Protection District has an access easement for flood control purposes (Jewett 2002). The OVLC has a right to ingress and egress easement through the Rancho Matilija property and through the CMWD property along the Casitas Canal. Further details on these easements can be found in the complete appraisal of the property done by Michael E. Jewett prior to purchase by the OVLC (Jewett 2002).

2.4.3 OVLC uses The OVLC is interested in maintaining the current level of vehicular access throughout the VRP. This includes not only the easements through Rancho Matilija and CMWD properties, but on the dirt roads through the orange grove and on the Forest Service access road in Rice Canyon. This access is important for management and restoration activities. Ongoing the OVLC management activities on the VRP. These include: trail, road, trailhead and fence maintenance, trash removal and trailhead opening/closing. Some activities such as the seasonal bee hive operation set up annually in the orange grove may need to be shifted to other areas or considered for phasing out.

2.4.4 Public use

Equestrian users constitute a fairly high proportion of the VRP visitors. There is a relatively high proportion of horse-owning community members in the Ojai Valley and numerous horse owners live immediately adjacent to the preserve. Horses and their users pose little threat to the restoration projects during construction and implementation. However, there is a potential short-term threat to the safety of horses and their riders during project implementation. For instance, the presence of tree removal machinery, grading equipment and other vehicles may spook some horses. Warnings of such possibilities should be posted at all trailheads and near the project area to help insure public safety. Mountain bike use on the VRP is relatively light. There are no expected conflicts with the biking community. Signage posted to keep the public out of certain parts of the restoration project at various times (such as during grading) should include notice to bikers. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;swimming holeâ&#x20AC;? is a series of deep pools on the Ventura River that attract visitors

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Current public use is regular but not intense on the VRP as it is generally limited to the trails that run through the preserve (Fig. 2.12). Public uses include equestrian, mountain biking, hiking, dog walking and bird watching. These ongoing activities are compatible with the proposed restoration project although some short-term curtailment of certain activities may be needed to ensure public safety and the success of the restoration projects. The restoration projects will improve the overall experience of the public that visits the VRP.

Figure 2.8

1945 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventua River Grazed grassland

Olive grove

CMWD canal not yet built Channelized Rice Creek Homestead rebuilt after 1932 fire

Valencia orange trees

Grazed grassland and oak savannah

Former alignment of Rice Creek

Location of current (2006) main channel

Coast live oak woodland partially removed

Mature riparian forest N No scale given.

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

Figure 2.9

1960 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River

Grazed grassland

Olive grove

CMWD Canal recently completed

Rice Creek culvert under canal

Valencia orange trees

Channelized Rice Creek

Former alignment of Rice Creek

Grazed grassland (oak savannah removed) Location of current (2006) main channel

Coast live oak woodland removed

Mature riparian forest

N No scale given.

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

Figure 2.10

1969 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River Grazed grassland

CMWD Canal

Homestead and out-buildings removed

Olive grove

Flooding Ventura River

Channelized Rice Creek flooding over northern bank

Valencia orange trees Former alignment of Rice Creek

Grazed grassland (oak savannah removed)

New channel cut by floods (2006 main channel)

Valencia orange trees

Mature riparian trees removed? N No scale given.

February 26, 1969 flood (~20,000 cfs) Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

Figure 2.11

2003 aerial photo of the orange grove and Ventura River Grazed grassland

Olive grove being re-colonized by shrubs and oaks

CMWD Canal

Channelized Rice Creek choked with Arundo donax

Homestead and out-buildings removed

Valencia orange trees

Former alignment of Rice Creek not included in draft

Grazed grassland being re-colonized by shrubs and oaks Main channel cut by 1969 floods

Mature riparian forest

Valencia orange trees

N No scale given.

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

on warm spring and summer days. The pool holds water for various lengths of time in different years depending on river flows. On holiday weekends when the river is flowing, it can attract hundreds of visitors who tend to leave trash and cause other problems. The OVLC occasionally hires special security staff to help control the crowds. In addition to being a long-term management concern, the pools provide potential southern steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. The potential effects of recreational activities on any southern steelhead that may be using these pools needs further study. Passive users of the VRP including hikers, bird watchers, photographers and so forth should be encouraged to visit the restoration sites when appropriate (e.g., not during grading). People walking their dogs should be reminded of the leash rules within the VRP.

2.5 Regional planning efforts There are several regional planning efforts underway along the Ventura River. The Ventura River Parkway and Matilija Dam removal projects are still mostly conceptual at this point though there is a high probability of their implementation. It is the goal of this plan to propose restoration projects that are consistent with these planning efforts. Some restoration actions on the VRP (e.g., Arundo removal in the Ventura River channel) will

Trailheads and trails of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Current trail Preserve boundaries Creeks & rivers

Orange grove trail Rice Canyon trail Rice

River Bluff trail

e dr

El Nido trail

Wills Canyon trail

Cr ee k

rove

a sP

RiceCanyon Trail Head

ill

lls

nge g

io at

s re Fo

Creek

Cre

North Riverview Loops

Ora

Figure 2.12

South

Fern Grotto trail

Oso Nido trail No Public Access

1,500 feet

ra R Ven tu S. River trail

W. River trail

Riverview Trail Head Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

No pu on blic a Can c al R cess d.

No Public Access

iver

Chaparral Crest trail

Preserve Highpoint 1,320 feet

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. 36 Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

need to be put off until the actions of these other efforts become clearer so as not to duplicate efforts.

2.5.1 Ventura River Parkway The State Coastal Conservancyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (SCC) Ventura River Parkway project seeks to conserve and restore the lower 15 miles of the Ventura River from the VRP to the estuary. The VRP is currently the largest secured parcel along the river. The OVLC also owns a 14-acre parcel adjacent to the river and holds an open space easement on a 16-acre parcel. These sites are collectively known as the Confluence Preserve. This preserve is located at the confluence of San Antonio Creek and the Ventura River approximately four miles down stream from the VRP. The OVLC is working with SCC to help protect open space along the river between the two preserves. SCC is currently working with other entities including the Trust for Public Land (TPL) on conserving habitat downstream of the Confluence Preserve. The goal of these conservation efforts is to protect vital habitats, maintain wildlife linkages and re-connect the river with its floodplain while providing extensive education and recreation opportunities. The VRP is a cornerstone of the Ventura River Parkway and could become a major interpretive center for the parkway. The restoration projects outlined in this plan will serve as examples for how restoration on other parcels could be implemented successfully.

2.5.2 Matilija Dam removal The removal of the Matilija Dam three miles upstream of the VRP will have myriad effects on all downstream properties. Changes in fluvial geomorphology and hydrodynamics will alter the river channel and its floodplain for the better. The installation of additional berms and the spoiling of fines along the river course will have untold effects on the river and its habitats. Other proposed activities that will go along with the dam removal such as river-wide Arundo removal will be of great benefit to the habitats on the VRP.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The OVLC should continue to stay appraised as the program moves forward over the next 10 years or so. There may be opportunities to use programs related to the dam removal to benefit the habitats on the VRP. The OVLC should realize that certain aspects of the proposed actions could be detrimental to the VRP. In any case, the restoration projects proposed in this plan will not be greatly affected by the dam removal as they lie outside of the floodplain of the Ventura River.

Ch 3

Natural ecosystem process

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Introduction to the plan Ch 2 Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Ch 3 Natural ecosystem processes 3.1 The importance of natural ecosystem processes 3.2 Physical factors 3.2.1 Geology 3.2.2 Topography 3.2.3 Hydrology 3.2.4 Climate 3.2.5 Soils 3.3 Biological factors 3.3.1 Invasive non-native plants 3.3.2 Food web dynamics 3.3.3 Vegetation structure Ch 4 Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Owlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s clover

Mule deer browsing in coastal sage scrub

Western skink

3.1 The importance of natural ecosystem processes A unique suite of ecosystem processes structures each native plant community in southern California. Trying to restore communities in areas where important ecosystem processes are missing will lead to failure. Through the process of ecological restoration, we may substitute man-made manipulations for some natural processes (e.g. removal of invasive plant species, irrigation, controlled burns, etc.). These tools can be used successfully to help establish and maintain native plant communities. To be successful, ecological restoration must take into account the restoration of all the ecosystem processes that are important for the long-term persistence of the target community. Ecosystem processes are a result of the interaction of physical and biological factors. How these processes interact to structure vegetation communities is fairly well understood in southern California, but often ignored when planning ecological restoration projects. When the proper suite of ecosystem processes is restored on a site, the result must be the eventual establishment of the target community. The goal of ecological restoration is to speed up the establishment through restorative actions. Understanding the ecosystem processes at a site also allows the restoration team to use these processes to make the restoration projects economical, successful and self-sustaining.

3.2 Physical factors A wide range of physical factors are important in structuring plant communities in southern California. Some, such as climate, are virtually impossible to alter and we must work within and adjust to such uncertainty. For instance, the effect of global warming and related climate change on shifts in plant community structure and composition is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. Other factors may be relatively easy to alter on very short time scales. Re-establishing native landforms (topography) is often a very important part of ecological restoration but may be the single most expensive element of a project. Finally, some factors are restorable, but only over fairly long time scales. In areas where soil has been severely disturbed by grading or other destructive land uses, it may take decades or longer for the natural structure of the soil to reestablish, even with the help of restorative actions. Below is an overview of major physical factors that are important to vegetation communities on the VRP. We compare the natural state and the current state of these factors so as to formulate the goals and necessary actions for their restoration.

The Ventura River watershed lies within the western Transverse Ranges in Ventura County, California, an active tectonic region with some of the highest rates of uplift of any mountains in the United States. This range is characterized by highly folded and faulted marine sedimentary rocks (some well-cemented sandstones, other formations young and soft) and steep slopes prone to erosion, slumps and debris flows. The steep and easily eroded slopes contribute massive amounts of sediment to the river during heavy rainfall events. The sediment yields of the Ventura River are among the highest of rivers in the United States (US Bureau of Reclamation 2000). Large sediment loads can be greatly augmented following wildfires. Large fires increase the erodibility of the land by burning off vegetation cover, exposing soil surfaces and by creating a hydrophobic soil surface which increases runoff velocity and soil transport. Most of the sediment load in the Ventura River (98%) is suspended sand particles (0.062 to 2 mm diameter) (US Bureau of Reclamation 2000). Bedload transport carries coarser

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

3.2.1 Geology

materials along the bottom and comprises about 2% of the total sediment load. These coarse materials have a much stronger influence on channel morphology than finer particles (Entrix 2001). Less than one percent of the suspended sediment load is clay or silt (US Bureau of Reclamation 2000). Since its construction in 1947, the Matilija Dam has trapped sediment from a large portion of the watershed. To date, it has captured approximately six million cubic yards of sediment (USACE 2005) that would otherwise have contributed to natural sediment fluxes in the river, and eventually to Ventura County beaches. Without this sediment, and the smaller amounts blocked by the Robles Diversion, the river channel has eroded approximately 10 feet through the VRP over the last 50 years or so (USACE 2005). With dam removal, the downstream degradation is expected to reverse and channel elevations are expected to return to pre-dam levels within 10 years (USACE 2005). There is at least one active fault within the VRP. The Santa Ana/Arroyo Parida fault is an east-west trending structure that crosses the Ventura River near the Highway 150 (Baldwin Rd.) bridge (Fig. 2.2). The relative displacement along this fault has lowered the northerly fault block relative to the southerly fault block (Entrix 2001). The rate of uplift due to this fault is approximately equal to the rate of down-cutting by the river, about 0.5 – 1.3 mm/yr (Rockwell et al, 1984).

3.2.2 Topography The general topography of the VRP is similar to that of most of the Ventura River. General description. Within the VRP, the Ventura River has a medium gradient (70 ft/mile) braided channel with a broad floodplain. Residential and agricultural developments flank the eastern bank, and small steep tributaries feed into the river from the west. The only major alterations to natural landforms on the VRP is the orange grove, which was apparently leveled out before being planted in the early 1900’s and the construction of the CMWD canal.

The topography of the orange grove was altered significantly, sometime before 1928. There is no way of knowing exactly what the area looked like before the installation of the orange grove as this disturbance pre-dates the earliest aerial photos of the site. There are other examples of relatively unaltered alluvial terraces along the river that provide a reasonable model for what this area looked like before it was graded. Using these models and historic aerial photos, we believe the orange grove was relatively flat and sloped gently towards the southeast. The terrace terminated along the river in a steep bank, between 10 and 15 feet high. This feature is still largely intact. We expect the orange grove terrace was bisected by several small drainages flowing generally south and east and one major north-south drainage, the lower reach of Rice Creek. Historic aerial photos suggest the path of Rice Creek was altered at about the time the orange grove was planted. We believe the creek curved abruptly to the south where it merged with a small, unnamed creek flowing south (Fig. 2.8 – 2.11). Today, water from both drainages flows through a man-made channel that runs east to the Ventura River (Fig. 2.8 – 2.11). The historic path of the creek still serves as the drainage for the grove itself, though flows are low enough that the channel has not eroded back to its original elevation.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The river channel has been sediment-starved since the installation of Matilija Dam in 1947, resulting in decreased braiding and significant down-cutting (USACE 2005). Violent floods on the river have the capacity to significantly alter the topography of the channel and floodplain (Fig. 2.10). The elevation of the channel is expected to rise up to 10 feet following removal of the dam and more natural braiding is expected to return (USACE 2005).

Figure 3.1

Aerial views of the VRP before and after July 1985 wildfire

Pre-fire, January 1984

Post-fire, August 1985

Olive grove burned

Burnt riparian trees

Pockets of unburned riparian trees

N No scale given.

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

3.2.3 Hydrology There are several different hydrologic regimes in different areas of the VRP. Ventura River. The Ventura River channel and associated floodplains are characterized by sub-surface summer flows (with a relatively high water table) and intermittent surface flows in the winter including occasional catastrophic floods (Fig. 2.5). The 10-foot drop in elevation of the Ventura River channel over the last 50+ years (USACE 2005) has changed the way the river interacts with its adjacent flood plain. It is not clear whether the orange grove was within the 100 or even 500-year flood plain 50 years ago but today is considered above both (Jewett 2002). With the proposed removal of Matilija Dam and subsequent reversal of the channel erosion, the orange grove may once again interact with the river in major flooding events. Such a change is 10 to 20 years into the future. There are several active and abandoned water wells in the orange grove and along the floodplain and terraces along the eastern bank of the river. The majority of the water rights are not held by the OVLC. The amount of groundwater pumping is probably relatively stable.

Rice Canyon Trailhead

Ventura River from spring 2006

Wills Creek. The approximately two square-mile Wills Creek watershed contains several seeps and springs that supply surface water to the creek for most of the year. Even in dry years, several pools can be found in the mid-reaches during the summer. The creek often flows for much of the winter and high flows follow heavy rains. The creek was dammed prior to 1929 in the early 1900’s and a small reservoir was created to supply water for cattle and irrigation (Fig. 2.6). Today the hydrology of Wills Creek is fairly natural as the CMWD canal is underground where the two cross.

3.2.4 Climate Coastal southern California has a Mediterranean climate with dry warm summers and mild rainy winters. This climate, with a moisture deficit and a mismatch between the rainy season and the hot season, creates challenging growth conditions for plants. In the Ojai area where the VRP is located, less than 0.25inches of precipitation falls between May and August on average while high temperatures average 80°F- 90°F over these same months. Most

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Rice Creek. Rice Creek drains an approximately one square-mile watershed to the north of Wills Creek and typically has surface flows only in the winter and spring. Flows have been sustained well into June in years with significant spring rainfall events. The watershed has a few seeps but not enough to support surface water in the creek much beyond the rainy season. Several man-made constraints have altered the hydrology of this creek over the years. The creek was dammed prior to 1929 in the early 1900’s and a small reservoir was created to supply water for cattle and irrigation (Fig. 2.6). A 60-inch culvert under the CMWD canal probably constrains peak flows to the lower creek during very high flow events. The lower reach was realigned in the early 1900’s and 1,500 feet. of the original channel was re-graded and is now part of the orange grove (Fig. 2.8). Below the orange grove, 1,500 feet of the original channel remains though it has been cut off from the majority of the watershed for at least 80 years.

Figure 3.2

NRCS soil classification map of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

not included in draft

Map provided by: Agency: NRCS Field office: Somis Service Center Assisted by: Ellen H. James

AnC

AuD

SoE2

CrC

SoF

GxG

SzC

LkF

SzD

OhC2

TeF

OsD2

El Nido Ventura River Preserve

1,200 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

precipitation falls between November and March. The average annual precipitation over the last 80 years in the Ojai Valley is about 22 inches but actual annual totals vary greatly – between 7.73 and 53.29 inches over the same period. Virtually all precipitation falls as rain, often as extremely heavy downpours associated with northern Pacific cold fronts tapped into subtropical moisture. Rainfall rates up to one inch per hour and one-day storm totals over 5 inches are not uncommon. One storm dropped 4.04 inches of rain in just 15 minutes at a site a few miles upstream of the VRP in Wheeler Gorge (California RWQCB 2002). The establishment and persistence of most species of plants are strongly controlled by weather patterns in southern California. Several weather-related phenomena, acting at different spatial and temporal scales, are important in considering vegetation communities and planning restoration projects. Virtually every rainy season in southern California is characterized by a “midwinter drought”. This happens when a large ridge of high pressure builds over the southwestern United States and effectively blocks rain-producing Pacific cold fronts from reaching southern California. A near total lack of precipitation should be expected to occur for a four to eight week period between mid December and late February virtually every year. Dry off-shore winds and very low humidities are not uncommon during these droughts, making it a very stressful time for plants, especially seedlings that germinated with early season rain. The year-to-year variability in rainfall in southern California is strongly associated with annual global climatic cycles such as El Nino and La Nina and longer-term patterns such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The frequency with which these anomalies occur seems to be changing in response to global warming over the last decade or two. El Nino years tend to have higher rainfall than other years in southern California. El Nino anomalies have occurred several times over the last 30 years and two of the strongest on record occurred in this period. Annual rainfall in Ojai in the El Nino years of 1972-73, 197778, 1982-83, 1987-88, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98 averaged nearly 40 inches, almost twice normal. Over the last hundred years or so, there have been two to three El Nino’s per decade on average. It is not clear weather the more frequent and stronger El Nino events seen recently are a result of global warming or merely a statistical anomaly. If this apparent trend towards more frequent and stronger El Nino events continues, we may see a shift in vegetation communities and river dynamics as a result.

The link between El Nino and La Nina years is not clear though it is fairly common for dry La Nina winters to follow wet El Nino winters. In southern California, this phenomenon can play a critical roll in vegetation dynamics. El Nino years encourage lush plant growth. When the following years rainfall is less than average, much of this growth cannot be sustained and plants tend to dry out or die and become prone to intense wildfires. The effects of large wildfires such as the “4th of July Fire” that burned much of the VRP in 1985 can totally denude chaparral and scrub communities and even scorch or burn fire-resistant coast live oak and riparian trees (Fig. 3.1). The PDO is recently described phenomenon that probably affects weather and precipitation patterns in southern California over longer time scales. The “warm phase” of the oscillation occurs when surface water temperature in the northern Pacific Ocean stay consistently above normal, the “cool phase” occurs when the water temperature is consistently below normal. These anomalies last several decades. The cool phase prevailed from 1890-1924 and from 1947-1976 while the warm phase was seen from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through at least the late 1990’s. El Nino events are probably more likely to occur during warm phases and annual

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

La Nina years are typically drier than average in southern California. Annual rainfall in Ojai over the La Nina years of 1964-65, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1984-85, 1988-89 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-2000 averaged 16.5 inches, well below normal. As with El Nino anomalies, the frequency and intensity of La Nina events may be changing in relation to global warming.

rainfall in southern California is typically higher than average as well. It is likely that there will be a shift to the cool phase of the PDO in the very near future. The impact on our local climate is not at all clear, but could be strong enough to impact vegetation patterns.

3.2.5 Soils There are a variety of soil types on the VRP (Fig. 3.2). The Ventura River channel and its floodplain are comprised of soils of recent alluvial origin. Riverwash (Rw) is made up mostly of gravel and boulders and is found in and along the active channels of rivers and streams. It is excessively permeable and has very little nutrient retention in its 60-inch deep rooting zone. Cortina stony sandy loam (CrC) forms on alluvial fans with 2 – 9% slopes and is derived of sedimentary parent material. It is well drained, moderately to highly erodible and has little nutrient retention in its 60-inch deep rooting zone. This soil has very little structure as it is regularly re-organized by erosion and sedimentation related to river flooding though it is often used for growing citrus and avocado trees. Most of Rice and Wills Canyons are comprised of Lodo rocky loam soil (LkF) (Fig. 3.2). This extremely erodible soil occurs on 30 – 50% slopes, is 8 – 20 inches deep over hard shale and tends to retain very little nutrients. Sespe clay loam, 15 – 30% slopes (SoE2) is found in these canyons as well. It is moderately to severely erodible, is 28 – 40 inches deep over sandstone or shale and has moderate fertility. This soil is often considered desirable for citrus crops. The grassland areas near the mouths of Rice and Wills Canyons are found on Sespe clay loam. The bottomlands of much of Rice Canyon are Sorrento clay loam, heavy variant, 9 – 15% slopes (SzD) (Fig. 3.2). This soil is formed in alluvial fans and plains derived principally from sedimentary rock. It has moderate permeability, high water holding capacity, moderate fertility and has a rooting zone 60 inches deep. The orange grove consists mostly of Ojai stony fine sandy loam, 2 – 15% slopes, eroded (OsD2) (Fig. 3.2). This moderately well drained soil is found on old, partially dissected terraces in alluvium derived of sedimentary parent material. The soil supports up to 60 inches of rooting depth and is of moderate fertility. This is a desirable soil for growing citrus crops. A portion of the orange grove south of the current Rice Creek alignment and immediately east of the CMWD canal is a Sespe clay loam (SoE2) (Fig. 3.2).

For the last 100 years, ecologists have been furthering the understanding of how organisms interact to form self-sustaining communities. Over the last few decades, the science of restoration ecology has led to a much greater understanding of several aspects of community ecology that effect the re-establishment of native ecosystems on disturbed land. For instance, invasive non-native plants are known to alter natural processes in such a way so as to favor their own growth and reproduction, typically at the cost of native species. Plant-animal interactions are now recognized as important in controlling the distribution and abundance of native species and principles related to ecological succession can dictate when in the restoration process it is appropriate to introduce certain species. Applying these principles to the planning of ecological restoration and enhancement projects is crucial and often overlooked. The goals of any ecological restoration project will be more realistically set and more easily attained taking these factors into account.

3.3.1 Invasive non-native plants Invasive non-native plants have profound impacts on natural ecosystems. Invasive plant species, in contrast to non-native species, alter natural ecosystem processes so as to promote their own

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

3.3 Biological factors

survival and reproduction, typically to the detriment of native species. The eradication of invasive plant species before planting native species is the single most important aspect of most upland and many wetland restoration projects in southern California. However, due to the difficulty and relatively long timelines associated with eradication, it is almost always inadequately addressed. Different invasive plant species alter ecosystem processes in many different ways. There are a few general themes however. A large diversity of invasive annual grasses and forbs establish well on disturbed soil where they effectively out-compete native seedlings. Other invasives outcompete mature natives and simply crowd them out of areas. Several invasive plant species alter groundwater hydrology to such a degree that natives die and fail to re-establish. Some weedy species alter the fire regime, which can drive changes vegetation type. Many areas of alluvial scrub and coastal sage scrub on the VRP are invaded by annual weeds that effectively out-compete native seedlings. The most common invaders include Madrid brome (Bromus madritensis), filaree (Erodium spp.) and Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). These weeds are also common in the orange grove and in disturbed areas in full sun along roads and trails. Eradication of these weeds requires repeated killing, by hand or mechanical means, before the plants set seed. Multiple rounds of “grow kills” are possible with sufficient and welltimed rainfall. Eradication should be viewed as a two-year project at the very least. Extremely aggressive invasive plant species such as giant reed (Arundo donax) and cape ivy (Delairea odorata), once established, can crowd out or smother mature native shrubs and trees. On the VRP, giant reed forms dense thickets within the artificial alignment and lowest reach of Rice Creek and along the Ventura River channel, floodplains and terraces. There are several techniques for eradicating giant reed. Most involve spraying with herbicide though mechanical removal can be successful on small scales where soil disturbance will not create opportunities for other invasive plant species. Monitoring and spot treatments should be carried out for up to 10 years to help assure complete eradication. Cape ivy has not been found in the VRP but should be watched for carefully. Just a few miles to the south of the VRP, north-facing slopes with coast live oak woodlands are completely overrun by this species.

Within natural reserves, it is useful to work towards eradication of non-natives that are not invasive as well. Non-natives that may be present in low levels may become invasive after natural disturbances such as wildfires or landslides that leave large areas of bare ground. An additional concern is the fact that several non-natives have become invasive after surviving only at low densities for decades. The mechanism for this “jump” is not well understood but some genetic or population-size threshold is probably involved.

3.3.2 Food web dynamics Food webs describe the interactions between all the species in a given system. Given the hundreds or thousands of species present in most systems, it is obvious that most food webs are exceedingly complex in their details. On a site such as the VRP with a mosaic of wetland and upland habitats connected to vast tracts of open space, this is especially true. The degree to which the natural food web is functioning, or has the ability to recover to a more natural

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Tamarisk or salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) is a common invasive species along riparian corridors in southern California where it has the ability to lower the water table where it grows densely. Tamarisk grows deeper roots than native riparian plants and uses large amounts of water to grow quickly. Native willow and cottonwood trees die when they can no longer reach the deeper water table. Eradication of tamarisk is possible by cutting down trees well below the soil surface to prevent re-sprouting. A bio-control agent has proven effective in heavily infected areas in Arizona. There are only a few large trees on the VRP though there are a large number of one and two year old trees within the Ventura River channel that are a priority for eradication. More detailed information on non-native plant control is included in Chapter 8.

state, is important to consider when planning restoration. Certain missing pieces can make restoration extremely difficult if not impossible. Careful analysis of the entire food web is well beyond the scope of this plan however. Instead, we looked at a few key trophic interactions that can serve as indicators for the overall health of the system. Primary producers, or plants, form an important foundation that in many ways drives the overall functioning of food web dynamics. Generally speaking, a higher diversity of plants will support a higher diversity of animals. Many insects, for instance, have specialized requirements that may limit them to habitat with a given genus or species of plant present. One of the best-known examples of this is the monarch butterfly, whose larva only feed on milkweed (Asclepias spp.). Some plants may rely on a single species of insect to pollinate them and will not reproduce without it. While many studies have looked at these insect-plant interactions in southern California, little or nothing is known about the overwhelming majority of species. The large tracts of habitat in and adjacent to the VRP already support a wide diversity of plants that include virtually all the species that would be used in restoration. We think, therefore, that all the important insects are in close proximity and will be able to re-colonize naturally as native plants are re-introduced.

Decomposers are mostly small invertebrates, fungi and microbes that are crucial to nutrient cycling. Decomposers feed on dead organic matter and produce inorganic compounds of Nitrogen, Phosphorous and other molecules that are available to plants and necessary for their growth. Most decomposers live on or below the soil surface and are important constituents of many plant communities. The processes involved in decomposition typically take many years to develop on restoration sites that have been graded otherwise severely disturbed. This is due to the fact that dead organic matter takes considerable time to build up in many southern California plant communities. Fortunately, many of the native plants in southern California do not require mature soil structures and can survive in soils with extremely low nutrient levels. These are the best plants to use in the early phases of restoration on highly disturbed soils.

3.3.3 Vegetation structure The structure of vegetation can play an important role in controlling plant recruitment and establishment. Many plant species will only germinate and grow in dense shade, such as that found in coast live oak woodlands, while other species may only germinate and grow in full sun, excluding them from such habitats. This is important to consider in ecological restoration. For instance, coast live oak seedlings show better survival in shady areas where soil moisture tends to stay higher through the hot, dry summer.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Mammalian herbivores can be very important in driving the structure and composition of plant communities. Mammals such as mice, squirrels, rabbits and deer eat seeds and seedlings and browse on shrubs and trees, often severely limiting establishment and reproduction. In many restoration projects, the populations of these herbivores are unnaturally dense due to the fact that many of their natural predators are no longer present in disturbed and/or isolated habitat patches. On the VRP, mammalian herbivores do not seem to be especially dense despite apparently abundant food. This suggests that there is likely some fairly natural level control on their density by predation. Indeed, conspicuous large predators including mountain lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans) are all known to frequent the VRP. The status of the equally important but rarely observed carnivores such as long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) on the VRP is not known. It is important to realize that during restoration, the generally more wary predators will likely avoid project areas, allowing disturbance-adapted herbivores such as ground squirrels (Spermophilus sp.) to temporarily increase in density. With careful planning and timing, however, the short-term impacts on a restoration site can be minimized and eventually, predators will move back in to the area.

Ch 4

Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Introduction to the plan Ch 2 Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 3 Natural ecosystem processes

Ch 4 Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve 4.1 Biological communities 4.1.1 Chaparral 4.1.2 Coast live oak woodland 4.1.3 Deciduous riparian woodlands 4.1.4 Alluvial scrub 4.1.5 Coastal sage scrub 4.1.6 Mulefat scrub and willow scrub 4.1.7 Native bunchgrass grassland 4.1.8 Special status species

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Riparian trees and eroded alluvial deposits along the Ventura River

Riparian trees and chaparral near the mouth Wills Canyon

Deer grass near the mouth of Rice Canyon

4.1 Biological communities The VRP contains large tracts of relatively intact native plant communities. The high cover of native plants and relative lack of invasive non-native species over much of the preserve indicates that many or most important ecosystem processes are still intact. The major exception is in the orange grove and along the former alignment of Rice Creek below the canal. Several native plant communities are found within the VRP (Fig. 4.1). Chaparral covers the south-facing slopes in and around Wills and Rice Canyons while the north-facing slopes feature coast live oak woodlands and forests. Deciduous riparian woodlands line much of Wills and Rice creeks as well as the lower floodplain and banks of the Ventura River. Coast live oak riparian woodlands can be found along small, unnamed drainages and on terraces along the Ventura River. Alluvial scrub and coastal sage scrub habitat can be found along the river terraces as well. Mulefat and willow scrub are found adjacent to the active channel of the river. Small patches of native grassland are found near the mouth of Rice Canyon and in upper Wills Canyon. Overall, 139 native plant species (Appendix A) have been identified on the preserve by the authors and Magney (2002) in at least eight major vegetation communities (see Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). The non-native species of the preserve have not been fully documented though at least 50 species (Appendix B) have been identified by the authors and Magney (2002). All plant species names follow the Jepson Manuel (Hickman 1996). The only information on the wildlife of the VRP comes from chance observations by OVLC staff and other visitors. We have included a tentative list of the avifauna (Appendix C) but did not carry out wildlife surveys as part of this project.

4.1.1 Chaparral Chaparral dominates much of the Transverse Ranges, especially south-facing slopes between 500 and 4,500-feet in elevation. Large woody evergreen shrubs up to 15 feet tall characterize this community, which is sometime known as “hard chaparral” (coastal sage scrub is often called “soft chaparral”). Soils are generally shallow, rocky, well drained and highly erodible, especially after fires when these soils become hydrophobic and virtually all rainfall runs off, transporting huge amounts of soil and rocks in debris flows.

Chaparral does not require fire to persist, however all the characteristic plants of this community are adapted to periodic fire (every 30-150 years) and many require fire to regenerate. Many chaparral plants contain volatile compounds that make them extremely flammable. Herbaceous annuals and short-lived perennials often appear after fires, however mature stands of chaparral have almost no understory. This may be due to herbivory, allelopathic compounds exuded by some shrubs or a combination of both. There are very few invasive non-native plants in the chaparral habitats of the VRP. The exceptions are where there is disturbed soil along roads, trails and firebreaks where tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) are species of concern.

4.1.2 Coast live oak woodland Coast live oak woodlands are common on north-facing slopes throughout southern California. This community is dominated by large centuries-old coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Other

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) described over 50 different types of chaparral communities based on which plants are dominant. Several different series are found on the south-facing slopes of the VRP (Fig. 4.1), most are dominated by chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum).

General vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Figure 4.1

Olive grove

es or

es dr

t Na

Rice Creek

F al

El Nido Meadow

P os

Wills Creek

Olive Creek

Ventura River

Ventura River Preserve Water course CMWD property Chaparral/coastal sage scrub Alluvial scrub Coast live oak woodland Riparian woodland Active channel/mulefat scrub Native bunchgrass grassland

Disturbed ruderal Orange grove

2,000 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

trees such as southern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), California bay-laurel (Umbellularia californica) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) may occur sporadically in this community as well. The trees typically form a closed canopy and the understory is a mixture of ferns, small (often rhizomatous) shrubs and herbaceous plants. On the VRP, coast live oak woodland occurs on the north and east facing slopes and canyon bottoms in and around Rice and Wills Creeks (Fig. 4.1). Heavy grazing has affected the understory diversity, especially in the canyon bottoms, where snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis) is often the only species found. Areas with steeper slopes tend to have a lush and diverse understory that includes shrubs and vines such as poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), virginâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bower (Clematis ligusticifolia) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), herbaceous perennials such as hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea) and bedstraw (Galium spp.) and annual wildflowers such as blue fiesta flower (Pholistoma auritum), rusty popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys nothofulvus) and California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus var. californicus). Occasional wild fires may play an important role in maintaining natural cover and diversity in the understory of coast live oak woodlands. Only the most intense fires burn mature coast live oaks due to their thick bark and evergreen foliage. However, even severely burnt trees can re-sprout from root crowns and grow quickly. Biotic processes are probably more important in maintaining coast live oak woodlands. Despite the incredible production and high germination rates of acorns, relatively few seedlings survive their first year and only a tiny percent reach mature stature. This maintains the widely spaced nature of mature trees. Gaps in the canopy created by trees that fall over due to weakening by pathogens allow less shadeadapted plants to establish. There are only scattered invasive non-native species within the coast live oak woodlands on the VRP. Smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum) is found fairly regularly along the Wills and Rice Canyon trails. Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) is becoming more common and its spread should be monitored closely.

4.1.3 Deciduous riparian woodlands

Deciduous riparian woodlands are found along all the watercourses of the VRP (Fig. 4.1) though the composition of the overstory varies with the amount of available water. Along the western bank of the Ventura River, in areas with perennial surface water, white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophylla) can be found. Smaller drainages are dominated by western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa). The understory of these woodlands varies widely and shares many species with coast live oak woodlands. Plants that are found only in the riparian areas of the VRP include Pacific rush (Juncus effusus var. pacificus), iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides) and nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis). Occasional flooding and temporal variation in surface and sub-surface water levels are important natural processes for this community. This community type is fairly fire-resistant and riparian corridors often act as natural firebreaks. This is a rare community in southern California today because so many of our creeks and rivers have been degraded by channelization, over grazing, damming and invasion by invasive

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Riparian woodlands made up primarily of willow, cottonwood and sycamore trees are common along natural watercourses in southern California from sea level to the highest canyons. Deciduous riparian woodlands occur along perennial and intermittent streams. In the latter case, the water table stays relatively high compared to upland areas through the dry summers. Deep-rooted plants reach this water and actively grow in the summer while upland species are typically under severe water stress. These trees are all adapted to annual flooding, erosion and sedimentation and typically drop there leaves and become dormant in the winter.

Figure 4.2

Arundo donax distribution and density in Rice Creek and vicinity

Zone 1 Zone 2

Zone 5 Rice Creek

Ventura River Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Arundo donax cover 75% - 100%

Zone 4

50% - 75% 5% - 50% 1% - 5% 1% Map created by: Ken Niessen, Sheri Mayta, Tiffany Owens, Sara Benjamin, Rich Handley

1,000 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

exotics such as giant reed (Arundo donax). On the VRP, Arundo is widely scattered in the main channel of the Ventura River and in the lowest reach of Rice Creek below the orange grove (Fig. 4.2). There is also a very dense thicket all along the channelized portion of Rice Creek (Fig. 4.2). Other invasive non-native plants in VRP riparian areas include scattered tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) and castor bean (Ricinus communis).

4.1.4 Alluvial scrub Alluvial scrub is a rare and distinct plant community considered to be a variant of coastal sage scrub. It is found only in southern California, usually on alluvial fans and flood plains along the southern edge of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges (Hanes et al. 1989). Soils are relatively unstructured and comprised mostly of sand, cobbles and boulders. These habitats occur in areas with a relatively high water table, however the well-drained soil supports mostly xeric plants. Alluvial scrub is common on the VRP (Fig. 4.1) Three phases of alluvial scrub have been described; pioneer, intermediate and mature. This community is structured by flooding and erosion events which remove vegetation and rearrange soils. Which of the three phases is present in a given area depends on catastrophic flooding history, substrate type and distance from the main channel (Hanes et al. 1989). Plant diversity is highest in mature phase and species drop out towards the pioneer phase, which has only rapidly colonizing plants. The pioneer phase occurs closest to the active channel and in side channels where flooding occurs every few years. The vegetation is sparse and includes small shrubs and sub-shrubs such as scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and everlasting (Gnaphalium spp.) and annuals such as lupine (Lupinus spp.) and phacelia (Phacelia spp.). The intermediate phase floods less frequently and supports a wider diversity of plants including large woody shrubs typical of chaparral such as laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and smaller shrubs typical of coastal sage scrub such as California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and sages (Salvia spp.). The mature phase is only rarely flooded, has the densest vegetation and supports the highest diversity of plants. Trees such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) are spread widely among large shrubs such as manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) and California lilac (Ceonothus spp.) and herbaceous plants such as our lordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s candle (Hesperyucca whipplei).

There are several invasive exotic plants in alluvial scrub at the VRP. Widespread species include typical Mediterranean annuals such as Madrid brome (Bromus madritensis), filaree (Erodium sp.) and Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Scattered species include tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) is becoming established in some areas and may be spreading, making this plant a special concern.

4.1.5 Coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub is an increasingly rare habitat type unique to southwestern California where it occurs below 3000 feet. Closely spaced shrubs and sub-shrubs to six feet tall

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Fire is probably not an important natural process in this community. The sparse vegetation typically will not carry a fire well. Most of the plants are fire adapted, but do not require fire to establish. Many of the common species found in alluvial scrub produce large amounts of seed and establish readily on bare soils. The relatively low cover of this habitat is probably maintained by very low soil moisture that makes establishment by seedlings difficult in all but very wet years. Wet years tend to have floods that scour out seedling and adult plants.

characterize this community, which can be found on all slope aspects as well as on flat terrain. It is often referred to as “soft chaparral” due to the fact that many of the characteristic shrubs have easily bendable stems while true chaparral (often know as “hard chaparral”) shrubs are typically stout and woody. Coastal sage scrub tends to be found on rocky, well-drained soil and is well adapted to infrequent fire. Several different types of coastal sage scrub have been described based on the species present and their relative dominance. In general, it is a diverse community characterized by aromatic, resinous plants such as coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), white sage (Salvia apiana) and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Other common shrubs include sticky monkey flower (Mimulus longiflorus), sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa) and deer weed (Lotus scoparius). Most plants are summer dormant or deciduous, only a few species are truly evergreen, the most common being coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia). Most coastal sage scrub plants produce large amounts of seed that germinate readily, however seedling survival is relatively low under and near mature shrubs. In fact, there is typically very little vegetation at all under the shrub canopy. This is due in part to herbivory by small mammals that use the shrubs for cover while grazing. The intense herbivory is probably responsible for the rarity of annuals in this community as well. When the canopy opens up after a wildfire, dozens of different short-lived and annual wildflower species can be found, including large-flowered phacelia (Phacelia grandiflora), common eucrypta (Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia) and lupine (Lupinus spp.). Coastal sage scrub is found in scattered small patches on the highest alluvial terraces and some south-facing slopes in the VRP where it intergrades with grasslands, coast live oak woodlands, alluvial scrub and chaparral communities (Fig. 4.1). Annual European weeds such as ripgut brome and soft chess (Bromus diandrus and B. hordeaceus), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and vetch (Vicia spp.) readily invade areas of coastal sage scrub when the soil is disturbed. Once these, and other, invaders move in, seedlings of the natives fail to establish and the habitat is converted to weedy grassland as the last of the old shrubs die off.

Mulefat scrub and willow scrub are two closely related communities typically found along the lower reaches of creeks and rivers of southern California. These communities are found where catastrophic flooding occurs annually and summer conditions are too dry for establishment of riparian woodlands or forests. Mulefat scrub is found in the most dynamic environments along active channels (Fig. 4.1) and is comprised mostly of widely spaced evergreen shrubs. Willow scrub is found where flooding is less catastrophic, often on depositional bars, and can form dense thickets of winter-deciduous shrubs and small trees. Soils are comprised of sandy alluvial deposits that are frequently rearranged by flood-related erosion and deposition. Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) is the most abundant species in mulefat scrub where it may occur with other shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and herbaceous species such as mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana). Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) is typically dominant in willow scrub habitat where it occurs with sandbar willow (Salix exigua), red willow (Salix laevigata) and mulefat. These are mostly deep-rooted species that rely on relatively shallow groundwater during the summer growing season. Mulefat and willow scrub habitats are easily invaded by giant reed (Arundo donax), which can form monotypic stands that exclude all other species. Other non-natives that can invade and alter natural processes in these habitats include tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and Spanish broom (Spartium junceum).

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

4.1.6 Mulefat scrub and willow scrub

4.1.7 Native bunchgrass grassland Native bunchgrass grasslands once covered large areas of California. They were found in many settings below 4,500-feet, including valley bottoms, foothills and coastal terraces. This community is generally found on nutrient poor soils in areas with 10 to 20 inches of average annual rainfall where the upper soil horizons dry out completely for months at a time. There are very few if any examples of this habitat left in California that have not been invaded by non-native annual grasses and forbs and thus, it is hard to know what the natural state of this community is. The best guess is that this habitat was dominated by closely spaced perennial bunchgrasses with annual forbs growing within that matrix in the winter and spring. A spectacular example of this habitat can be seen on the VRP at El Nido Meadow (Fig. 4.1). In southwestern California, the dominant bunchgrass in grasslands is purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra). Needle grass is tolerant of fire, grazing and drought. Individuals may live to be over 100 years old. Other bunchgrasses include foothill needle grass (Nassella lepida), one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda), blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus) and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens). Common forbs include goldfields (Lasthenia californica), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica) and owl’s clover (Castilejia sp.). Invasive non-natives can threaten the native diversity of grasslands. Non-native annuals such as filaree (Erodium sp.) and vetch (Vicia sp.) can quickly invade disturbed soils. Of special concern is the perennial Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) which is becoming established at El Nido Meadow. The expanses of grassland seen by early explorers in California were probably maintained by regular burning by Native Americans. Fire was probably important for keeping out shrubs (it kills the seedlings) and stimulating growth of perennial grasses and germination of annual forbs. As European colonists moved in to California in the late 1700’s, fire frequency decreased. Cattle were introduced along with most of the weedy grasses that are common throughout California today. The bunchgrass grasslands were so heavily grazed for decades that eventually even the tough perennial grasses were killed. Drought and dropping beef and hide prices in the late 1800’s reduced the number of cattle in California. Areas that had been bunchgrass grassland converted to chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities or was invaded by non-native annual grasses. There are only small pockets of relatively intact bunchgrass grassland left in California, making them a high conservation priority.

Only a few special status species are known to occur on the VRP. The federally and state endangered southern steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss iridius) has been observed in the Ventura River. The California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) is a USFS sensitive species that has been seen on the VRP recently. Plummer’s baccharis (Baccharis plummerae) is a California Native Plant Society List 4 species. Several other special status species could occur on the VRP, though no directed searches have been carried out for them. We have compiled a list of special status wildlife, species (Appendix D) that at least have the potential to occur on the VRP. While it is not likely any of these species other than those listed here are on the VRP, their potential presence will need to be addressed while permitting the proposed restoration projects in this plan.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

4.1.8 Special status species

Section II

Restoration and enhancement elements

e have identified four major restoration and enhancement needs on the VRP, 1) restoration of Rice Creek to its former course through what is now the orange grove, 2) restoration of the orange grove to alluvial scrub and coast live oak woodland habitat, 3) enhancement of the coast live oak woodland and riparian understory in Rice and Wills Canyons and 4) control and eradication of invasive non-native plants throughout the preserve. It is likely that these projects will need to be phased, as funding will come from several different sources over several years. Detailed restoration plans will need to be developed that address the specific needs and requirements of granting agencies and any permit requirements. One of the primary purposes of this plan is to set those goals and provide a reference point so that all the subsequent detailed plans are working towards a common set of goals, even while the priorities of individual projects may shift. We have also outlined the actions needed to accomplish the goals and have included general guidelines as to what the most appropriate methods will be for implementing the actions. These actions and methods vary in many ways from traditional approaches to restoration in southern California. We carefully considered many different philosophies on weed control, planting and virtually all other aspects of the restoration process. continued p 62 a

Ch 5

Rice Creek restoration

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Rice Creek restoration 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Rice Creek restoration Important ecosystem processes to be restored Goals Actions needed to accomplish goals Guidelines for accomplishing actions Restricted activities and BMP’s On-site monitoring during construction Signs and fencing

5.9 Post-implementation site clean up guidelines 5.10 Post-project maintenance needs 5.11 Permitting needs Ch 6 Orange grove restoration Ch 7 Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Ch 8 Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Red maids

Giant reed, Arundo

Cottonwood cutting being planted at the OVLC Ojai Meadows Preserve

Modified drainage with coconut fiber blanket and check structures

continued from p 59

Our decisions to use the approaches as outlined here were based on 1) the unique suite of opportunities and constraints posed by the site, 2) the need for proven, cost-effective and efficient strategies appropriate for use on large areas of land, 3) a desire to work with natural ecosystem processes over several years to accomplish ambitious ecological goals, 4) the need for a flexible approach to assure the goals of the projects are met, and 5) adherence to the mission of the OVLC and their land stewardship and management goals. The philosophy we present in this section of the plan is meant to be a guide for the development of the detailed restoration plans that will be generated in the future.

5.1 Rice Creek restoration The lower reach of Rice Creek was diverted from its natural course in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The creek was channelized when the orange grove was planted, probably to make room for more orange trees (Fig. 5.1). The new channel was planted with giant reed (Arundo donax) to stabilize the banks at this time as well. Today, the only native vegetation in the channel includes a few scattered coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis). The re-alignment of Rice Creek into its former course (Fig. 5.2) will re-create 1,500 feet of creek in Zones 1 and 3 (11 acres) and restore natural flows to an additional 1,500 feet of remnant creek in Zone 4 (6 acres) (Fig. 5.1). Riparian woodland will be restored along the new channel in Zones 1 and 3 (Fig. 5.3). The channel through Zone 2 will be eliminated then planted with alluvial scrub species (Fig. 5.3). All of the Arundo in Zones 1 through 4 will be killed and removed (Fig. 5.3), eliminating a major source of propagules to the lower Ventura River. There is no Arundo in the Rice Creek watershed above the project area.

5.2 Important ecosystem processes to be restored

The deep shade created by native riparian plants along the stream is an important natural process as well. The shade decreases evaporation of surface water and allows soils to retain moisture longer. Further, many non-native plants will not tolerate shady habitat. It will take 2 to 4 years for the new plantings and natural recruits to attain the necessary stature and canopy structure needed to produce a fully-shaded riparian corridor. It may take 20 to 50 years to achieve mature canopy architecture (the vertical layering of different shrubs and trees) in Zones 1 and 3. Natural food web dynamics will take time to recover as well. As the plant structure matures, the habitat will support more wildlife species, which should be able to move into the area easily from intact adjacent habitat. Important microbes and invertebrates (i.e., decomposers, pollinators, etc.) that are present in upper Rice Creek should be able to move downstream when flow is restored to the historic channel and will be able to establish populations as the habitat matures. New plantings often attract native and non-native herbivores. It may be necessary to improve fencing to keep out cattle that graze on adjacent Forest Service land. While these non-native herbivores will likely prefer to feed on the lush weeds found elsewhere in the orange grove, they could find restored areas a desirable place to forage during droughts

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Natural stream flow is the most important natural process that needs to be restored to Zones 1, 3 and 4. The re-contouring of the historic channel and the re-direction of flows (Fig. 5.2) will restore this process. The natural inundation and flooding cycles will favor native riparian trees and shrubs over many of the non-native plants currently at the site.

(especially if it is being irrigated). Native herbivores, such as brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), ground squirrel (Spermophilus sp.) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), may be attracted to the site for the same reason as cattle. Rather than employing expensive and labor-intensive plant protection devices (e.g., wire cages), some amount of herbivory (and mortality) should be tolerated. Planting overly dense with small nursery stock and cuttings will mitigate losses due to herbivory and other stressors. If herbivory is so bad that it jeopardizes the establishment of the desired plant community, the site may need to be fenced in and other deterrents used to decrease the herbivore pressure. In the long run, the presence of native herbivores on the restoration site is highly desirable and a sign that the project is functioning naturally. The degree to which sedimentation and erosion dynamics are occurring at natural levels may be difficult to judge, as there is no historic data for Rice Creek or near-by creeks of similar size. The new channel itself will likely have areas of higher erosion and deposition but with proper engineering and sufficient initial erosion control measures, this should not effect the natural functioning of the system. It may be important to carry out the riparian enhancements in upper Rice Creek (see Chapter 7) to decrease unnaturally high levels of erosion (and possible downstream sedimentation) that are evident now.

5.3 Goals •

Re-align Rice Creek into its former course

•

Restore important ecosystem processes along the new stream course that will allow for restoration of self-sustaining riparian woodland habitat

•

Remove non-native plants, especially giant reed, Arundo donax

•

Restore riparian woodland habitat along the new creek course

•

Restore alluvial scrub vegetation and the natural landform along the channelized portion of Rice Creek

5.4 Actions needed to accomplish goals 1. Remove Arundo donax and other invasive non-native plants in Zones 1 and 2 to allow for detailed topographic survey by engineers 2. Obtain engineering and grading plans for the re-alignment of Rice Creek in Zones 1 and 3 and the elimination of the current channel in Zone 2 3. Remove surface irrigation infrastructure from Zones 3, 6 and 7 5. Conduct repeated grow-kills of non-native plants where orange trees have been removed 6. Construct a new stream course in Zones 1 and 3 7. Install erosion control measures along new channel in Zones 1 and 3 8. Plant Zones 1 and 3 with native riparian trees and shrubs 9. Re-grade Zone 2 to its natural landform 10. Weed and then plant Zone 2 with native trees and shrubs 11. Remove Arundo donax and other invasive non-native plants in Zone 4 12. Conduct follow-up weed removal and site maintenance for at least five years post-implementation

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

4. Remove all orange trees

Figure 5.1

Current vegetation communities within the Rice Creek and orange grove restoration areas

Zone 1 Rice Creek

Zone 5 Ventura River Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 6 CMWD property

Zone 7

Zone 4

Zone 8

Dominant vegetation Orange grove Exotic species Riparian woodland Water course

Acreages Zone 1 = 3.5 acres Zone 2 = 1.0 acres Zone 3 = 8.5 acres Zone 4 = 6.0 acres

Zone 5 = 6.8 acres Zone 6 = 11.0 acres Zone 7 = 22.0 acres Zone 8 = 5.2 acres Total = 64.0 acres

1,000 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

5.5 Guidelines for accomplishing actions 1) Remove Arundo donax and other invasive non-native plants in Zones 1 and 2 to allow for detailed topographic survey by engineers. This should be the first step in the restoration of Rice Creek. The dense growth of Arundo covering 1.69 acres of Zones 1 and 2 (Fig. 5.4) make it difficult if not impossible to do the topographic surveys required by engineers for design of the new creek channel. The Arundo in Zone 1 and 2 is the top priority and its removal is planned for the fall of 2006. Grants from the SCWRP Small Grants Program and CDFG Partnership Grant Program will help fund this. Arundo removal in Zone 1 should be done by the cut-and-spray technique as opposed to foliar spraying (see Chapter 9 for details on these techniques). Cutting down and removing the majority of the biomass at the beginning of the project will allow the topographic surveys to be conducted at the earliest possible time. The stems should be burned along with the other agricultural waste (removed orange trees). The dead rhizomes should be left in place to help stabilize the soil until grading and planting can occur. It may be necessary to install temporary erosion control materials until the site can be graded and planted. Several of the standing dead trees in Zone 1 should be left in place to provide nest sites for birds including acorn woodpeckers. Some of the large Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) could be girdled and allowed to die in place to provide more potential nesting habitat and reduce the cost of the project. Other non-native plants should be removed from Zone 1 including Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), century plant (Agave sp.) and myoporum (Myoporum laetum). A similar strategy will need to be used in Zone 2, though it may be feasible to cut, remove and burn the Arundo stems and then simply bury the dead rhizomes during recontouring of the site. This would be done at the same time as grading of the new creek channel. Several large coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) occur along the margin of Zone 2 (Fig. 5.4). These should be preserved and protected during grading and herbicide treatments.

2) Obtain engineering and grading plans for the re-alignment of Rice Creek in Zones 1 and 3 and the elimination of the current channel in Zone 2. A qualified engineering firm will need to do a comprehensive study of the hydrology of Rice Creek and design a new channel along the historic drainage (shown in Fig. 5.2). The study should include a detailed grading plan for the new channel (Zones 1 and 3) and the abandoned channel (Zone 2). The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) cost share agreement that the OVLC secured from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is expected to provide all of the engineering studies and the grading plans for this aspect of the Rice Creek restoration. The engineering study should be completed by the end of 2007. A qualified restoration ecologist should be involved during the development of the grading plan to assure that the project will be able to meet the habitat restoration goals as well as flood control/conveyance goals. The grading plan should include cut-fill quantities, design of check structures and other erosion control measures. In addition, the plan should address: 1) the removal of old infrastructure and 2) avoidance or relocation of infrastructure still in use within the grading area. A drainage and runoff plan including Zones 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8 should also be included.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Vehicular access to the site is available via the CMWD canal access road. There is easy access to all areas in Zones 1 and 2 via orange grove access roads (Fig. 5.4).

Figure 5.2

Current and proposed alignment of Rice Creek below CMWD canal

Current course of Rice Creek

Ventura River

Restored course of Rice Creek

Re-alignment of Rice Creek Remove Arundo donax and re-vegetate Remove non-natives and re-vegetate Remove Arundo and eliminate channel Remove Arundo donax Remove orange trees, re-grade channel and re-vegetate Remove Arundo donax and restore natural hydrology

1,000 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

The interface of the new channel in Zone 3 with the existing channel in Zone 4 (Fig. 5.1) should be carefully designed. The rapid change in grade at this point creates a potential point of headward-cutting. The access road through this area should be retained. A bridge, culvert or fair-weather crossing will need to be part of the overall plan for the site to accommodate this goal. 3) Remove surface irrigation infrastructure from Zones 3, 6 and 7. Removal of the dripline irrigation system should precede the removal of the orange trees in Zone 3. If feasible, the entire system throughout Zones 6 and 7 should be removed at the same time. It may be possible to find a local grower who would provide the labor for the removal in exchange for the removed irrigation supplies. If this cannot be arranged, a cost effective alternative could be to use the CREW or similar entity for the removal work. 4) Remove all orange trees. Prior to the grading of the new channel of Rice Creek, all of the orange trees in Zones 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8 will be bulldozed out and piled up for burning in the winter. A 100-foot wide corridor along either side of the creek alignment should be kept weedfree by tilling or herbicide treatment (see Chapter 9 for preferred techniques) before final grading and planting (Fig. 5.3). This corridor will be planted as part of this project and will support riparian plants that will act as a temporary buffer between the yet-to-be restored areas of Zone 6 and 7. It may be possible to find a local firm willing to donate orchard tree removal services to the OVLC. 5) Conduct repeated grow-kills of non-native plants where orange trees have been removed. After orange tree removal, weeds should be aggressively controlled in a 100 foot wide buffer on either side of the future creek alignment. Perennial weeds such as smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum) should be removed by hand. Annual weeds such as sweet clover (Melilotus sp.) and Madrid brome (Bromus madritensis) can be controlled by a number of methods. The most effective strategy in Zone 3 will be to either till the soil repeatedly or apply herbicide to seedlings until the seed bank has been eliminated. Weed-whipping and mowing do not kill or prevent seed production in most annual weeds. The project should not use these techniques.

It may be necessary to install some erosion control devices along the western margin of Zone 3 before the rainy season. Several small drainages run west to east out of Zone 7. Erosion control measures (e.g. willow and mulefat baffles, straw wattles, rock check dams and silt fencing) may be used to minimize erosion in the area of the new Rice Creek channel after removal of vegetation. 6) Construct a new stream course in Zones 1 and 3 (Fig. 5.3). The seasonal timing of this step is critical, as it will affect the rest of the project. The major concerns are limiting erosion in the new channel and sedimentation in Zone 4 and establishing a natural, sustainable, highly functioning plant community as soon as possible. We have identified three potential approaches. i) Grade the entire channel (and Zone 2) in the late summer. This would allow the full flow of Rice Creek to run through the new channel in the following winter. The channel

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Weeds within the graded area will be killed during grading so control in this area is not necessarily a priority. However, some measures may need to be taken to control new weeds in the area.

Figure 5.3

Restoration actions within the Rice Creek and orange grove restoration areas

Zone 1 Zone 5

Rice Creek

Ventura River Zone 2

Zone 6 CMWD property Zone 7

Zone 8

Zone 3

Zone 4

Major restoration actions Remove exotics, re-contour & plant Remove orange trees, re-contour & plant Remove orange trees & plant Remove invasive exotics N

Water course

1,000 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

and banks would be planted with the first rains of fall. Planting could occur earlier with supplemental irrigation. The disadvantage of this method is that a large early season storm could cause erosion of the new channel before the soils become stabilized with vegetation. To mitigate this threat, extensive erosion control measures such as coconut netting would need to be installed. Also, young plants could be washed out of the site entirely with one unluckily. The advantage of this method would be a quicker restoration of natural processes along the channel that would help sort out the planted species along moisture and energy gradients more naturally. Additionally, all grading in Zones 1 – 3 would be carried out more or less at the same time. ii) Grade the new channel in late summer but keep the flow of Rice Creek diverted in its current course through most or all of the first winter. The channel and banks would be planted in the winter and spring and timed to take advantage of rainfall events. The disadvantage of this method is that by planting before the restoration of natural processes (stream flow), it may be difficult to establish the desired plant community (i.e., the site will be drier and have much lower energy water flows at the time of planting). Supplemental irrigation could mitigate this problem but would add to the cost of the project. Additionally, this method would require a second construction phase associated with grading in Zone 2 and diverting Rice Creek into its new channel. The advantages to this method include less time and money spent on erosion control measures and establishment of plants in the proper season.

There are a few additional issues to consider during the grading process. Burial of topsoil (and its associated seed bank of weeds) will limit the amount of weeding necessary on the site and should be a priority during grading. If possible, the check structures in the channel should be constructed of rock from the site (i.e., those uncovered during grading) to save money and to preserve the natural aesthetics of the new channel. There should be a post-grading survey of the site to prepare an “as built” topographic map of the site. The NRCS EQIP cost share agreement secured by the OVLC is expected to cover the cost of the grading, which, along with the engineering plans, has been estimated at approximately $90,000. 7) Install erosion control measures along new channel in Zones 1 and 3. Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes in creeks. It is not possible, to completely eliminate erosion of the new Rice Creek channel but measures should be taken to limit erosion. The amount of sediment entering the restored portion of the system from the upper watershed is unknown at this time, however, over-grazing has reduced the riparian vegetation significantly and this will likely result in higher than normal erosion rates. This erosion may continue until the riparian understory is restored or naturally recovers along

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

iii) Grade the entire new channel (and Zone 2) in late spring after the last rain of the season. The channel and banks would then be planted and irrigated through the summer. The disadvantage to this method is that it is often difficult to establish a natural plant community when planting without important natural processes acting on the site (stream flows) and with out-of-season irrigation. In addition to the cost of installing and maintaining an irrigation system, its use in the summer leads to other problems including weed recruitment (the site will need to be hand-weeded during the hot summer months), “addiction” of plants to irrigation (many native species tend to grow shallow roots in response to surface irrigation instead of deep roots seeking groundwater) and selection of irrigation-loving plants that might not be the most desirable species on the site in the long run. The advantages to this method include rapid growth of plants in the summer, soil stabilization by plants (and less need for other erosion control measures), more flexibility in timing of planting and a single grading phase for Zones 1 – 3.

Figure 5.4

Current conditions within the Rice Creek restoration area

Zone 1

Zone 1 Zone 5

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 7

Current conditions

Zone 6

Arundo donax Scattered non-native species Former homestead site Orange grove Coast live oak Access road Water course

200 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

upper Rice Creek (see Chapter 7). There is a danger that significant up-stream erosion could cause sedimentation in the new channel. It may be desirable to allow for some erosion in the new channel to balance the total sediment flow. During the construction phase, two-foot tall rock check dams will be installed every 150 feet along the new channel. The check structures will reduce the velocity of flowing water and decrease the overall sediment transport through the system. However, some combination of additional measures may need to be taken to limit erosion. Chapter 10 contains additional details on suggested methods. Organic fiber blankets can limit soil movement on slopes and in small channels. This natural fiber mat is stapled into the ground and allowed to biodegrade over a couple years (the steel staples are usually not removed and slowly rust away). This material does not stand up well to high velocity flows such as those expected in Rice Creek and its use should probably be limited to erodible banks and small lateral drainages such as those coming from Zone 7 (Fig. 5.3). Coconut netting is rather expensive, approximately $0.20 per square foot (including staples) plus installation. Cuttings of appropriate native plants can be easily installed through coconut netting. Nursery plants are much more difficult to plant in areas with coconut netting (a hole must be cut for each plant). Weeding is very labor intensive (hand-pulling or herbicide only) in areas with erosion control fabrics. Coconut netting should be used only where other methods are not feasible or where there is a high potential for erosion.

8) Plant Zones 1 and 3 with native riparian trees and shrubs (Fig. 5.5). Large numbers of plants will be needed for the new channel, along its banks and within the 100-foot wide buffers on either side of it. In addition to the large number of cuttings installed as part of erosion control measures, a wide variety of species should be planted from nursery stock. Table 5.1 details the appropriate species and locations where they should be planted. Propagules for almost all of these plants can, and should, be collected within the VRP (see Chapter 11 for collection and planting guidelines). Small plants (2 to 6 months old) in small pots (~2-inch square) or direct seeding should be used almost exclusively. Chapter 11 details options for acquiring the necessary plants. 9) Re-grade Zone 2 to its natural landform. The current alignment of Rice Creek through Zone 2 (Fig. 5.4) should be filled in using dirt from the berm along the southern edge of the channel. The re-contouring of Zone 2 should be closely integrated with the drainage plan for Zones 5 and 7. Ideally, this grading will occur at approximately the same time as grading in Zones 1 and 3 to minimize cost. If possible, weed-free subsoil should be left on the soil surface to minimize the need for weeding before planting.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Stabilizing the soil within the new channel and along the banks with living plant material is a highly desirable method for controlling erosion. Various terms, including “biotechnical bank stabilization” and “soil bioengineering”, are often used to describe a range of techniques, usually involving the installation of willow, cottonwood and mulefat cuttings (see Chapter 11 for details). No matter what specific technique is used, the overall goal of creating high-functioning, self-sustaining riparian habitat must guide the decision making process as to which species are used where. The cost of this type of erosion control can vary widely depending on the techniques used. There is a ready source of willow and mulefat cuttings nearby within the VRP. Often, some relatively slight amount of erosion will need to be tolerated in the first year as plants establish roots and increase cover. The use of other measures such as check-dams may be enough to mitigate such losses.

Figure 5.5

Target vegetation communities within the Rice Creek restoration area Zone 1

Zone 1

Zone 5 Zone 2 Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 7

Target communities Riparian woodland Coast live oak woodland Greenhouse/nursery location Alluvial scrub Coast live oak Access road Water course

200 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

Some erosion control measures may be needed for the bare soil areas (depending on slopes in the final grading and drainage plans. 10) Weed and then plant Zone 2 with native trees and shrubs. Several grow kills should be carried out before planting unless weed-free sub soil is used to cover the area. The preferred weeding method in this area is tilling or treatment with herbicide, though solarization and hand weeding should be done under the drip line of the mature coast live oaks. Weed-whipping and mowing do not kill or prevent seed production in most annual weeds. The project should not use these techniques. Planting in this area will be done with small nursery stock and direct seeding using the plant list in Table 5.1. Planting will occur in the winter after weed control has been completed. See Chapter 11 for planting guidelines. Chapter 11 also details options for acquiring the necessary plants. 11) Remove Arundo donax and other invasive non-native plants in Zone 4. The riparian vegetation in Zone 4 includes several very large western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) trees that are many decades old, even though, the 1969 aerial photo of the area (Fig. 2.10) seems to show a lack of vegetation in this lowest stretch of Rice Creek. Currently, there are several small to medium sized patches of Arundo scattered amongst the mature native riparian vegetation in Zone 4 (Fig. 5.3). Care should be taken to minimize negative effects on native vegetation during Arundo removal. Two possible methods could be used, 1) cut and spray or 2) foliar spraying after pulling the Arundo stalks away from native plants (see Chapter 9 for details on these methods). Due to the relatively small sizes of the Arundo patches, it will probably not be necessary to plant the areas after the Arundo is killed. However, there will be an opportunity to increase the plant diversity in this area by planting riparian understory species that are currently not on the site.

12) Conduct follow-up weed removal and site maintenance for at least five years post implementation. The restoration ecologist hired to oversee and coordinate the restoration project should be responsible for the site for at least five years (longer if required by a permitting or funding agency). The restoration ecologist will be responsible for maintenance of the site (fill-in planting, weeding, etc.) and guaranteeing it will meet the monitoring requirements through five years (or more). The monitoring (outlined in Chapter 12) should be used to help guide the maintenance of the site and adjust actions as necessary to meet the goals (i.e., an adaptive management strategy). Monitoring should not be used to justify changing the goals of the project in midcourse. Two main types of follow-up weed control must be carried out for at least five years. The perennial invasives such as Arundo, Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) and myoporum (Myoporum laetum) should be monitored for re-sprouting from roots and stumps and seedlings should be removed annually. Annual weeds should be controlled each winter and spring, especially until native cover is dense enough to shade out most weeds. The timely implementation of the orange grove restoration project will help keep weeds from re-invading Zones 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4 as well. Where woody perennials are re-sprouting, the possible means of obtaining a

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

This action should be carried out before, or soon after, Rice Creek is re-aligned. The return of natural hydrology to Zone 4 will likely stimulate the growth of the existing Arundo and may allow new patches to establish.

Table 5.1

Planting list for Rice Creek restoration project

Plants in and along the creek channel SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Artemisia douglasiana Baccharis salicifolia Eleocharis macrostachya Euthamia occidentalis Juglans california ssp. californica Juncus textilis Leymus condensatus Platanus racemosa var. racemosa Rosa californica Rubus ursinus Salix lasiolepis var. lasiolepis Sambucus mexicana

Mugwort Mulefat Common spike-rush Western goldenrod Southern California black walnut Basket rush Giant wildrye California sycamore California wild rose California blackberry Arroyo willow Blue elderberry

Asteraceae Asteraceae Cyperaceae Asteraceae Juglandaceae Juncaceae Poaceae Platanaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Salicaceae Caprifoliaceae

SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Adenostoma fasciculatum Artemisia californica Baccharis pilularis Ceanothus cuneatus Ceanothus oliganthus ssp. oliganthus Ceanothus spinosus Cercocarpus betuloides var. betuloides Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum Lotus scoparius var. scoparius Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. fasciculatus Malosma laurina Mimulus longiflorus ssp. longiflorus Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia Quercus berberidifolia Rhamnus ilicifolia Salvia apiana Salvia leucophylla Salvia mellifera

Chamise California sagebrush Coyote brush Wedgeleaf ceanothus Hoary ceanothus Greenbark ceanothus Birchleaf mountain mahogany Leafy California wild buckwheat Deerweed Chaparral bushmallow Laurelleaf sumac Sticky bush monkeyflower Coast live oak Scrub oak Hollyleaf redberry White sage Purple sage Black sage

Rosaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rosaceae Polygonaceae Fabaceae Malvaceae Anacardiaceae Scrophulariaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Rhamnaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae

Plants outside of the creek channel

complete kill include stump grinding, cutting-and-painting with herbicide or girdling well below the soil surface (these techniques are detailed in Chapter 9). Control of annual weeds will be primarily by hand pulling and hula-hoeing. Weed-whipping and mowing do not kill or prevent seed production in most annual weeds. The project should not use these techniques.

5.6 Restricted activities and BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s The NEPA/CEQA and permitting process will identify a variety of restrictions on activities and BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for the restoration project. These will likely include seasonal restrictions on certain activities and guidelines for erosion control. All contractors that the OVLC hires to work on the site must be aware of all restrictions imposed by the permitting agencies. Compulsory compliance with these restrictions should be included in all contracts between the OVLC and its contractors (and by extension, their sub-contractors). The OVLC may want to post signage to limit public access of some types on the site. The OVLC may wish to limit access by equestrians and bicycles at the restoration site as these uses may accelerate erosion and kill plants. The OVLC may wish to impose restrictions on the techniques used by the restoration ecologist. For instance, restricting the use of herbicides and pesticides to an absolute minimum may be desirable.

5.7 On-site monitoring during construction Two types of on-site monitoring may be needed during the grading at the site. The restoration ecologist for the project should be present during grading to make sure the grading plan is implemented in such a way that restoration actions will be successful. The restoration ecologist should also be present to take note of conditions that are revealed during grading such as changes in soil texture at different depths, the moisture profile in the soil, water table elevations, and so on. This information may be vital to the successful implementation of the project and may drive changes in goals or actions for the subsequent restoration. Grading should also be monitored to assure that the final condition of the site matches the specifications in the grading plan.

Informational signage should be posted around the project and at all of the trailheads (Fig. 2.12). The signs should include information about the nature of the project, why it is being undertaken, who is funding it and contact information. These signs should be simple laminated pages stapled to wooden posts or trees. These can be easily and inexpensively replaced if they are damaged or vandalized. Additional signs could be made and installed with further information related to ecological restoration. Possible subjects include the importance of native plants, why non-native invasive plants are harmful, the importance of natural processes in structuring plant communities and examples of local wildlife. These signs should use colorful illustrations to attract the attention of visitors. If possible, the project area should be left unfenced unless fencing is necessary for safety reasons. For instance, it may be necessary to install temporary construction fencing during the construction phase. It is often thought that un-fenced sites run a higher risk of vandalism, though this is

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

5.8 Signs and fencing

generally not true. In fact, it is usually highly desirable to let the public walk around a site, engage workers and see first-hand how restoration is done. Besides the obvious benefits of public education, this creates â&#x20AC;&#x153;buy-inâ&#x20AC;? by some visitors who then may feel some responsibility for the site and become additional eyes and ears that can report or stop potential vandalism. Further, trying to keep people out of areas with fences generally encourages the types bent on vandalism to enter and do damage. The nursery and greenhouse area proposed in Zone 1 (Fig. 5.5) is an exception to this fencing rule (see Chapter 11 for more information).

5.9 Post-implementation site clean up guidelines There will be two main phases of site clean up; 1) post construction and 2) post restoration. The OVLC should coordinate closely with its contractors to make sure the site is left in the specified condition. Possible issues to consider after the grading phase is complete center on the effect of heavy equipment on the roads and other non-graded portions of the site. Potential issues to consider include the smoothing out of tire ruts in dirt roads, the repair of paved roads (this would need to be coordinated with CMWD), the ripping of areas where soils were compacted by vehicles (especially staging areas) and the removal of construction fencing and debris. A walk through of the site with the contractor and OVLC staff should be conducted and additional clean up issues addressed before the contractor leaves the site. This should be addressed explicitly in the contractorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scope of work. The ecological restoration aspects of the project will not have a single end date. Clean-up will be ongoing as phases of the implementation are completed. After the installation of all the erosion control devices, unused coconut netting, staples and so on should be cleaned up and moved into storage for later use. Pots and other planting supplies should be cleaned up daily after planting and moved into storage. The restoration team will likely need vehicular access to portions of the site that should not have roads in the long run. These access roads should be planted in the final phases of the project when they will not longer be needed.

Near the end of the five-year restoration project, there should be a final walk through of the site with the restoration ecologist and OVLC staff. Clean up issues should be addressed at this time. It will also be necessary to hand over the management of the site to the OVLC around this time and the sharing of knowledge of the site and its future needs will be important to the long-term success of the site.

5.10 Post-project maintenance needs There will be some ongoing maintenance needs at the site after the OVLC takes over responsibility of the site from the restoration ecologist and implementation team. If the project is successful and monitoring requirements are met, there should be only minor

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

In general, the site should be kept tidy. Trash should be picked up regularly on the site. Tools and supplies should be stored when workers are not present. A secure storage facility should be installed on the site, preferably in the suggested greenhouse/ nursery area. A 20-foot long shipping container placed on level ground or leveled concrete blocks will provide a place to store tools and supplies when not in use. An additional temporary covered storage area may be useful for storing larger supplies such as rolls of coconut netting.

maintenance needs amounting to a few days of work per year. Annual removal of invasive weeds will be needed. Long-lived seed banks can express themselves years after eradication is assumed. Re-invasion is more likely by plants with seeds easily transported by birds or wind. The areas where Arundo was removed should be monitored for re-sprouting for 10 years. Other maintenance needs include annual trimming of trees and shrubs along trails and roads, trash pickup and fence maintenance on the periphery of the VRP (to keep cattle out).

5.11 Permitting needs

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The NRCS will act as the lead agency for NEPA. Ventura County will likely be the lead agency for CEQA. The OVLC will need to prepare CEQA documents either in-house or by hiring a qualified consultant. Preparation of CEQA documents will be simplified because much of the information needed will be available from the NEPA process. The OVLC will need to acquire funding for CEQA as soon as possible.

Ch 6

Orange grove restoration

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Rice Creek restoration

Ch 6 Orange grove restoration 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Orange grove restoration Important ecosystem processes to be restored Goals Actions needed to accomplish goals Guidelines for accomplishing actions Restricted activities and BMP’s

6.7 On-site monitoring during construction 6.8 Signs and fencing 6.9 Post-implementation site clean up guidelines 6.10 Post-project maintenance needs 6.11 Permitting needs Ch 7 Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Ch 8 Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Valencia oranges in the orange grove

Looking northwest up the historic alignment of Rice Creek through the orange grove

Intermediate phase alluvial scrub on the VRP

6.1 Orange grove restoration Sixty-four acres of alluvial terrace along the western margin of the main stem Ventura River (Fig. 5.1) was converted from alluvial scrub, coast live oak woodland and riparian woodland into an orange grove in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Approximately 4,000 orange trees were irrigated with well water from nearby wells until the OVLC ceased irrigation in 2004. The majority of the un-irrigated trees are dying though consecutive wet winters in 2004 through 2005 and 2005 through 2006 have probably delayed their demise. Weeds and native plants have become wide spread in the understory of the orange grove over the last four years. The target of restoration in Zones 5 through 7 (Fig. 6.1) is the removal of all orange trees and the establishment of mature-phase alluvial scrub (see Chapter 4). There is no record of what the habitat in the orange grove was before it was converted nearly 100 years ago. Based on our observations of native plants that are naturally recruiting in the area, surveys of adjacent areas with similar topography and soils and our understanding of the physical conditions of the site, we believe the mature phase of this community is appropriate in these areas. We do not think that pioneer or intermediate phase communities would be appropriate in Zones 5 through 7 because these areas are no longer interacting with the flood cycles of the Ventura River. The project area is between 20 and 65 feet above the river channel (Fig. 6.2) and is therefore very unlikely to flood. If the elevation of the river channel rises 10 feet as predicted after removal of the Matilija Dam (see Chapter 1), some flooding could occur in the lower elevations of Zones 5 through 7, however these would be low-energy sediment-depositing flows that are typical of mature-phase alluvial scrub habitat.

Coast live oak woodland will be restored in Zone 8 after removal of the orange trees (Fig. 5.3). We have chosen this community for this area based on analysis of historic aerial photographs (Fig. 2.8). This area was not converted to orange trees until some time between 1960 and 1969 (Fig. 2.9 & 2.10) and oak woodland habitat is evident over much of the area in the 1945 aerial photo (Fig. 2.8). We believe this area supported a different community than Zones 5 through 7 due to its lower elevation relative to the river (15 to 30 feet above the active channel) and a higher water table due to the watercourses along its eastern and western margins.

6.2 Important ecosystem processes to be restored Virtually all of the ecosystem processes that are important for the establishment and maintenance of mature-phase alluvial scrub are provided by vegetation. These processes include a mosaic of shady and sunny areas where different plant species can establish, some soil organic matter and wildlife habitat suitable to birds that move seeds into the site. Establishing pioneer and intermediate phase alluvial scrub before trying

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

We do not believe Zones 5 through 7 (Fig. 6.1) will support coast live oak woodland due to the well-drained low-nutrient soils. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities are rarely found on relatively flat terrain such as that found in Zones 5 through 7 so we do not believe they are appropriate targets. The mature-phase alluvial scrub community is a mixture of species from all three of these communities that can tolerate the conditions we believe will exist after removal of the orange trees and other non-native plants. Also, by choosing a target community with representatives from several other possible communities, the site will be able to convert itself over time towards the most sustainable and natural landscape possible.

to establish plants found only in the mature phase can restore these processes. Plants common in the pioneer and intermediate-phase alluvial scrub are especially well suited to the conditions that will be present immediately following the extensive soil disturbance associated with the removal of orange trees and other non-natives. These plants will be introduced and as they grow, will begin to shade and contribute organic matter to the soil. This will create habitat with higher relative soil moisture and more available nutrients. We therefore recommend phased planting over three to five years, beginning with pioneer plants and slowly adding others as the conditions at the site change. Sandy soil texture is important for the establishment and maintenance of alluvial scrub. The disturbed, but native Ojai stony fine sandy loam in most areas Zones 5 through 7 (Fig. 3.2) is appropriate for this community type. The area of Sespe clay loam on the northern end of Zone 6 (Fig. 3.2) may support denser growth of coast live oaks (due to its higher soil moisture and nutrient retention potential) and this area may eventually shift into coast live oak woodland. A relatively high water table is also important for supporting alluvial scrub. Despite the presence of several wells throughout the orange grove, we believe groundwater dynamics on the site are fairly natural. Our observations of native plants such as mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and laurel sumac (Rhus laurina) that have naturally recruited in areas of the orange grove that are no longer irrigated, suggests there is enough available soil moisture in the rooting zone to support the target community. We recommend restoration of coast live oak woodland in Zone 8. Initial shrub planting, especially coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) will provide shade that will allow coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and understory shrubs and forbs to establish and thrive. There may need to be some form of protection for the young oaks such as those outlined in Chapter 11.

•

Restore important ecosystem processes that will allow for the restoration of self-sustaining mature-phase alluvial scrub habitat in Zones 5 through 7

•

Remove irrigation infrastructure and cap the abandoned wells

•

Remove all orange trees

•

Restore alluvial scrub habitat by removing non-natives and planting native shrubs and trees over multiple years as conditions at the site evolve

•

Restore coast live oak woodland in Zone 8

6.4 Actions needed to accomplish goals 1. Identify irrigation related infrastructure that has been abandoned and that which is still in use in Zones 5 through 8 2. Remove abandoned irrigation infrastructure and surface irrigation components in Zones 5 through 8 3. Remove all orange trees 4. Remove perennial non-native plants and control non-native annual plants in Zones 5 through 8 5. Install erosion control measures in Zones 5 through 8 as needed 6. Introduce native forbs, shrubs and trees from small nursery stock and direct

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

6.3 Goals

Figure 6.1

Target vegetation communities within the Rice Creek and orange grove restoration areas

Zone 1 Zone 1

Zone 1

Zone 5

Rice Creek

Ventura River

Zone 2

Zone 6 CMWD property Zone 7

Zone 8

Zone 3

Zone 4

Target communities Coast live oak woodland Alluvial scrub Riparian woodland Greenhouse/nursery location

N No scale given.

Water course Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

seeding in Zones 5 through 7 7. Plant coast live oak acorns and nursery shrubs from small nursery stock in Zone 8 8. Conduct follow-up weed removal and site maintenance for at least five years post implementation

6.5 Guidelines for accomplishing actions 1) Identify irrigation related infrastructure that has been abandoned and that which is still in use in Zones 5 through 9. Determine the status of the irrigation infrastructure at the site by inspection and consultation with others who maintain wells at the site. Professionals familiar with orchard irrigation systems should be consulted. Un-used infrastructure should be removed at the early stages of restoration to avoid potential disturbance in later phases. Leaking systems may create wet areas that are often prone to invasion by non-native plants. 2) Remove abandoned irrigation infrastructure in Zones 5 through 8. Enough irrigation infrastructure should be left in place so that the OVLCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water allotment can be used for the nursery/greenhouse operation and for irrigation of the restoration site if needed. The cost of removal of the irrigation system will not be known until Action 1 has been completed. All of the aboveground infrastructure should be removed. It may be possible to find a local grower who would provide the labor for the removal in exchange for the removed irrigation supplies. If this cannot be arranged, a cost effective alternative could be to use the CREW or a similar entity for the removal work. 3) Remove all orange trees. All of the orange trees throughout the orange grove will be removed in the fall of 2006. The trees will be bulldozed out, piled up and then burned in the winter. These activities will occur before the restoration project and are considered agricultural practices and will require appropriate permits. After removal, the soil surface should be evened out by ripping. Ideally, the bulldozing and ripping will kill many perennial weeds.

The OVLC has been advised that the removal of the orange trees should happen at the earliest possible date. There is a local firm that is willing to do the removal and burning on a pro bono basis in the fall and winter of 2006. We highly recommend the OVLC take advantage of this opportunity. However, since there is currently no funding for the restoration of the majority of the orange grove, decisions will need to be made on how to manage the area until restoration can take place. It is recommended that the OVLC explore options for doing annual weed control on the entire site up until restoration is funded. There are two options. The area could be left fallow, however, annual weeds will thrive and bolster the seed bank and perennial weeds, which can be very difficult to control or eradicate as part of the restoration process, will become more prevalent. If weed control is continued, restoration timelines will be sped up ultimately saving money and producing more successful projects. Unfortunately, there is currently no funding mechanism in place

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

There are a relatively high number of medium sized shrubs and coast live oaks that have naturally recruited throughout the orange grove. A careful survey should be conducted before bulldozing to determine weather any of these plants should be flagged and protected from tree removal and subsequent weed control activities. The long-and short-term costs of saving these plants will be rather high so it is recommended that only especially fine individuals be marked for preservation.

Canal Road

No scale given.

720 760 700 740 680 720 660 700 680 0 660 0

Road Canal 760 740Road

100

150

150 250

Feet 200 Feet

250

200

300

350

Gravel Side Bar Gravel Side channel Channel Side Bar Channel

Gravel bar

300

Lower Ventura Terrace Lower terrace River Lower Ventura Channel Terrace River Channel

400

200 200

100

300

400

600

Feet 500 Feet

600

500

700

900

1000

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

800

Rice Creek Ventura River Ventura channel Historic historic channel Rice River Orange Grove Terrace RiceCreek Creek Ventura ChannelZone 3 OrangeOrange Grove Terrace grove terrace Channel Orange grove terrace Historic River Orange Grove Terrace Zone 6 Channel Zone 7 Channel Orange Grove Terrace

100

Orange Grove Terrace

100

CanalRoad Canal

710 730 700 720 690 710 680 700 690 0 680 0

Orange Grove Zone 5 Terrace

Orange grove terrace

Ventura River channel

Two representative elevation cross-sections through the orange grove

Canal Road Canal 730 Road 720

Figure 6.2

(ft.) (ft.)(ft.) Elevation Elevation Elevation

Elevation (ft.)(ft.) Elevation (ft.) Elevation

to pay for the large-scale tilling or herbicide treatments that will be necessary. 4) Remove perennial non-native plants and control non-native annuals in Zones 5 through 8. After orange tree removal, weeds should be aggressively controlled if possible. There is a potential time gap between orange tree removal and funding for restoration and weed control. This action should be implemented as soon as possible after the tree removal. Woody perennials such as Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) and myoporum (Myoporum laetum) should be cut down and the stumps ground or painted with herbicide. Perennial weeds such as smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum) and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) should be removed by hand. Annual weeds such as sweet clover (Melilotus sp.) and Madrid brome (Bromus madritensis) can be controlled by a number of methods. The most effective strategy in Zones 5 through 8 will be to till the soil or apply herbicide repeatedly for up to two years or until the seed bank of invasive non-natives has been reduced to almost nothing. Weed-whipping and mowing do not kill or prevent seed production in most annual weeds. The project should not use these techniques. Scattered native plants including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) saplings, laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) and everlasting (Gnaphalium sp.) occur throughout the orange grove. While some care may be taken to avoid killing these plants, it should not come at the cost of using the most efficient methods available for removing orange trees, killing weeds or any other necessary restoration activity.

Some erosion control measures may be needed in this area of Zone 7. Chapter 10 contains details on potential methods. Organic fiber blankets is an effective way to limit soil movement on slopes and in small channels. This natural fiber mat is stapled into the ground and allowed to bio degrade over a couple years (the steel staples are usually not removed and slowly rust away). This material does not stand up well to high velocity flows but is appropriate in small drainages. Coconut netting is rather expensive, approximately $0.20 per square foot (including staples) plus installation. Nursery plants are rather difficult to plant (a hole must be cut for each plant) and weeding is very time consuming (hand pulling or herbicide only) in coconut netted areas. Therefore, coconut netting should be used only where other methods are not feasible or where there is a high potential for erosion. Planting with native plants could also stabilize the soil. The small drainages in Zones 5 through 7 may not support hydrophytic vegetation. Rhizomatous plants such as western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) and salt marsh baccharis (Baccharis douglasii) could provide excellent soil stabilization. 6) Plant native forbs, shrubs and trees from small nursery stock and direct seeding in Zones 5 through 7. A wide variety of species should be planted from nursery stock and seeded directly onto the site. Table 6.1 details the appropriate species and locations where they should be planted. Propagules for almost all of these species can, and should, be collected within the VRP (see Chapter 11 for collection and planting guidelines. Small

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

5) Install erosion control measures in Zones 5 through 8 as needed. The only area of concern regarding potential erosion is the northern half of Zone 7 where the east-west slope is sufficient to have caused some rilling between the orange trees. The grading plan should address the possible re-contouring of this area. A potential solution is to direct the water south eastwards in small channels that will eventually join into Rice Creek. These channels could be very low gradient and pose minimal risk of erosion or sedimentation to Rice Creek, with appropriate design and installation.

Table 6.1

Planting lists for orange grove restoration project

Primary components of alluvial scrub SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Rosaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rosaceae Polygonaceae Fabaceae Malvaceae Anacardiaceae Scrophulariaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Rhamnaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae

SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Achillea millefolium var. californica Asclepias fascicularis Brickellia californica Brickellia nevinii Dendromecon sp. Epilobium canum var. canum Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Gnaphalium californicum Gnaphalium leucocephalum Hazardia squarrosa var. squarrosa Hesperoyucca whipplei Heteromeles arbutifolia Leptodactylon californicum var. californicum Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia Lonicerasp. Malacothrix saxatilis Phacelia sp. Rhamnus crocea Rhus trilobata var. quinata Scrophularia californica Solanun xantii var. xantii

California white yarrow Narrowleaf milkweed California brickellbush Nevinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brickellbush Bush poppy California fuchsia Golden yarrow Green everlasting White everlasting Sawtooth goldenbush Our Llordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s candle Toyon California prickly phlox California cudweed-aster Honeysuckle California cliff-aster Phacelia Redberry Skunkbrush California figwort Chaparral nightshade

Asteraceae Asclepiadaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Papapveraceae Onagraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Liliaceae Rosaceae Polemoniaceae Asteraceae Caprifoliaceae Asteraceae Hydrophyllaceae Rhamnaceae Anacardiaceae Scrophulariaceae Solanaceae

Secondary components of alluvial scrub

Table 2 continued Understory components of alluvial scrub SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Arctostaphylo sp. Keckiella cordifolia Monardella hypoleuca ssp. hypoleuca Penstemon centranthifolius Ribes malvaceum var. viridifolium Ribes speciosum Salvia spathacea

Manzanita Heart-leaved penstemon White-veined coyote mint Scarlet buglar Sticky chaparral currant Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry Hummingbird sage

Ericaceae Scrophulariaceae Lamiaceae Scrophulariaceae Grossulariaceae Grossulariaceae Lamiaceae

Primary components of coast live oak woodland SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Baccharis pilularis Ceanothus cuneatus Ceanothus oliganthus ssp. oliganthus Ceanothus spinosus Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. fasciculatus Malosma laurina Mimulus longiflorus ssp. longiflorus Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia Rhamnus ilicifolia

Coyote brush Wedgeleaf ceanothus Hoary ceanothus Greenbark ceanothus Chaparral bushmallow Laurelleaf sumac Sticky bush monkeyflower Coast live oak Hollyleaf redberry

Asteraceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Malvaceae Anacardiaceae Scrophulariaceae Fagaceae Rhamnaceae

Secondary components of coast live oak woodland SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Baccharis plummerae Calystegia macrostegia Clematis ligusticifolia Heuchera elegans Keckiella cordifolia Lotus scoparius var. scoparius Ribes malvaceum var. viridifolium Ribes speciosum Rubus ursinus Salvia spathacea Scrophularia californica Solanun xantii var. xantii Solidago californica Symphoricarpos mollis

Plummer baccharis Morning-glory Virginâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bower Urn-flowered alumroot Heart-leaved penstemon Deerweed Sticky chaparral currant Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry California blackberry Hummingbird sage California figwort Chaparral nightshade Goldenrod Snowberry

Asteraceae Convolvulaceae Ranunculaceae Saxifragaceae Scrophulariaceae Fabaceae Grossulariaceae Grossulariaceae Rosaceae Lamiaceae Scrophulariaceae Solanaceae Asteraceae Caprifoliaceae

plants (2 to 6-months old) in small pots (~2-inch square) or direct seeding should be used almost exclusively. Chapter 11 details options for acquiring the necessary plants. 7) Plant coast live oak acorns and nursery shrubs from small nursery stock in Zone 8. Large, fast-growing shrubs should be planted first in Zone 8. In following years, as shady habitat develops, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) acorns should be planted. Eventually, as the habitat matures, plants typical of coast live oak understories should be added into this area. Table 6.1 details the appropriate species and locations where they should be planted. Propagules for almost all of these species can, and should, be collected within the VRP (see Chapter 11 for collection and planting guidelines). Small plants (2 through 6 months old) in small pots (~2-inch square) or direct seeding should be used almost exclusively. Chapter 11 details options for acquiring the necessary plants 8) Conduct follow-up weed removal and site maintenance for at least five years post implementation. The restoration ecologist hired to oversee and coordinate the restoration project should be responsible for the site for at least five years (longer if required by a permitting or funding agency). The restoration ecologist will be responsible for maintenance of the site (fill-in planting, weeding, etc.) and guaranteeing it will meet the monitoring requirements through five years (or more). The monitoring (outlined in Chapter 12) should be used to help guide the maintenance of the site and adjust actions as necessary to meet the goals (i.e., an adaptive management strategy). Monitoring should not be used to justify changing the goals of the project in mid-course. Two main types of follow-up weed control must be carried out for at least five years. The perennial invasives such as Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) and myoporum (Myoporum laetum) should be monitored for resprouting from roots and stumps and seedlings should be searched for and removed annually. Annual weeds should be controlled each winter and spring, especially until native cover is dense enough to shade out most weeds. Where woody perennials are re-sprouting, the possible means of obtaining a complete kill include stump grinding, cutting-and-painting with herbicide or girdling well below the soil surface (these techniques are detailed in Chapter 9). Control of annual weeds will be primarily by hand-pulling and hula-hoeing.

The NEPA/CEQA and permitting process will identify a variety of restrictions on activities and BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for the restoration project. These will likely include seasonal restrictions on certain activities and guidelines for erosion control. All contractors that the OVLC hires to work on the site must be aware of all restrictions imposed by the permitting agencies. Compulsory compliance with these restrictions should be included in all contracts between the OVLC and its contractors (and by extension, their subcontractors). The OVLC may want to post signage to limit public access of some types on the site. Access by equestrians and bicycles may need to be discouraged through the site as these uses often accelerate erosion and kill plants. The OVLC may wish to impose restrictions on the techniques used by the restoration ecologist. For instance, restricting the use of herbicides and pesticides to an absolute minimum may be desirable.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

6.6 Restricted activities and BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

6.7 On-site monitoring during construction Two types of on-site monitoring may need to occur during any grading of the site. The restoration ecologist for the project should be present during any grading to make sure the grading plan is implemented in such a way that restoration actions will be successful. The restoration ecologist should also be present to take note of conditions that are revealed during grading such as changes in soil texture at different depths, the moisture profile in the soil, water table elevations, and so on. This information may be vital to the successful implementation of the project and may drive changes in goals or actions for the subsequent restoration.

6.8 Signs and fencing Informational signage should be posted liberally around the periphery of the project and at all of the trailheads (Fig. 2.12). The signs should include information about the nature of the project, why it is being undertaken, who is funding it and contact information. These signs should be simple laminated pages stapled to wooden posts or trees. If they are damaged or vandalized they can be easily and inexpensively replaced. Additional signs could be made and installed with further information related to ecological restoration. Possible subjects include the importance of native plants, why nonnative invasive plants are harmful, the importance of natural processes in structuring plant communities and examples of local wildlife. These signs should use colorful illustrations to attract the attention of visitors. If possible, the project area should be left unfenced unless fencing is necessary for safety reasons. For instance, it may be necessary to install temporary construction fencing during the construction phase. It is often thought that un-fenced sites run a higher risk of vandalism, though this is generally not true. In fact, it is usually highly desirable to let the public walk around a site, engage workers and see first-hand how restoration is done. Besides the obvious benefits of public education, this creates â&#x20AC;&#x153;buy-inâ&#x20AC;? by some visitors who then may feel some responsibility for the site and become additional eyes and ears that can report or stop potential vandalism. Further, trying to keep people out of areas with fences generally encourages the types bent on vandalism to enter and do damage. The nursery and greenhouse area proposed in Zone 1 (Fig. 5.5) is an exception to this fencing rule (see Chapter 11 for details).

There will be two main phases of site clean up; 1) post construction and 2) post restoration. The OVLC should coordinate closely with its contractors to make sure the site is left in the agreed upon condition. Possible issues to consider after the grading phase is complete mostly center on the effect of heavy equipment on the roads and other non-graded portions of the site. Potential issues to consider include the smoothing out of tire ruts in dirt roads, the repair of paved roads (this would need to be coordinated with CMWD), the ripping of areas where soils were compacted by vehicles (especially staging areas) and the removal of construction fencing. A walk through of the site with the contractor and the OVLC staff should be conducted and additional clean up issues addresses before the contractor leaves the site. This should be addressed explicitly in the contractorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scope of work.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

6.9 Post-implementation site clean up guidelines

The ecological restoration aspect of the project will not have as clear an end date as the grading phase and therefore, clean up will be ongoing as phases of the implementation are completed. After the installation of all the erosion control devices, unused coconut netting, staples and so on should be cleaned up and moved into storage for later use. Pots and other planting supplies should be cleaned up daily after planting and moved into storage. The restoration team will likely need vehicular access to portions of the site that should not have roads in the long run. These access roads should be planted in the final phases of the project when they will not longer be needed. Trash should be picked up regularly on the site as well. In general, the site should be kept tidy. Tools and supplies should not be left lying around the site when workers are not present; they may be stolen or vandalized or could cause an injury. To help avoid this, a secure storage facility must be installed on the site, preferably in the suggested greenhouse/nursery area. A 20-foot long shipping container placed on level ground or leveled concrete blocks will provide a place to store tools and supplies when not in use. An additional temporary covered storage area may be useful for storing larger supplies such as rolls of coconut netting. Near the end of the five-year restoration project, there should be a final walk through of the site with the restoration ecologist and the OVLC staff. Clean up issues should be addressed at this time. It will also be necessary to hand over the management of the site to the OVLC around this time and the sharing of knowledge of the site and its future needs will be important to the long-term success of the site.

6.10 Post-project maintenance needs There will be some ongoing maintenance needs at the site after the OVLC takes over responsibility of the site from the restoration ecologist and implementation team. It the project was done well and monitoring requirements were met, there should be only minor maintenance needs amounting to a few days of work per year. One priority will be the annual removal of invasive perennial weeds that will surely continue to trickle into the site. Species whose seeds are highly mobile (bird or wind transported) or have long-lived seed banks are the most likely re-invaders. The areas where Arundo was removed should be monitored for re-sprouting for 10 years. Other maintenance needs include annual trimming of trees and shrubs along trails and roads, trash pickup, fence maintenance on the periphery of the VRP (to keep cattle out),

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

6.11 Permitting needs

Ch 7

Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Rice Creek restoration Ch 6 Orange grove restoration

Ch 7 Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements 7.1 Riparian and Coast live oak woodland understory enhancement 7.2 Important ecosystem processes to be restored 7.3 Goals 7.4 Actions needed to accomplish goals 7.5 Guidelines for accomplishing actions

7.6 Permitting 7.7 Funding Ch 8 Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Coast live oak woodland in Wills Canyon

Wills Creek near the mouth of Wills Canyon

Cow on the VRP

7.1 Riparian and coast live oak woodland understory enhancement There are over 500 acres of coast live oak woodland and over three miles of stream courses with riparian woodlands west and north of the canal in Rice, Wills, Olive and Sycamore Canyons and along the small south-facing drainages along the southern margin of the VRP (Fig. 4.1). Cattle grazed all of these areas for well over 100 years until the OVLC acquired the property in 2001. As a result of the heavy grazing, the understory flora in most of these areas is less diverse and robust than would be expected. For instance, the native rhizomatous perennial snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis) is virtually the only native understory species in significant areas of Wills Canyon. There are pockets of high plant diversity in areas that cattle could not easily access, typically on steep slopes. Now that the non-native grazing pressure has been essentially eliminated on the VRP, there is a great opportunity to restore the biodiversity and associated functions in many of these areas. In the coast live oak woodlands, the abundance of large, mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and California walnut (Juglans californica ssp. californica) along with the relatively low cover of non-natives in the understory make it possible to simply re-introduce native species that are scarce or absent. All of the important ecosystem processes seem to be intact, including dense shade, lack of invasive non-natives and mature soil structure. Therefore, we see this as an opportunity to easily enhance these areas by simply growing and planting a wide diversity (Table 7.1) of understory shrubs and forbs. Many of the plants are found on the VRP (Appendix A). In the riparian woodlands there are still many large mature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and only very sparse non-native cover. Smaller riparian trees and shrubs that cattle eat such as willows (Salix sp.) and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) are almost totally absent. Further, there is considerable down-cutting evident in Rice and Wills Creeks that is likely the result of the lost vegetative cover that can slow down erosion. Re-planting the stream courses with understory species (Table 7.1) will not only improve the habitat for wildlife but may slow down erosion as well.

7.2 Important ecosystem processes to be restored

The important processes for coast live oak woodland are largely intact including: nearly full shade, thick leaf litter, mature soil structure with lots of organic matter, absence of invasive non-native species, and wildlife to move seeds around. It should be possible to simply re-introduce native understory plants from nursery stock or direct seeding. Similarly, the important ecosystem processes in the riparian woodlands are mostly intact though there seems to be more erosion than sedimentation due to the lack of understory plants along the banks of the streams. Planting cuttings and nursery stock along the steep banks will help slow the erosion and trap sediment and over time, return the creek morphology to a more natural state.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Virtually all of the important ecosystem processes are intact in the coast live oak woodland and riparian woodlands in the western part of the VRP. The major impediment to natural processing was the presence of cattle, which were grazed in these areas, sometimes at high densities, for over 100 years. The devastation they brought on the native understory shrubs and forbs is nearly complete in some areas and though cattle have been largely excluded from these areas for four years, there is little evidence that the biodiversity in the understory is recovering on its own.

Table 7.1

Planting lists for Rice and Wills Canyon enhancement project

Oak understory enhancement planting list SPECIES

COMMON NAME

FAMILY

Plummerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s baccharis Morning-glory Virginâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bower Urn-flowered alumroot Heart-leaved penstemon Deerweed Sticky chaparral currant Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry California blackberry Hummingbird sage California figwort Chaparral nightshade Goldenrod Snowberry

Asteraceae Convolvulaceae Ranunculaceae Saxifragaceae Scrophulariaceae Fabaceae Grossulariaceae Grossulariaceae Rosaceae Lamiaceae Scrophulariaceae Solanaceae Asteraceae Caprifoliaceae

COMMON NAME Mugwort Mulefat Common spike-rush Western goldenrod Southern California black walnut Basket rush Giant wildrye California sycamore California wild rose California blackberry Arroyo willow Blue elderberry

FAMILY Asteraceae Asteraceae Cyperaceae Asteraceae Juglandaceae Juncaceae Poaceae Platanaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Salicaceae Caprifoliaceae

Riparian enhancement planting list SPECIES Artemisia douglasiana Baccharis salicifolia Eleocharis macrostachya Euthamia occidentalis Juglans california ssp. californica Juncus textilis Leymus condensatus Platanus racemosa var. racemosa Rosa californica Rubus ursinus Salix lasiolepis var. lasiolepis Sambucus mexicana

7.3 Goals •

Enhance the understory of coast live oak woodland and riparian woodland habitats on the VRP

•

Identify priority areas for enhancement

•

Phase implementation over many years as funding becomes available

•

Keep non-native plants sparse by hand removal in areas that are to be planted

•

Use these enhancement activities as educational and public outreach tools

7.4 Actions needed to accomplish goals 1. Identify and rank priority areas for enhancement based on accessibility and need 2. Establish greenhouse and nursery operation that can produce nursery stock every year for enhancement activities 3. Monitor non-native species, especially those that may become invasive 4. Remove non-native plants in areas to be planted 5. Plant wide diversity of natives from small nursery stock and direct seeding

7.5 Guidelines for accomplishing actions 1) Identify and rank priority areas for enhancement based on accessibility and need. The first areas chosen for enhancement should be highly visible to the public, easily accessible in terms of delivering plants to the area and in need of some non-native control and biodiversity enhancement. Polygons should be identified between one and five acres in size. Each year, some area should be targeted; the total area depending on the amount of other work OVLC staff is undertaking and available funding.

3) Monitor non-native plants, especially those that may become invasive. Currently, there are no major invasive plant species issues in the intact coast live oak woodland and riparian woodland habitats on the VRP. This could change. Regular monitoring by preserve staff or knowledgeable volunteers could identify potential problems before large-scale invasions occur. For more on this see Chapter 9. 4) Remove non-native species in areas to be planted. Hand-weeding non-natives before areas are planted is more efficient than planting first and then carefully weeding around the plantings. Hand-pulling will be most effective in most coast live oak woodland areas and will minimize soil disturbance. 5) Plant a wide diversity of native plants from cuttings, small nursery stock and direct seeding. Planting should occur in the winter or early spring when soil moisture is highest.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

2) Establish greenhouse and nursery operation that can produce nursery stock every year for enhancement activities. Establishment of a greenhouse and nursery facility on the VRP as outlined in Chapter 11 will be crucial to the enhancements outlined in this section. There is a significant cost advantage to growing the necessary nursery stock in-house and the use of volunteers and local schools has proven to be an effective system for the OVLC in the past.

Table 7.1 details the appropriate species and habitats where they should be planted. Propagules for almost all of these plants should be collected on the VRP (see Chapter 11 for collection and planting guidelines). Small plants (2 to 6 months old) in small pots (~2 inch square) or direct seeding should be used almost exclusively. Chapter 11 details options for acquiring the necessary plant material. Enhancement of the riparian areas could be done very easily with volunteers by collecting willow (Salix sp.), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) cuttings and installing them in the late winter and spring along the banks of the creeks.

7.6 Permitting The enhancement actions proposed for Wills and Rice Canyons in this section will not require permitting or CEQA review provided vehicular use is limited to existing approved roads, all work is done with hand tools and no irrigation or other infrastructure is installed.

7.7 Funding

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Funding could come from a variety of sources. Grants will need to cover nursery supplies, partial salary of a greenhouse manager and management time for OVLC staff. Small grants (< $30k) from organizations such as SCWRP, Patagonia or USFWS may be useful for funding enhancements in specific areas. Larger grants through the Ventura River Parkway Program could fund a much larger scale approach to these enhancements.

Ch 8

Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Rice Creek restoration Ch 6 Orange grove restoration Ch 7 Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements

Ch 8 Invasive non-native plant control and eradication 8.1 Invasive non-native plant removal 8.2 Weed management areas on the VRP 8.3 Prioritization of non-native plant control and eradication

8.4 Permitting 8.5 Funding

Mulefat scrub on the VRP

Peruvian pepper

Prickly pear cactus

8.1 Invasive non-native plant removal Strategies for conserving native plant communities on the VRP should include control of established invasive non-native plants as well as prevention of future invasions. Invasive non-native plants can alter physical processes, native plant communities and higher trophic levels. These plants are often easy to control at early stages of invasion and very difficult to control once established. Invasive non-native plant control will be important to maintain the diversity and high level of ecological functions at the reserve. This plan prioritizes control and eradication needs and details actions to control established populations. Prevention of future invasions will depend on ongoing control efforts (typically by manual removal of plants) in conjunction with regular surveys by experienced biologists. This plan acknowledges that many of the weed species (see Appendix B) are here to stay. In general, we do not recommend efforts to control well-established weeds such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) or filaree (Erodium sp.) except as part of restoration projects. The purpose of weed control efforts should be to maximize long-term ecological functioning of the site with efficient control methods. Highest priority should be given species known to be highly invasive and that are not already widespread at the site. The VRP has substantial areas of native vegetation where non-native plants are a relatively unimportant constituent of the vegetation community. These areas include much of the chaparral habitat where scattered non-native annuals occur at low densities. Eradication of weeds in these areas is generally not a high management priority, but these areas should be monitored for signs of highly invasive species (Table 8.1).

Overall, it will be very important for the OVLC to monitor the preserve on at least an annual basis to track established invasive plants, new invasions of known invaders, and to catch colonization by new invasive species. Most of the monitoring can be done along road and trail edges where new propagules may arrive easily (on construction equipment, maintenance vehicles, mountain bikes, hiking boots, or horses) and disturbed soils will support invasive species. The river floodway should also be a high priority because of the high value of ecosystem functions in the area and because the disturbance regime will create bare soils, which are easily colonized. Weed propagules are easily transported into these areas as well. Two aspects of the monitoring program are important: 1) continuity of the effort, and 2) ability to identify invasive species including plants new to the site. Monitoring efforts should include systematic collection of geographic coordinates (GPS). Annual monitoring should also include checking for updates of the California Invasive Plant Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s California Invasive Plant Inventory (Appendix G). Control or eradication efforts may use a wide variety of techniques. Generally, for species present at low densities, control can be achieved through manual removal of individual plants (and any seeds before they ripen or drop from the plant). Major infestations require intense control efforts often including mechanical removal or herbicides. As more biological control agents become available, the OVLC should consider participating in field trials for target species that occur on the reserve. The OVLC should consider posting signs to inform visitors to the Reserve about invasive non-native plants and their transport. The variety of recreational uses (hikers, equestrians and mountain bikes) and the access road for the diversion will continue to introduce non-native plants to the site. Raising public awareness of the issue may benefit the site in the long run.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

There are a number of relatively small areas on the VRP that have been significantly invaded by non-native plants. These areas include: parts of the river channel and floodplain, places where soils have been disturbed by human or natural means, and areas which were subject to especially intense grazing pressure. Concentrations of non-native plants also occur along road and trail edges.

El Nido Ventura River Preserve weed management areas

Figure 8.1

es or

sN e dr

a on

El Nido Meadow

Rice Canyon

P os

Wills Canyon

South drainages

Orange grove

Ventura River

Ventura River Preserve 2,000 feet

Restoration Plan for the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, August 2006

8.2 Weed management areas on the VRP Ventura River. Several invasive weeds are present in the floodway of the Ventura River (Fig. 8.1) including giant reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and Spanish broom (Spartium junceum). These species have not attained high densities along the river on the VRP, making them likely candidates for control efforts, but the upstream sources of seeds and other propagules make it clear that sustainable control must come through watershedscale efforts. Control of isolated patches of these weeds, in higher areas of the floodplain, would be worthwhile. Rice Canyon. Rice Canyon (Fig. 8.1) has a long history of grazing and agriculture. Soils in the area have been disturbed along the canal, access roads and trails. One agricultural species remaining in the area is olives. The olive grove is located west of the canal (Fig. 8.1). Many of the trees persist and produce olives. Young olive trees have sprouted in the canyon and the orange grove. While this species is not highly invasive, its eradication is desirable. Wills Canyon. Invasive non-natives are found in the Coast live oak woodland understory and along trails in Wills Canyon (Fig. 8.1). Italian thistle has invaded the area and will probably continue to spread unless it is controlled soon. El Nido Meadow. The El Nido Meadow (Fig. 8.1) supports high densities of native bunch grass and associated species. This area has special importance because of the rarity of native grassland in the region. The meadow has a large number of typical annual grassland weeds present, but they have not out-competed the native bunchgrasses. One perennial weed of concern is Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). In many areas of the south coast, this species has out-competed all other species and formed single species stands. Harding grass is currently present in the meadow at low densities. Ongoing management should include monitoring for thistles and other highly invasive species of grasslands. Orange Grove. Restoration of the orange grove would include control of invasive species. High priority species (Table 8.1) should be controlled as part of ongoing site management. Southern Drainages and Easement. The OVLC has an ongoing annual monitoring program on the conservation easement on the southern portion of the reserve.

Not all non-native species on the VRP present a serious biological concern. In areas outside of formal restoration projects (where all non-natives should be controlled or eradicated) we have provided the following suggestions for eradication of certain non-native plants in certain areas. To formulate the following prioritization, we weighed five basic factors: 1) degree of invasiveness, 2) stage of infestation, 3) likelihood of re-invasion, 4) ease of control or eradication and 5) ecological value of the habitat being invaded. Top priorities. The following are highly invasive plants that once removed are not likely to re-invade or are in early stages of invasion, typically in sensitive habitats. Arundo in Rice Creek Arundo below the orange grove on the high river terrace

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

8.3 Prioritization of non-native plant control and eradication

101

Table 8.1

Invasive non-native plants to watch for on VRP ranked by invasiveness

Family

Typical habitat

Arundo donax Bromus madritensis Centaurea solstitialis Delairea odorata Foeniculum vulgare Spartium junceum Tamarix sp.

Giant reed Madrid brome Yellow starthistle Cape-ivy Fennel Spanish broom Tamarisk

Poaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Apiaceae Fabaceae Tamaricaceae

Riparian Grassland Grassland Riparian Grassland Riparian Riparian

ò ò ò ö ò ò ò

Rice Creek, Ventura River

Avena barbata, A. fatua Brassica nigra Bromus diandrus Carduus pycnocephalus Centaurea melitensis Conium maculatum Cynara cardunculus Cynodon dactylon Eucalyptus globulus Geranium dissectum Hirschfeldia incana Hordeum murinum Lolium multiflorum Myoporum laetum Nicotiana glauca Phalaris aquatica Trifolium hirtum Vinca major Vulpia myuros Washingtonia robusta

Wild oat Black mustard Ripgut brome Italian thistle Tocalote Poison-hemlock Artichoke thistle Bermudagrass Tasmanian gum Cutleaf geranium Summer mustard Hare barley Italian ryegrass Myoporum Tree tobacco Harding grass Rose clover Big periwinkle Rattail fescue Mexican fan palm

Poaceae Brassicaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Poaceae Myrtaceae Gereniaceae Brassicaceae Poaceae Poaceae Myoporaceae Solanaceae Poaceae Fabaceae Apocynaceae Poaceae Arecaceae

Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Disturbed Riparian Disturbed Grassland Grassland Grassland Riparian Disturbed Grassland Disturbed Riparian Grassland Moist areas

ò ò ò ò ò ö ö ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ö ö ò ò

Widespread

Brassica rapa Marrubium vulgare Medicago polymorpha Olea europaea Piptatherum miliaceum Raphanus sativus Ricinus communis Rumex crispus Schinus molle

Field mustard White horehound Burclower Olive Smilo grass Radish Castorbean Curly dock Peruvian pepper

Brassicaceae Lamiaceae Fabaceae Oleaceae Poaceae Brassicaceae Euphorbiaceae Polygonaceae Anacardiaceae

Grassland Disturbed Disturbed Moist areas Canyons Grassland Disturbed Wetland Disturbed

ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò

Scattered

Distribution on the VRP

Common name

Status on the VRP

Species Low

Medium

High

Rankings follow CalIPC February 2006 ò = Present ö = Not known to occur

Widespread Probable along Canal Rd. Scattered, orange grove Ventura River Ventura River

Widespread Widespread Orange grove Road edges

Orange grove Homestead site Scattered Scattered Widespread Widespread Oorange grove Trail edges Scattered, El Nido meadow

Widespread Homestead site, orange grove

Scattered Scattered, Orange grove Olive orchard, riparian Widespread Scattered Ventura River Scattered Homestead site, scattered

Peruvian pepper Myoporum Spanish broom on river terraces Yellow star thistle Moderate Priorities. These are moderately invasive plants in the early stages of infestation or of limited distribution. Fan palms Olives Tasmanian bluegum Tamarisk in the Ventura River channel Spanish broom in the Ventura River channel Italian thistle Tocalote Low Priorities. These following species are generally very difficult to control and/or very likely to re-invade. Arundo in the Ventura River channel Smilo grass along trails in Rice and Wills Canyons Tree tobacco along roads

8.4 Permitting In general, permitting will not be required for most non-native removal. Exceptions include removal of large trees and cases where herbicide will be used in jurisdictional water courses.

8.5 Funding

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Some non-native removal can be done using current management resources (the Preserve Manager and interns). Because of the already heavy workload of the OVLC staff, there will be very limited time available for these activities. Outside sources of funding should be sought for the highest priority species. Other restoration projects on the VRP could lend personnel and other resources to non-native control efforts as appropriate.

103

Section III

Implementation guidelines

his section offers general guidance on the most effective methods for implementing the major aspects of the proposed restoration and enhancement projects. The level of detail provided is not sufficient for the day-to-day implementation of the large-scale projects proposed in this plan. The OVLC will need to hire expert restoration consultants to determine the final strategies. Our intention is to provide the OVLC with the general strategies that will be effective and efficient for implementing the projects as we outlined them in the previous chapters. The following information will aid the OVLC in its interaction with consultants once funding becomes available for these projects. The rough timeline and budgets we have included will also serve to guide the OVLC. These are only estimates but are suitable for inclusion in grant proposals. Detailed bids will be needed for all aspects of the projects. We have also suggested a general structure for managing these large-scale projects in light of the OVLCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limited human resources. The suggested structure could apply to new positions within the OVLC or to consultants. a

Ch 9

Control techniques for invasive non-native plants

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants 9.1 Control methods for specific invasive non-native plants

9.2 General strategies for invasive non-native plant eradication 9.2.1 Annual weed control 9.2.2 Invasive tree eradication Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management Ch 11 Revegetation strategies Ch 12 Restoration monitoring Ch 13 Project organization and management Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

Students transplanting native plants in the Oak Grove School greenhouse

Spreading sheets of plastic to solarize weeds on the OVLC Ojai Meadows Preserve

Disking annual weeds on the OVLC Ojai Meadows Preserve

Cattle loose in the orange grove

9.1 Control methods for specific invasive non-native plants. While the majority of non-native weeds can be controlled with generalized methods, certain species, due to their unique growth forms or surprising resilience to treatments, must be dealt with in specific ways. The methods detailed here include recommendations summarized from several sources (Bossard et al. 2000, CalIPC, Encycloweedia, The Weed Worker’s Handbook) Giant reed, Arundo donax, is significant challenge in managing the natural resources of riparian habitats in California including the Ventura River. Planning efforts are under way for control of giant reed throughout the Ventura River watershed. On the Ventura River Preserve, giant reed is growing at high density in the channalized portion of Rice Creek, and in smaller patches on the lower portions of the natural drainage of the creek, and along the floodway of the Ventura River. These patches may contribute propagules of this weed into the lower portions of the Ventura River. Many approaches have been used for controlling giant reed. Two are recommended for restoration of habitats at the VRP: Dense stands of giant reed in Rice Creek should be removed by the “Cut Stump” method in which stalks are manually cut within 2 inches of the ground, then the stumps are painted with a high concentration of herbicide. This method will remove biomass from the site, reducing fire risk and allowing topographic survey necessary for the engineering design for returning the creek to its natural channel. The biomass will be burned along with the bulldozed orange trees.

Spanish broom, Spartium junceum, is found along the Ventura River and its adjacent terraces. The understanding of methods to control of Spanish broom is limited. In Bossard et al. (2000), the authors suggest the following approaches to controlling Spanish broom invasions. Because Spanish broom may produce a large and persistent seedbank, recolonization may quickly follow the removal of above-ground plant parts. Young Spanish broom plants may be removed by hand or with a weed wrench. Pulling should be an effective mechanism of control as long as roots are removed and follow-up treatment of seedlings is done. The optimal season for pulling may be July through September when plants are already experiencing water stress. Larger plants may be removed with a brush hog or chainsaw, but are likely to re-sprout. Effective control may come from a combination of saw cutting followed by an application of 3 percent glyphosate (as Roundup) to cut stems to kill the root system. However, if a substantial seed bank of Spanish broom exists at the site, regular follow-up will be needed to eliminate seedlings. Harding grass, Phalaris aquatica, control requires careful follow-up because of its abundant seed bank and potential for regeneration from short pieces of rhizome left in the ground. Low-density infestations of Harding grass may be controlled by hand removal or herbicide, but recruitment from the seed bank must also be controlled. Young seedlings are susceptible to competition and may be suppressed by planting appropriate species in bare areas.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Small stands of giant reed at other locations on the VRP should be controlled by the “Bend and Spray” method in which reeds are pulled away from native vegetation and concentrated in a clump or flattened onto the ground to allow for focused foliar application of herbicide.

108

The vigor of Harding grass can be greatly reduced by clipping the plants late in the growing season. Mowing or clipping should be done when plants are still green but seasonal soil moisture is almost exhausted. Harding grass can be controlled with herbicides. Ideal timing for this treatment is either at the early stage of producing heads (mid to late spring) or in early fall. Harding grass that is suffering from water stress will not be controlled with herbicide. Repeated applications should be made if re-growth occurs.

9.2 General strategies for invasive non-native plant eradication There are a few general strategies for non-native control that work for a wide variety of species. Most annual weeds can be killed using a single technique that is most appropriate for the conditions and scale of the project area. Similarly, non-native trees can generally all be controlled using similar techniques.

9.2.1 Annual weed control Many methods can be used to control annual weeds at restoration sites. Decisions about appropriate techniques should be based on a careful evaluation of the site. Restoration sites should be broken into zones or polygons based on the nature of the vegetation present. Generally, weedy areas without native plants can be weeded with the most efficient techniques (cultivation, solarization). Areas with high cover of native plants should be weeded by selective techniques that minimize disturbance (hand weeding). Annual weeds can only be controlled when the seed bank has been eliminated. Because only a fraction of weed seeds in the soil germinate in any rain event, control of these plants requires repeated treatments.

Tilling. Carefully timed tilling of the soil surface can efficiently control annual weeds. Multiple treatments are needed for effective control. Tilling should not be used in areas with undisturbed soils or on steep slopes. Tilling will be most effective when used on young annual plants after early winter rains. Tilling should always be carried out before plants set seed. To be most effective, weed control by tilling typically requires multiple treatments per season for two or more seasons. Tilling techniques include methods appropriate for several spatial scales: roto-till, disk or plow. Tilling may not be possible in rocky soils or at especially wet sites. Solarization. Can be used to control annual weeds by killing them before they set seed. Like cultivation, solarization is most effective on young plants after winter rains. Several rounds of solarization over two or more seasons are typically necessary to get substantial control of annual weeds, especially where there is a significant seed bank. The plastic sheets can be moved to new locations every few weeks in the winter and as often as once a week in warmer weather. Solarization may also be effective on some herbaceous

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Hand-pulling. A well-trained weeding crew can be very selective about eliminating weeds in areas where native plants are also present. Hand weeding minimizes soil disturbance, but is very labor intensive. Removing weeds with hand tools creates more soil disturbance than hand weeding and is also labor intensive. Useful hand tools include hulahoes, hand-weeders, weed wrenches and shovels.

109

perennial weeds, however most rhizomatous species (native and non-native) will survive for several months under the plastic. Black or clear plastic can be used for solarization. Plastic sheets are available in 20 x 100 foot sheets with 6 mil thickness for about $75 each. Sheets should be installed with 6 or 9-inch long landscape staples and with sand bags (approximately 30 bags at 25 pounds each). The sheets should be installed before weeds produce viable seeds. Tall weeds should be knocked down before plastic is installed to minimize the air space under the tarp, increasing the temperature at the ground surface. Care should be taken to minimize the chance that the plastic might be pulled free from the staples and sandbags during strong winds. The plastic will photo-degrade after several months, and should be disposed of before it starts too shred into small pieces. Herbicide. We suggest that the use of herbicides be considered only when other methods are ineffective, considerably more expensive, or inappropriate for the site. Depending on application method used, herbicides can be very selective (spot spraying or swab application). To minimize residues and maximize effectiveness, a licensed contractor should be hired to apply low concentration glyphosate (0.5 or 1% solution) before weeds exceed four inches in height and before they have produced seeds.

9.2.2 Invasive tree eradication Control of mature trees is labor-intensive and expensive. Large trees should only be felled by experienced professionals. After cutting, many invasive trees will re-sprout from their stumps. Stump grinding to a depth of two feet can eliminate sprouting. Sprouts can also be removed from stumps by hand, but this method requires several follow up efforts. Sprouting can be controlled by the application of herbicides directly to the outer portion of the stumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cut surface at the time of tree felling.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The most efficient way to control invasive trees is to kill them as saplings or seedlings. First-year sprouts can often be pulled by hand. Older sprouts, up to about three inches in diameter at the base can be pulled out using a weed wrench. Many tree species have long lived seed banks and follow-up control is usually necessary for up to 5 years. Sprouts are especially common where mature trees have been removed.

110

Ch 10

Erosion and sediment management

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants

Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management 10.1 Erosion and sediment management 10.2 General guidelines for erosion and sediment management during restoration 10.3 Erosion and sediment control measures Ch 11 Revegetation strategies Ch 12 Restoration monitoring Ch 13 Project organization and management Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

Erosion control measures along the edge of a restoration project

Wills Canyon Trail near the mouth of Wills Canyon

Native bunchgrass grassland, coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities near the mouth of Rice Canyon

10.1 Erosion and sediment management Before planting and during weed control phases of the restoration projects, there will be many acres of bare ground that are prone to erosion. This erosion must be limited to protect down-slope wetlands and streams from sedimentation to provide stable substrate for planting natives. Because the proposed projects will need to control weeds across many acres and must grade in drainages to re-align Rice Creek to its historic course, erosion control and sediment management will be very important during the implementation of the restoration projects. The primary aims of this management is to minimize erosion and the transport of silt in runoff. The project should be designed and implemented with specific goals of minimizing the amount of sediment carried by water leaving the project site or entering streams or wetlands.

10.2 General guidelines for erosion and sediment management during restoration 1) Design the project to fit the natural topography, soils, and drainage patterns. Each project will pose unique challenges to controlling erosion. In general, it is desirable to limit disturbance of steeper slopes and natural drainages and use soils with a high infiltration rate to treat polluted runoff.

3) Keep runoff velocities low. While erosion of exposed soil begins with a single raindrop, the largest volumes of eroded materials are typically associated with concentrated runoff forming rills and gullies. Check structures can reduce erosion rates by controlling water velocities in drainages and realigned creeks. 4) Retain sediment on site. Sediment retention is less effective than erosion control measures, but still a vital part of most projects because it is impossible to completely prevent erosion and the entrainment of sediment by runoff. Sediment can be retained by allowing it to settle out in ponds and traps or by filtering runoff from small areas through vegetation or a silt fence. Settling and filtration typically only remove sand-sized and coarse silt particles. Fine silts and clays cannot be removed in these ways, unless the runoff is released to vegetated areas or if chemical flocculants, such as alum, are used. 5) Schedule major earthwork during the dry season.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

2) Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control. Effective erosion control minimizes the amount of sediment carried by runoff, while sediment control removes sediment from runoff. Erosion control is more efficient and cost-effective because it is impossible to entirely remove sediment from runoff once it is entrained. Examples of erosion control include covering disturbed soils and controlling surface runoff using measures such as dikes and lined ditches. One illustration of the relative effectiveness of erosion control is straw mulch, which can reduce sediment concentrations in runoff over 90%. Since it is nearly impossible to entirely prevent erosion, it will also be necessary to incorporate sediment controls such as sedimentation ponds and silt fences. Sediment controls vary in their effectiveness, but typically reduce sediment concentrations 50 to 75%. However, sediment controls have little effect on the very fine sediment that causes turbidity, while cover measures, such as straw mulch, can be highly effective in reducing turbidity.

113

10.3 Erosion and sediment control measures Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMP) should be incorporated into the grading plan for the Rice Creek re-alignment. The following measures will be useful for minimizing erosion and trapping sediment in drainages. Organic blankets. Erosion control blankets are used to prevent erosion and hold seeds in place on steep slopes and in channels so that vegetation can become well established. Organic blankets provide effective short-term slope and waterway protection because they retain moisture and provide organic matter to the soil, substantially improving the speed and success of re-vegetation. This method of slope protection is superior to plastic sheeting, which generates high-velocity runoff. Blankets are composed of strands of material that are not tightly woven, and form a layer of interlocking fibers, which are typically held together by biodegradable or photodegradable netting. Installation is critical to the effectiveness of these products. If good ground contact is not achieved, runoff can become concentrated under the blanket, resulting in significant erosion. Erosion control blankets should be used for: (a) permanent stabilization of slopes 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or greater and with more than 10 feet of vertical relief, (b) for shortterm stabilization of slopes, and (c) for drainage ditches and swales (highly recommended). The application of appropriate netting or blanket to drainage ditches and swales can protect bare soil from channelized runoff while vegetation is becoming established. Blankets also can capture a great deal of sediment due to their open, porous structure. Check dams. Check dams are small barriers constructed of rock, gravel bags, sand bags, fiber rolls, or reusable products, placed across a drainage. Check dams reduce the effective slope of a channel, reducing the velocity of flowing water, allowing sediment to settle and reducing erosion. Check dams may be appropriate in the following situations: (a) To promote sedimentation behind the dam, (b) to prevent erosion by reducing the velocity of channel flow in small intermittent channels, (c) in small open channels that drain 10 acres or less, (d) in steep channels where stormwater runoff velocities exceed 5 ft/s, (e) during the establishment of grass linings in drainage ditches or channels.

Check dams should be placed at a distance and height to allow small pools to form between each pair of check dams. Maximum slope and velocity reduction is achieved when the toe of the upstream dam is at the same elevation as the top of the downstream dam. The dam must completely span the drainage to prevent washout. The center section of the dam should be lower than the edge sections so that the check dam will direct flows to the center of the ditch or swale. Check dams are usually constructed of rock, gravel bags, sandbags, and fiber rolls. Straw bales can also be used for check dams and can work if correctly installed; but in practice, straw bale check dams have a high failure rate. Check dams should not be constructed from silt fences, since concentrated flows quickly wash out the materials. Rock check dams are usually constructed of 8 to 12 inch rocks. Rocks should be placed by hand or mechanically. The rock used must be large enough to stay in place given the expected design flow through the channel.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Use of check dams for sedimentation will likely result in little net removal of sediment because of the small detention time and probable scour during longer storms. Use of a series of check dams will generally increase their effectiveness. A sediment trap may be placed immediately upstream of the check dam to increase sediment removal efficiency.

114

Silt fencing. Silt fences are installed to intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas during construction operations in order to prevent sediment from leaving the site and to decrease the velocity of sheet flows and low-to-moderate flows. Silt fences are temporary sediment barriers consisting of a synthetic filter fabric stretched across and attached to supporting posts and entrenched. Silt fences can trap a much higher percentage of suspended sediments than straw bales, because silt fences pass the sediment-laden water more slowly. Silt fences are preferable to straw barriers in many cases because of their durability and potential cost savings. Silt fences may be useful in settings with the following characteristics: downslope of disturbed areas where erosion would occur in the form of sheet and rill erosion, where the size of the drainage area is no more than 0.3 hectares per 100 meters of silt fence length (0.25 acres per 100 feet); the maximum slope length behind the barrier is 30 meters (100 feet); and the maximum gradient behind the barrier is 50 percent (2:1). In minor swales or ditch lines where the maximum contributing drainage area is no greater than 0.8 hectares (2 acres). Under no circumstances should silt fences be constructed in live streams or in swales or ditch lines where flows are likely to exceed 0.03 cubic meters per second (1 cfs). Silt fence should not be used in areas where rock or some other hard surface prevents the full and uniform anchoring of the barrier. The height of a silt fence shall be between 16 and 34 inches above ground elevation. A trench shall be excavated approximately 4-inches wide and 4-inches deep on the upslope side of the proposed location of the measure. If a silt fence is to be constructed across a ditch line or swale, the measure must be of sufficient length to avoid endflow, and the plan configuration shall resemble an arc or horseshoe with the ends oriented upslope. Extrastrength filter fabric shall be used for this application with a maximum 1-meter (3-foot) spacing of posts. The 4-inch by 4-inch trench shall be backfilled and the soil compacted over the filter fabric. Silt fences shall be inspected immediately after each rainfall and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. Any required repairs shall be made immediately. Sediment deposits should be removed after each storm event.

Willow and mulefat baffles. Small willow and mulefat baffles can also be used to reduce flow velocities in small drainages and channels. Live siltation baffles consist of a series of trenches perpendicular to the channel planted densely with willow and mulefat cuttings. Stems should be packed tightly and evenly together (more than six stems per foot) in the trenches. The soil matrix should be packed in place. Large rocks should be placed on the upstream side of each trench, to reduce erosion of disturbed soil material. Irrigation during the dry summer months will encourage the development of roots and first year growth.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Planting. Dense plantings can also reduce erosion and sediment transport. In addition to dense planting of willow and mulefat cuttings and nursery stock, small drainages could be planted with native plant seeds. Typical riparian plant seeds (mulefat, goldenrod) and purchased seeds of native grasses (local genotype California brome, small fescue) could be irrigated in the dry season to produce plant cover on recently graded surfaces.

115

Ch 11

Revegetation strategies

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management

Ch 11 Revegetation strategies 11.1 Native plant propagation 11.1.1 Greenhouse and nursery facility 11.1.2 Seed collection 11.1.3 Growing native plants from seed 11.1.4 Growing native plants from divisions 11.1.5 Growing native plants from cuttings 11.2 Direct transplanting of native plants 11.3 Installing native plants at a restoration site 11.3.1 Planting techniques 11.3.2 Plant protection 11.3.3 Planting densities 11.3.4 Microhabitats and species selection 11.3.5 Irrigation Ch 12 Restoration monitoring Ch 13 Project organization and management Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

Collecting coyote brush seeds on the VRP

Collecting western sycamore burl sprouts in Wills Canyon

Coyote brush and monkey flower at the Oak Grove School greenhouse

11.1 Native plant propagation Native plants may be introduced to restoration sites using several methods. Generally, the most cost-effective of these is direct seeding, but this method will only be effective on bare soils where weeds are absent and erosion is not an issue. Most restoration projects use plants raised in containers to re-vegetate areas where weeds have been controlled. In some settings, particularly wetland areas, a combination of methods may be used: seeding, container stock, cuttings and direct transplants. Restoration projects typically use relatively large plants (e.g. one gallon container stock) planted a few feet apart, and irrigation to try to establish high cover of native plants in a short period of time. Projects with longer time lines can be just as effective using larger numbers of small plants (two inch pots) and natural rainfall patterns. In addition to avoiding installation and maintenance costs of irrigation, additional benefits may include shorter periods of weed control, and healthier native plants.

11.1.1 Greenhouse and nursery facility We recommend growing native plants for the project on site. Plants can be contractgrown (see Appendix E for guidelines) but due to the large demands of the multiple projects, this is probably not a cost effective alternative. If plants are grown on site, then the facility will require irrigation for watering nursery stock. A back-up water tank on site would be useful in case irrigation water supply is interrupted. A small greenhouse will help to get seeds germinated, and also be useful for young transplanted stock. After a few weeks of growing, plants can be moved to outdoor nursery areas. Plants grown in containers will need shade if grown in hot months. Protection from full sun can be achieved by stretching shade cloth from cables and poles. The nursery should protect the plants from animals that might disturb the soil (raccoons, crows), eat seedlings (California towhees, white-crowned sparrows and other birds), and those that eat larger plants (gophers, squirrels, rabbits and deer). The site should be fenced to protect plants from herbivores and vandalism. A shipping container will be useful for tool and supply storage.

Seeds for the project should be collected on the Ventura River Preserve if possible. Seeds should be collected between May and November by people trained in plant identification. Care should be taken to collect seeds from many parent plants, to avoid damaging the habitat while collecting and to minimize contamination with weed seeds. For plants (especially annuals) with small populations, avoid collecting more than 5% of the seed production of any population in any given year. Seeds should be stored in labeled paper bags (species, location, date, collector). Seed stock should be held in a freezer for at least 72 hours to suppress insect pests, then kept in a cool, dry and dark place until used. Most seeds can be stored in a freezer for up to a year.

11.1.3 Growing native plants from seed Seed flats. Seeds should be started in seed flats in weed-free seed starter soil mix. Avoid over-seeding flats to ease transplanting effort. Each flat should be labeled with

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

11.1.2 Seed collection

118

species and start date. Labels need to be durable. Seed flats should be kept consistently wet until germination. Transplanting. Seedlings should be transplanted to small containers with weed-free potting soil mix. We recommend transplanting plants from the seed flats to two-inch rose pots once the plants have produced a few adult leaves (not just seed leaves). Transplant one plant per pot. Transplants should be placed at the correct depth in the new container. The soil surface contacting the plant should be at the same level as it was in the flat. Pack containers into nursery trays. To make it easier to water all plants consistently, maintain consistent soil levels and compaction in all containers, and use full trays. Watering and Inspection. Use automatic timers to control watering. Water seed flats and small container stock several times per day, every day. Stock should be inspected three times per week. Inspect for soil moisture, wilting plants and pests. Hand water dry areas as necessary. Adjust irrigation schedule if needed. Manage pests by exclusion, and manual removal if possible. Hardening. Plants should be exposed to natural light regimes for at least two weeks prior to transplanting into the field.

11.1.4 Growing native plants from divisions Some perennial plants can be started by digging up rhizomes or bulbs (see “Divisions” below), then dividing them in to smaller parts and planting in nursery containers (blue-eyed grass, rhizomatous grasses, sedges and rushes).

11.1.5 Growing native plants from cuttings Nursery stock can be started from cuttings (see “Cuttings” below). Cuttings should be started in large, deep containers (gallon pots or tree pots). Western sycamore can be grown from burl sprouts. Collect burl sprouts with a sharp shovel. Try to get sprouts with lots of roots. Plant in tree pots and keep watered until ready for transplanting.

In some settings, particularly wetlands, re-vegetation can be accomplished efficiently using divisions or cuttings. Divisions. Some perennial plants can be introduced to restoration sites by digging up rhizomes or bulbs, dividing them into smaller parts and planting them directly into weed free locations. This method may work well for grasses (saltgrass, creeping wild rye), sedges (common spikerush), rushes (Mexican rush, Baltic rush, basket rush, brown-headed rush), and for bulb-forming plants (blue-eyed grass). Cuttings. Several species of riparian plants can be propagated directly at restoration sites by using cuttings (mulefat, willow, and cottonwood). When using cuttings, avoid damage to the donor habitat. Generally, cuttings should be collected when the plants are dormant

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

11.2 Direct transplanting of native plants

119

(Winter) and the ground is damp at the restoration site. Cut long (to 5 feet) straight branches from donor plants. Remove most of the leaves (if present). Cuttings must be transplanted immediately. Push the cuttings into damp soil to 75% of their length.

11.3 Installing native plants at a restoration site Nursery stock and cuttings should be planted into damp or wet soil after weeds are well controlled but well before the end of the rainy season. Generally, small plants installed in February will be well established for the period of maximum growth from March through May. Planting at high densities may provide several benefits to restoration projects including increased shade and leaf litter at the soil surface, shorter time until the canopy is complete and weeds are suppressed by shading. Rapid establishment of shrub cover can also allow for positive nursery effects for young oak trees and can provide habitat for understory species requiring shade.

11.3.1 Planting techniques Nursery stock should be planted into holes dug in damp or wet soil. The holes should be larger than the nursery container. Crumbled soil should be added back into the hole so that the transplant will rest at the appropriate height relative to the soil surface. Appropriate heights vary depending on species and setting. Wetland plants may be planted slightly below grade. For plants requiring well-drained settings, the transplant may be installed at a slightly higher level than the local soil surface. The excavation should be filled with soil, and lightly compacted.

11.3.2 Plant protection Some plants may benefit from protection from herbivores. We recommend plastic tree shelters for oaks and other trees if gophers, squirrels, rabbits or deer are present at high densities. Shelters should be installed to a depth of 6 inches into the soil and extend 18 inches above the surface. Protection may be removed once the trees are well established.

We recommend an approach using large numbers and a wide variety of species planted at high densities from small container stock. This approach maximizes the chances of getting appropriate plants into the right micro-sites, allowing for rapid growth. Plants in sub-optimal conditions will be out-competed, and the vegetation pattern will respond to conditions at the site. This approach also minimizes the need for replacement planting. Planting densities should vary according to species, container sizes and project goals. Generally, spacing for large plants is greater than for smaller plants. Dense plantings can lead to more rapid benefits in the form of shaded soil, increased leaf litter, and weed suppression. Shrubs should be planted with spacings of two to six feet. Trees may be planted into shrub areas at wider spacings depending on the goals of the project. Non-woody wetland plants may be planted at high densities (spacings as small as 18 inches) where the potential for erosion or other factors create a need for rapid revegetation.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

11.3.3 Planting densities

120

11.3.4 Microhabitats and species selection The development of vegetation in the first year of a project will change the site. Species that benefit from shade or other nursery effects should be planted after the primary vegetation at the site has become established. Local topography should also dictate where certain species are planted on a site. Topographically low areas will tend to be moister than higher areas and thus should be planted with more moisture tolerant species. Installing cuttings and direct transplants in lower, moister areas is generally a good strategy as well.

11.3.5 Irrigation Irrigation may be needed when specific project goals call for rapid establishment of vegetation (in drainages where erosion is anticipated). Where needed, the installation of irrigation lines should follow industry standards including filtration and pressure control. We recommend that 2-inche PVC irrigation supply lines be installed at the site with quick-couple fittings at 50 to 100 foot intervals along the lines. This arrangement allows for flexible watering techniques. With an adequate supply of 50-foot hoses and Rainbird sprinklers, the entire site may be watered with a slow, diffuse pattern. The flexibility of this arrangement can be useful for germinating weed seeds before treatment as well as for watering transplanted natives during dry periods.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Other irrigation approaches should be considered for specific project components if goals require an approach incompatible with natural rainfall patterns.

121

Ch 12

Restoration monitoring

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management

Ch 11 Revegetation strategies

Ch 12 Restoration monitoring Ch 13 Project organization and management Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

Western fence lizard

Spanish broom

Monarch feeding on milkweed

12.1 Restoration monitoring The monitoring program for restoration projects on the VRP should include implementation and performance monitoring. Implementation monitoring should track the ongoing implementation efforts for conformity with goals and standards for the project and successful attainment of restoration actions (e.g. grading contractor produces topography consistent with grading plans). Performance monitoring should measure specific criteria at specific times to evaluate whether the project is attaining the goals set for ecological attributes. The goals of each of the restoration projects in this plan vary with project type. Generally, they are aimed at recovering ecosystem integrity, health, and the potential for longterm sustainability. Quantitative goals will be developed for alluvial scrub and riparian communities by measuring vegetation in intact habitats of the VRP. Oak under-story enhancement and invasive species control efforts will be documented. Specific goals for each will be developed in conjunction with grant funding and permitting efforts. The restoration practitioners will document existing project site with measures of preproject plant communities. They will use fixed photo-monitoring points established for the duration of the project. Pre-project data will be used to document change at the site and to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration. In addition, they will establish the reference ecosystem sites for each of the restoration projects. Ecological measures from the reference sites will establish the targets for restoration and will serve as a basis for project evaluation. The reference will be one or more undisturbed sites with the same type of ecosystem. Generally, the restoration projects will attempt to establish vegetative cover with a species composition and species abundance within the range found for sampled reference sites. In practice, goals will be set to lower levels because of modern constraints on the landscape, the slow development time of the target plant communities and the time scale (<5 years) of most grant funding arrangements. Ecological objectives will be realized by manipulating the biota and the physical environment. Some of these are discrete actions that can be checked off from the list of objectives. Others will be more complicated because they require repeated actions or because of interactions with other parts of the system. Performance standards and monitoring protocols will be developed to measure the attainment of each objective. The performance standards will describe a specific state of ecosystem recovery that indicates or demonstrates that an objective has been attained.

The restoration practitioners will assess monitoring data to determine whether performance standards are met and project objectives are attained. The results of data analysis will be documented in reports submitted to the OVLC. The evaluation should compare the restored ecosystem to its condition prior to the initiation of restoration activities. The evaluation will determine whether or not the ecological goals were met, including the ecological attributes of restored ecosystems.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Monitoring protocols will be designed specifically to assess performance standards. Analysis of monitoring data will be specified along with statistical procedures and confidence intervals for determining significant differences.

124

Ch 13

Project organization and management

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management

Ch 11 Revegetation strategies Ch 12 Restoration monitoring

Ch 13 Project organization and management Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

b c

Volunteers planting acorns Mulefat and willow cuttings collected along the Ventura River Native plant nursery at the Oak Grove School

13.1 Project organization and management The OVLC will need to hire qualified employees and/or contractors to assist them with the implementation of the elements in this plan. Here we suggest a basic structure and identify specific personnel needs for managing and implementing the complicated, large-scale restoration projects proposed in this plan. The restoration projects as detailed in this plan require a considerable amount of adaptive management, adjusting the restoration actions as the project goes forward to assure the goals are accomplished. This means there will need to be virtually day-to-day decisions on many aspects of the implementation. Weeding strategies and priorities will change with rainfall patterns and the emergence of different weed species. Timing of planting should be coordinated with rainfall as areas are determined to be free of weeds. This means greenhouse and nursery production must be closely coordinated. This strategy is different than that employed by most professional restoration firms who typically seek to â&#x20AC;&#x153;implementâ&#x20AC;? the project in Year 1 (control weeds and plant) and then do maintenance (weeding around the plantings) and monitoring. This strategy, though common, is rarely effective because it does not sufficiently control invasive non-native plants and does not allow the ecologists designing and implementing the project to have sufficient time to understand the nuances of the site and adapt strategies as necessary. The continual adaptation to the conditions of the site is really only feasible with a team of restoration specialists dedicated to the projects over at least five years. We therefore recommend the OVLC use a structure similar to the one outlined in this chapter to assure the proposed projects are successful over the long-term. The cost of implementation with this type of organization is not expected to be significantly different than those of projects using the typical approach. Project manager. The project manager will likely have responsibilities including: acquisition and administration of grant funds, responsibility for the permitting process, hiring and supervising contractors, managing the OVLC work at the site, and developing and maintaining a large volunteer program.

Restoration ecologist. A Restoration Ecologist should be on site during major implementation phases of all the proposed projects. This position will be responsible for making day-to-day decisions on how the project is implemented within the scope of the adopted restoration plan and is responsible for the biological success of the project. This position will also supervise the greenhouse and nursery operation and all the restoration assistants and contribute considerably to the fieldwork aspects of the project. The Restoration Ecologist will need to have a B.S. or higher degree in ecology or a related field and considerable experience implementing successful large-scale restoration projects in a variety of habitats including riparian, coast live oak woodland and coastal sage and/or alluvial scrub. The position will also require advanced skills in personnel management, ecosystem monitoring, data management, writing and public speaking. The salary range for this type of position is between $40k and $50k per year plus benefits.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The ideal candidate for this position will have a B.S. (preferably an advanced degree) in a biological or related field and have several years experience in implementing restoration projects, have excellent writing and public speaking skills, advanced computer skills (including Microsoft Office, GIS and statistical software) and experience supervising personnel. The salary range for this type of position is generally between $40k and $55k per year plus benefits.

127

Volunteer coordinator. A Volunteer Coordinator will be responsible for developing and managing all of the public education and outreach activities associated with the VRP. This will include coordinating fieldwork sessions with OVLC volunteers, interns and school groups (K through 12 and college), developing restoration related curricula for local schools and writing articles for local papers and the OVLC newsletter. This position could also be responsible for developing an interpretive program for the VRP including signs and web related materials. The Volunteer Coordinator should have a science background and knowledge of restoration ecology, have extremely good interpersonal skills, be an organized and efficient coordinator of people and time and have expertise with typical computer programs and Dreamweaver or similar software. The typical full-time salary range for this type of position is generally between $30k and $35k per year plus benefits. Greenhouse manager. A Greenhouse Manager position will need to be at least 50% time for each project (Rice Creek, orange grove and Rice and Wills Canyons). If all three are running concurrently, a Greenhouse Assistant may be needed. The Greenhouse Manager will be responsible for the collection, inventory and storage of seeds and other propagules, growing and inventory of nursery stock, maintaining the greenhouse and nursery facility and training volunteers, interns and schools groups in collection and propagation techniques. The Greenhouse Manager will have a college degree in a scientific or horticultural field and experience growing native plants in southern California. They will be able to identify native plant species, have excellent organizational and data management skills and be able to meet deadlines effectively. The typical full-time salary range for this type of position is generally between $30k and $40k per year plus benefits.

The Restoration Assistants will have college degrees in ecology or a related scientific field and/or experience working on restoration projects. Other desirable skills include the ability to identify native plants, experience with ecosystem monitoring and familiarity with typical computer programs. The salary range for these positions will generally be between $30k and $35k per year plus benefits.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Restoration assistants. These will be full-time positions primarily responsible for the day-to-day work on the restoration sites. The Rice Creek restoration project will need at least one Restoration Assistant, the orange grove restoration will need at least two and Rice and Wills Canyon enhancement projects will need one to three depending on how ambitiously this project is implemented. The typical duties include weeding, planting and erosion control installation as well as assisting with greenhouse and nursery activities and working with volunteers, interns and school groups. These positions will require extensive, often strenuous fieldwork in all types of weather.

128

Ch 14

Timelines

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction to the plan Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem processes Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management

Ch 11 Revegetation strategies Ch 12 Restoration monitoring Ch 13 Project organization and management

Ch 14 Timelines Ch 15 Budgets

Trail ride on the VRP

Looking down the Ventura River at the swimming hole

Abandoned agricultural infrastructure in the orange grove

14.1 Timelines Establishing realistic timelines for complex and yet-to-be funded restoration projects is virtually impossible. Even the start dates for projects are often very difficult to predict. For instance, the length of time necessary for permitting can vary from a couple months to well over a year depending on the nature of the project and which agencies are involved. As outlined in Chapter 13, management of these projects will require considerable human resources. The more resources the OVLC can allocate to management of the proposed projects, the faster the projects can move forward. Once the projects are underway, unforeseen or unforeseeable variables will undoubtedly shift timelines. The appearance of new invasive non-natives after initial control of the primary non-natives is common and can extend the time necessary for weed control. Climate is the most unpredictable variable and considerable flexibility is necessary when choosing to not use extensive irrigation on a project. Dry years can slow down weed control efforts (multiple grow-kills may not be possible) and restrict planting (supplemental temporary irrigation may be feasible only in relatively small areas). Wet years can cause extensive soil movement and in the worst cases, graded areas may need to be re-contoured after the site dries out. Generally though, wet years are good for restoration and can speed up timelines by providing excellent conditions for more extensive planting or more rounds of grow-kills than planned. Most restoration projects need at least five years for implementation and sufficient monitoring to determine whether the goals are or are going to be met. In general, we do not recommend the standard approach of Year 1 implementation followed by maintenance and monitoring. Restoration projects such as those proposed in this plan are only feasible using a flexible timeline. Planting should not be undertaken until weeds are eradicated or well controlled. This means that the restoration team must frequently be on site and aware of the patterns of weed infestation and control and be able to plan ahead and have sufficient nursery stock ready for planting at the opportune time (hence the need for an on-site greenhouse/nursery operation). This adaptive approach is efficient and always yields the best ecological results. It requires a dedicated team of experienced and observant employees willing to learn about the site as the project moves along.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

The timeline we have included (Table 14.1) suggests a general strategy for the relative timing and phasing of the various actions needed to accomplish the restoration and enhancement projects outlined in this plan. It is clear that the accomplishment of the goals proposed in this plan will require many years though the results will be spectacular.

131

Timeline

Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall

Table 14.1

Timeline

Year 1

Pre-project tasks Restoration Planning

Permitting

Grant writing

Rice Creek re-alignment A-1 Arundo removal

A-2 Topo survey and grading plan A-3 Irrigation removal

A-4 Orange tree removal

A-5 Zone 3 grow kills

A-6 Channel grading

A-7 Erosion control installation

A-8 Planting

A-9 Zone 2 grading

A-10 Zone 2 weeding and planting A-11 Zone 4 Arundo removal

A-12 Follow up maintenance

Orange grove Rrestoration A-1 Infrastructure survey

A-2 Irrigation removal

A-3 Orange tree removal

A-4 Weed control

A-5 Erosion control installation

A-6 Planting Zones 5 — 7

A-7 Planting Zone 8

A-8 Follow up maintenance

Rice and Wills Canyon enhancement A-1 Set priority areas

A-2 Greenhouse/nursery

A-3 Non-native monitoring

A-4 Non-native removal

A-5 Native planting

Invasive Species Removal and Control

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Ch 15

Budget

Section I Justification for restoration on the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4

Introduction Introduction to the El Nido Ventura River Preserve Natural ecosystem process Vegetation communities of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve

Section II Restoration and enhancement elements Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8

Rice Creek restoration Orange grove restoration Rice and Wills Canyon understory enhancements Invasive non-native plant control and eradication

Section III Implementation guidelines Ch 9 Control techniques for invasive non-native plants Ch 10 Erosion and sediment management

Ch 11 Ch 12 Ch 13 Ch 14

Revegetation strategies Restoration monitoring Project organization and management Timeline

Ch 15 Budget

Giant toe-biter with eggs on his back

Wildflowers on El Nido Meadow

Xantiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nightshade

15.1 Budgets The costs of the restoration projects described in this plan will vary according to the techniques used and the project acreage. In general, large projects will be less expensive per acre than smaller ones. Projects of some habitat types will be more expensive than others. For example, the proposed re-alignment of Rice Creek will involve grading and weed eradications in drainages and creek channels. This will require extensive erosion and sediment control until the site is vegetated. Restoration of other areas may not require these measures (understory restoration beneath oak canopy). Additionally, permit requirements may add additional and potentially costly items to the budget (e.g., archeological survey or hazardous material testing of soils). Major components of restoration projects will depend on the condition of the site â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x2030;Does it have natural topography and hydrology? Are native soils intact? What is intensity of weed infestation? The expense of grading or other modifications to hydrology can be a good investment in the long-term sustainability of the site. Planning. Detailed restoration plans will be necessary as aspects of the proposed projects are funded these will need to be prepared by OVLC staff or a qualified consultant. Expect this to cost approximately $5,000 per acre with larger projects being somewhat less expensive on an area basis. Permitting. Preparation of all the necessary regulatory documents and permits for the restoration projects could be done in-house by OVLC staff or by hiring a qualified consultant. Expect this aspect of the project to cost between $10,000 and $25,000. Grading. It is difficult to estimate the cost of grading until cut and fill volumes have been specified. The proposed restoration projects should not need to move soil long distances or off site. This will save a considerable amount of money. Ultimately, the cost of re-aligning Rice Creek will depend on the specifications developed in the grading plan, which will include the best management practices proposed for the site.

Infrastructure removal. The cost of this will depend on the extent of the removal required for the implementation of the restoration projects. At the very least, surface irrigation equipment in the orange grove will need to be removed prior to bulldozing of the orange trees. This could cost over $10,000 including disposal costs. Determining the cost of removing other items such as old building pads and storage tanks will require further investigation. Erosion control. Installation of organic blankets for erosion control typically costs about $10,000 to $15,000 per acre, a large portion of which is the cost of the materials. The cost of other techniques, including willow baffles, silt fencing and check dams will largely

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

In general, expect the cost of mobilization for grading contractors to be approximately $15,000 and construction staking and surveying to be between $10,000 and $15,000. Cut and fill with on-site disposal will typically range between $10 and $12 per cubic yard; offsite disposal is $20 to $30 per cubic yard. Additional costs include construction oversight by OVLC staff and other contractors (an additional 15%) and construction contingency (between 15% and 20%).

135

be labor costs associated with installation. Fencing. Fencing may or may not be needed around construction sites and restoration sites. Temporary fencing will cost approximately $15 per linear foot. Weed control. Most of the resources of typical restoration projects should be dedicated to weed control. Weed control will be a major component of the project cost. Depending on which weeds are present, several rounds of control efforts over multiple years will be needed to reduce the seed bank of weeds. Large-scale weed control (in areas where no native plants are present) can be much less expensive than selective weeding in areas where native plants occur. The cost of tilling several acres of weeds several times in a year may be $1,000 or less per acre per year. The cost of repeated herbicide applications ($7,000 - $12,000 per acre per year) will also be relatively inexpensive when compared to manual methods (costs will depend on weed species present) or solarization ($5,000 to $10,000 per acre per year). Tree removal costs will depend on the size and accessibility of the trees. A large Tasmanian bluegum with easy access will cost approximately $1,000 to cut down and remove. The elimination of orange trees from the orange grove, including bulldozing, piling and burning, ripping and disking the soil after removal will cost approximately $50,000. Plant acquisition/production. Budgeting for plant acquisition will depend on the approach used. Plants for the proposed projects can be contract grown or propagated on site.

If plants are grown on site, the major expense will be labor costs (see Chapter 13). For large projects, the expense for infrastructure in setting up a nursery and greenhouse facility should be around $10,000 to $15,000. This cost includes fencing, a pre-fab greenhouse, a shipping container for tool and supply storage, an irrigation system and a water tank for back up supply of irrigation water. The cost of pots and soil is typically on the order of a few cents per plant. The cost of hydroseeding natives will range from $500 to $2,000 per acre using commercially available seed (not necessarily local genetic stock). Collecting local seed or having local seed contract-produced will add significant costs. There will also be additional costs associated with weeding as some contamination of the seed mixture is inevitable. Planting. Planting costs can be relatively small for stock in small containers (50 plants installed per hour per person including transport and clean-up). Nursery stock in gallon pots is harder to transport and install (10 plants installed per hour per person including transport and clean-up).

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Local genotype native plants bought from nurseries and delivered to the site will typically range from $1 to $3 per unit for stock in small containers to $3 to $10 per unit for stock in gallon pots, and higher for larger plants. Small stock is typically planted with denser spacing (e.g. plants spaced two feet between centers). Larger stock is planted less densely (e.g. plants spaced six feet between centers). At these spacings, it would take 18,000 plants per acre for small stock and about 2,000 plants per acre for larger stock. Purchasing nursery stock for a 50 acre project would allow substantial discounts on the costs estimated, but for initial budgeting, purchased nursery stock could be $10,000 to $20,000 per acre.

136

Irrigation. Temporary irrigation systems with quick couples, hoses and moveable Rainbird type sprinklers will cost a few cents per square foot. Full irrigation systems with timers and overhead or drip emitters cost between $0.50 and $1 per square foot. Monitoring and annual report production. The scope of the reports and the monitoring necessary for projects will depend greatly on the regulatory and funding agencies asking for them. Generally, $5,000 to $20,000 per year should be budgeted for each project. Overhead. The OVLC will need to spend considerable staff time and resources managing the projects. Compensation for these costs should range between 5% and 15%. Many granting agencies will have strict guidelines on the maximum amount of overhead that can be included. Contingency. Similar to the construction phase, the restoration implementation aspect of the projects will typically include unforeseen costs. We recommend including an additional 10% - 20% in budgets for contingency costs.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Overall costs. In southern California, restoration of wetlands and riparian habitats will generally cost between $100,000 and $130,000 per acre. Uplands vary to a greater degree in their cost but restoration of alluvial scrub and oak woodland habitat in weedy disturbed sites will typically cost between $80,000 and $100,000 per acre. Larger projects will have lower per-acre costs than smaller projects.

137

iii.

References

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region. 2002. State of the Watershed – Report on Surface Water Quality: The Ventura River Watershed. Bossard, Carla C., John M. Randall, & Marc C. Hoshovsky, Editors. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. 360 pages, 133 color photos, 76 line illustrations, 79 maps. University of California Press, and online at: http://www.cal-ipc.org/invasive_plants_of_ california%27s_wildlands/ Chaparral Associates, LLC. 2002. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Farmont Property, Ojai, CA. Coastal Conservancy. 2003. Farmont Ranch Acquisition: Project Summary. File No. 02-134. Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. 2000 (October). Anon. Weed Control by Species: Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. http://www. elkhornslough.org/plants/weeds.PDF Encycloweedia. 2006. Notes on Identification, Biology, and Management of Plants Defined as Noxious Weeds by California Law. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/ encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm Entrix, Inc. 2001. Channel Geomorphology and Stream Processes. 27 pp. Hanes, T.L., R.D. Friesen and K. Keane. 1989. Alluvial Scrub Vegetation in Coastal Southern California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-110. Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1996. The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California. UC Press. Berkeley, California. 1400 pp. Interface Planning and Counseling Corporation. 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Farmont Golf Club Project.

Kottler, Kathleen. 1993. Matilija Nature Reserve. Final Thesis Project, Landscape Architecture Program, Dept. of the Arts, UCLA Extension. 62 pp. Magney, D.L. 2002. Plants of the Ventura River/El Nido Preserve, Ojai Valley. www. magney.org Rockwell, T.K., E.A. Keller and M.N. Clark. 1984. Chronology and Rates of Faulting of Ventura River Terraces, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin. v. 95, p. 1466-1474.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Jewett, Michael E. 2002. A Complete Appraisal of: Intell Ventura, LLC Property Located in Ventura County, California. 83 pp.

138

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Society for Ecological Restoration International: Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological Restoration Projects, 2nd Edition. Andre Clewell, John Rieger, and John Munro. December 2005. http://www.ser.org/content/guidelines_ecological_restoration. asp The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group (Version 2, October, 2004). http://www.ser. org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp Tu, Mandy, Callie Hurd, & John M. Randall 2001 (April). Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. http://tncweeds.ucdavis. edu/handbook.html United States Army Corp of Engineers. 2005. Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project: Project Management Plan – Design Phase. 70 pp. United States Bureau of Reclamations. 2000. Matilija Dam Removal Appraisal Report – April 2000. Prepared by Technical Service Center, Denver Colorado. Ventura County Watershed Protection District. 2005. Integrated Watershed Protection Plan: Fiscal Year 2005, Zone 1.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Watershed Project and the California Invasive Plant Council. 2004. The Weed Workers’ Handbook: A Guide to Techniques for Removing Bay Area Invasive Plants.

139

Appendices

Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H.

Native plants of the Ventura River Preserve. 141 Non-native plants of the Ventura River Preserve. 144 Birds of the Ventura River Preserve. 145 Special status species in the region of the Ventura River Preserve. 146 Guidelines for using nursery stock provided by a vendor. 148 CallPC Invasive Species Watch List 149 1859 map of the Rancho Santa Ana landgrant 150 1929 map of Rancho Matilija with 1961 additions 150

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

iii.

140

Amaryllidaceae Anacardiaceae Anacardiaceae Anacardiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Asclepiadaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Betulaceae Blechnaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Cactaceae Caprifoliaceae Caprifoliaceae Caprifoliaceae Convolvulaceae Convolvulaceae Convolvulaceae Crassulaceae Cucurbitaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum Blue dicks Malosma laurina Laurelleaf sumac Rhus trilobata var. quinata* Skunkbrush Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Daucus pusillus* Yerba de la vibora Sanicula arguta Southern* California sanicle Sanicula crassicaulis var. crassicaulis* Pacific snakeroot Asclepias fascicularis Narrowleaf milkweed Achillea millefolium var. californica California white yarrow Ambrosia psilostachya var. californica Western ragweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Baccharis plummerae Plummer baccharis Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat Brickellia californica* California brickellbush Brickellia nevinii* Nevinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brickellbush Chamomilla suaveolens* Pineapple weed Deinandra fasciculata Fascicled tarplant Deinandra kelloggii Kellogg tarplant Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Golden yarrow Euthamia occidentalis Western goldenrod Gnaphalium californicum Green everlasting Gnaphalium leucocephalum White everlasting Hazardia squarrosa var. squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush Helianthus annuus Annual sunflower Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia California cudweed-aster Malacothrix saxatilis California cliff-aster Microseris douglasii ssp. tenella* Douglas microseris Solidago californica Goldenrod Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Alnus rhombifolia White alder Woodwardia fimbriata Giant chain fern Amsinckia Fiddleneck Cryptantha sp. Plagiobothrys nothofulvus Rusty popcornflower Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Water-cress Thysanocarpus laciniatus* Lace pod Opuntia littoralis Coastal prickly pear Lonicera Honeysuckle Sambucus mexicana Blue elderberry Symphoricarpos mollis Snowberry Calystegia macrostegia Morning-glory Calystegia purpurata ssp. purpurata* Purple morning-glory Cuscuta sp. Dodder Dudleya lanceolata Lanceleaf live-forever Marah sp. Cyperus sp. Sedge Cyperus eragrostis Umbrella-sedge

Family

Species

Common name

Appendix A. Native plants of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve.

141 *

indicates plants identified by David Magney from Willâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Canyon (Magney 2002).

Common name

Family

Eleocharis macrostachya Datisca glomerata* Cystopteris fragilis* Dryopteris arguta Arctostaphylos sp. Eremocarpus setigerus Amorpha californica var. californica* Astragalus oxyphysus Astragalus trichopodus var. phoxus Hoita orbicularis* Lathyrus vestitus var. vestitus* Lotus purshianus var. purshianus Lotus scoparius var. scoparius Lupinus concinnus ssp. concinnus* Lupinus nanus Lupinus succulentus Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia Quercus berberidifolia Ribes malvaceum var. viridifolium Ribes speciosum Phacelia sp Pholistoma auritum var. auritum Sisyrinchium bellum var. bellum Juglans california ssp. californica Juncus effusus var. pacificus? Juncus textilis Juncus xiphioides Monardella hypoleuca ssp. hypoleuca* Salvia apiana Salvia leucophylla Salvia mellifera Salvia spathacea Stachys sp. Trichostema lanceolatum* Umbellularia californica Calochortus albus Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Hesperoyucca whipplei Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. fasciculatus Clarkia sp. Epilobium canum var. canum Oxalis albicans ssp. pilosa* Plantago erecta* Platanus racemosa var. racemosa Leymus condensatus Melica imperfecta Muhlenbergia rigens Nassella pulchra Leptodactylon californicum var. californicum Navaretia peninsularis

Common spike-rush Durango root Fragile fern Wood fern Manzanita Dove weed California false indigo Robust milkvetch Antisell three-pod milkvetch Round-leaved hoita Pacific peavine Pursh lotus Deerweed Bajada lupine Sky lupine Fleshy lupine Coast live oak Scrub oak Sticky chaparral currant Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry Phacelia Blue fiesta flower Blue-eyed grass Southern California black walnut Pacific rush Basket rush Iris-leaved rush White-veined coyote mint White sage Purple sage Black sage Hummingbird sage Wood mint Vinegar weed California bay Fairy lantern Soap plant Our lordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s candle Chaparral bushmallow Farewell-to-spring California fuchsia Hairy white wood sorrel California plantain California sycamore Giant wildrye Coast melic grass Deer grass Purple needlegrass California prickly phlox Navaretia

Cyperaceae Datiscidae Dryopteridaceae Dryopteridaceae Ericaceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Grossulariaceae Grossulariaceae Hydrophyllaceae Hydrophyllaceae Iridaceae Juglandaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lauraceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Malvaceae Onagraceae Onagraceae Oxalidaceae Plantaginceae Platanaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Polemoniaceae Polemoniaceae

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Species

Appendix A continued. Native plants of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve.

142 *

indicates plants identified by David Magney from Willâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Canyon. (Magney 2002)

Common name

Family

Polygala cornuta var. fishiae* Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum Polypodium californicum* Claytonia perfoliata var. perfoliata Adiantum jordanii Pellaea andromedifolia var. andromedifolia Pentagramma triangularis* Clematis lasiantha Clematis ligusticifolia Delphinium sp. Ranunculus californicus . californicus Ceanothus cuneatus Ceanothus oliganthus ssp. oliganthus Ceanothus spinosus Rhamnus crocea Rhamnus ilicifolia Adenostoma fasciculatum Cercocarpus betuloides var. betuloides Heteromeles arbutifolia Potentilla glandulosa var. glandulosa Rosa californica Galium angustifolium var. angustifolium* Galium aparine* Galium californicum ssp. californicum* Salix lasiolepis var. lasiolepis Heuchera elegans Castilleja exserta var. exserta* Cordylanthus rigidus var. rigidus* Keckiella cordifolia Mimulus longiflorus ssp. longiflorus Penstemon centranthifolius Scrophularia californica Selaginella bigelovii* Solanum xantii var. xantii Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Verbena lasiostachys var. lasiostachys Viola pedunculata ssp. pedunculata* Phoradendron villosum

Fish milkwort Leafy California wild buckwheat California polypody Miner’s lettuce Maidenhair fern Coffee fern Goldenback fern Pipestem clematis Virgin’s bower Larkspur California buttercup Wedgeleaf ceanothus Hoary ceanothus Greenbark ceanothus Redberry Hollyleaf redberry Chamise Birchleaf mountain mahogany Toyon Sticky cinquifoil California wild rose Chaparral bedstraw Goosegrass California bedstraw Arroyo willow Urn-flowered alumroot Purple owl’s-clover Rigid cordylanthus Heart-leaved penstemon Sticky bush monkeyflower Scarlet buglar California figwort Bigelow spike-moss Chaparral nightshade Giant creek nettle Western verbena Johnny-jump-up Oak mistletoe

Polygalaceae Polygonaceae Polypodiaceae Portulacaceae Pteridaceae Pteridaceae Pteridaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Salicaceae Saxifragaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Selaginellceae Solanaceae Urticaceae Verbenaceae Violceae Viscaceae

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Species

Appendix A continued. Native plants of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve.

143 *

indicates plants identified by David Magney from Will’s Canyon. (Magney 2002)

Peruvian pepper Sweet fennel Italian thistle Tocalote Woolly filago Prickly wild lettuce Common groundsel Milk thistle Prickly sow-thistle Common sow-thistle Black mustard Field mustard Summer mustard Wild radish Mission fig Common chickweed Castor bean White horehound Small burclover Bur-clover Burclover Yellow sweetclover Spanish broom Mediterranean vetch Broadleaf filaree Redstem filaree Whitestem filaree Dissected geranium Annual cranesbill Century plant Cheeseweed Narrowleaf plantain Plantain Giant reed Slender wild oat Ripgut Bbrome Soft chess Mediterranean brome Red brome Bermuda grass Orchard grass Barnyard grass Love-grass Winter barley Italian ryegrass Harding grass Canary grass Canary grass Smilo grass Annual bluegrass Curly dock Scarlet pimpernel Tree tobacco

Anacardiaceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Cactaceae Caryophyllaceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Liliaceae Malvaceae Plantaginceae Plantaginceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Polygonaceae Primulaceae Solanaceae

indicates plants identified by David Magney from Willâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Canyon.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Family

Species Schinus molle Foeniculum vulgare Carduus pycnocephalus Centaurea melitensis Filago gallica Lactuca serriola Senecio vulgare Silybum marianum Sonchus asper Sonchus oleraceus Brassica nigra Brassica rapa Hirschfeldia incana Raphanus sativus Opuntia ficus-indica Stellaria media Ricinus communis Marrubium vulgare Medicago minima* Medicago polymorpha Medicago praecox* Melilotus indica Spartium junceum Vicia benghalensis Erodium botrys Erodium cicutarium Erodium moschatum var. moschatum Geranium dissectum Geranium mollis* Agave americana Malva parviflora Plantago lanceolata Plantago pusilla* Arundo donax Avena barbara Bromus diandrus Bromus hordeaceus Bromus madritensis var. madritensis Bromus madritensis var. rubens Cynodon dactylon Dactylus glomerata Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli Eragrostis sp. Hordeum murinum var. murinum Lolium multiflorum Phalaris aquatica Phalaris canariensis* Phalaris minor* Piptatherum miliaceum Poa annua var. annua Rumex crispus Anagallis arvensis Nicotiana glauca

Common name

Appendix B. Non-native plants of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve.

144

Appendix C. Birds of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve. Preliminary list of bird species using the Ventura River Preserve.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Turkey vulture Northern harrier White-tailed kite Sharp-shinned hawk Cooper’s hawk Red-shouldered hawk Red-tailed hawk American kestrel California quail Rock dove Band-tailed pigeon Greater roadrunner Great horned owl Anna’s hummingbird Lewis’s woodpecker Nutall’s woodpecker Northern flicker Black phoebe Say’s phoebe Western scrub-jay America crow Common raven Violet-green swallow Cliff swallow Bushtit Bewick’s wren Wrentit Hermit thrush Northern mockingbird European starling Phainopepla Yellow-rumped warbler Spotted towhee Golden-crowned sparrow White-crowned sparrow Dark-eyed junco Red-winged blackbird Brewer’s blackbird House finch Lesser goldfinch

145

Known to occur on VRP?

Surveyed on VRP?

Primary habitat

Status

Appendix D. Special status wildlife species in the region of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve.

Species

State & Fed. Endangered

Cliffs and open terrain

No No

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

State Endangered & Fed. Threatened

Lakes

No No

Least bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus

State & Fed. Endangered

Riparian woodlands around coastal sage scrub or Coast live oak woodlands

No No

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus

State & Fed. Endangered

Dense riparian woodlands

No No

California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Forest Service Sensitive & Fed. Sp. at Risk

Mature forests including riparian

No No

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

Forest Service Sensitive

Cliffs for nesting

No No

Lewis’ woodpecker Asyndesmus lewis

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis

Riparian woodlands and forests

No No

Purple martin Progne subis

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis

Riparian woodlands and forests

No No

Western bluebird Sialia mexicana

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis

Semi-open terrain with trees and shrubs

No No

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis

Riparian woodlands and forests

No No

Tricolored blackbird Agelarius tricolor

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis & Fed. Sp. 0f Concern

Marshes and fields

No No

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Open terrain

No No

S. Ca. rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Coastal sage scrub

No No

Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Coastal sage scrub and chaparral

No No

Forest Service Sensitive

Rock crevices, tree hollows, structures, caves

No No

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii

Forest Service Sensitive

Riparian trees and shrubs

No No

Greater W. (Ca.) mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicas

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis & Fed. Sp. 0f Concern

Cliffs

No No

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Birds California condor Gymnogyps californianus

146

Known to occur on VRP?

Primary habitat

American badger Taxidea taxus

Forest Sp. Of Special Emphasis

Grasslands, savannas, desert scrub

No No

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennetti

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Open grassland and sparse coastal sage scrub

No No

Southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida

Forest Service Sensitive & Fed. Sp. at Risk

Rivers and streams with deep pools below 4,000 ft

No No

California legless lizard Anniella pulchra

Forest Service Sensitive

Chaparral, pine-oak woodland, riparian woodland below 3,500 ft

No No

Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii

Forest Service Sensitive

Perennial and intermittant streams

No No

Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, semi-desert

No No

California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Shrubland with loose fine sandy soil

No Yes

Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Open semiarid shrublands, woodlands and streamsides

No No

Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo [microscaphus] californicus

Fed. Endangered

Shallow, sandy low-gradient streams

No No

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytoni

Fed. Threatened

Deep pools in low gradient streams

No No

Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii

Forest Service Sensitive

Small perennial streams

No No

Western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondii

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Grassland, coastal sage scrub & chaparral below 3,000 ft

No No

Southern steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

Fed. Endangered

Headwaters to coastal areas in streams

Yes Yes

Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata

Fed. Sp. Of Concern

Headwaters to coastal areas in streams

No No

Species

Status

Surveyed on VRP?

Appendix D continued. Special status wildlife species in the region of the El Nido Ventura River Preserve.

Mammals

continued

Reptiles

Fish

Invertibrates None in area

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Amphibians

147

Appendix E. Guidelines for using nursery stock provided by a vendor.

Plants must be propagated from material collected at the site, or at sites approved by the Project Biologist. The Project Biologist will specify collection methods and develop guidelines to avoid damage to the collection site. Plants should be delivered for use in the project in their original containers and must be labeled by species. In cases where species might easily be confused, each plant should be labeled. When there are ambiguities in naming plants, species name will be used and common names will be ignored. Plants must be correctly identified. If the project biologist determines that any of the plants are misidentified, those plants will be replaced by the contractor at no cost to the client. No substitutions of plant species will be allowed. Substitutions of plant quantities may be allowed with the project biologistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approval.

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

All container stock plants brought to the site from outside sources shall be in accordance with the California Department of Agricultureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regulations for nursery inspections, rules and ratings.

148

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Appendix F. 1859 map of the Rancho Santa Ana landgrant.

149

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Appendix G. 1929 map of Rancho Matilija with 1961 additions.

150

Appendix H. CallPC watch list for invasive plants.

Species listed by category. California Invasive Plant Council. www.cal-ipc.org. February 2006.

Common name

Aegilops triuncialis Alternanthera philoxeroides* Ammophila arenaria Arundo donax Brassica tournefortii Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens (=B. rubens) Bromus tectorum Carpobrotus edulis Centaurea maculosa (=C. bibersteinii) Centaurea solstitialis Cortaderia jubata Cortaderia selloana Cytisus scoparius Delairea odorata (=Senecio mikanioides) Egeria densa Ehrharta calycina Eichhornia crassipes* Euphorbia esula* Foeniculum vulgare Genista monspessulana Hedera helix, H. canariensis Hydrilla verticillata* Lepidium latifolium Ludwigia hexapetala (=L. uruguayensis)* Ludwigia peploides ssp. montevidensis Lythrum salicaria Myriophyllum aquaticum* Myriophyllum spicatum Onopordum acanthium Rubus armeniacus (=R. discolor) Salvinia molesta* Sesbania punicea* Spartina alterniflora hybrids* Spartina densiflora* Spartium junceum Taeniatherum caput-medusae Tamarix parviflora Tamarix ramosissima Ulex europaeus

Barb goatgrass Alligatorweed European beachgrass Giant reed Saharan mustard, African mustard Red brome Downy brome, cheatgrass Hottentot-fig, iceplant Spotted knapweed Yellow starthistle Jubatagrass Pampasgrass Scotch broom Cape-ivy, German-ivy Brazilian egeria Purple veldtgrass Water hyacinth Leafy spurge Fennel French broom English ivy, Algerian ivy Hydrilla Perennial pepperweed, tall whitetop Uruguay water-primrose Creeping water-primrose Purple loosestrife Parrotfeather Eurasian watermilfoil Scotch thistle Himalaya blackberry, Armenian blackberry Giant salvinia Red sesbania, scarlet wisteria Smooth cordgrass, Atlantic cordgrass Dense-flowered cordgrass Spanish broom Medusahead Smallflower tamarisk Saltcedar, tamarisk Gorse

Ageratina adenophora Ailanthus altissima Alhagi maurorum (=A. pseudalhagi) Anthoxanthum odoratum Arctotheca calendula (fertile)* Arctotheca calendula (sterile) Asparagus asparagoides* Asphodelus fistulosus*

Croftonweed, eupatorium Tree-of-heaven Camelthorn Sweet vernalgrass Fertile capeweed Sterile capeweed Bridal creeper, smilax asparagus Cnionweed

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Medium

High

Species

* = Alert

151

Appendix H continued. California invasive plant inventory. Appendix 1.

Atriplex semibaccata Avena barbata Avena fatua Brachypodium sylvaticum* Brassica nigra Bromus diandrus Cardaria chalepensis (=C. draba ssp. chalepensis)* Cardaria draba Carduus nutans Carduus pycnocephalus Carpobrotus chilensis Carthamus lanatus* Centaurea calcitrapa Centaurea debeauxii (=C. x pratensis)* Centaurea melitensis Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa (=C. squarrosa) Chondrilla juncea Chrysanthemum coronarium Cirsium arvense Cirsium vulgare Conium maculatum Cotoneaster franchetii Cotoneaster lacteus Cotoneaster pannosus Cynara cardunculus Cynodon dactylon Cynoglossum officinale Cynosurus echinatus Cytisus striatus Dipsacus fullonum Dipsacus sativus Dittrichia graveolens* Ehrharta erecta Ehrharta longiflora* Elaeagnus angustifolia Emex spinosa* Erechtites glomerata, E. minima Eucalyptus globulus Euphorbia terracina* Festuca arundinacea Ficus carica Geranium dissectum Glyceria declinata Halogeton glomeratus Hirschfeldia incana Holcus lanatus Hordeum marinum, H. murinum Hypericum canariense*

Common name Australian saltbush Sender wild oat Wild oat Perennial false-brome Black mustard Ripgut brome Lens-podded whitetop Hoary cress Musk thistle Italian thistle Sea-fig, iceplant Woolly distaff thistle Purple starthistle Meadow knapweed Malta starthistle, tocalote Squarrose knapweed Rush skeletonweed Crown daisy Canada thistle Bull thistle Poison-hemlock Orange cotoneaster Parney’s cotoneaster Silverleaf cotoneaster Artichoke thistle Bermudagrass Houndstongue Hedgehog dogtailgrass Portuguese broom, striated broom Wild teasel Fuller’s teasel Stinkwort Erect veldtgrass Long-flowered veldtgrass Russian-olive Spiny emex, devil’s thorn Australian fireweed, Australian burnweed Tasmanian blue gum Carnation spurge Tall fescue Edible fig Cutleaf geranium Waxy mannagrass Halogeton Shortpod mustard, summer mustard Common velvetgrass Mediterranean barley, hare barley, wall barley Canary Island hypericum

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Medium

Species

* = Alert

152

Appendix H continued. California invasive plant inventory. Appendix 1.

Common St. Johnswort, klamathweed Rough catsear, hairy dandelion English holly Dyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s woad Kochia Oxeye daisy Dalmation toadflax Italian ryegrass Hyssop loosestrife Pennyroyal Crystalline iceplant Myoporum Tree tobacco Buttercup oxalis, yellow oxalis, Bermuda buttercup Crimson fountaingrass Hardinggrass Japanese knotweed Sakhalin knotweed, giant knotweed Curlyleaf pondweed Bridal broom Red sorrel, sheep sorrel Chinese tallowtree London rocket Common cordgrass Mediterranean steppegrass, twisted-awned speargrass Common tansy Hedgeparsley Rose clover Big periwinkle Rattail fescue Mexican fan palm, Washington palm

Acacia melanoxylon Agrostis avenacea Agrostis stolonifera Bassia hyssopifolia Bellardia trixago Brassica rapa Briza maxima Bromus hordeaceus Cakile maritima Cardaria pubescens Carduus acanthoides Carduus tenuifolius Conicosia pugioniformis Cordyline australis Cotula coronopifolia Crataegus monogyna

Black acacia, blackwood acacia Pacific bentgrass Creeping bentgrass Fivehook bassia Bellardia Birdsrape mustard, field mustard Big quackinggrass, rattlesnakegrass Soft brome European sea-rocket Hairy whitetop Plumeless thistle Slenderflower thistle Narrowleaf iceplant Giant dracaena, New Zealand- cabbage tree Brassbuttons English hawthorn

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Common name

Medium

Hypericum perforatum Hypochaeris radicata Ilex aquifolium* Isatis tinctoria Kochia scoparia Leucanthemum vulgare Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica (=L. dalmatica) Lolium multiflorum Lythrum hyssopifolium Mentha pulegium Mesembryanthemum crystallinum* Myoporum laetum Nicotiana glauca Oxalis pes-caprae Pennisetum setaceum Phalaris aquatica Polygonum cuspidatum (=Fallopia japonica)* Polygonum sachalinense* Potamogeton crispus Retama monosperma* Rumex acetosella Sapium sebiferum* Sisymbrium irio Spartina anglica* Stipa capensis* Tanacetum vulgare Torilis arvensis Trifolium hirtum Vinca major Vulpia myuros Washingtonia robusta*

Limited

Species

* = Alert

153

Appendix H. continued. California invasive plant inventory. Appendix 1.

Common name

Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora Montbretia Common crupina, bearded creeper Crupina vulgaris Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata Flixweed, tansy mustard Descurainia sophia Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Pride-of-Madeira Echium candicans Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Oblong spurge Euphorbia oblongata Licoriceplant Helichrysum petiolare Smooth catsear Hypochaeris glabra Yellowflag iris Iris pseudacorus Sweet alyssum Lobularia maritima White horehound Marrubium vulgare California burclover Medicago polymorpha Common forget-me-not Myosotis latifolia Olive Olea europaea Foxtail restharrow Ononis alopecuroides Yellow glandweed, sticky parentucellia Parentucellia viscosa Kikuyugrass Pennisetum clandestinum Canary Island date palm Phoenix canariensis Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides Smilograss Piptatherum miliaceum Buckhorn plantain, English plantain Plantago lanceolata Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Rabbitfoot polypogon, annual beardgrass, rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Cherry plum, wild plum Prunus cerasifera Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata, P. coccinea, etc. Pyracantha, firethorn Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens Radish Raphanus sativus Castorbean Ricinus communis Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Curly dock Rumex crispus Barbwire Russian-thistle Salsola paulsenii Russian-thistle Salsola tragus Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis Bouncingbet Saponaria officinalis Peruvian peppertree Schinus molle Brazilian peppertree Schinus terebinthifolius Mediterraneangrass Schismus arabicus, S. barbatus Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea Blessed milkthistle Silybum marianum Wild mustard, charlock Sinapis arvensis Spartina patens Saltmeadow cordgrass Tamarix aphylla Athel tamarisk Wakame Undaria pinnatifida Common mullein, woolly mullein Verbascum thapsus Bulbil watsonia Watsonia meriana Calla lily Zantesdeschia aethiopica

Restoration Plan for the Ventura River Preserve Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Limited

Species

* = Alert

154

View of the old Rice Rancho in 1928.

The same view today, with the VRP in the background.