Tuolumne River Report - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RESTORING THE TUOLUMNE RIVER CORRIDORspawning gravels, and if implemented, shouldinitially target the dominant spawning reachupstream of Riffle 5B (RM 47.9) under thefollowing conditions:• A solution to reduce fine sediment input fromGasburg Creek is implemented;• Sand deposited on floodplain surfaces from the1997 flood is removed and/or used to filldredger pits on floodplains.The longevity of the flushing effort must beincreased by removing upstream sand sources tomake mechanical sand flushing cost-effective.Sand sources downstream of Riffle 5B (e.g.,Lower Dominici Creek and Peaslee Creek) will bemore difficult to control; rapid sand infiltrationwill most likely shorten mechanical flushingeffectiveness.4.3.8 MiscellaneousThe TRTAC should consider identifying anappropriate site and installing an adult salmoncounting station. While not specifically a restorationactivity, a counting station would providemore accurate escapement estimates, and providevaluable information on migration timing. Thesecounts could also augment/validate the spawningsurvey data collected by CDFG in the spawningreaches. Finally, a fish trapping station could beused to capture hatchery fish or out-of-basinstrays and remove them from the Tuolumne Riverbreeding population, thus protecting the geneticdistinction of the Tuolumne River salmon, asmandated by the Settlement Agreement.4.4. RESTORATION SITEIDENTIFICATION ANDSELECTIONMany of the restoration projects identified by thisplan are of much larger scale than has recentlyoccurred, with project boundaries spanning theentire corridor width over several miles ofchannel length. We identified projects through acombination of discussions with local stakeholdersand scientists, restoration site lists developedby others (EA Engineering, DWR, CDFG), andan extensive re-evaluation during numerous floattrips and site visits. Restoration sites were eitherclassified as a channel restoration project orriparian restoration project; however, mostchannel restoration projects contained a strongriparian component, whereas riparian projectswere solely riparian.The logical progression from identifyingrestoration projects to implementing restorationprojects requires some prioritization toensure that the most important projects areimplemented first. Factors that limit salmonproductivity and the fundamental fluvialprocesses that make the system functionproperly should logically be addressed first,then factors that are less imperative, and so on.The task of prioritizing and selecting projects forimplementation is beyond the scope of thisdocument, but is the ultimate responsibility of theTuolumne River Technical Advisory Committee.Priorities may be adjusted over time as projectsare implemented and monitoring data can be usedadaptively to re-evaluate project success andenvironmental responses to restoration actions.The criteria for selecting projects may also varydepending on the availability of funding and thetype of funding source, opportunity (e.g., willinglandowner), the types of projects that wereimplemented previously, and other unforeseeablecircumstances. For example, several large-scalechannel reconstruction projects have alreadyreceived funding, and project implementation willbegin in 2000. The TRTAC may choose toevaluate the performance of these relativelyexpensive projects before proceeding withadditional channel reconstruction projects. Also,many of the riparian restoration projects dependon land purchases or conservation easements,both circumstances of which require willinglandowners before these projects can proceed. Thelogical way to proceed, therefore, is for theTRTAC to remain opportunistic in the face ofshifting availability of funding or land availability.In the interim, funding proposals weredeveloped for fourteen channel restorationprojects tentatively identified as high priority.These proposals are immediately available shouldthe appropriate implementation opportunity arise.CHAPTER 4157