EIR: Appendix I. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan O MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
for the
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
June 2000
1 INTRODUCTION
The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan has been determined to be an essential element in
the overall implementation of the proposed restoration plan. The plan provides an opportunity to
review and evaluate the performance of the project, after the construction is complete, and to
implement minor revisions to the overall project based upon this evaluation. There are several
reasons the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan has been determined to be of great value and
to be included in the overall project. Some of the primary reasons the plan is justified and being
recommended include the following:
• The Corps has limited experience in marine environment restoration activities.
• There are no existing projects upon which to obtain and draw information from.
• The planning and design assumptions will require field validation to ensure the
assumed planning and design benefits are actually realized.
• The limited expenditures for the Monitoring and Adaptive Management will provide
• insurance and help eliminate uncertainty for a successful restoration project.
• Protects the Federal and non-Federal investments by ensuring the project functions
as intended.
The purpose of this Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan is to provide a mechanism to
evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration measures implemented in this project and implement
adaptive changes, if required to obtain project objectives. As outlined in EC 1105-2-210 (parag.,
21.b.),the Monitoring Plan is intended to ascertain whether: the project is functioning as per project
objectives; adjustments for unforseen circumstances are needed; and changes to structures or their
operation or management techniques are required. (Also see Pastork et al. 1997; Thom and Wellman
1996; and Yozzo et al. 1996).
This Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan provides a description of the habitats to be restored,
surveys to monitor the expected, natural re-introduction of marine plants and animal into the restored
habitats, the performance criteria and monitoring protocol to evaluate success of the restoration
effort, adaptive management actions (or maintenance activities) that may be performed to ensure a
successful restoration effort, and reporting requirements.
This Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan covers monitoring and adaptive management actions
during the first 5 years after initial construction. (After the first 5 years, monitoring and/or adaptive
management becomes the responsibility of the Local Sponsor.)
•
I-1
(Note that during the preconstruction engineering and design [PED] phase, more specific monitoring
details [e.g., exact monitoring transect locations, reference site locations, more specific
performance/success criteria, more specific monitoring protocols, etc . . . ] may be added to this
Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan.)
2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
As stated in the EIS (Section 2.1) the primary purpose and objective of the proposed project are to
restore natural habitat that was historically associated with the Portuguese Bend area.
As stated in the DEIS sedimentation, severe erosion of landslide debris, and excessive turbidity
appears to have resulted in the smothering and degradation of the hard rock reef habitat in the
Portuguese Bend area. The primary objective of the feasibility study is to identify and recommend
measures to control or eliminate the sedimentation and turbidity caused by erosion of the shoreline
berm which will result in the restoration of the marine biological community associated with the
natural hard rocky reef of southern California.
The feasibility study's focus is on controlling the sedimentation and turbidity in the nearshore and
offshore zones that result from erosion at the shoreline, which impacts the marine biological
community of the area (see Fig. 2.1 of the DEIS). (Also see Coastal Engineering Appendix -
Volume II [Section 5.3].) The purpose of the restoration would be to restore natural hard rock reef
in the nearshore(-10 to-30 MLLW) areas of the study area that are currently covered with landslide •
-
generated sediment. The purpose also is to eliminate the adverse impacts to the marine environment
of the near constant turbidity cause by landslide sediment on existing nearshore kelp beds.
Areas upcoast areas of Portuguese Bend, such as Rocky Point, have a healthy marine biological
community that is _typically associated with hard rock reefs of Southern California_ The Rnrky Point
area, was identified as a "reference site" by a consensus of resource agencies that the Corps'
coordinated with per the Fish&Wildlife Coordination Act. The Rocky Point area was surveyed for
its marine biological resources(as was Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend)to determine the quality
of marine biological habitat to which the Portuguese Bend area might be restored. (Also see
discussion in Section 3.1 of Appendix C of the DEIS.)
As mentioned in impact analysis of the DEIS, it is expected that, once exposed, hard bottom reef
would be re-colonized by marine plant and animal life like those occurring upcoast in the unaffected
areas of the peninsula (e.g., Palos Verdes Point reference site- see discussion in Section 4.3.2 and
5.1.l of the DEIS).
Also,the near-constant turbidity plume and its associated water column impacts on existing kelp beds
are presumed to extend at least to the 30-foot isobath from Portuguese Bend to Whites Point. The
proposed containment dike is designed to contain all landslide-generate turbidity; the water clarity
is expected to be immediately improved to pre-landslide conditions(like the Rocky Point reference
site).
•
1-2
• 3 RESTORED HABITAT
3.1 Hard Rock Reef Habitat
As stated in the Impact Analysis of the DEIS, it is expected that, if new sedimentation could be
contained by the containment dikes-natural marine erosive process(i.e., waves and currents) would
eventually remove existing sediment to, at least, the -30 foot MLLW depth contour and re-expose
the underlaying hard bottom. A total of 42 acres is expected to be naturally re-exposed in 8-11 years
after construction of the containment dike (13 +11 + 18 acres=42 acres as identified in Table 7 of
the DEIS).
Kelp is expected to re-colonize the re-exposed rock reef and is expected to be of a very high quality,
such as what exist at the rocky point reference site.
3.2 Existing Kelp Forest
The near-constant turbidity plume and its associated water column impacts on existing kelp beds are
presumed to extend at least to the 30-foot isobath from Portuguese Bend to Whites Point. This area
of impact includes the 173 acres of reef area at Bunker Point(identified as "Area 4" on Fig. 5.1 of
the DEIS)which is largely sediment free, and the nearshore area from Bunker Point to Whites Point
(approximately 230 acres) depicted as Area 5 on Figure 5.1 of the DEIS.
•
The impact of the near-constant turbidity plume on the existing kelp forest has measurable effects on
the marine fish observed in the Portuguese Bend area(when compared to the Rocky Point reference
site). The proposed containment dike is designed to contain all landslide-generate turbidity; the
water clarity is expected to be immediately improved to pre-landslide conditions. The habitat quality
of 400 acres of existing kelp beds downcoast (i.e., Area 4 + Area 5 of Fig. 5.1 of the DEIS),
therefore, are expected to be restored to pre-landslide condition quality once landslide-generated
turbidity is eliminated. (For a discussion of impacts of turbidity on the quality of kelp habitat, see
Section 5.1.1 of the DEIS and Pondella et al. 1996:56-58 [in Appendix A of the DEIS].)
4 MARINE BIOLOGICAL MONITORING-FREQUENCY AND PROTOCOL
4.1 Hard Rock Reef Habitat
Even though hard rock reef is not expected to be naturally uncovered for 8-11 years after dike
construction, nearshore areas will be monitored every other year to document the rate that sediment
is eroding. This monitoring will aid in documenting that the dike is having the intended effect of
containing sediment in the nearshore environment, and that natural coastal processes are, in fact,
assisting in the erosion process. Also, should kelp recolonize the area soon than expected - the
monitoring will assist in evaluating its recolonization.
•
I-3
After 5 years, the non-Federal Sponsor will be responsible for monitoring the hard rock reef areas
for the remaining years up until year 11 after construction. :..
4.2 Existing Kelp Forest
The existing kelp beds in the Bunker Point Area and the Bunker Point to Whites Point areas will be
monitored twice a year(in spring/summer and fall/winter) for the first 5 years after construction to
document the expected improvement in the quality of the existing kelp beds. The areas will be
surveyed by the same methodology used to document the quality of the marine biological community
at the Rocky Point reference site and the existing kelp beds as for the DEIS (see Appendix A of the
DEIS). As with the DEIS, the Vantuna Marine Habitat Valuation Method (which uses fish guilds
as a measure of habitat quality)will be used (see Appendix C of the DEIS).
After the first 5 years, the local sponsor will monitor the existing kelp beds once every 5 years.
5 SUCCESS CRITERIA, REPORTING & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
5.1 Success Criteria.
The success or failure of the restoration effort will be measured against two parameters which should
indicate whether the goal of this restoration effort is being achieved; they are: 1) whether
sedimentation is being contained such that natural erosive processes allow hard rock to be uncovered •
and, 2)whether landslide-generated turbidity has been eliminated and the quality of the existing kelp
beds has improved.
Monitoring will occur as identified in Section 4, above;Monitoring Reports would be prepared at the
end nfthe year by the Cnrp.c/T.nral Spnncnr fnr the first 5 veaarc after initial rnnctnirtinn. The need
to make adjustments to the constructed project will be based on the results of the Monitoring
Reports. If sedimentation is contained and reef becomes re-exposed and landslide-generated turbidity
is eliminated, no modifications to the project will be made.
After the first five years, the non-Federal Sponsor will prepare the Monitoring Reports.
5.2 Monitoring Reports and Adaptive Management.
Technical Committee. The Corps and/or the non-Federal Sponsor will be responsible for collecting
monitoring data and preparing annual Monitoring Reports. A Technical Committee consisting of,
at least,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,National Marine Fisheries Service, and California Department
of Fish & Game, will assist in collection of monitoring data, review monitoring data results, and
providing recommendations of possible adaptive management measures.
I_4
• The Technical Committee will recommend adaptive management measures to the existing project's
design should either sedimentation is not contained or turbidity is not eliminated as such that the
objectives are not achieved. It is expected that sediment will naturally erode, but mechanical removal
may be an adaptive management option which could be considered. Also, kelp is expected to
naturally re-colonize hard rock areas, but re-planting kelp might be considered if natural re-
colonization does not occur.
Executive Committee. Annual Monitoring Reports and any adaptive management measures
recommended by the Technical Committee will be forwarded to an Executive Committee which will
consist of, at least, a representative of the non-Federal Sponsor and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Executive Committee will decide whether to adopt adaptive management measures
recommended by the Technical Committee.
6 REFERENCES
Pastorok, R.A., A. MacDonald, J.R. Sampson, P. Wilber, D.J. Yozoo, and J.P. Titre. 1997. An
ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects. Ecol. Engin. 9:89-107.
Thom, R.M. and K.F. Wellman. 1996. Planning aquatic ecosystem restoration monitoring
programs. Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program. IWR Report 96-R-23.
Yozzo, D., J. Titre, and J. Sexton. (eds.) 1996. Planning and evaluating restoration of aquatic
habitats from an ecological perspective. IWR report 96-EL-4. WES, Prepared for Institute for
Water Resources. USACE, Alexandria, Virg. and WES, Vicksburg, MS.
• I_5