3—77

Case Study 7

Jordan Creek Stream restoration Project

Project overview In1992,weimplementedastreamrestorationprojectinJordanCreek,astreamlocatedintheCoeurd’AleneRiverRangerDistrict,IdahoPanhandleNationalForest.Thestreamlackedlargewoodydebris(LWD)becauseofwildfireandstreamsideroadbuildingactivities.OurpurposewastocreatepoolsthroughtheadditionofLWD.

Weidentified15sitesfortreatmentina0.7-milesectionofstream.Thefunctionoftheintroduceddebrisvariedfromlocationtolocationbutgenerallywasintendedtodooneormoreofthefollowing:actasroughnesstoscourpools;providecover,orprovidecomplexitybycreatingvariedwidthanddepth.Designforpoolhabitatrequiredlocatingplacesinthechannelwheregradebreakscurrentlyexistedortendtooccur,suchasbendsorlocalizedbreaksinlongitudinalslope.Ultimately,ourplacementofdebrisandotherdesignimprovementsbuiltuponortookadvantageofexistingchannelconditions.Weplaced68logsandrootwadswitha60-horsepowerSpydarhoe.Thewoodrangedfrom6to12metersinlengthandaveraged0.46metersindiameter.Asecondaryobjectivewastomaintainthecurrentchannelmorphologyandtoincreasesedimentdelivery.A100-yearflood(February9,1996)anda10-yearflood(April2002)haveoccurredinJordanCreeksincethecompletionoftherestoration.

ThisisthefinalreportfortheJordanCreekStreamRestorationProject.We collected monitoring data for 10 years after implementing the project. Astheprimaryobjectiveofthemonitoringstudywastodeterminewhetherwoodstructuresincreasedpoolvolumeandfishnumbers,wedidnotsetanyspecificpoolvolumesorfishnumbers.

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring Thepurposeofthemonitoringprogramwastoevaluatewhetherfish

habitatimprovedresultinginincreasedfishpopulations,whetherrestorationactivitiesmaintainedchannelform,andwhetherthestructuresremainedinplace.Weconductedsurveysforfishhabitat/woodydebris,fishpopulations(electrofishing),streamtyping,andWolmanpebblecounts.Werepeatedthesesurveysfrom1993through1998,andin2000and2002.Photographsprovidedpreconstructionbaselinedata.From1993to2002,wemonitoredthestructuresusingpool-volumesurveys,habitatmonitoring,andstreamcross-sectionsurveys(table1).Wedidnotdevelopspecificvaluestodeterminewhethertheprojectwasasuccess,becauseanyincreasesinpools,woodydebris,andfishpopulationswereconsidered a success.

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—78

developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

Table 1. Monitoring parameters, method, and results of Jordan creek restoration monitoring program.

Parameter Methodology Success Criteria

Fishhabitat R1/R4fishhabitat/ Poolnumbersincreased2 woodydebrissurvey, percent.LWDpiecesincreased photographs,pool 58percent.Photosshow volumesurveys vegetativecoverremained (levelandrod) constantovertime.Pool- volumedatawasnotanalyzed.

Fish Electrofishing Overtime,fishdensities population increased45percentinthe restored section.

Channel Streamtyping, Channelformwas morphology Wolmanpebble maintainedovertime. counts,crosssections (levelandrod), photographs

Structure Photographs Poolingandgradecontrol effectiveness structuresweremaintained; and coverstructuresweremobile.maintenance

Fishhabitatsurvey(Overtonetal.)isabasin-wideinventorymethodfor

assessingthequantityandqualityoffishhabitat.Inthismethod,surveycrewsbreakthestreamintohabitatunitssuchasriffle,run,glide,andpool.Crewsrecordphysicalmeasurements(suchaswidth,depth,andlengthofeachunit),assesstheamountofcoverforeachpool,andtallywoodydebrisaccordingtodiameterandlength.Forourproject,weselectedandintensivelysurveyedtwopoolswitharodandleveltodetectsmallchangesinvolume.Wesurveyedthreecrosssectionsandtwolongitudinalprofilesineachpool.

Wedeterminedfishpopulationsbyelectofishingeighttransects:fourtransectswerelocatedoutsideoftherestorationsection(control)andfourwerelocatedwithin.Transectsvariedinlengthfrom118to180metersandencompassedavarietyoffishhabitat.Weusedthedepletionmethodtoestimatefishnumbers,anddidtwotothreepassesateachtransect.

Weselectedastream-typinglocation250-feetdownstreamfromtheconfluenceofCalamityandJordanCreeks.Wetookentrenchment,width-to-depthratio,sinuosity,gradient,andparticlesizemeasurements,which

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—79

Case Study

weusedtodeterminestreamtype.Tomonitorchangesintheparticlesizesbeingmoved,wedidpebblecountsinthecontrolandrestoredsectionsofthestream.Weestablishedtwopermanentcross-sectionlocationsinariffleandaconstructedpoolandsurveyedthemwitharodandlevel.Thepurposeofthecrosssectionswastoshowchangesinchannelshapeandcross-sectional area.

Tolookatresidualpoolvolumes(asdescribedintheR1/R4fishhabitatsurveymethodology),weweretoevaluatepoolvolumes.Wealsohadmultiplecrosssectionsataconstructedpoolfortakingmoreexactmeasurements.However,wecouldnotevaluateanyofthisdatabecauseofthevariabilityofthesurveysfromresidualpoolvolumesandthelackofsoftwareforanalyzingthecross-sectiondata.

Wetookgeneralphotographsofeachdesignsite.However,becausenoestablishedphotopointsweresetupforthisproject,wecouldnotrecreateexact photos from year to year.

Ourassumptionwasthattherestorationworkwouldincreasepools,woodydebris,andfishnumbers.Wealsoexpectedthattheworkwouldnotsignificantlyalterchannelmorphology.TheparameterswechoseformonitoringdemonstratedsuccessfullythatourrestorationeffortsprovidedanetimprovementtothissegmentofJordanCreek.

Monitoring results and Interpretation Fish Habitat/Woody Debris Survey Weexaminedfourhabitattypes.Ouranalysisindicatedconsiderable

variationbetweenfastwaterhabitattypes(riffleandrun)butlessvariationinpools(figure2).Webelievethevariationobservedinthefast-waterhabitatwasmostlyduetohavingdifferentobserversconductthesurveys.Therefore,wedecidedtogroupourdataintoslowwater(poolsandglides)andfastwater(runsandriffles)habitats(figure3).Thesetwogroupsdidnot account for 100% of the stream length. (That the remainder of the streamwasinabraidedconditionhelpedexplainthevariabilityinthefastwaterhabitat.)

Figure3showstheeffectsoftherestorationeffortwherepoolpercentageincreasedfrom6to20percent(from1992to1993).Poolhabitatwasmaintaineduntilalargefloodoccurredinthewinterof1996,afterwhichwenoteda50-percentreductioninpoolpercentage(figure3).Webelievethatthelargeapparentincreaseinslow-waterhabitatin2000wasduetoobservervariability.Becausefishresideinslow-waterhabitatmostofthetime,anincreaseinpoolsandglidestranslatesintoincreasedfishhabitat.Wesampledwithinthetreatedanduntreatedsectionsofthestreambut,

7

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—80

developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

becauseoftimeconstraints,wewereunabletobreakthisdataout.Usingthistypeofsurveytodocumentsubtlechangesinhabitatisverydifficult.

Ananalysisofwoodydebriscountsovertheyearsshowedanincreasefromrestorationactivities.Smallwoodfellintothesizerangeof3-to15-feetlong,and2to10inchesindiameter.Largewoodwasanythinglongerthan15feetandgreaterthan10inchesindiameter.Largewoodpiecesdecreasedafterthe1996floodandcontinuedtodecreaseuntil2002.Webelievethattheincreaseseenin2000mayhaveresultedfromthecrew’sconductingthesurveythatyear(figure4).Smallwoodydebriswaspredictablymuchmorevariable(figure4),becausethissizeofwoodismoremobile.Wetookphotosofeachdesignsitein1992,1995,and2002.Becauseofthelackofbenchmarks,thephotographerlocationisvariable.Thephotosdepictgeneralchangessuchasanincreaseinvegetativecoverandwoodydebrisloading(figures5and6).Althoughpoolvolumesurveydataisaviablemethodtoshowchangesinpoolvolumeovertime,wecouldnotanalyzethisinformationbecauseoflackofmoneyandthedifficultyoflocatingasoftwareprogramthatcoulddothework.

Figure 2. Graph depicts the percentage of habitat change from 1992 to 2002 in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

J ordan C reek Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2002

Y e a r

Percentage

pool

run

riffle

glide

perc

enta

ge

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—81

Case Study

Figure 3. Graph depicts changes in fast and slow water from 1992 to 2002 in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

Figure 4. Graph depicts woody debris loading from 1992 to 2002 in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

7

J ordan C reek Habitat

0

1020

30

4050

60

70

8090

100

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2002

Y e a r

Percentage

fast water

slow water`pe

rcen

tage

J ordan C reek Woody Debris

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2002

Y e ar

# of pieces

small wood

large wood

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—82

developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

Figure 5. An upstream view of design site #5 in Jordan Creek, Idaho, 1992.

Figure 6. An upstream view of design site #5 in Jordan Creek, Idaho, 2002.

Fish Population Wecomparedfishpopulations,evaluatingthetreated(restored)and

untreated(control)sectionsofJordanCreek.ThespeciesoffishwefoundwereWestslopecutthroattrout(Onchorynchusclarkii),sculpin(Cottussp.),andlongnosedace(Rhinichthyscataractae).Weselectedcutthroattroutastheindicatorspeciestoevaluatepopulationchanges,andusedmicrofish3.0(VanDeventerandPlatts1989)softwaretodeterminefishdensities(figure7).In1992notreatmenthadoccurred,andaverageswere

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—83

Case Study

verysimilarinbothareas.Thegeneraltrendfrom1993to1997showsagradualdecreaseinfishdensitiesinthecontrolsectionsofthestream.OnFebruary9,1996thebasinexperienceda100-yearflood,andweconductedthe1996fishpopulationsamplingaftertheflood.

Thetrendincutthroatdensitiesshowsacontinueddecreaseinthecontrolsectionbutanincreaseinthetreatedsection.Weattributethisincreasetoasinglelargepool,whichweconstructedaspartoftheproject.Thispoolhadaccumulatedanumberoflargelogsandwasverycomplex.Mostofthiswoodhadmovedby1998.Wesawincreasesinpopulationinbothsectionsfrom2000to2002,althoughthetreatedtransectshadhigherpopulations.

Figure 7. Cutthroat-population comparison by year within and outside of the

restored section of channel in Jordan Creek, Idaho from 1992 to 2002.

Channel Morphology We selected one location for stream typing outside of the treated

area,doingthissurveyonlyonce,in1998.Accordingtoourfieldmeasurements,thislocation,JordanCreek,isaC4streamtype.Althoughasurveyofthistypecouldnotedrasticchangesinstreamtype,itwouldnotdetectsubtlechanges.Werepeatedpebblecountsfrom1992to2002attwolocations,withonesiteasthecontrolsectionandtheotherasthetreatedstreamsection(figures8and9).Thesitewithinthetreatedsectionaverages3,000feetfromthecontrolsite.Wedidthepebblecountsbeforecompletingtherestorationworkin1992.Thecountsshowedashifttowardasmallerparticlesizeatallpebblecountlocationsites;however,theshiftwasnotgreatenoughtomovethestreamintoadifferentstream

7

F is h P opula tion C ompa r is on

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2002

Year

Number/100 square meter

control

treated

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—84

developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

type.Thedataalsoshowsverylittledifferenceinpebblecountsbetweenthecontrolandtreatedreach.Therestorationworkdidnotappeartochangethesedimentsizethatthereacheswereretaining.

Figure 8. Graph depicts pebble count data from 1992 to 2002 outside of the restoration section in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

Figure 9. Graph depicts pebble count data from 1992 to 2002 within the restoration section in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

C ontrol S ite #1 P ebble C ount C omparis on

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-64 64-

128

128-

256

256-

512

512-

1024

1024-

2048

2048-

4096

P a rtic le S iz e in m m

Cumulative % Finer

1992

1993

1998

2000

2002

Cum

ulat

ive

% F

iner

P e bble C o u n t #3 C o mpa r is o n (r e s to r a tio n s e c tio n )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-64 64-128

128-256

256-512

512-1024

1024-2048

2048-4096

P artic le S ize in mm

Cumulative % Finer

1992

1998

2000

2002

Cum

ulat

ive

% F

iner

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—85

Case Study

Aftercompletingtherestorationefforts,weestablishedtwopermanentmonumentedcrosssections.Weconductedcross-section#1(control)inariffleandcross-section#2(treated)withinaconstructedpool.Thecontrolarea(figure10)maintaineditsbasicshape,althoughthecrosssectionalareaslightlyincreased.Theconstructedpool(figure11)alsoexhibitedanincreaseincross-sectionalareaandaslightdeepeninginthethalweg.Overall,1996to2002sawonlyminorchanges.

Figure 10. Permanent riffle cross section surveyed in 1996 and 2002 in the untreated section of channel in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

Figure 11. Permanent pool cross section surveyed in 1996 and 2002 in the treated section of channel in Jordan Creek, Idaho.

7

C ros s s e c tion #1 C om paris on

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

0 10 20 30 40 50

d is ta n c e ( fe e t)

elevation (feet)

1996

2002

C ros s s ec tion #2 C ompa r is on

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

0 20 40 60 80

dis tance (fe e t)

elevation (feet)

1996

2002

Elev

atio

n (fe

et)

Elev

atio

n (fe

et)

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—86

developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs TheUSDAForestServicefundedandconductedallmonitoringforthis

project.

ThefollowingtablesummarizesthetypicalannualcostsfortheUSDAForestServicemonitoringofthisproject:

Tasks People Days Cost ($)

Photographs 2 1 300

FishHabitatSurveys 2 1.5 450

WoodyDebrisSurveys 2 1.5 450

ElectrofishingSurveys 3 4 1,800

Cross Sections 2 1 300

PebbleCounts 2 1 300

DataAnalysisReport 1 10 2,500

MaterialsFilm,batteries,surveygear 250

Total 6,350

Lessons Learned Althoughfishhabitatsurveycanbeaviablemethodofnotingchangesinfishhabitatovertime,theuseofwell-trainedcrewsiscrucialforminimizingobservervariability.Groupinghabitattypesintofast-andslow-waterreducessomeofthevariability.Differencesinstreamflowandobservervariabilitymakeaccuratelyassessingchangesinhabitatovertimeverydifficult.Groupingresultsreducesthisvariability.

Woodydebriscountscanbeavaluablemethodfordeterminingtheamountofwoodinthestream.Awellbrokenouttallymethodthatseparatessmallandlargewoodisbest.Thesizeofthewoodisimportantbecauselargewoodismorestableinstreamsandcanbemoreimportantincreatinghabitatforfish.Tosavecost,weshouldhavemadeoursurveysbeforedecidingonthemethodneededtofigurepoolvolume.Sincethedatahasnotbeenanalyzed,wecannotsaythatpoolsurveysareagoodmonitoringtool.

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—87

Case Study

Electrofishingisareliablesurveymethodforassessingchangesinfishpopulations.Oneneedstoassessthesepopulationinrelationshiptohabitatchangeswithinthetransects.

Pebblecountsandstreamtyping,whicharereach-scaletools,maynotaccuratelyreflectchangesresultingfromtherestorationwork.However,theyarerelativelyinexpensiveandsimpletodo,andtheymayshowchange.Therefore,ifchannelmorphologyisbeingmonitored,weincludingtheminthemonitoringisagoodidea.Weshouldhavedonestreamtypingmorethanonce,toseeifthechanneltypechangedovertime.

Crosssectionsareavaluablemonitoringtool,astheycanshowchangesinchannelshapeandcross-sectionalarea.However,toaccuratelyreflectchangesinchannelmorphology,weshouldhaveestablishedandsurveyedthecrosssectionsinthecontrolsectionbeforeconstruction.Photobenchmarksaresuperiortogeneralphotos,sothatteamscanrepeattheexactphotoyearafteryear.Anysurveythattakesplaceshouldhavecontrolsitesanddatacollectedbeforetreatment.

For further information, contact: EdLider,fisheriesbiologist,Coeurd’AleneRiverRangerDistrict,Idaho

PanhandleNationalForest;phone:(208)769-3030;e-mail:elider@fs.fed.us

references Cited Overton,C.Kerry;Wollrab,S.P.;Roberts,B.C.;Radko,M.A.1997.R1/R4(Northern/IntermountainRegions)fishandfishhabitatstandardinventoryprocedureshandbook.Gen.Tech.Rep.INT-GTR-346.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearchStation.73p.

VanDeventer,S.John;Platts,W.S.Platts.1989.MicrocomputersoftwaresystemforgeneratingpopulationstatisticsFromelectrofishingdata-user’sguideforMicroFish3.0.GenTechRepINT-254.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearchStation. 29 p.

7

Jord

an C

reek

Str

eam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct