Planting/Monitoring Workshop

Venue:  Water life DiscoveryCenter, 2600 Lakeshore Drive, Sagle, ID  83815

Date:   March 6, 2013


Meeting Minutes

Kathy Cousins (IDFG) reviewed where we are right now.  She showed slides depicting the need, such that dams in the basin have altered hydrology and this has affected low lying marshes around Lake Pend Oreille, scouring away soils.  The operation of the Albeni Falls dam continues shoreline erosion, with shorelines in the delta losing between one and five feet per year and in some places eight feet per year, and will continue to occur into the future if nothing is done.  When the lake is at full pool, wetland soils soak up water, and then when lake goes down in the winter, the heavy soils are unable to hold the water weight and slump away.  It is important to protect the delta habitats because they are biologically important; the delta provides connectivity between highlands and low lands; provides nutrients, depositional area, food, cover for waterfowl, land birds, and mammals.  The delta is recreationally, socially, economically, and culturally important.  Cousins then reviewed the draft project goal – protect, improve and restore key habitats and functions, and draft project objectives such as protecting delta shorelines; creating protective barrier islands; raising portions of the delta; and, capturing woody debris to encourage sediment deposition.

Cousins then showed 2011 aerial photographs, with area polygons over the top:  project focus includes Area 11 – the ACOE log yard, Area 7, and portions of areas 8, 9, and 3.  Plan for timing: see letter of agreement from State of Idaho office of energy resources.  Each year the department has available $1.5 million to acquire and improve habitats, now those funds are redirected for this restoration project to the total of three million dollars.  Construction is planned to occur October 2013, when water goes down, through March 2014, when water comes up.  Map on slide shows blue borrow areas and green fill areas, over a million cubic yards of earth to move, about 50,000 tons of rock will be needed and at least 500 trees of dbh 18-24 inches with roots on, and branches if possible, and at least 40 ft in length.  Need between 13-16,000 linear feet of willows, at least.  Want to start quarrying rocks out of the Lightning Creek quarry starting in May 2013, if possible and start improving the access roads on site.  Also start stockpiling wood on site in May.  Also create a trench on-site to soak willows collected in late fall.  Hoping to start barging rock in July and August – barging will save time and money to place the rock first.  Then make a temporary road for heavy equipment.  Cousins showed various parts of the map, where contractors will build breakwaters, etc. to have several crews working simultaneously to accomplish this.  Other components such as Bendway weirs will be placed along the shoreline, composed of rock and/or wood, to redirect water away from shoreline, protect from further erosion.  Borrow areas are planned to be generally 5 feet deep, but in some areas will be as deep as equipment can reach, maybe 11-12 feet deep.  These borrow areas will retain water through winter, and if there are fish in there, that depth allows survival over winter.

Cousins noted that the planting schedule does not have to be on same aggressive time line as the project construction.  Need to purchase stock, two-year bare root stock, to use during construction period.  Might clean out nursery stock this year, and then need to plan for effort across the following couple of years.  Preference is for using at least two year stock as this should increase survival.

Cousins then showed of photographs of project area and where staging areas would be for wood and rock.  Breakwater structures across the front of island areas would be constructed only couple feet higher than high summer pool, and include splash pools.  The face of the delta sees seven miles of fetch, so the breakwaters are designed to take a wash over, and then the water goes into splash pools to dissipate energy behind breakwater.  The design allows for kayaking, fishing, and also access for monitoring; boats should be able to float through the restoration areas.  Cousins concluded by showing slides of the proposed engineered cross sections for the breakwaters, noting different designs depending on if there’s an existing breakwater.

Question from a participant asking where the fill is coming from?  Cousins replied that the fill will come from the borrow areas, noting that this fill is clean because it is inundated half the year and so contains no seed bank.  Discussion of stripping vegetation occurred.  Cousins noted that a weed management plan still needs to be developed for those areas with vegetation.  Restoration areas with a uniform cover of reed canarygrass will be striped, possibly flipped, and then buried.  A short discussion ensued on how deep to strip areas for reed canarygrass.  Jack Zimmer suggested stripping at least a foot.  JJ Teare (IDFG) suggested between two and three feet before the root lines are out of the way.  Chris Bonsignore (DU) noted that he had not seen anything in the literature that three foot tertiary roots sprout.  He felt that three feet seemed extreme and suggested that one foot should be plenty.  Cousins stated that they would check literature to ensure the correct depth is identified.

Gail Bolin asked where the trees would come from.  Cousins replied that they were currently working to identify sources, noting that if anyone knows of sources, to please let them know.  Still need to form committees to search for the large wood and willow sources as well.  Bolin asked how long the willows can stay in a trench.  Cousins replied that the willows can be stored over the winter, and should be soaking for at least two weeks prior to planting; literature shows that a soak period of ten days or longer increased survival.  Cousins replied to a question regarding timing, answering that the plan was to start collecting willows in the late fall after the leaves have fallen from the shrubs.

Sharon Burdick asked if a variety of willows was needed or certain types.  Cousins assumed that the group would suggest using a variety of willow species, and the group understood that about 60,000 whips would be needed.  Teare noted that red osier dogwood would need roots.  Bolin said she gets 50% survival with red osier dogwood cuttings.  Teare noted that they hoped to attain 90-100% survival of plantings by using bare root plants.

Kate Walker (USFS) asked what container species were being considered?  She noted that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) nursery could provide some red osier dogwood.  Nurseries usually are set up for what is called a “hedge orchard.”  Walker said they can do a lot of cuttings this year, starting right now, while they are still dormant.  Take 60-100 cuttings, planted in beds, and in a few years get 600 container plants.  The benefit is that one knows where the cuttings are sourced from.  Although this does reduce genetic variability, there is a source of cuttings for years to come.  Wealth of knowledge at the nursery, i.e., rooting hormones or not, recommend selecting from variety of places, local native places.  She also offered help to find other areas for collecting.  Whatever the client wants we can make it work.  Walker also has some information written up on costs as well.

Betsy Hull noted that the species the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) used in the log yard area were red osier, yellow willow, woodsii rose, douglas spirea, and black hawthorn.  Discussion ensued in the group about yellow or golden or white willow, species names, native or not, etc.  People agree that using natives only is desirable.

Cousins showed lists of herbaceous and woody species ordered for Pack River project.  Cousins noted that it might not be necessary to plant black cottonwood, as the Pack River project showed that natural regeneration was good in areas where there was no reed canarygrass.  Areas with reed canary grass would need black cottonwood plantings.  Another species that could be planted several years later would be cedar.  Cedar plantings prefer some cover.  Lodgepole pine and D. spirea were coming in on the Pack River project on own, noting that lodgepole pine has a wide range of tolerances.  Cousins noted that what was learned at Pack River delta was that almost anything planted grew.  Did not do any protection, and did have some grazing and browsing; a beaver did come in the day after planting and took out some, but still over 71% of the plantings survived; the herbaceous plantings did especially well.  Dispersers brought in other species.

Cousins then introduced a list of possible species for broadcast seeding and asked the group if the project should be seeded.  She noted that a broadcast seeding effort was completed on the Pack River project – one in winter, then a second seeding prior to planting efforts.  All of the grasses are still present.  Derek Antonelli (IDFG) noted that initially there was a good sprout, then geese came in and took them down, but then after a few years, they grasses came back.  Zimmer recommended doing a harrow after seeding.  He said that this would provide for a good soil contact to get sprouting.  He suggested dragging a chain link fence over areas seeded.  Bonsignore asked if the germination was below expectation on the Pack River project.  Antonelli said that the germination was good; it was the geese that pulled out the grasses.  Burlap mats helped in areas, preventing the geese from getting those.  Cousins noted that they did not till it in or harrow the seeds at that time.  Hull commented that if you don’t seed, you leave it open for weeds.  Zimmer recommended seeding as soon as possible – March, April, and May get on it as early as you can, as soon as its dry enough, temperature does not matter.  Teare noted that the seeding would directly follow construction probably.  Denny Dawes commented that he has used a broadcast seeder on the front, harrow on the back so he only had to make one pass.  Antonelli asked if it would be a good idea to put something over the seeding like straw or wood chips to prevent geese from getting those grasses.  LeAnne Abell (BLM)  commented that BLM will require the use of weed free straw.  The group thought that jute matting was too expensive, and that this is really for erosion control.  But eating the grass, that’s what the geese do, and results from the Pack River project suggests that the grasses survived even in the presence of the grazing geese – it just takes some time (four or more years) for the grasses to become established.  Cousins suggested that if some areas need more protection, then that could be considered.

The group then turned their attention to the seed species lists.  Abell inquired on why barley was used at the Pack River delta?  Dawes answered that this barley is grass species versus a grain species.  This one is a total different subspecies – a perennial.  Bonsignore commented that it is a wet meadow native grass, and a very common species.  Zimmer agreed, and said that he can provide that species.  Teare commented that lots of companies provide that species.  Bolin asked how many pounds of seed are you looking at?  Cousins replied that this volume was not known quite yet.  Bonsignore suggested the group might consider adding to the slope mix a slender hairgrass (Deschampsia elongata).  It’s an annual, establishes quickly, to give good competition with reed canarygrass.

The group noted that forbs were not included in the Pack River delta list – because the goal was to try to get grasses first and then forbs later.  Antonelli noted that polygonium was abundant the first year at the Pack, did this species did not persist past the first year – still, it provided good cover.  Abell noted that the one species that does really well on disturbed areas is fireweed.  Zimmer said that his nursery has hundreds of forbs available.  General discussion of species ensued.  Teare suggested putting a temporary cover in the mix, like triticale, for geese grazing pressure, noting that it would not persist.  Zimmer added that a sterile triticale could be added to that mix to provide good cover.  Bonsignore noted that this is part of the value of slender hairgrass, in that the geese will be feeding on the slender hairgrass.  It gets going so quickly, geese hammering the nurse crop, but he said he has seen amazing responses on other projects.  A lot goes back to application rates.  Increase application rate if you think you have heavy geese pressure.

Antonelli commented that eventually we are going to get forested wetlands there; we want to allow the woody plants to get established.  Abell noted that establishing grasses and forbs would be like establishing a placeholder to get the community developed and keep the weeds out.  Jim Derrig (IDFG) asked how the areas did in the Pack River with thistle.  Cousins replied that thistle did come in to the project site from seeds that were in the replaced sod that was stripped from some of the island areas.  The first thistle that showed up on island areas with no replaced sod, i.e., Island 8, was last year (four years after the construction).  Cousins also noted that it was relatively easy to remove the thistle in the newly constructed areas by digging up the plants.  Antonelli reiterated that thistle was not a real serious problem, however, when you go from 24 acres, to 200 acres, this might be different.  Derrig noted that if a huge flush of thistle came in, then using a boom spray might knock back other planted species.

Walker asked if there was a reference site that would show what the area would look like at in the end.  What is the final desired community?  Cousins replied that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) had identified some references areas on wildlife mitigation parcels in the area, but she noted that the delta habitat was very unique.  The delta area is a highly disturbed system.

Ray Entz (Kalispel Tribe) updated the group on a sub-regional monitoring program that monitors tribal properties (i.e., the Kalispel, Kootenai, Colville, Spokane, Coeur d’Alene, and others).  Entz said that they have established a list of reference sites.  When we monitor restoration, we compare back to reference sites.  Conifer reference sites, shrub scrub reference sites, hemi-marsh sites, sedge wetlands, shoreline wetlands, we have reference sites for all kinds of wetlands in the Pend Oreille system.  All communities are going to be comparable to these, communities of amphibians (ENDA protocol presence/absence protocol for amphibians was recently changed), small mammals, birds, etc.  We get a ranking from 0-1 how similar we are to one of those reference sites, and we can track that over time.  Not just vegetation, but all communities.  We can go to the best representative site that your goal is to get to.  Basically three years of data collection on those reference sites, so we can tease out temporal differences.  Return every three to five years to monitoring sites, compare to reference sites.

Cousins returned to the discussion of grasses, and asked if adding forbs should be considered.  Bolin asked what forbs were planted in the Pack River delta.  Cousins replied that no forbs had been planted in the delta as the project had a severely limited time line for completion and funding was minimal on that project.  Zimmer said he could provide a list of forbs that would work in the Clark Fork River delta environment, and a list of forbs that were available.  Zimmer suggested that small Burnett might be one species to consider; a mixed response was observed in the group.  Abell asked what forbs were seen to come in on the Pack River project.  Three different types of knotweed and polygonium were seen.  Cousins noted that she could send out to the group, along with the minutes, draft appendices of the Pack River delta project’s monitoring plan that list the plants observed in year four.  Abell suggested cross referencing the species observed with that of Zimmer’s list.  Teare asked what would we be using fobs for?  Wildlife food?  Or are we looking for just possible broadleaf species that were present but might not come in?  Or if we find a source, let’s throw in a trace.  Teare thought that clovers would do really well, but may not persist very well.  Antonelli commented that it would persist very well, as it was found in all the plots he has ever sampled in the area.  Teare suggested centering the discussion on goals.  He asked if it was cover, and if so then be heavier on grasses.  Jack Zimmer recommended to only putting in more of a trace percent of the forbs in a mix.  Lupines, fireweed, goldenrods were all suggested.

Cousins then noted that some groups have really strong interests in historical plants.  For instance, the Kalispel Tribe may be very interested in establishing rushes on the project site, as rushes were traditionally used by the tribes.  Entz said that any large bulrushes, three square, hard stem species were traditionally used by the tribe and he suggested consulting the list of traditional plants developed for the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement.  Hall said he could provide this list.  Bonsignore suggest that wapato was important, and offered a great reference for that.  Entz agreed that wapato, camas, and others, in higher areas, above annual inundation would be a good choice of plants.

Walker offered that the USFS also supplies mixes of seeds of native grasses, and could do collections of summer seeds, like fireweed.  She noted that fireweed is a tricky species to clean and put through a seeder, maybe just a collection and disperse, unless it is propagated in containers.  Walker said that they could do that; however, planning ahead will be necessary.  One year to two years out to get a lot of materials, seed increase, willow poles.  Dawes noted that they propagate about 200,000 plants each year, and they also collect seeds from various counties.  His nursery also handles wild collections, especially for Drummond willow, on the potlatch river, making collections for 20 years there.  He said that they have two year stock, grown in tall one gallon containers, 4×4 inch, that’s 14 inches tall.  These plants handle very well in packing and transporting and they currently have about 10,000 available, and can grow 50,000 more a year.  Dawes supplied an availability list and catalogue.

Cousins then directed the discussion toward monitoring, asking what questions needed to be answered with a monitoring program.  For instance: was the project successful?  Were the project objectives met? Did plants survive, etc?   What was the wildlife response to improvement in habitat?  She also noted that it was important to include the community in the project planting.  Some species that need to be planted can be planted fairly easily (i.e., herbaceous plugs), and other species might need more effort and training of volunteers.  She noted that everybody owns the delta and public participation was very important component to the overall project success.  Also, she noted that it would be important to know what was planted and where species were planted, so that these plantings can be check later to calculate planting success.

Cousins suggested one approach might be to overlay a grid system on the project site and then choose, whether randomly or not, permanent monitoring sites on the grid.  T-posts could be placed denoting these permanent monitoring sites, and then GPS can be used to denote cover types.  Another idea could be to take aerial pictures of the project site using a camera mounted on a drone.  Volunteers could adopt a 100 meter square area on the sampling grid, for instance, and they could use the aerial photographs to design a planting scheme on their square.  Then when the plants arrive they can be assigned to the numbered square, and the volunteer is responsible for the planting.  In this way, plants could be tracked to where they went in the delta.  The drone can fly the project area in the future so photographs can be compared to pre- and post-construction conditions.

Clem Yonker suggested having groups adopt areas.  Island 7B is Idaho Master Naturalists, for example, other areas by other groups – if there is enough interest.  Brad Smith commented that this was a potentially great idea.  A master naturalist comes with a certain level of expertise, and it was felt that volunteers might not be able to design planting schemes, but volunteers are very excited about planting them.  Jan Wasserburger suggested that master naturalists could plan planting schemes, while others felt that perhaps master naturalists did not have that expertise.  Cousins commented that the thought was to provide people choices.

Dawes noted that a cross-section showing, elevations, summer pool etc. should also be supplied to the people designing the planting scheme.  He also noted that the soils are nearly homogeneous.  Cousins noted that one of the monitoring methods being suggested is to fly LiDAR after the construction, and that this could provide the elevations.  It was suggested that a field trip to the Pack River delta to see examples might help.  Cousins noted that master naturalists could join the Sandpoint High School field trip in May (during the week of May 20 – 24).

Jim Derrig commented that he felt it was too much work for volunteers and he asked if there was any way to talk with BLM and USFS tree planting crews, because they can hammer out hundreds of plantings per day.  Even with logistics, it’s hard to know how many volunteers are going to show up per day.  If a tree planting crew was hired for a week, they would get a lot more done.  Entz suggested asking the Salmon Corp, as they are a youth corp available for work.  Derrig asked why a private contractor could not be hired to do the plantings.  Cousins replied that a private contractor could be hired, depending upon the budget, but she reiterated that community involvement was very important.  Teare reinforced this by stating that community involvement has to happen, and that a mix of contractors and volunteers could be used.

A participant asked if lake level will be changing during the summer.  Hull answered that the water level is not arbitrary; it’s planned, though it may not seem like it.  The ACOE have to have the water level up by a certain date, it has to be down by Nov 1.  Whatever level it’s at on Nov 1, it cannot be changed; the ACOE have to keep it at that level within one foot.  Summer plantings should be at or above 2,062.5 feet.  Abell asked if volunteers would be boated out to the project site.  Cousins said that this would be the case.  Smith suggested having a five day camp set up at the site so it could be a big camaraderie thing.  Cousins agreed that something like that could be arranged; we want it to be fun, while allowing the public the opportunity to contribute to and be part of the project.

Bonsignore inquired on the timing of initial plantings?  Cousins noted that all plantings used in the construction need to be on-site starting November 2013.  She hoped some herbaceous plugs could be planted the first year after construction, and then whatever woody stock was available for purchase the first year (using two year stock) could be planted.  Then she thought there might be a larger push in the second year for planting the woody species, and some more herbaceous plantings.  She thought it might be Interesting to see how recruitment turns out first year, as well.  Bonsignore was grateful that the plan was not to plant everything in the first year.  Agreement noted from group that planting should occur over several years.  Teare commented that he envisioned a laser level, having a line of folks putting in plugs; nothing is more fun than planting aquatic plugs.  Dawes noted that having a contractor with equipment is key, mini-excavators rigged with augers, or trenching, works really quickly, everyone knows its fun planting the plants, but getting the hole is the real work.  Everyone agreed, don’t skimp on power tools.  Smith offered that one thing a non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can do is to apply for grants, use matching funds, purchase power augers, food for volunteers, even pay for contractors.  Cousins commented that this was important and noted that at present, BPA and Avista were providing the majority of the funding to satisfy their mitigation responsibilities, but she could see the day when these responsibilities will be satisfied, so identifying future funding is important.  Smith said that NGOs can write grants, as well as create and manage a strong volunteer base.

Break for lunch.

Cousins started the afternoon monitoring discussion with asking why, what, how, where, when, who of monitoring.  Why are we monitoring?  Bolin replied to see if plants grew, hard work paid off, how successful, etc.  Cousins also noted that she felt it would be important to report back to funding sources.  Zimmer asked what the reporting requirements where.  Cousins noted that there were no rigid requirements at present, but reporting is expected.

Betsy Hull (ACOE) thought one could compare the percentage of acres covered in reed canargygrass pre- and post project.  David Leptich (IDFG) thought a measure of effectiveness was an important starting point.  What are desired outcomes, defining those specifically, not just acres of restored habitat, but what defines “restored” habitat.  Identify targets and see how close we are to those objectives.  What are the goals of this project, and we have them in a specific measurable context.

What is the desired outcome?  First is to reduce erosion, and second is to diversify wetland habitat.  Leptich referred to the draft project objectives and said that points A and B are well framed; look at current rate of erosion, easy to measure rates of erosion.  He stated that point C needed to be fleshed out more.  For instance, so we have reed canarygrass, but what does restored habitat look like, i.e., certain percentage of ground cover, native plants, something to measure day after project, and five years after.  What is the metric of success?  Once we know metric, then we have tools to measure that.

Hull noted that GIS tools to measure, acres of mudflat, etc. could be used.  Zimmer thought that more than just acreage metrics were needed.  John Hastings asked if there was a way to measure wildlife diversity now?  Entz replied that there are several scales of monitoring.  Short scale – now to five years, but then cloud level monitoring.  He suggested letting the wildlife monitoring crew come out now to collect the baseline before anything has been done.  The question then is – are you moving toward your reference condition?   It’s zero today, but in ten years it’s a 0.7.  Different communities will change differently, but you can track that over time.  But you don’t have to re-develop that protocol.  Leptich asked if this was our measure of effectiveness.  Is our desired outcome is to reach that reference situation?  Bonsignore asked what the resources were to monitor and if the outcome is not reached, then what is done then?  A short discussion ensured regarding using a tiered monitoring approach (i.e., Tier 1 is basic monitoring, tiers become more intense and more specialized) and to include adaptive management.  If goal is not reached, then how do you change that end goal?  Leptich noted that even if some things take 50 years (i.e., cottonwood galleries) that we won’t reach in our lifetimes, we should be able to observe movement towards those goals.

Cousins noted that public involvement was important component to the project and so developing methods to communicate to the public and provide data was equally important.  She noted that Ducks Unlimited will host a website, linking to the Clark Fork project.  She said that they were only just starting to design that website, and that she envisioned it to have a monitoring component and way to report back to people in the community.  Entz noted that all the data collected in their monitoring program goes into a database that people can access online, download it, and some summary analysis, for example, species lists of birds.  You can get an idea of what’s there, access the data.  Yonker offered that another reason for good data is that someday when the money runs out, and you apply to a foundation, the better data you have regarding before and after conditions, i.e., photographs, etc. can then show funders that this is something worth continuing.

John Hastings asked if we had an oral history of the delta.  Cousins believed that information was available at the Bonner County Museum, and Entz noted that he knew many people who could offer that.  Cousins noted that Chip Corsi (IDFG Regional Supervisor) is thinking to start a documentary.  IDFG staff in Boise have the capability to produce documentaries, could be invited to the delta to take “before” and “after” video.  These small clips of footage, spoken words, interviews with tribal members, 2,000 years of history, could be part of the documentary.  Cousins also noted that they could do time lapse photography of the construction; mount T-posts, each day come and take a picture, and then at the end of construction, put that up on webpage, or include in the documentary.  Derrig asked if she meant game cameras?  Cousins thought that there would be contractors on the site and that they could take a picture every day at noon, for example.  She also suggested mounting a webcam at the boat launch, and asked if there was a power source there?  Hull said she would look into if that is possible.

Leptich suggested changing the text for the project objectives; he said that some of the measures of effectiveness were not measures; they were tools.  Measures of effectiveness are things like specific metrics that are monitored over time, like erosion rates.  Quantitative changes, areas of mudflats, qualitative functional metrics.  Specific measures of effectiveness are the goals and the targets.  He said to not list the tools here, or to list them under the category of tools.  Cousins said she would work with him to make these types of changes to the project objectives.

Entz noted that photo-documenting was important and that National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) resolution gets better every year.  A participant suggested taking pictures from Cloudsledge, so that the photographs would match historical photographs.  Other participants suggested that information available to the public in real time would be important.  Photographs could be taken and uploaded every day, in real time.  Relate that to planting that needs to happen after, people can see is it ready to be planted.  General public needs to access it.  Hull noted that the ACOE also has a website that can have a link on it.

Cousins suggested that several people in the room and others outside of the room needed to start working together to put together a draft monitoring plan (i.e., a “strawman”) for everyone in this room to look at, add to and provide comments.  Cousins noted that she had upcoming meetings with a professor at the University of Idaho, and there were other groups and engineers interested in participating in the monitoring as well.  Group agreed that monitoring should occur annually for at least five years, and then the plan could be revisited after that time to determine future monitoring needs.  It was noted that a management plan, a weed management plan would also need to be prepared for the project.  Teare said that a weed management plan will be more intensive for this project because it’s so large and intensive, but then after a few years when it’s under control, may fall under the IDFG management plan rotation.

A general discussion on the strawman’s format ensured.  Zimmer noted that it would be desirable to produce a publication through this project, and to keep this in mind when developing a plan.  Leptich commented that different tiers answer different questions across different timeframes.  Keep those levels of detail and timeframes in mind.  Entz said that those will come up in your comparisons to reference sites.  Cousins thought it might be important to develop a list of monitoring needs.  In closing, Cousins said that they would be contacting people to develop the strawman plan, get feedback from the group.  She also said that they would work with nurseries to identify species, timing, availability, and put this out to the group.  Until we get a website up, were everyone could go to attain the monitoring plan, we will have to use email to communicate to the group.

Cousins also noted that a timeline of what needs to be completed will be sent with the draft monitoring plan.  For instance, we need volunteers this summer, recon for willow sources, then in late October/November we’ll need to harvest willows.  Hastings noted that the high school students are very happy to do these types of activities, but the activities needed to be planned a year and half ahead of time so that they could attain some grant money to make it happen.  Cousins said that the current timeline was that they were complete the construction roughly between October 2013, and March 2014.  Planting efforts could be planned in the first, second or more years after the construction.  Perhaps monitoring using students can be planned for later years.  Cousins noted that they were currently working on the regulatory aspect of the project and applying for permits, and this might have an impact on the timeline.

Cousins stated that she felt like they had a really great kick-off meeting, and looked forward to years of working together.  She would work to get the workshop minutes out in a week or so and then may have another meeting or planning session after a strawman is disseminated.  Hull said that she has lived in the area for her entire life and remembered the delta when it had islands.  I know other people remember, and saving the delta is so important.  Everyone agreed, clapped.

Meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm.


Get involved now!

Volunteer »