1

Restoration Monitoring: A Tool to Address Public Concerns?

Stephen R. Clayton, Ph.D.

Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. (PWA)Boise, ID

Presentation Outline

Current politics/realities surrounding restoration

Study findings investigating potential for detecting responses to restoration

Monitoring considerations/recommendations for restoration practitioners

National Riverine Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) Project

2

Restoration Realities

Substantial funds are being spent in the Columbia River Basin

Over $3 billion from 1985-2000 for salmon research and restoration (Botkin et al. 2000)$1.5 billion from FY97-FY01 for salmon and steelhead recovery (GAO 2002)

While project efforts are well-intended, lack of accountability and rigorous monitoring is a serious threat to the science of restoration

Anybody can claim anything is restoration

Emerging backlash against restoration

Monitoring is one component to address these realities

Monitoring Challenges

Limited fundingSome agencies can fund implementation, but not monitoring

Life cycles of target species are long compared to time frames in which management decisions are expected

Management focuses on implementation targets (miles of channel stabilized, # of structures installed), not long-term response

Uncertainty of what to monitorIdentification and quantification of those parameters which demonstrate measurable response to restoration

3

Uncertainty in Ecological Restoration Monitoring

Data sets are spatially-sparse and of short-duration.Detectable change from restoration is a small percentage of diurnal, seasonal, or inter-annual variability.Effects occur at multiple spatial and temporal scales.Individual restoration actions may have cumulative responses that are less predictable.

Individual physical responses CumulativeresponsesRestoration

goal

Typicalrestoration

activity Shearstress

Particlesize

Thermalgain Physical Biological

“Restorechannel

geometry”

Reducew/d + + -

“Restorechannel slopeand sinuosity”

Increaselength - - +

? ?

Study Goal and Objectives

Investigate the potential for detecting responses to active stream restoration

Describe natural variability in physical and biological parametersQuantify magnitude and direction of change following restoration

4

Red River Study Reach

Located in north-central Idaho; tributary to SF Clearwater RiverLodgepole and ponderosa pine uplandsElevation=1280 m (4200 ft)Annual ppt (mostly snowmelt)=76 cm (30 in)Drainage area=260 km2 (100 mi2)Bankfull discharge=16.6 cms (580 cfs)Alluvial pool-riffle channel; C and E types

Channel length=4.1 km (2.5 mi)Slope=0.0016; sinuosity=2.7

1996

1936

5

1939

2002

Construction

6

2001

1996

0.00160.00250.0017Slope

2.71.72.4Sinuosity

411525943750Length (m)

After (2000)

Before (1994)

Historic (1936)

Physical Forcing Variables Changed by Active Restoration

Channel alignments

7

1994 2001YEAR

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

BA

SEFL

OW

VEL

OC

ITY

(m/s

)

1994 2001YEAR

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

BA

SEFL

OW

DEP

TH (m

)

1994 2001YEAR

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

BA

SEFL

OW

FR

OU

DE

NO

1994 2001YEAR

0

100

200

300

400

BA

SEFL

OW

WID

TH/D

EPTH

1994 2001YEAR

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

BA

S EFL

OW

AB

S A

*

Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project Cross-Section 43

4214

4216

4218

4220

4222

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Distance from Left Bank (ft)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

1997 1998 1999

Typical Before XSLower Red River Meadow Restoration Project

Cross-Section 77 - Camas Bend

4210

4212

4214

4216

4218

4220

4222

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance from Left Bank (ft)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Aug 2000

Typical After XS

1 2

3

?Number of Chinook Redds in Lower Red

River Meadow: 1998-2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1998 1999 2000 2001

GB (u/s reference) FG (treatment) JH (d/s reference)

Change in Biological Parameters

4

Change in Physical Parameters

Study Hypotheses

Physical parameters

H1: DepthA>DepthB

H1: W/DA<W/DB

H1: A*A>A*B

H1: D50A>D50B

Biological parameters

H1: Resident Salmonid DensityA>Resident Salmonid DensityB

H1: Chinook Parr DensityA>Chinook Parr DensityB

H0: ParameterA=ParameterB

8

Physical Monitoring Variables: Hydraulic, Geomorphic, and Sediment Characteristics

Longitudinal Profile from MIKE11:Post-restoration Conditions at Bankfull Flow

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0 5500.0 6000.0[meter]Chainage

1279.0

1279.5

1280.0

1280.5

1281.0

1281.5

1282.0

1282.5

1283.0

1283.5

1284.0

1284.5

1285.0

1285.5

1286.0

1286.5

1287.0

1287.5

1288.0

1288.5

1289.0

1289.5

1290.0

1290.5

1291.0

1291.5

1292.0

1292.5

1293.0

1293.5

1294.0

1294.5

1295.0

1295.5

1296.0

[meter] Water level above msl 15-5-2001 00:00

Bankfull water level

Left top of bankRight top of bank

Rock sill grade control structures

Upstream reference reach Project reach

Downstream reference reach

Thalweg

Dredge piles along channel

Dredged, trapezoidal channel

9

Flood Area Comparison at BankfullDischarge

Pre-Restoration (1994) Post-Restoration (2001)

Biological Monitoring Variables: Habitat Types, Parr Snorkels, and Smolt Traps

10

Parr Snorkel Sites

Physical Results: Changes in Median Particle Size and Percent Fines

1997 (5)

1998 (9)

1999 (11)

2000 (23)

2001 (26)

2002 (26)

YEAR

0

20

40

60

80

D50

(mm

)

1997 (5)

1998 (9)

1999 (11)

2000 (23)

2001 (26)

2002 (26)

YEAR

0

25

50

75

100

FIN

E S (<

6 m

m) (

%)

11

Biological Results: Changes in Age 0 Chinook Density

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Chi

nook

(age

0) d

ensi

ty (#

/100

m^2

)

STUDY (RED) CNTL (RED) CNTL (AMER)DIFF (STUDY-CNTL RED) DIFF (STUDY-CNTL AMER)

Before During After

Comparison of Variability in Physical and Biological Parameters at the Project Reach

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

CV

(%)

Stream temperature (Study reach, upstream) Stream temperature (Study reach, downstream)Thermal gain (Study reach) Omega parameter (Study reach)D16 (Project reach) D50 (Project reach)D84 (Project reach) Percent fines (Project reach)Spawning substrate (Project reach) Cross section area (Project reach)

Age 0 chinook (Project reach GPM/ISS) Age 0 chinook (Project reach)Rainbow trout (Project reach) Mountain whitefish (Project reach)Chinook redds (Project reach)

Physical parameters Biological parameters

12

21

222

2112

νννν

++= sss p

Pooled variance: where υ is degrees of freedom (n-1) and s2 is the variance of each

sample [Zar 1984].

21

212nnnnn

+=

Harmonic mean of two sample sizes, where n is the size of each sample [Zar 1984]

)(2

),1(,

2

νβναδ ttns p +≥

Minimum detectable difference where α is the significance level, υ is the degrees of freedom df=(2(n-1)), β is the probability of a type II error, tα,υ is the value from a one-tailed t-table with probability α and υ df, and tβ,υ is the value from a one-tailed t-table with probability β and υ df [Zar 1984].

Quantification of Detectable Difference

Detectable Impact as a Function of Years of Post-restoration Monitoring

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 10 20 30 40 50

Years of post-restoration monitoring

Det

ecta

ble

impa

ct a

s a p

erce

nt o

fpr

e-re

stora

tion

mea

n

Age 0 chinook densities (Study reach) (B only) Age 0 chinook densities (Study-Control) (B only)Chinook redds (Red River aerial counts) (B only) Percent fines (Project reach) (D&A only)Median particle size (Project reach) (D&A only)

Det

ecta

ble

impa

ct a

s a p

erce

nt o

fpr

e-re

stor

atio

n m

ean

13

Detectable Impact as a Function of Years of Post-restoration Monitoring

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 10 20 30 40 50

Years of post-restoration monitoring

Det

ecta

ble

impa

ct a

s a p

erce

nt o

fpr

e-re

stora

tion

mea

n

Age 0 chinook densities (Study reach) (B only) Age 0 chinook densities (Study-Control) (B only)Chinook redds (Red River aerial counts) (B only) Percent fines (Project reach) (D&A only)Median particle size (Project reach) (D&A only)

Det

ecta

ble

impa

ct a

s a p

erce

nt o

fpr

e-re

stor

atio

n m

ean

Recommendations for Monitoring to Demonstrate Project Effectiveness

Monitor at treatment, control, and reference sites

Monitor as long as possible BEFORE restoration implementation

Focus on those parameters which have high potential for detecting response and which have biological significance

14

Useful ReferencesDownes, B.J., L.A. Barmuta, P.G. Fairweather, D.P. Faith, M.J. Keough, P.S. Lake, B.D. Mapstone, and B.D. Quinn. 2002. Monitoring ecological impacts concepts and practice in flowing waters. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY. 434 p.

Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Roper, B.B., J.L. Kershner, E. Archer, R. Henderson, and N. Bouwes. In review. An evaluation of physical stream habitat attributes used to monitor streams. USDA Forest Service. Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit. Logan, UT.

Conclusions

To distinguish between change due to natural variability and response induced by restoration activity, monitoring must be:

Initiated prior to implementationConducted at control sites (and reference sites if possible) as well as at the treatment site

River restoration curricula and design standards should incorporate topics such as statistics, study design, and monitoring/evaluation.

By incorporating appropriate monitoring procedures, restoration practitioners may help address some public concerns surrounding stream restoration.

15

Bonneville Power AdministrationNational Science Foundation (Award BES-9874754)

Dissertation committee members: Peter Goodwin, John Buffington, Peter Bisson, Jan Boll, Piotr Jankowski

DHI Water and EnvironmentIdaho Dept. of Fish and GameIdaho Soil and Water Conservation DistrictLower Red River Meadow Restoration Project Technical Advisory Committee

LRK CommunicationsNez Perce TribeNSF Career Grant Summer 1999, 2000, 2001 participants Pocket Water, Inc.Professional Operator CompanyRiver Masters EngineeringTerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc.University of Idaho Ecohydraulics Research Group visiting faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students: Dr. Tony Minns, Dr. Nigel Wright, Shawkat Ali, Gloria Beattie, Ken Donley, Dave Fuhrman, Ben Hudson, Aaron Teats, Eric Walton, and Callie WeissUSFS Nez Perce National ForestWildlife Habitat Institute

Acknowledgements

NRRSS NRRSS National Riverine Restoration National Riverine Restoration

Science SynthesisScience Synthesis

M.A. Palmer (coM.A. Palmer (co--PI), J.D. Allan (coPI), J.D. Allan (co--PI), E.S. Bernhardt PI), E.S. Bernhardt National CoordinatorsNational Coordinators

The NRRSS Project aims to provide a national level synthesis that can be used to inform policy on river restoration at local, regional, and national levels.

www.americanrivers.org/feature/riverrestoration.htm

16

National coordinationBernhardt, Palmer, Allan, American Rivers

Southwest Catchments in Rio Grandeand Colorado River Basins

Shah, Dahm, Gloss

California -Sacramento-

San Joaquin BasinWhite, Boutillier,

Kondolf, Merenlander

Northwest Pacific NW, Interior Columbia BasinNorthern RockiesJenkinson, Clayton, Goodwin, Stanford, Relyea

SoutheastGeorgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky

Sudduth, Meyers

Chesapeake Bay Hassett, Bernhardt,Hart, Palmer, Paul

Upper mid-westMichigan, Indiana, Wisconsin

Alexander, Allan, Gergel

The Scientific Team:

Victoria, AustraliaBrooks, Lake

National Riverine Restoration Science SynthesisNRRSS

MidwestMissouri River

Galat

What is being done in the name of restoration?

17

All restoration projects are experiments . . .

What is the role of science in current restoration practice?

• Evaluate the state of the practice of stream restoration nationally and identify factors associated with project success.• Examine the links between ecological theory and stream restoration.• Identify the unanswered questions meriting further research.• Develop specific recommendations for implementing and evaluating stream restoration practice.• Disseminate this information broadly and on an on-going basis.

Project GoalsNRRSS

18

MULTIPLE AGENCIES MULTIPLE LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION

CooperatorsNRRSS