RICE CREEK RE-ALIGNMENT AND

RESTORATION PROJECT

Year 4 Monitoring Report

Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Prepared by the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy

May 2015

Ventura River Watershed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program

INTRODUCTION

The Rice Creek Re-Alignment and Restoration Project (Project) is located on the Ventura River Preserve, a property owned and managed by the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy. The project goal is to enhance existing riparian resources and create new riparian habitats. Primary project funding consists of in-lieu fees for habitat mitigation that have been approved subject to the Agreement for the Establishment and Administration of the Ventura River Watershed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program (Mitigation Program), a cooperative agreement between the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy (OVLC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) originally signed in August, 1999.

In accordance with the established procedures for the Mitigation Program, a project proposal was submitted to the Corps that described the restoration goals, methods, and monitoring protocols. The Corps subsequently approved the use of this site and the project for the acceptance of in-lieu mitigation fees from entities that were required to perform off-site mitigation. The OVLC has received payments for mitigation in a sufficient amount to complete the project, and work began in 2011 to prepare the plan details, complete hydrology studies and project engineering, and secure necessary permits. In the fall of 2011, planting began on portions of the site that did not require earthwork. Planting continued along the restored route of the stream throughout 2013, and maintenance continued on previously planted areas. Excavation to re-water the creek was completed in November 2013 and was followed by planting in the construction zone.

The monitoring report presented here satisfies requirements of the Corps and their mitigation requirements for the entities that provided in-lieu fees for mitigation. This is the fourth biological monitoring report for the project.

Table 1 lists the mitigation credit sales for the Rice Creek Re-Alignment and Restoration Project. There is one remaining credit sale that will become part of this project when payment is received. This will complete the project funding and close the project to credit sales.

ID Project Name Client Agency Doc #Acreage

RequiredHabitat Type Status $ Received

1 USACE ILF-VRP-2 Caltrans 200601570-VEN 0.76 Riparian - Wetland Complete $95,000.002 USACE ILF-VRP-1 Caltrans SPL-2007-000111-PHT 1.29 Riparian - Wetland Complete $161,250.00

21 USACE-ILF-3 Caltrans 200500543-MDC 2.50 Riparian - Wetland In Progress $312,500.0022 USACE-ILF-4 Caltrans 200501990-MDC 2.46 Riparian - Wetland In Progress $307,750.0024 USACE-ILF-6 (Sisar/SP) Caltrans SPL-2007-69-PHT 1.10 Riparian - Wetland In Progress $137,500.00

28USACE ILF-VRP-8 GOLDBERG

LeRoy Goldberg SPL-2011-00945-CLH 0.24 Riparian - Wetland In Progress $30,000.00

29 USEPA-ILF-1 STABENThomas A. Staben - T.A. Staben, Inc.

10-4419-JST (FMOx) 1.20 Riparian - Wetland In Progress $108,500.00

Totals 9.552 $1,152,500.00Project Status

Complete = Funds are spent out and project insta l lation i s complete. Some remedia l actions and monitoring may be ongoing.

In-Progress = Project i s under construction. Table 1. Credit Sales for the Rice Creek Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Rice Creek is a seasonal tributary of the Ventura River that drains the hillsides on the northwestern portion of the Ventura River Preserve (See Photo). Historically, the stream flowed along an elevated terrace of land before its confluence with the Ventura River. In the mid-1920’s, Rice Creek was placed in an artificial channel and diverted over a cliff onto the Ventura River floodplain to make more space for an orange orchard. This re-alignment dewatered 3,700 linear feet of the stream. Of this dewatered area, 1,700 feet of the historic channel was cleared of all vegetation, graded, and replaced with orange trees. The result was a decrease in the amount of riparian habitat and a loss of hydrologic and ecologic connectivity between the lower floodplain and the hills to the north and west. The Rice Creek Re-Alignment and Restoration Project will re-establish the severed ecological and hydrologic connections and re-create 1,700 linear feet of riparian habitat, as well as re-wet an additional 2,000 feet of remnant riparian channel.

The Project elements consist of the creation of an earthen diversion that will re-direct water from the existing artificial channel back into the historic channel, and revegetation of the historic channel route. In the years since the stream was originally altered, much of the historic channel has subsided from its graded state to reveal an existing channel that is capable of containing the 100-year flow of Rice Creek. This will form the new restored channel. A pilot channel will be installed at the upstream of the site where the channel is less defined.

More information on the project design and installation methods can be found in the Rice Creek Re-Alignment and Restoration Project Plan.

MONITORING METHODS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

MONITORING METHODS

The areas to be monitored in this plan generally consist of stream channels that are intended to support riparian vegetation. The project areas consist of both banks of the channels for the length of Rice Creek through the project site. Lower density plantings along the outer edge of the riparian corridor will be added to the monitoring program as they are installed. This report includes the second year of monitoring in the downstream remnant channel of Rice Creek as well as the excavation area that has reconnected Rice Creek with its historic channel.

The monitoring method for this project consists of sampling random transects throughout the project site to give representative information regarding the success of the restoration work. Prior to monitoring, the site was divided up into 8 monitoring “nodes” (now 12), each measuring approximately 200 linear feet. The upstream-most node has 2 parts, node 1a and node 1b, because the area is somewhat isolated from the others and only a portion has been planted. Site 1b will be planted following the earthwork portion and will be included in future monitoring reports. The purpose of the monitoring nodes is to ensure that randomized

transects are spread throughout the project site and form a representative sample of the entire area. Within each node (Nodes 2-8), four 100-foot transects are monitored, one on each bank of the stream channel at 2 random locations (with the exception of Node 1a, where only one stream bank will be monitored). Two random numbers are selected between 50 and 150 to represent the transect center. A 100-foot measuring tape is placed with the ½ way point on the random location. The ends are extended from the inside (closest to flow) toward the outside of the planted area in order to capture changes in plant species as the species tend to differ at the water’s edge to the outer edge of the planting area. The same center point location is used on each of the banks. This monitoring protocol is a change from 2013 where only 2 transects were run in each node. The increased data is intended to improve accuracy and repeatability of the monitoring results. In Nodes 9-12, a variable number of transects are taken in each node depending on the area planted and the shape of the planted area. The sampling methods ensure that all planted areas have a chance of occurring in a sample in any given year.

Once the transect line is placed, a 1-meter quadrat is dropped at 10 equidistant locations along the transect line and a visual estimation of coverage by species is made. The data collected for each drop is then averaged to determine the percentage cover by each species. These data are then processed to develop statistics for percent native cover, percent non-native cover, and percent of bare ground. In addition, the mean number of species per Square Meter is calculated as an index of biodiversity. A second measure of biodiversity is simply the mean number of species encountered in the samples for each transect. Finally, all the transect data is aggregated to produce statistical measure of the performance for the entire site. Results are also generated at the node level for use in evaluating any potential problems within a certain node and developing appropriate remedial actions.

In addition to the statistical monitoring, project photography is taken from pre-established points that correspond to pre-project photos. The photos show the vigor of the site as they show the height of plants and how much native cover is being produced.

Finally, monitoring notes are included for the project by the Project Manger that describe observations of site performance. These notes will touch on reasons for any mortality, species exhibiting mortality, soil stability, and other information that may help address any project shortcomings or reveal opportunities for improving project methods.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance standards for the site are described in the Restoration Plan. For the revegetated riparian areas, the project will be considered successful if the site, as a whole, reaches 80% native vegetation cover within 5 years. The timing may be altered for some monitoring zones because only nodes 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were planted in 2011-2012. Nodes 7 and 8 were planted in 2012-2013. And finally, nodes 9, 10, 11, and 12 were planted in the 2013-2014 season.

In addition to final performance standards, a set of expectations concerning the trending of the project toward success have been established. This comparative set of numbers will be used to assess whether, and at what rate, the project is maturing and indicate if remedial actions are necessary during the project period, rather than waiting until the end of the period. These expectations are listed below. These are only guidelines, however, as performance on a site is often variable.

The 2012 figure for native cover is based on the density of the initial planting (approx 3-foot centers), which would consume about 1 square foot for every square yard. Steady progress is expected through the project period. Non-native cover is expected to remain fairly constant based on the maintenance regime planned for the site. It may rise and fall within the project area based on the timing of maintenance activities. The high amount of bare ground anticipated in the first year is based on site preparation activities that cleared most of the non-native vegetation. The biodiversity index of mean # of species per square meter is expected to increase during the project period, but will probably not be extensive. The goal of 2 is based on plants that are immediate neighbors growing closer together.

REMEDIAL ACTIONS

If any portion of the project is not trending toward project success, remedial actions will be taken to set the project toward success. The percent native cover is dependent on survival of individual plants. Where mortality occurs, an attempt will be made to determine the cause of mortality. In most cases this will be predation, desiccation, or that the plant species is poorly suited to the restoration site. If predation is the primary cause of mortality, remedial actions may include providing protection to the plants with artificial barriers, such as wire cages. In many cases, however, predation by gophers can be reduced by changing irrigation practices to overheard irrigation. If plants are desiccating, soil moisture will be assessed more often and irrigation schedules will be adjusted. If mortality is common for any individual species, then it is likely that the species is not well suited to the site. These species will not be used for remedial plantings and dead plants will be replaced with another species from within the plant palette.

If the site is not trending toward success, the primary strategy will be installing additional plants. The decision on whether or not to plant additional stock will be determined by the project manager based on the data and field observations. In most cases, remedial plantings will be installed prior to an annual monitoring result based on field observation and optimizing the season for planting.

MONITORING RESULTS

The information below represents the monitoring result for the first season. These data describe a project that installed in two parts. Nodes 1-6 were planted in the 2011-2012 season and nodes 7-8 were installed in the 2012-2013 season. Zone 2 includes nodes 9-12 which were planted in the 2013-2014 season.

Expectations by Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 % Native 11% 35% 55% 70% 80% % Non-native 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% % Bare Ground 80% 55% 35% 20% 10% Mean # Species /SQ M 1.00 1.30 1.70 2.00 2.00

NODE 1A

Node 1A – April 2015

Node 1A – April 2012

Node one was the first of the nodes to be planted. Native cover has expanded very rapidly at this location, and has exceeded project performance standards. Success is likely due to a combination of site attributes such as closer proximity to groundwater, sandier soils that allow fast root growth, and a solar aspect that results in a slightly shorter day (reducing desiccation). The resulting statistics show this node to be the best performer. Mortality in this area is extremely low. Natural recruitment of native plants is occurring. Dominant species noted within the node are mulefat, bush mallow, and elderberry.

Native Plants in Node 1aBaccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageMalosma laurina Laurel SumacMalacothamnus fasciculatum Bush MallowSambucus nigra ElderberryDatura wrightii Jimson Weed

1A-1 Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 91.0% 62.7% 65.6% 23.0%Non-native 8.0% 4.9% 14.4% 4.0%bare 1.0% 32.4% 20.0% 73.0%Mean # of species 2.9 1.8 1.8 1.6Total # Species 10.0 9.0 10.0 9.0

Native Plants in Node 1.2Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageMalosma laurina Laurel SumacMalacothamnus fasciculatum Bush MallowSambucus nigra ElderberryDatura wrightii Jimson WeedPhacelia ramisissima Branching phaceliaSambucus nigra ElderberryEschscholzia californica PoppyRosa californica Wild RosePrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherrySisyrinchium bellum Blue eyed grassBromus carinatus CA BromeStipa pulchra Purple Needle GrassHeteromeles arbutofolia Toyon

Node 1B1b-E Summary 2015 1b-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 57.0% Native 42.0% Native 49.5% 15.4% - -Non-native 14.0% Non-native 1.0% Non-native 7.5% 3.2% - -bare 29.0% bare 57.0% bare 43.0% 81.5% - -Mean # of species 3.2 Mean # of species 2.3 Mean # of species 2.8 1.2 - -Total # Species 14 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 11.0 11.0 - -

NODE 1B

Node 1B contains the construction zone where Rice Creek was moved out of the diversion ditch and back into its historically natural route. Construction was completed in November 2013. The site was planted in December 2013. This is the second measurement of performance for this node.

The bottom photo shows the new route for Rice Creek. The old route was roughly perpendicular to the new route. A portion of the confinement levee was removed and used to fill the artificial channel. The outside edge of the channel bend was reinforced with facing class rip rap, while the inside bank was stabilized with Coir fabric and native revegetation. The top of the left bank (top photo) was also re-vegetated.

Native cover is expanding very rapidly, especially considering prolonged drought conditions in the area. Native cover has more than tripled over the last year. Non-native plant cover is low, a result of weed management throughout the project site. The bare ground will continue to shrink as native plant cover expands. Species diversity in both transects was high, a result of a diverse planting palette and the addition of native seed mix. A total of 19 native plants were encountered within the transects.

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageSalvia leucophylla Purple SageElymus condensata Giant rye grassEschscholzia californica PoppyRosa californica Wild RoseEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatMalosma laurina Laurel SumacQuercus agrifolia Coast Live OakPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherryElymus condensata Giant rye grassSalvia apiana White Sage

Native Plants in Node 2

NODE 2 Node 22-1-E Summary 2015 2-1-W Summary 2015 2-2-E Summary 2015 2-2-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 50.0% Native 39.0% Native 48.0% Native 30.0% Native 41.8% 18.2% - -Non-native 5.0% Non-native 5.0% Non-native 5.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 4.3% 23.8% - -bare 45.0% bare 56.0% bare 47.0% bare 68.0% bare 54.0% 58.1% - -Mean # of species 1.8 Mean # of species 1.8 Mean # of species 1.6 Mean # of species 1.6 Mean # of species 1.7 1.3 - -Total # Species 8 Total # Species 10 Total # Species 6 Total # Species 9 Total # Species 8.3 7.8 - -

Node 2 is a portion of the restoration project that was constructed in November 2013 as part of the re-alignment of Rice Creek. A shallow pilot channel was constructed (left side of photograph) to steer the stream toward the newly restored channel. This is the second year of monitoring for this portion of the project. Native cover is expanding rapidly, considering drought conditions. The coverage has more than doubled over the last year. Weed management over the last year has shown a drop in non-native cover in the node. Diversity statistics are good for a relatively new planting with an average of 8.3 native species present in each transect. A total of 15 different native species were encountered in the samples.

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakCeanothus spinosus Green bark ceanothusCeanothus oliganthus Hairy ceanothusPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherryRosa californica Wild RoseArtemisia douglasiana MugwortCeanothus spinosus Green bark ceanothusCeanothus oliganthus Hairy ceanothusSalvia leucophylla Purple Sage

Native Plants in Node 3

NODE 3

Node 33-1-E Summary 2015 3-1-W Summary 2015 3-2-E Summary 2015 3-2-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 72.0% Native 73.0% Native 79.0% Native 77.0% Native 75.3% 47.8% 32.4% 8.1%Non-native 4.0% Non-native 3.0% Non-native 1.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 2.5% 9.8% 43.8% 16.4%bare 24.0% bare 24.0% bare 20.0% bare 21.0% bare 22.3% 42.4% 23.9% 75.5%Mean # of species 2.4 Mean # of species 2.1 Mean # of species 2 Mean # of species 2.6 Mean # of species 2.3 2.0 1.4 1.6Total # Species 8 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 10 Total # Species 9 Total # Species 8.8 7.0 7.3 6.0

Node 3 is performing as anticipated for this stage. Native cover has expanded substantially in this node, gaining 27% in the past year. This is unusual for the site as a whole as drought impacts affected growth rates in other nodes. Bare ground dropped 20% from 2014 as a result of native plant growth. Non-native cover is greatly reduced, primarily due to competition with native plants and weed management strategies. The planting in Node 3 has wider plant spacing than the other nodes. The unique aspect of Node 3 is that there is very little in the way of a defined channel in this location. We planted a wider area with wider spacing because we anticipate the stream forming a more distinct channel once it is exposed to flow. It is likely that we will lose some of these plants to the channel formation and we will need to adjust to that with more planting. We chose to plant in a way that would not necessarily confine the flow. Plant diversity is very good and native plant distribution and coverage is uniform.

NODE 4 Node 44-1-E Summary 2015 4-1-W Summary 2015 4-2-E Summary 2015 4-2-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 69.0% Native 72.0% Native 81.0% Native 70.0% Native 73.0% 51.0% 47.8% 12.7%Non-native 4.0% Non-native 3.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 2.8% 7.2% 18.4% 9.0%bare 27.0% bare 25.0% bare 17.0% bare 28.0% bare 24.3% 41.8% 33.9% 78.4%Mean # of species 2.6 Mean # of species 2.6 Mean # of species 2.4 Mean # of species 2.3 Mean # of species 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.3Total # Species 9 Total # Species 13 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 11 Total # Species 10.3 7.8 8.5 6.0

Native plant cover expanded over the last year, reaching an average of 73%. This is a marked increase from the mere 3% increase in native vegetation from the 2012-2013 season. These plants are well established. Non-native cover has continued to drop over last two years, reaching less than 3% this year. Bare ground has dropped 17% since last year as a result of expanding native coverage. Both measures of native species diversity are still very good, and a total of 16 native species were encountered in the monitoring samples. This node is trending very positively.

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageMalosma laurina Laurel SumacPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherryQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakMalacothamnus fasciculatum Bush MallowElymus condensata Giant rye grassDatura wrightii Jimson WeedPenstemon centranthifolius Scarlet BuglerPlatanus racemosa SycamoreSalvia leucophylla Purple SageSalvia apiana White Sage

Native Plants in Node 4

NODE 5 Node 55-1-E Summary 2015 5-1-W Summary 2015 5-2-E Summary 2015 5-2-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 63.0% Native 71.0% Native 69.0% Native 61.0% Native 66.0% 41.0% 37.1% 9.8%Non-native 0.0% Non-native 4.0% Non-native 4.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 2.5% 7.3% 12.7% 8.7%bare 37.0% bare 25.0% bare 27.0% bare 37.0% bare 31.5% 51.7% 50.3% 81.5%Mean # of species 2 Mean # of species 2.3 Mean # of species 2.3 Mean # of species 2.1 Mean # of species 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.2Total # Species 10 Total # Species 11 Total # Species 9 Total # Species 9 Total # Species 9.8 5.8 7.3 6.5

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageMalosma laurina Laurel SumacPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherryQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakOpuntia Prickly pearSambucus nigra Bush Mallow

Native Plants in Node 5

Node 5 showed exceptional growth in native species cover this year as compared to the 2013-2014 season. Non-native species cover has dropped significantly, primarily due to the expanse of natives and weed management activities. The non-native species do not pose a significant threat to the native plants. The bare ground area has dropped 20% from last year as a result of native plant growth. A total of 11 species were counted in the site samples. Native diversity has tremendously improved since results in 2014. All measures are within the range of anticipated results.

NODE 6 Node 66-1-E Summary 2015 6-1-W Summary 2015 6-2-E Summary 2015 6-2-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 54.0% Native 59.0% Native 64.0% Native 43.0% Native 55.0% 40.8% 35.3% 7.4%Non-native 2.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 4.0% Non-native 8.0% Non-native 4.0% 14.2% 19.9% 14.9%bare 44.0% bare 39.0% bare 32.0% bare 49.0% bare 41.0% 45.1% 44.8% 77.8%Mean # of species 2 Mean # of species 1.4 Mean # of species 2.3 Mean # of species 1.8 Mean # of species 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.2Total # Species 8 Total # Species 6 Total # Species 9 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 7.8 6.0 6.0 5.0

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageMalosma laurina Laurel SumacPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherryQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakArtemisia douglasiana MugwortSambucus nigra ElderberryHazardia squarrosa Saw tooth golden bush

Native Plants in Node 6

Node 6 exhibited continuing growth in native plant coverage, gaining 15% during the year. Non-native coverage has decreased as natives are expanding. Weed management will continue in this node due to a presence of annual thistles. Both measures of biodiversity depict an overall trend at this site toward the performance standards. In total, 11 native plant species were included in site samples. This is the furthest node from the upstream extent that was planted in the 2011-2012 season. Nodes 7 and 8 described below were planted during the 2012-2013 season.

NODE 7

Node 77-1-E Summary 2015 7-1-W Summary 2015 7-2-E Summary 2015 7-2-W Summary 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 35.0% Native 37.0% Native 43.0% Native 40.0% Native 38.8% 33.3% 7.5% -Non-native 6.0% Non-native 4.0% Non-native 3.0% Non-native 7.0% Non-native 5.0% 12.6% 8.6% -bare 59.0% bare 59.0% bare 54.0% bare 53.0% bare 56.3% 54.1% 83.9% -Mean # of species 1.6 Mean # of species 1.5 Mean # of species 2.1 Mean # of species 1.4 Mean # of species 1.7 1.5 1.0 -Total # Species 8 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 10 Total # Species 6 Total # Species 8.0 8.0 4.5 -

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageElymus condensata Giant rye grassCeanothus spinosus Green bark ceanothusMalosma laurina Laurel SumacPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf CherryQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakElymus condensata Giant rye grass

Native Plants in Node 7

This is the third year of monitoring for Node 7. The plants were installed over the winter months between 2012 and 2013. Drought conditions have stunted the many of the plants that have been put in the ground. Remedial actions were taken in the form of additional planting over the last two seasons. As the photo shows, mulefat, coyote brush and buckwheat are the dominant species in the node. Native cover has shown little growth at this node, expanding 5.5% from last season. Non-native cover is lower than last year and well within expectations. Bare ground still accounts for 56% of the node. A total of 12 native species were encountered in the samples, reflecting excellent biodiversity.

NODE 8 Node 88-1-E Summary 2015 Transect 18-1-W 2015 8-2-E Summary 2015 Transect 8-2-W 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 38.0% Native 28.0% Native 32.0% Native 38.0% Native 34.0% 19.4% 20.2% -Non-native 4.0% Non-native 5.0% Non-native 4.0% Non-native 8.0% Non-native 5.3% 29.0% 20.7% -bare 58.0% bare 67.0% bare 64.0% bare 54.0% bare 60.8% 51.6% 59.1% -Mean # of species 1.5 Mean # of species 1.2 Mean # of species 2 Mean # of species 1.3 Mean # of species 1.5 1.3 1.3 -Total # Species 8 Total # Species 4 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 6 Total # Species 6.5 5.8 6.0 -

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatEriogonum fasciculatum BuckwheatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakElymus condensata Giant rye grassMalosma laurina Laurel SumacPrunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf Cherry

Native Plants in Node 8

Node 8 showed improved performance in the last season gaining 14.6% of native cover since last year. The node suffered some of the same losses in the 2013-2014 season as Node 7 due primarily to drought-related issues. Remedial plantings were installed in this node during the winter of 2014-2015. Non-native plant coverage has reduced dramatically since 2014 as a result of weed management which in turn resulted in more bare ground in 2015. Non-native cover and biodiversity are moderate. Most of the non-native plants are grasses, so they are not likely to impact the installed plants substantially. There are some isolated infestations of Italian thistle and star thistle. These are being managed. The bare ground represents drought impacted native and non-native plants at the site. Biodiversity measures in this node are still relatively low. These numbers will grow when the individual plants grow and expand.

Total Site Summary 2015 2014 2013 2012Native 63.8% 36.6% 35.1% 11.0%Non-native 5.5% 12.4% 19.8% 11.4%bare 37.1% 51.0% 45.1% 77.7%Mean # of species 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.3Total # Species 10.1 7.6 6.6 6.2

SITE SUMMARY As shown in the site summary, the project as a whole shows 63.8 % native cover. This is an overall improvement of 27.2% of native plant coverage from 2014. Native cover is just below the anticipated progress for the fourth year. It is notable that the site average includes 2 nodes that were planted only two years ago (Nodes 1b and 2), and two nodes that suffered drought loss (Nodes 7 and 8). Those areas planted the first year are all meeting anticipated native cover. Non-native cover has exceeded the goal for this year at 5.5%. This is partly a result of extreme drought conditions that left non-native plants as desiccated as the natives. Early winter rains did bring up non-natives that were desiccated before the 2015 monitoring took place. This may have impacted coverage statistics. The annual weed management program will continue to control non-native cover. Bare ground is significantly lower than last year. This is a result of expanding native plant coverage within the nodes. Expectations have been met for measures of biodiversity. A diverse plant palette was installed on the site, so biodiversity over time should be very good. This measure of biodiversity may go as high as 3 next year. However, as a site matures and native plants grow, this measure tends to decrease because installed plants grow large enough to consume the sampling quadrat and plants tent to have differential success in their niches. The success of the site has been fairly uniform across the monitoring nodes according to their age. Node #1 does exhibit a success rate far above that of the rest of the site. This site has a different solar aspect that results in less exposure to the heat of the sun in summer, is closer to the currently active channel of Rice Creek, and has a sandier soil. On the low end, Node 8 is the poorest performing section. The poor performance is due primarily to plant mortality following severe drought conditions. Additional plants will be installed here as a remedial action. Plant mortality on the site is relatively low, but the observed mortality is caused by either desiccation, frost, or gopher predation. Gopher predation is also increased in times of drought, so the two are related. The loss of individual plants is anticipated in the project installation density though, so most mortality is eventually masked by the growth of adjacent plants. The project site is not specifically managed for gophers, they are an anticipated factor. Approximately 11,250 plants have now been installed on the project site and they are rapidly colonizing. In some locations we are already seeing the expansion of some species through reproduction and natural recruitment. For instance, we are seeing new recruits of live oak as birds bury acorns in the mulch layer. While monitoring, we have also observed signs of wildlife using including coyote, bobcat, black bear, cottontail rabbits, mule deer, and many bird species. On all accounts, this project is performing very well.

Site performance by node.

Rice Creek Realignment Project – Zone 1, looking upstream (north) – March 2015

RICE CREEK ZONE 2 MONITORING

In addition to the 8 zones installed in earlier phases of the project, a newer phase was planted in the winter of 2013-2014. Four additional planting nodes were established in the remnant channel of the historic Rice Creek drainage. These areas are planted for enhancement of native vegetation and accompany management of non-native species through this enhancement zone. We are reporting results separately from the other nodes since they are a different schedule than the initial phases. The lower 4 nodes are not uniformly planted. Rather, native vegetation was planted in openings and where non-native plants have been removed. Due to the non-contiguous nature of the plantings, they are assessed with a different monitoring methodology. For node 9, 2 random transect locations are chosen along the 200 foot length of the node. Transects are 100 feet in length and extend from the inside of the planted area to the outside of the planted area. One transect is dedicated to capturing the section along the creek channel and the other covers a planted area on the adjacent floodplain area. Node 10 is monitored only with photography because the length of the planted area is not long enough to randomize a transect. In Node 11, a single transect is measured in the lower portion of the node. The planted area is 100 feet in length so a transect is placed to orient between the inside and outside edges of the planted area. Node 12 is sampled with 2 random transects along the 200 foot length of the node. The transect is 100 feet in length and oriented from the inside (channel side) of the planting and the outer edge. One transect is placed on the east bank, and one on the west bank. Monitoring results for this section are presented below.

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushBaccharis salicifolia MulefatArtemisia californica California SagebrushMalacothamnus fasciculatum Bush MallowSalvia apiana White SageArtemisia douglasiana MugwortQuercus Agrifolia Coast Live OakElymus condensata Giant rye grassRosa californica Wild Rose

Native Plants in Node 9

NODE 9 Transect 9-1 2015 Transect 9-2 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014Native 24.0% Native 19.0% Native 21.5% 15.4%Non-native 4.0% Non-native 2.0% Non-native 3.0% 39.8%bare 72.0% bare 79.0% bare 75.5% 44.8%Mean # of species 1.3 Mean # of species 1.1 Mean # of species 1.2 0.9Total # Species 5 Total # Species 7 Total # Species 6.0 6.5

Node 9 was planted in January 2014, so it is a relatively new project area. Average native cover has expanded 6% since last year. Substantial loss of plants to gofers was related to drought conditions paired with the need to irrigate these areas. When it is necessary to water plants into the warmer and dryer months, gophers are attracted by the wet soil around plants and tend to target new plants. Non-native plant cover dropped almost 37% from 2014, as a result of weed management and drought conditions. Weed management will continue at this site. Bare ground is expected to shrink as native plant growth expands over the next few years. A total of 9 native species were encountered in the samples, showing good biodiversity. The mean # of native species per meter is low, but as expected with the smaller, drought stunted plants.

NODE 10

Node 10 is only monitored via photographs and a brief description of the planting success. Drought conditions combined with gopher predation has limited native plant growth at node 10. This is a small area that has been subject to weed management and the plants were installed to out-compete non-natives as they are controlled. The planted area appears on the “island” between the two channels. There is an extensive infestation of thistles in this area that will continue to be controlled. Remedial plantings are scheduled for 2015.

Artemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageRubus ursinus BlackberrySambucus nigra ElderberryElymus condensata Giant rye grass

Native Plants in Node 11

Transect 11-1 2015 2014Native 24.0% 19.1%Non-native 1.0% 35.5%bare 75.0% 45.3%Mean # of species 1.1 1.2Total # Species 7 7

NODE 11

A single transect is used to assess this planted area. The site is in the bottom of the Rice Creek arroyo and is shaded by existing canopy trees. The purpose of the planting is to establish native understory species to replace non-native plants and improve habitat values. Native cover expanded over the last season by 6%. Drought conditions have stunted growth of many of the native species that were planted in this node. Weed management over the first season has been successful. However, drought conditions may account for the drop in non-native cover. The bare ground is indicative of areas cleared of weeds. Biodiversity is low, but it expected to increase as native plant cover expands. Seven species were encountered in the site samples.

Baccharis pilularis Coyote BrushArtemisia douglasiana MugwortBaccharis salicifolia MulefatArtemisia californica California SagebrushSalvia mellifera Black SageSalvia leucophylla Purple SageMalacothamnus fasciculatum Bush MallowSambucus nigra ElderberryElymus condensata Giant rye grassJuglans californica Black WalnutRosa californica Wild Rose

Native Plants in Node 12

Transect 12-1 2015 Transect 12-2 2015 Node Summary 2015 2014Native 43.0% Native 41.0% Native 42.0% 16.7%Non-native 4.0% Non-native 4.0% Non-native 4.0% 25.8%bare 53.0% bare 54.9% bare 54.0% 57.6%Mean # of species 1.9 Mean # of species 1.8 Mean # of species 1.9 1.2Total # Species 11 Total # Species 8 Total # Species 9.5 9.5

Node 12

NODE 12

Node 12 is an expanded area of the lower floodplain for Rice Creek. Channel definition is sparse in this area and the gradient is shallow. Portions of this area were planted in prior years, but most plants are new in the winter of 2013-2014.

Native cover has expanded very rapidly in this node in relation to other nodes in Zone 2. In the case of this node, native plants are out completing non-native vegetation dropping from 25.8% in 2014 to 4.0% in 2015. Bare ground is expected to shrink with native plant growth.

Zone 2 Summary 2015 2014Native 29.2% 17.1%Non-native 2.7% 33.7%bare 68.2% 49.2%Mean # of species 1.4 1.1Total # Species 7.5 7.7

ZONE 2 SUMMARY

Zone 2 is just below the expected native coverage as a newly installed project. The biodiversity is fairly good. The only remedial actions recommended are the addition of new plants in a portion of Node 9 and 11. The remainder of the site should improve with a regular maintenance program and with an average rain year.

2015 Photo Monitoring – Zone 1

Photo 1a – 2015. Vegetation has expanded substantially.

Photo 1a - 2012

Photo 1b - 2015

Photo 1b – 2012

Photo 3 – 2015. Vegetation has expanded substantially at the top of the bank across the channel.

Photo 3 – 2014. This area was excavated in Nov. 2013 and the stream was re-routed to its new path.

Photo 3b - 2015

Photo 3b – 2014 (New channel bend)

Photo 3c – 2015 – The vegetation has sustainably expanded since last year.

Photo 3c – 2014 (Top of bank at new channel)

Photo 3d – 2015 P

Photo 3d – 2014 (Newly constructed channel linkage)

Photo 4 – 2015

Photo 4 - 2012

Photo 5a - 2015

Photo 5a - 2012

Photo 5b – 2015

Photo 5b – 2012 (Node 2 not yet planted)

Photo 6 - 2015

Photo 6 - 2012

Photo 7 - 2015

Photo 7 - 2011

Photo 8 - 2015

Photo 8 - 2012

Photo 9 - 2015

Photo 9 - 2012

Photo 10 - 2015

Photo 10 - 2012

Photo 11 – 2015

Photo 11 - 2012

Photo 12 – 2015

Photo 12 - 2012

Photo 13 – 2015 Photo 13 – 2014 (Newly constructed instream road crossing)

Photo 14 – 2015

Photo 14 – 2014 (after channel realignment)

Photo 15 – 2014

Photo 15 – 2014 (after channel realignment)

2015 Photo Monitoring – Zone 2

Node 9 – 2015 (channel section) Node 9 – 2014 (channel section)

Node 9 – 2015 (floodplain terrace)

Node 9 – 2014 (floodplain terrace)

Node 10 – 2015

Node 10 – 2014

Node 11 – 2015

Node 11 – 2014

Node 12-1 – 2015

Node 12-1 – 2014

Node 12-2 – 2015

Node 12-2 – 2014

REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY AND UPCOMING WORK PLANS

Remedial Actions:

Fall and spring of 2014-2015 approximately 500 new plants were added throughout the project site. A heavier planting at nodes 7 and 8 took place to replace those plants lost to drought and gophers. All planting less than a year old will be irrigated throughout the summer.

Project Plans:

Zone 1 and 2 will be irrigated throughout the summer of 2015. With just half the average annual rainfall this year, coupled with the fourth year of drought, the site will be irrigated through the summer. Remedial plantings to replace plants that are lost to drought and gophers will continue. These plantings will be mulched to improve soil water retention and suppress weed growth. The project as a whole should improve with a regular maintenance program and with an average rain year.

APPENDIX A – DATA TABULATION TABLES

Data sheets and tabulation tables are available by request.

Please contact Program Sponsor:

Jillian Lashly Ojai Valley Land Conservancy P.O. Box 1092 Ojai, CA 93024 jill@ovlc.org (805)649-6852 x3