u.s. forest service plan/lores... · information contained in this document has been developed for...

Developing Monitoring Plans for Structure Placement in the Aquatic Environment—Recommended Report Format, Listing of Methods and Procedures, and Monitoring Project Case Studies

FOREST SERVICE

DEP A RTMENT OF AGRICU L T UR

E

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

National Technology & Development Program

7700—Transportation Mgmt0777 1811—SDTDCSeptember 2007

This publication is a result of a partnership between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service technology and development program and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Coordinated Federal Lands Highway Technology Improvement Program.

Information contained in this document has been developed for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, its contractors, and cooperating Federal and State agencies. The USDA Forest Service assumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this information by other than its own employees. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official evaluation, conclusion, recommendation, endorsement, or approval of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Developing Monitoring Plans for Structure Placement in the Aquatic Environment—Recommended Report Format, Listing of Methods and Procedures, and Monitoring Project Case Studies

James E. Doyle, Ken Meyer, Steve Wegner, Pat Fowler

A San Dimas Technology & Development Center Monitoring Project (2002-2004)

September 2007

v

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................ix

CHAPTER 1

Overview of Past Channel Structure Placements ............................................... 1—1

Current Aquatic Structure Placement Efforts ............................................... 1—2

A Compelling need for monitoring aquatic structure placements .............. 1—2

Monitoring Plan Development ........................................................................ 1—2

Step1—DefinetheParticipants .............................................................. 1—3

Step 2—Establish Clear Goals and Objectives ..................................... 1—3

Step3—DesignMonitoringtoDeflectChange ...................................... 1—4

Step 4—Prioritize Monitoring Activities ................................................. 1—4

Step 5—Implement Field Procedures and Methods .............................. 1—5

Step 6—Analyze Data and Report Results ............................................. 1—5

Step 7—Practice Adaptive Management Gained From Acquired Knowledge .................................................................. 1—5

Acquiring and Sustaining a Monitoring Ethic ...................................................... 1—6

Structure Placement in the Aquatic Environment—An Example ....................... 1—9

CHAPTER 2

Methods and Procedures for Monitoring Restoration Treatments—Overview 2—1

Monitoring Human Infrastructure ......................................................................... 2—3

Protect Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 2—3

Parameter: Site Integrity .......................................................................... 2—3

Monitoring for Riparian Habitat ............................................................................. 2—9

Restore Riparian Structure and Function ..................................................... 2—9

Parameter: Shade ..................................................................................... 2—9

Parameter: Canopy Cover ..................................................................... 2—11

Parameter: Vegetative Composition ..................................................... 2—13

Parameter: Woody Debris ..................................................................... 2—17

Monitoring for Aquatic Habitat ............................................................................ 2—21

Subobjective: Restore or Enhance Channel Geometry ............................. 2—21

vi

Developing Monitoring Plans

Parameter: Channel Geometry .............................................................. 2—21

Parameter: Substrate ............................................................................. 2—25

Subobjective: Protect or Improve Water Quality ........................................ 2—27

Parameter: Overall Water Quality ......................................................... 2—27

Parameter: Water Temperature ............................................................. 2—28

Parameter: Turbidity/Total Suspended Sediment ................................ 2—29

Protect or Improve Aquatic Habitat .............................................................. 2—32

Parameter: Spawning-Habitat Substrate Composition ....................... 2—32

Parameter: Spawning-Habitat Velocity ................................................. 2—34

Parameter: Substrate Stability .............................................................. 2—35

Parameter: Spawning-Habitat Depth .................................................... 2—36

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Quality (general) ..................................... 2—37

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Depth ........................................................ 2—39

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Pool Frequency, Size, and Depth .......... 2—40

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Complexity .............................................. 2—43

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Woody Debris .......................................... 2—44

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Cover ........................................................ 2—45

Monitoring for Aquatic Species Population ....................................................... 2—47

Parameter: Fish/Amphibian Presence ......................................................... 2—47

Parameter: Passage (Migration)/Abundance .............................................. 2—53

Parameter: Fish Abundance ......................................................................... 2—55

Parameter: Macroinvertebrate Populations ................................................ 2—58

CHAPTER 3

Case Studies Introduction ..................................................................................... 3—1

Background ..................................................................................................................... 3—1

Part One—Project Overview ........................................................................... 3—1

Part Two—Project Methods, Design, and Monitoring .................................. 3—2

Part Three—Monitoring Results and Interpretation ..................................... 3—2

Part Four—Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs .............................. 3—3

Part Five—Lessons Learned .......................................................................... 3—3

vii

Table of Contents

Part Six—References Cited ............................................................................ 3—3

Case Study Examples ..................................................................................... 3—3

Beaver Creek Structure Monitoring ........................................................ 3—5

Bobtail Creek Channel Reconstruction Project .................................. 3—32

Cispus River Engineered Logjam Restoration Project ....................... 3—29

The Eleven-mile Canyon Demonstration Project ................................ 3—43

Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project ....................... 3—57

GriffithBrookStructureAdditionMonitoringProject ......................... 3—67

Jordan Creek Stream Restoration Project ........................................... 3—77

North Fork Nooksack River In-channel Project ................................... 3—89

Tepee Creek Restoration Project ........................................................ 3—107

Lower Yellowjacket Structure Monitoring Report ............................. 3—119

CHAPTER 4

Literature and References on Structure-Placement Restoration....................... 4—1

A Final Note ................................................................................................... 4—2

References Cited .......................................................................................... 4—3

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

ix

Structures designed to restore or enhance the aquatic environment have been placed in almost every ecoregion in the United States. These structures restore and enhance the aquatic environment by stabilizing banks, improving fish habitat, and protecting infrastructure.

While the passage of the Endangered Species and Clean Water Act has created an increased emphasis on structure placement in the aquatic environment, limited information on the results of these projects has been published. In addition, little or no funding has been allocated for evaluating and reporting the results of this work. Therefore a need exists for determining whether structural additions, such as large woody debris, jams, rock cross veins, and various bank stabilization methods are effective for improving stream stability, water and habitat quality, and restoring threatened and endangered species.

In 2002, the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its San Dimas Technology and Development Center (SDTDC) initiated a project to redress the lack of monitoring of structure placement in the aquatic environment. This project has three objectives:

l To provide a recommended format for designing and planning monitoring projects.

l To create a list of possible methods for monitoring various project objectives, such as human, riparian, aquatic habitat, and aquatic populations.

l To highlight case studies of monitoring efforts.

Most publications on monitoring take a “how to” approach, focusing on describing procedures or methodologies. This project takes a management approach, studying ways of identifying, planning, designing, and implementing a successful project monitoring effort. While this newer approach lists and refers to appropriate procedures or methodologies it does not focus on describing them in detail.

This SDTDC project aims to bridge the disconnect between aquatic-structure-placement implementation and project-results evaluation. Profiles of 10 case studies provide evidence that the Forest Service (along with its partners) can contribute knowledge and monitoring ethic to this important type of ecosystem restoration. Given the long-term trend of reduced funding for ecosystem restoration, documenting restoration results with science-based monitoring efforts is more important than ever.

Introduction

Intr

od

uct

ion

x


This publication has four chapters: Chapter One gives an overview of the nature of—and need for—monitoring this type of restoration work. Chapter Two contains an extensive list of methods and procedures for monitoring such restoration treatments. Chapter Three profiles a number of structure-placement monitoring case studies from various ecoregions. Chapter Four lists literature and references on structure-placement restoration monitoring from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia.

Intr

od

uct

ion

1—1

One of the most visible and, in some cases, most controversial aquatic ecosystem treatments in which the Forest Service has been involved in is the installation or placement of structures in river and stream channels and (more recently) flood plains. Most of these structures are large or coarse woody debris (logs, rootwads, whole trees), with some inorganic structures such as those made with boulders. Placing structures in channels has been a Forest Service treatment for fish habitat improvement even before the publication of the fish habitat improvement handbook (FSH 2609) in 1969 (revised 1988). Prior to 1988, the Forest Service emphasis was on installing single structures, with the objective of improving a feature or parameter of fish habitat.

In the early 1990s, the placement of native materials (wood and rock) in channels to rehabilitate or restore channel structure (e.g., complexity, meander pattern) and function (e.g., flood protection, fish habitat) has evolved from single-structure treatments to multiple-structure complexes. A number of factors brought about this change. They include:

l Better knowledge of the size, location, and position of large or coarse wood in pristine or relatively undisturbed channels.

l The publication of Incidence and Causes of Physical Failure of Artificial Habitat Structures in Streams of Western Oregon and Washington in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management (Frissel and Nawa 1992), criticizing the value of in-channel structures as fish habitat improvement.

l Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT 1993) and Northwest Forest Plan – Aquatic Conservation Strategy (NWFP-ACS 1994) guidance and direction for the use of in-channel structures as a watershed restoration treatment.

l Publication of stream geomorphology typing methods (Rosgen 1996).

l Documentation, reviews, and published results of the durability of management-installed structures following the Pacific Northwest floods of 1995 and 1996.

These factors, plus increasing interest in collaborating on placement of structures in the aquatic environment, have resulted in the implementation of numerous projects with significant amounts of funding from the Forest Service and its partners. However, efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of these treatments have been lacking. Current watershed restoration workshops and conferences contain remarkably few presentations covering structure placement effectiveness monitoring.

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—2


Current Aquatic Structure Placement Efforts In the second quarter of 2003, a questionnaire was included with

“FishTales” (a weekly update of activities from the Forest Service Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology Program) to Forest Service field units requesting information on monitoring efforts used in evaluating the effectiveness of structure placement projects. The purpose of this request was to identify aquatic program structure placement projects that contained a monitoring component and to discover the type and nature of the monitoring. Over 3 months, 27 responses were received; of these, 10 were selected as case studies for this publication. SDTDC allocated funds to the 10 field units who submitted the projects for collecting and analyzing the monitoring data and for documenting the results in a common reporting format.

A Compelling Need for Monitoring Aquatic Structure Placements A number of pressing reasons exist for monitoring the placement of

aquatic structures. First, in some cases, the quality of the rationale and the reasoning for conducting these treatments--from concept through design--is not adequate. Second, these structures are now being placed in larger systems, creating greater risks (especially liability) and uncertainty. Third, some of these treatments may have not been planned, designed, or implemented in an interdisciplinary environment involving, at a minimum, professionals in hydrology, geomorphology, and fish biology. Acquiring and documenting monitoring data will help ensure that watershed science integrates all known data into current and future aquatic structure placement, as well as increasing public acceptance of these techniques.

Monitoring Plan Development The types of monitoring appropriate for detecting changes in physical and

or biological conditions resulting from aquatic structure placements are called baseline, effectiveness, and trend (MacDonald et al 1991; Kershner 1997)

l Baseline monitoring characterizes existing conditions, and is done before treatment. Knowing preproject conditions allows for comparing changes in the same conditions after treatments.

l Effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether the specified treatments had the desired effect. Effectiveness monitoring attempts to answer such questions as, “Was the treatment effective in achieving some desired condition and in meeting the treatment objective?” Because effectiveness monitoring is complex, it requires an understanding of the physical, biological, and sometimes social factors that influence

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—3

aquatic ecosystems. Persons performing the monitoring translate this understanding into quantifiable objectives or benchmarks that describe the function of healthy aquatic systems.

l Trend monitoring implies that measurements will be made at regular, well-spaced time intervals, to determine the long-term trend in a particular parameter or a set of related parameters. A quantitative approach can be a valuable tool for project planning and justification.

We recommend a seven-step procedure described by Kershner (1997) for developing a monitoring plan. A brief summary follows.

Step 1Define the participants Monitoring structure placement in the aquatic environment requires

an interdisciplinary team approach (and may include partners from outside the Forest Service). At a minimum, this team should consist of a hydrologist, a geomorphologist, and a fish biologist. If a geomorphologist is not available, the hydrologist or fish biologist should have a working knowledge of, and work experience in, fluvial geomorphology. When selecting the participants, be sure of their commitment to project monitoring.

Step 2Establish clear goals and objectives A successful monitoring plan has clear objectives that serve as

benchmarks or a desired future condition at the appropriate scale (site versus watershed). Monitoring objectives define the project’s purpose and assist in the actual design of the treatment. Objectives for aquatic structure placements are derived from analysis or assessments describing a structural component(s) needed to meet the project purposes. Clear objectives are measurable, quantitative, and representative of some attainable desired future condition. Objectives need to be congruent with spatial and temporal scales operating at the project site. The “treatment objective” statement(s) must include these spatial and temporal specifications. Establishing clear goals and objectives will define the monitoring design and sampling protocol(s).

When possible, base aquatic-structure placement objectives on benchmark conditions (Harrelson et al. 1994; Rosgen 1996; Williams et al. 1997; Busch and Trexler 2003). Derive these reference conditions from similar basins or watersheds (e.g., similar in size, geology, climate regime) or from a historical reconstruction of the target system.

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—4


Step 3Design monitoring to detect change This step considers what, how, and when to monitor. The evaluation

should focus on the effectiveness of the treatment in meeting project objectives.

To distinguish the effects of the restoration treatment from interacting factors and natural variability, the monitoring design should include reaches of similar channel size, flows, and fluvial geomorphological characteristics.

A key design element in the monitoring scheme is determining the frequency of sampling. Samples should be replicated over space and time, depending on natural variation in the parameters or variables measured and the precision and accuracy desired. For determining sample size, frequency, and level of significance of sampling we recommend a review of MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989; Schreuder, Ernst, and Ramirez-Maldonado 2004.

Observer bias or errors in measurement can influence data precision and reliability. Data collected over a period of many years, at different times of the year, by more than one observer can lead to major errors in the monitoring results. To minimize these sources of error, significant time must be spent in the design and field collection stage to standardize methods and procedures.

Finally, the monitoring design will require a delicate balance between reliability and realism. For the short-term monitoring results to be useful, management should be able to adapt the practices within 5 to 10 years.

Step 4Prioritize monitoring activities A well-designed restoration plan should (1) identify all the key parameters

or features to be monitored and (2) prioritize them according to importance and availability of resources. The plan should estimate the time, funds, personnel, and equipment necessary for monitoring each feature. Ideally, project monitoring should begin with the collection of baseline or preproject data, to compare the changes from preproject to postproject conditions.

Structure placement in the aquatic environment seldom receives the necessary effectiveness monitoring. Decreasing budgets and personnel can cause some monitoring features to be deferred or dropped. A good monitoring plan, however, will prioritize monitoring activities, so that at least some level of monitoring will occur in any year.

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—5

Step 5Implement field procedures and methods Monitoring results will be only as good as the data collected. Therefore,

write detailed narratives that establish sampling location, frequency, equipment, and method or procedure. Avoid parameters or features that require subjective judgment. (As a general rule, the more complex the parameter, the greater the chance for error.) Make quality control checks throughout the data collection phase.

Step 6Analyze data and report results Several useful ways exist for analyzing, interpreting, and communicating

aquatic structure placement monitoring data and information. Analysis can be either comparative or statistical. Some parameters may call for qualitative analysis (Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest 2000). Again, as described in step 3, the monitoring study design must contain two important aspects:

l The ability to compare the effects of the treatment to no treatment over time.

l The ability to repeat measurements over space and time.

One type of comparative analysis is trend analysis of a parameter or feature over time. (For example, the change in the amount of bank erosion or volume of large woody debris occurring at designated locations above and below channel-structure placement sites.) The analysis may compare how data from the treatment sites differ from similar untreated sites over time. The analysis may also compare conditions at treated sites to historical conditions, or compare conditions at treated sites to agency land management objectives, such as the forest land and resource management plans. Results of comparative analysis, showing changes have occurred, can make very effective visual displays. Bar, line, and trend graphs are particularly powerful ways to show analysis results to nontechnical people and decisionmakers.

Step 7Practice adaptive management gained from acquired knowledge The final step in the restoration monitoring process is the linkage and

feedback of the monitoring results and findings. Monitoring plays a critical role in adaptive management by:

l Providing technical feedback to validate treatment design specifications (thereby improving future designs).

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—6


l Providing planning and operational feedback to determine the appropriateness of the project’s on-the-ground tasks and procedures (thereby improving future project operations).

l Providing administrative feedback to confirm the allocation of proper resources for the monitoring work, to an acceptable standard.

Acquiring and Sustaining a Monitoring Ethic The lack of published restoration monitoring results for structure

placement in the aquatic environment indicates either that restoration projects generally are not monitored, or that practitioners have not widely shared their findings--or both. This fact is unacceptable (Kershner 1997). Various reasons exist for why monitoring of restoration treatments seldom occurs: lack of funding, complexities of monitoring, frequent change in personnel, and lack of incentives. The lack of funding for monitoring is a persistent institutional problem (Noss and Cooperrider 1994) because of an undeveloped monitoring ethic in the USDA Forest Service. Most managers are reluctant to commit funding for monitoring, particularly for long-term monitoring. Part of the problem is that much restoration implemented today may not yield significant benefit for years or even decades. This requires a long-term approach to funding by agencies and partners (Kershner 1997). The annual “spend it or lose it” budgeting processes of many Federal agencies makes achieving funding for long-term monitoring very difficult.

Sometimes practitioners find monitoring intimidating and overwhelming. The monitoring tasks appear daunting--what type of monitoring, how to go about monitoring, how to detect a change, how long detecting a change will take, whether to use quantitative or qualitative methods, how much statistical material is necessary, how to find funding, and so forth. Changes in personnel also can leave even good monitoring projects uncompleted. Sometimes, personnel do not want to detect a failure. The list of reasons and excuses is almost exhaustive for why monitoring is the most neglected part of most restoration projects.

Given these obstacles, how can you plan, implement, and sustain a monitoring strategy for evaluating the effectiveness of channel structure placement projects?

l Identify key personnel who will champion and support the funding of the monitoring cause.

l Ensure that when identifying and costing out the restoration project itself, factor in the cost of monitoring, including pre- and post-project data.

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—7

l Document your monitoring results, and communicate them to your leadership team. Get their support for your work, and demonstrate the power of reporting results and lessons learned.

l Present your work to peers at professional workshops and conferences.

l Acknowledge the work of both those who do the monitoring and those who support the monitoring.

Accomplishing these tasks will inspire others to foster and sustain a restoration monitoring ethic. Because steps 1 to 7 cover a lot of information to collect and document, be sure to assemble the information logically and consistently. Use the form summarized on the following page when planning and designing a monitoring scheme for almost any watershed restoration treatment. A monitoring plan and its implementation should be an integral part of any restoration project and included in the overall project cost.

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—8


We recommend using this form for designing and planning most types of monitoring.

Restoration Objective A statement succinctly describing the purpose of the treatment, including an amount of expected change over a specified time period.

Monitoring Question or Objective A statement or a question of the expected results following the

implementation of a restoration treatment. (This question serves as the hypothesis against which to evaluate the effects of the project. Clearly link it to the restoration objective.)

Monitoring Parameter(s) List only those parameters appropriate for evaluating the monitoring objective. (These may include comparisons to reference data.)

Monitoring Method(s) List only those methodologies selected for evaluating the monitoring parameter(s). (In some cases, you may need to develop and apply undocumented and unpublished methodologies.)

Monitoring Context (where and when) A statement outlining the spatial and temporal scope of the monitoring

plan, including a frequency component.

Monitoring Design A statement outlining how to determine whether the restoration treatment was effective and whether the restoration objective was accomplished. (This may include comparisons to control or reference data.)

Monitoring Assumptions and Data Limitations List all pertinent assumptions and data limitations made in developing

and implementing the monitoring plan.

Monitoring Cost Estimate annual and total costs for implementing the monitoring plan and writing the monitoring report.

Monitoring Partnership Involvement Identify a list of opportunities or needs for partner involvement in this

monitoring, including roles and responsibilities.

The following page shows an example of the use of this form.

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—9

Structure Placement in the Aquatic Environment—An Example

Background The 25,000 acre Bobcat watershed in northern California has seen numerous forms of development in the past 70 years. Almost the entire watershed was clearcut in the 1930s, and extensive development along the creek by private landowners has resulted in a loss of channel length from channel-straightening activities. Roading and timber harvest by the USDA Forest Service and the Silver Legacy Timber Company in the late 1980s has resulted in additional water yield concerns for private landowners. The watershed has also experienced three rain-on-snow type flood events in the last 10 years. These events resulted in additional channel straightening and bedload material generation.

The Bobcat Watershed Group was formed in 1999 to rectify these problems and to ultimately remove the watershed from the State of California’s 303(d) list of impaired watersheds. Numerous grants have helped restore the proper geomorphic conditions to the stream system. Particular to this request, approximately 1,800 feet of Bobcat Creek was reconstructed in 2002. By adding over 800 feet of stream channel back into the system, the effort reestablished the proper sinuosity and meander features to the channel.

Restoration Objectives l Reconstruct the natural pattern of the channel (plan and profile)

through the “Thompson Property.”

l Provide a stable channel (both horizontally and vertically) that is not a source of fine sediment or bedload sediment to the stream system.

l Maintain the added channel length and sinuosity variables for flow conditions up to the 5-year event (104 cubic feet per second).

Restoration DesignCriteria In 1999, work began for a channel restoration project on Bobcat Creek. A

total station site survey gathered the data needed for channel modification, including bankfull depth, pool/riffle ratio, belt width, and meander wave length. The team also used the Rosgen geomorphic stream typing method to evaluate the existing and proposed channel patterns.

In 2000, the Bobcat Watershed Group received a California DEQ 319 Grant to reconstruct portions of Bobcat Creek. The group requested designs from various contractors, specifying the need for a geomorphic-based design. The group’s board of director’s chose a contractor and sent the design to the permitting authorities for approval. Stream work on the “Thompson Property” was completed in the fall of 2002.

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—10


Monitoring Questions or Objectives l What will be the increase in stream channel length based on

preproject and the as-built design? (for example, sinuosity)

l Will the as-built project remain in a stable vertical condition (for example, will the gradient through the project area remain constant)?

Monitoring Parameter l Thalweg stream length from the beginning of the project area to the

end of the project area.

l Water-level gradient from the beginning of the project area to the end of the project area, including structures (veins).

Procedures or Method(s)

l Document channel development, and changes in the as-built geomorphic characteristics with photo points.

l Total station survey of the project area.

l Remeasurement of the site using the Rosgen geomorphic stream typing method.

Context (where and when) to Monitor

l Photo points and a total station survey were completed in the fall of 2002.

l A total station survey (for geomorphology data) should be done immediately after construction and then after the first bankfull event and every 2 years thereafter for 10 years.

l Photos should be taken during every spring and fall for 10 years.

l Rosgen geomorphic stream typing will be completed after the first bankfull event and again at the end of year 10.

Experimental Design l The geomorphology data (bankfull, width and depth, pool/riffle,

floodplain width, and so forth) can be stored and used as reference and for comparison.

l Photos can be dated to events, and compared to past years/events.

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—11

l Results of the monitoring will be compared to the precondition and the as-built condition, and the information will be tracked for 10 years.

l A minimum of one report will be completed, to document the project and discuss the success or failure of the project.

l Changes in the measured parameters are expected to remain within

15 percent of the as-built condition. This value is based on the natural variability of physical attributes within stream channels.

l Measured geomorphic parameters can be compared to similar stream types in the watershed for evaluating the amount of change between reconstructed and natural channels.

Assumptions and Data Limitations

1. The channel will experience a 5-year flow event or less during the project study period. The 5-year flow event is approximately 104 cubic feet per second.

2. A riparian fence will be constructed to exclude cattle grazing from the riparian area and streambanks.

3. Prompt data collection should be a priority for the Watershed Group.

Partnership Collaboration Members of the Bobcat Watershed Group include: USDA Forest

Service, Silver Legacy Timber Company, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service—Partners in Habitat, Humboldt County Conservation District, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Results to Date 1. Total station site survey was done in 1998 and again after the project

was completed in 2002.

2. Rosgen geomorphic stream typing completed in 1998.

3. Photos were taken before, during, and after the construction process.

Cost Estimates We will need approximately $6,000 to complete the desired monitoring,

data analysis, and report generation for this project.

Chapter 1

Expectations (criteria to measure change, considering temporal and spatial factors)

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

2—1

Chapter 2

Overview This section contains select methods to help you design a monitoring plan for structure placement in the aquatic environment. References for these methods are included. The purpose of this section is to provide a toolbox of methods used in monitoring. Given multiple applications of these methods, the ones you choose will vary depending on the site and monitoring objective(s). This is not a “how to” guide on application of the methods. Instead, we give brief descriptions and evaluations of the pros and cons of each method. As the scope of this document does not delineate all the various applications of each method, it is your responsibility to select and apply the most appropriate one.

This section is organized by restoration objective. Restoration objectives are grouped into four broad categories:

l Human infrastructure.

l Riparian habitat.

l Aquatic habitat.

c Channel geometry

c Water quality

l Aquatic species population.

Each category lists parameters of the treatment objective, and each parameter has a list of methods. Summary tables—at the end of each category—describe and compare the methods. Each parameter also has example questions to help illustrate it. You can modify these questions to suit a particular project.

A statistically valid monitoring design will strengthen your monitoring findings. Again, we recommend that you review Schreuduer et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; and Peterman 1989 for determining sample size, frequency, and level of significance for your project.

Definitions for the summary-table fields:

Parameter: A measurable characteristic of the treatment objective.

Minimum scale: The smallest area that can be sampled and analyzed to yield meaningful results. (You can expand most of the methods to be meaningful at larger scales by including more samples or by sampling a larger area.)

Method: The label for methods described in this section of the document.

Met

ho

ds

and

Pro

ced

ure

s fo

r M

on

ito

rin

g R

esto

rati

on

Tre

atm

ents

—O

verv

iew

2—2


Suggested frequency: The suggested sampling frequency necessary for detecting the effectiveness of a project.

Low: Once a year preproject, postproject, and after floods with observable changes.

Moderate: A few to several times a year preproject, postproject, and after every flood.

High: Many to continuous sampling for several years, until a pattern develops.

Flow condition: The flow conditions required for taking samples.

Low: Base flows, or when walking or swimming takes minimal effort.

Moderate: Streamflows greater than these described for low flow, but still safe for walking or swimming in the stream. The flows are not at bankfull stage.

High: Streamflows greater than or near bankfull stage. Sampling may be risky and require special safety precautions.

Collection time: Time necessary for collecting data at the minimum scale.

Short: 1 hour.

Moderate: 2 hours to a day.

Long: Several days to months.

Equipment cost: Cost of gear needed for monitoring.

Low: Gear, such as waders, tapes, snorkeling gear, cameras, and rebar.

Moderate: Gear, such as survey levels, stadia rods, electrofishers, global positioning system units.

High: Gear, such as photographic flights and total stations.

Sensitivity to change: The likelihood of detecting a response of the parameter given the monitoring method.

Low: Changes that are hard to separate from background noise or sampling error.

Moderate: Changes that are easy to detect but hard to quantify as total amounts (such as, direct observation of changes in site integrity may be easy to detect but difficult to quantify).

High: Changes that are easy to detect and quantify at the larger scale (such as, using numerous bank pins at a site to determine the amount of bank lost).

Met

ho

ds

and

Pro

ced

ure

s fo

r M

on

ito

rin

g R

esto

rati

on

Tre

atm

ents

—O

verv

iew

2—3

Chapter 2

Analysis cost: Time and effort needed for documenting the project.

Low: A one- or two-page report with photographs.

Moderate: A larger report including summary statistics.

High: A more complex report including the use of specialized software for generating maps and statistics.

MOnitOring HuMan infrastruCture

Protect infrastructure Protecting infrastructure is a major reason for placing structures in channels. Usually these structures are designed for protecting some management investment, such as roads, bridges, dwellings, and recreational sites (campgrounds, trails, and so forth).

Parameter: Site Integrity Example Questions: Has the road been damaged? Is the stream closer to the road than it was before the project? Has the amount of erosive energy next to the road been reduced?

Site integrity includes threats to buildings and other structures that could be damaged or lost when a stream-channel position shifts and the stream either erodes away the supporting bank or directly washes away a site. For example, you might want to monitor the effectiveness of a deflector installed to protect a campground. You will find it useful to know how close a channel is to a site and whether that channel is eroding a bank.

Method: Direct Observation This method consists of measuring the distance to the bankfull stream

channel level from the infrastructure (channel-rehabilitation structures, roads, trail, campsite, bridge, building, and so forth). Where the structure is in the channel, determine the distance from bankfull level. Use measuring tapes, survey equipment, or scaleable photographs. Hall (2001) thoroughly discusses the use of photo points in measuring environmental changes.

Minimum Scale: Make these observations at the infrastructure you are protecting.

Suggested Frequency: Make your measurements preproject (optional), postproject, after floods, and (when possible) during floods.

Analysis: The analysis consists of changes in the distance between the structure and channel. In cases with a damaged infrastructure, the analysis should contain a discussion of the damage.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Hu

man

Infr

astr

uct

ure

2—4


Pros: Measuring the distance from a structure to the channel is simple.

Cons: Debates may arise over what constitutes damage or loss.

Method: Site Survey (Total-Station Survey) This method uses survey equipment to measure and map key points on the

stream, with distance and bearings measured from permanent reference points. Harrelson et al. (1994) thoroughly discusses surveying techniques, and McMahon et al. (1996) discuss mapping of sites. Most engineering departments can provide equipment and training on survey techniques. Once you have created a map of the stream, you can measure sinuosity, meander-belt width, meander-arc length, meander length, radius of curvature, and other channel location or geometry changes (Rosgen 1996).

Minimum Scale: Make the observations at the site of the infrastructure you are protecting.

Suggested Frequency: Make measurements annually, preproject,

postproject, and after floods.

Analysis: The analysis consists of changes in the distance between the structure and channel. In cases with a damaged infrastructure, the analysis should contain a discussion of the damage.

Pros:

l You can precisely document the location of the structure relative to the stream.

l You can detect small changes.

Cons:

l These methods are labor intensive and can be very expensive on larger sites.

l You will need access to both sides of the stream.

Method: Low-Level Aerial Photography This method allows for a bird’s-eye view and tabulation of the integrity

and condition of many sites along the entire length of a channel corridor. This work will likely require low-level photography and possibly enlargement of photographs. The larger the scale, the easier assessing site integrity will be. Flights with resolution of 1/2 meter are available with special arrangements (scale depends on the local terrain). Pick the

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Hu

man

Infr

astr

uct

ure

2—5

Chapter 2

appropriate scale that allows you to assess the sites that you are interested in tracking. You can schedule special low-level flights for particular streams or reaches.

Minimum Scale: The stream reach is the smallest scale that is practical for gathering this type of data, because of scale of the photographs and the cost of taking the pictures. If you photographed whole streams or watersheds, the cost—on a per-mile basis would drop.

Suggested Frequency: Take these photographs preproject, postproject, and after a flood that creates changes in channel location.

Analysis: The analysis requires comparing photographs for size and location of the channel.

Pros: You can cover a large area (whole stream, or watershed) relatively quickly.

Cons: Trees and vegetation may hide smaller changes from view.

Method: Horizontal Pins This method measures the loss of streambank. The general procedures are

as follows: l Cut rebar pins to a length that is not likely wash away in a flood, or to

the longest length you can drive into the bank.

l Drive them into the bank horizontally below and, if possible, above bankfull depth.

l Measure the part of the pin that is exposed.

l Remeasure the part of the pin that is exposed after a flood.

Minimum Scale: Take bank observations at the point of interest.

Suggested Frequency: Make measurements preproject, postproject, annually, and after floods.

Analysis: The analysis consists of determining and assessing the

change in the amount of pin that is exposed.

Pros: l You can directly measure the amount of bank lost (or gained). l One person can do the installing and measuring.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Hu

man

Infr

astr

uct

ure

2—6


Cons: l Pins sticking out of bank can be pulled out by the curious or by

vandals.

l Pins that are washed away cannot be distinguished from those removed by people.

l When a pin is washed away, you lose the reference for how much more bank was lost.

l Numerous pins along the bank are necessary for quantifying the total amount of material lost.

Method: Vertical Pin This method measures the loss of streambank and is a surrogate for doing

a site survey. The general procedures are as follows: l Cut rebar pins to a length that is not likely to wash away in a flood.

l Drive them into the bank vertically near the outer edge of the bankfull channel (bankfull width).

l Measure the horizontal distance between the pin and the outer edge of the bankfull channel.

l Remeasure the distance between the pin and the outer edge of bankfull channel.

Minimum Scale: Make bank observations at the point of interest.

Suggested Frequency: Make measurements preproject, postproject, annually, and after floods.

Analysis: The analysis consists of determining the change in the distance from the pin to the outer edge of the bankfull channel.

Pros: l You can directly measure the amount of bank lost (or gained).

l One person alone can do the installing and measuring.

l Vertical pins work best when inserting horizontal pins is difficult or when the rate of erosion is high.

Cons:

l Pins sticking out of bank can be pulled out by the curious or by vandals.

l Pins that are washed away cannot be distinguished from those removed by people.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Hu

man

Infr

astr

uct

ure

2—7

Chapter 2

l Interpreting the top of the bankfull channel can be difficult, especially after a flood.

l Numerous pins along the bank are necessary for quantifying the total amount of material lost (or gained).

l When a pin is washed away, you lose the reference for how much more bank was lost.

l If a pin is covered by newly deposited material, you will need a metal detector to find it.

Method: Ground-Based Photography Hall (2001) discusses methods that are good for monitoring changes.

However, you need to consider several factors before using photography as a monitoring tool. The keys to good photographic monitoring are:

l Consistent photo points.

l Consistent photo objects and fields.

l Use of a reference board for deriving measurements.

Minimum Scale: Although this is a site-scale technique, you can use multiple photographs to cover a project area.

Suggested Frequency: Annually.

Analysis: You will use a grid to compare photographs and measurements. When examining an entire project area, your analysis would encompass multiple photographs. You determine the points using the power test (Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989), calculating means, standard deviations, and inferential statistics such as student’s t or the nonparametric equivalent to determine the statistical significance.

Pros: l When done correctly, this method gives you an easy-to-follow

record of project effects.

l Once you have properly established the photo points, the method is relatively inexpensive and quick.

Cons: l You need extensive documentation to establish monitoring points.

l You must take all photographs in the same manner every time (for example, date, lighting, time).

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Hu

man

Infr

astr

uct

ure

2—8


Table 1. Summary Table for Monitoring Human Infrastructure Objectives

Parameter Minimum Method Suggested Flow Collection Equipment Sensitivity Analysis Scale Frequency Condition Time Costs to Change Costs for Sampling

Site Site Direct Moderate Moderate Short Low Moderate Low Integrity observation to low

Site Site survey Low Low Initially Moderate Moderate Low long, but to high moderate after site is established

Stream Low-level Low Low Long High but Low Low aerial can be free photography

Site Horizontal Low Low Initially. Low High Low bank pins moderate, but short after site established

Site Vertical Low Low Initially. Low High Low bank pins moderate, but short after site established

Site Ground- Low Low Initial Low Moderate Moderate based setup long photography time, but replication short time

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Hu

man

Infr

astr

uct

ure

2—9

Chapter 2

MOnitOring fOr riParian Habitat

restore riparian structure and function This section has three parameters: shade, vegetative composition, and

large woody debris. Many restoration projects have riparian or floodplain restoration aspects. Some projects place woody debris in the riparian zone or floodplain. Other projects may include planting vegetation or thinning stands to promote growth of trees for shade, desired vegetation composition, and future recruitment of large woody debris. Although this is not direct-structure placement it allows for structure to develop naturally.

Parameter: Shade Example Question: Has the amount of shade on the stream increased since the construction of the project?

This question applies to the amount of shade (canopy cover) affecting the thermal regime of a water body. Estimate canopy cover using these methods. Canopy cover is defined here as the vertical projection of the vegetation covering the ground as viewed from above. You can visualize the aerial cover by considering a birds-eye view of vegetation.

Method: Aerial Photography—Low-Level Aerial Photography This method uses aerial photography to determine the size and location of

riparian vegetation. Take aerial photographs on a somewhat regular basis for managing timber stands. In many cases, these flights will allow you to track the type and height of vegetation along streams.

The larger the scale—or lower the elevation of the flight—the easier it is to determine species and detect change.

Minimum Scale: Make and evaluate measurements at the reach scale. Use this method when evaluating shade on a watershed or on a whole-stream scale. For evaluating shade at the small project or point scale, use more precise and less expensive methods.

Suggested Frequency: Once every 10 years, to detect a change.

Analysis: This analysis calculates the percentage of canopy cover affecting the water body.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—10


Pros: l This method is inexpensive, particularly if forest or district aerial

photos are available.

l You can use it to cover the entire watershed.

Cons: l Aerial photography may require expert interpretation.

l You cannot compensate for the path of the sun.

l This method does not measure shade directly.

l Analysis could be time consuming.

Method: Spherical Densiometers The spherical densiometer is a curved mirror with a grid etched in the

surface. This instrument measures overhead cover (Mills and Steveson 1999), which may serve as a surrogate for shade. You hold the densiometer level and count the intersections that fall within the reflection of an object. Estimate the percentage of area inside the reflected objects by dividing the intersections by the total number of intersections. You determine the number of densiometer measurements by using the power test (Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989).

Minimum Scale: This is a site-scale technique that you can expand to a project scale by completing numerous surveys.

Suggested Frequency: Collect this data preproject, postproject, and then once every 5 years, to determine changes in shading.

Analysis: The analysis should compare summary statistics from multiple measurements (such as, mean, standard deviation, and inferential statistics such as student’s t or the nonparametric equivalent to determine the statistical significance) (Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989).

Pros: l Small and easy to read.

Cons: l Measures overhead cover, rather than shade.

l Cannot compensate for sun’s path, so you need to take measurements at the same place and time of year.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—11

Chapter 2

Method: Solar Pathfinder ™ The Solar Pathfinder measures the percentage of incident radiation. It has

a clear (but semireflective) dome top, a base, legs, and replaceable maps of the sun’s path. The manufacturer supplies an instruction book. You level the base on its legs. (When the water is too deep for the legs, hold the device level.) Then set the map on the base, and set the dome top on the map. Trace the outline of the reflection on the map. Count areas inside of the reflection as shaded and those areas outside the reflection as unshaded. The map is broken into increments, which add up to 100. Add up the shaded increments to determine that location’s amount of shade.

Minimum Scale: This is a site-scale technique that can be expanded to a project scale.

Suggested Frequency: Collect this data preproject, postproject, and then once every 5 years, to determine changes in shading.

Analysis: The analysis should compare summary statistics from multiple measurements, such as, mean, standard deviation, and inferential statistics such as student’s t, or the nonparametric equivalent, to determine the statistical significance.

Pros: l Measures directly the amount of sun reaching a location.

Cons: l Fragile. The reflective dome easily is broken.

l Difficult to use when handheld.

Parameter: Canopy Cover This parameter is the vertical projection from above of the vegetation covering the ground. This is a birds-eye view of the ground vegetation.

Example Questions: Has the canopy closure changed? Does the canopy allow more light to reach the surface?

Method: Percentage of Cover Using the Line Intercept Use this method for accurately measuring the percentage of cover of trees

and shrubs, especially for species with dense, unbroken canopies. You determine the percentage of canopy cover by measuring the distance from where the projected canopy of each species intersects a measuring tape to where that vegetation ends. Dividing the sum of the distance by the length of the tape gives you the percentage of canopy cover for that transect.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—12


Minimum Scale: The smallest scale that you can sample is the site.

Suggested Frequency: The recommendation for sampling frequency depends on what you are measuring. We recommend annual monitoring if you are most interested in tracking changes in herbaceous species, and monitoring every few years if you are primarily interested in tracking changes in shrub and tree cover.

Analysis: The analysis involves calculating means, standard deviations, and inferential statistics such as student’s t, or the nonparametric equivalent, to determine the statistical significance of repeated measurements taken over time.

Pros: You will encounter less sampler bias than with visual estimates in plots.

Cons: Laying a tape through shrubs and vines can be difficult.

Method: Percentage of Cover Using the Point Intercept Use this method for measuring many vegetative species and for measuring

communities with multilayered canopies. In this method, you determine the percentage of canopy cover by counting the number of “hits” of the species of interest, as compared to the total number of points sampled. Increase the number of randomly placed transects if you find much variability in the vegetation. Use a power test to determine sample sizes.

Minimum Scale: The smallest scale you can be sample is the site.

Suggested Frequency: The recommendation for sampling frequency depends on what you are measuring. We recommend annual monitoring if you are most interested tracking changes in herbaceous species, and monitoring every few years if you are primarily interested in tracking changes in shrub and tree cover.

Analysis: The analysis involves calculating means, standard deviations, and inferential statistics such as student’s t, or the non-parametric equivalent, to determine the statistical significance of repeated measurements taken over time.

Pros: You will encounter less sampler bias than with visual estimates in plots.

Cons: Because you need to take many points to achieve a high confidence level, this method is time consuming for complex communities.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—13

Chapter 2

Parameter: Vegetative Composition To determine trends towards the desired future condition for the plant

community composition, you will need to do vegetative composition monitoring. The desired future condition usually equates to a community composed of native species for increased soil stabilization. Determine species composition and quantity within a stream and riparian corridor by the following methods.

Example Questions: Has vegetative composition changed? Do different species dominate the riparian zone?

Method: Ground-Based Photography Hall (2001) thoroughly discusses ground-based photography as a tool

for monitoring. These methods are useful for monitoring changes in vegetation, woody debris, and bank stability. Analytical results improve with consistency in the distance between photo points and objects, and with the use of a reference board to provide a basis for measurements.

Minimum Scale: Although this is a site-scale technique you can use multiple photographs to cover a project area.

Suggested Frequency: Annually.

Analysis: This analysis involves using a grid for comparing photographs and measurements. For examining an entire project area, the analysis would encompass multiple photographs. Use the power test (Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989), when calculating means, standard deviations, and inferential statistics such as student’s t, or the nonparametric equivalent, to determine the statistical significance.

Pros: l A chronological record of riparian structure, from which you may

interpret function.

l Process is relatively inexpensive and quick, once you have properly established the photo points.

Cons: l Establishing monitoring points demands extensive documentation.

l You must take photographs in the same manner every time (such as, date, lighting, time).

l This method does not measure shade directly, but allows the observer to infer changes in shading amounts.

l Data analysis could be time consuming.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—14


Method: Greenline Composition This vegetation sampling method, developed by Winward (2000) does the

following: l Estimates the percentage of cover of community types adjacent to

stream corridors.

l Quantifies ratings for successional status and bank stability based on community types.

l Estimates the percentage of cover of woody vegetation adjacent to streams.

Minimum Scale: Reach

Suggested Frequency: Once a year or following a major disturbance event (flood or fire)

Analysis: This analysis (at the reach scale) detects change over time as well as spatial variability due to environmental or management differences. (See Winward 2000, for various techniques for data analysis.)

Pros: l This fairly new method has been accepted and is being applied

by a number of government agencies responsible for riparian management in the Western United States.

l This method is cost effective, and training field crews is easier than for other vegetation composition methods.

Cons: l This method has been tested and reviewed only for stream

channels in unconstrained valley bottoms with gradients less than 3 percent and having wadable channels with bankfull widths between 1 and 15 meters.

l The method knowing the vegetation classification for that area or region.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—15

Chapter 2

Method: Vegetative-Cross Sections This method, developed by Winward (2000), estimates the percentage of

community types throughout the riparian area.

Minimum Scale: Reach.

Suggested Frequency: Once a year or following a major disturbance event (flood or fire).

Analysis: Detects change (at the reach scale) over time as well as spatial variability due to environmental or management differences. (See Winward 2000, for various data analysis techniques.)

Pros: l A fairly new method that has been accepted and is being applied


l Cost effective. Training field crews is easier than for other vegetation-composition methods.

Cons: l Has been tested and reviewed for stream channels in unconstrained

valley bottoms with gradients less than 3 percent and wadable channels with bankfull widths between 1 and 15 meters.

l Requires knowing the vegetation classification for that area or region.

Method: Effective Ground Cover This method’s objective, developed in the Forest Service’s Intermountain

Region (1989) estimates the area with cover that inhibits erosion versus the amount of bare ground within the riparian area.



Analysis: Detects change (at the reach scale) over time as well as spatial variability due to environmental or management differences. (See Winward 2000, for various techniques for data analysis.)

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—16




l This method is cost effective, and training field crews is easier than for other vegetation composition methods.

Cons: l Tested and reviewed for stream channels in unconstrained valley

bottoms with gradients less than 3 percent and wadable channels with bankfull widths between 1 and 15 meters.


Method: Woody-Species Regeneration This method, developed by Winward (2000), estimates the ratio of

individuals in different age classes of shrubs and trees to determine whether regeneration of woody plants is occurring.



Analysis: Detects change (at the reach scale) over time as well as spatial variability due to environmental or management differences. (See Winward 2000, for various data analysis techniques.)



l Cost effective. Training field crews is easier than for other vegetation-composition methods.

Cons: l Tested and reviewed for stream channels in unconstrained valley

bottoms with gradients less than 3 percent and wadable channels with bankfull widths between 1 and 15 meters.


Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—17

Chapter 2

Parameter: Woody Debris This parameter includes existing down and dead material in riparian and aquatic systems. Although size and quantity are important features of this material, the definition of large woody debris varies by region. Woody debris also includes recruitable wood (snags) as a measurable component.

Example Question: Has amount of woody debris changed since the project’s construction?

Method: Low-level Aerial Photography This method requires counting pieces of wood in aerial photographs. It

will likely require low-altitude photography and possibly enlargement of photographs. The larger the scale—and higher the resolution of the photo—the easier detecting wood will be. Select a photo scale that enables you to detect the smallest size of interest.

Minimum Scale: The stream reach is the smallest scale practical for gathering this data, because of the scale of the photographs and the cost of taking the pictures. You may reduce costs on a per-mile basis if whole streams or watersheds are photographed.

Suggested Frequency: Take these photographs preproject and postproject, and after every runoff season with a 2-year-plus flood (bankfull event). To reduce costs, resample after each 10-year flood.

Analysis: Requires comparing photographs. If you want statistical significance, divide the watershed into stream reaches of nearly equal length, average the number of pieces counted, and use paired statistical tests to determine significance. You may consider using a multiple analysis of variants (ANOVA) test (Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989)

Pros: l Can cover large areas (such as, a whole stream or watershed)

quickly.

Cons: l Smaller pieces of wood are difficult to detect from aerial photos.

l Vegetation may hide many pieces of wood from view.

l The valley needs to be fairly wide to allow a low-level flight.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—18


Method: Ground Counts or Riparian-Stand Exams You can count pieces of wood within the stream reach. To meet monitoring

objectives, categorize wood counts by size. If the objective is to provide channel-forming structure, then assign categories that distinguish pieces of wood (such as, diameter and length) according to their likely persistence in the channel over time. To account for floodplain function, count pieces of wood both within and outside of the bankfull channel. Riparian-stand exams also can give you an idea of future woody-debris recruitment. Baseline information on the frequency of occurrence of large woody debris in nondisturbed or least-disturbed watersheds can serve as a guide in the amount and dimension of wood to place in watersheds for restoring function.

Minimum Scale: Although you can gather useful data at the site-scale, you will most likely summarize it at the project- or reach-scale.

Suggested Frequency: Make these counts preproject, postproject, and after every runoff season with a flood that inundates the project area (especially when examining logjams on floodplains). If your objective is to examine wood within riparian areas not subject to frequent flooding, then use a frequency of once every 10 years.

Analysis: The analysis would compare quantities of wood within a reach of selected size categories over time. If you want a test of statistical significance, divide the watershed into reaches of nearly equal length. Then compare the average piece count over time, using paired statistical tests. You may also consider using a Multiple ANOVA test (see Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989).

Pros: l Counting single pieces of wood is relatively easy.

Cons: l Counting wood over large areas on the ground is time consuming

and difficult, especially in logjams.

l This method will not measure the rate of replacement of wood, nor will it tell you if the wood moved within the site.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—19

Chapter 2

Method: Mapping Wood This method allows you to track individual pieces of wood using these

steps: 1. Find and mark the wood with identifying tags.

2. Map the pieces of wood. At a minimum, mark the wood’s location on the project-area map. (Remember, in another 10 years someone who has never seen the project will go out to the site to find the wood.) If at all possible, use a global positioning system (GPS) for mapping wood.

2. Record the length and diameter of each piece of wood.

3. Determine the stage of decay (optional).

4. Photograph the piece of wood (optional).

Minimum Scale: Although you can gather useful data at the site-scale, you will most likely summarize it at the project or reach scale.

Suggested Frequency: Make these counts preproject, postproject, and after every runoff season with a flood that inundates the project area (especially when examining logjams on floodplains). If your objective is to examine wood within riparian areas that are not subject to frequent flooding, then use a frequency of once every 10 years.

Analysis: Compare quantities of wood within a reach of selected size categories over time. If you want a test of statistical significance, divide the watershed into reaches of nearly equal length. Then compare the average piece over time, using paired statistical tests. You may also consider using a multiple ANOVA test (see Schreuder et al. 2004; MacDonald et al. 1991; Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Peterman 1989).

Pros: Allows the tracking of individual pieces of wood through time, as well as the calculation of recruitment rates.

Cons: Labor intensive.M

on

ito

rin

g f

or

Rip

aria

n H

abit

at

2—20


Table 2. Monitoring Riparian Habitat


Shade Reach Aerial Low Not Long High Low Moderate Photography Applicable to High

Site Spherical Low Low Short Low Moderate Low Densiomters

Site Solar Low Low Short Moderate High Low Pathfinder

Canopy Site Using the Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Cover Line- Intercept Method

Site Using the Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Point- Intercept Method

Vegetative Site Ground- Low Low Initial Low Moderate Moderate Composition Based setup long Photography time, but replication short time

Reach Greenline Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Composition

Reach Vegetative Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Cross-Sections

Reach Effective Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Ground Cover

Reach Woody Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Species Regeneration

Woody Reach Low-Level Moderate Low Long High Moderate Moderate Debris Aerial Photography

Site Ground Low to Low Moderate Low High Moderate Counts High Riparian- Stand Exams

Site Mapping Low to Low Moderate Low High Moderate Wood High to Long

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r R

ipar

ian

Hab

itat

2—21

Chapter 2

MOnitOring fOr aquatiC Habitat This objective is split into three subobjectives: restore or enhance channel

geometry, protect or improve water quality, and protect or improve aquatic habitat.

subobjective: restore or enhance Channel geometry One major objective for stream channel restoration projects is restoring

the natural channel pattern in both plan and profile. Parameters in this objective include channel geometry and substrate. Determining changes from the beginning of the project to the final product is helpful when discussing project benefits with landowners, regulators, and partners.

Example Question: Have the parameters that you used to describe geometry changed since the construction of the project?

Parameter: Channel Geometry Knowledge of channel features, such as meander pattern and form,

gradient, sinuosity, entrenchment, bankfull width and depth is useful in both planning a restoration project and detecting changes resulting from project implementation.

Example Question: Have the parameters that describe the channel

changed?

Method: Aerial Photography This method allows a historical review of channel length, width, and

meander in the project area and watershed. This method includes tracing and measuring—by hand or computer—the length and width of the stream channel from various years of aerial photos and comparing the results. The original surveyor’s notes may be an additional source of information.

Minimum Scale: The stream reach is the minimum scale at which collecting this data is practical. From an economic standpoint, aerial photography is a stream- or watershed-scale tool. At reach and project levels, other methods are cheaper and more precise.

Suggested Frequency: Ideally, fly photo flights preproject, postproject, and after each flood. (However, the cost of photography has led to less frequent flights.)

Analysis: The analysis basically measures parameters on the photographs and uses the scale of the photograph for estimating the size on the ground. Some of the measurements (such as, sinuosity) are dimensionless and therefore require no scale.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—22


Pros: l Easy to calculate the scale of the photos and measure the stream

length and width. You can complete paperwork at any time of the year.

l Often, this is the only source of data for historic conditions.

Cons: l Scale of photos may make getting an accurate measurement of the

stream difficult. l Overhead vegetation may make measuring the stream either

difficult or impossible.

Method: Vertical Pins This method, which measures the gain or loss of stream bank in the project

area, is a low cost alternative to a site survey. The general procedures are as follows:

l Drive rebar pins into the bank vertically at a location that is a safe distance from the active bank.

l Lay out a measuring tape (or set up another measuring device) from the pin to edge of the bankfull channel at a specific azimuth, and measure the distance.

l Remeasure the distance between pin and outer edge of bankfull channel (based on your monitoring design).

Minimum Scale: Make observations at a bank that interests you. Although this bank is usually a site measurement, you could expand it to the project reach with multiple pins.

Suggested Frequency: Measure once a year, preproject, postproject, and after floods.

Analysis: Determine the change in distance from the pin to the outer edge of the bankfull channel.

Pros: l You can directly measure the amount of bank lost (or gained).

l One person can do the installing and measuring.

l Vertical pins work best when inserting horizontal pins is difficult or when the rate of erosion is high.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—23

Chapter 2

Cons: l Pins sticking out of bank can be pulled out by the curious or by

vandals. l Interpreting the top of the bankfull channel, after a flood, can be

difficult.

l You will need numerous pins along the bank to quantify the total amount of material that was lost (or gained).

Method: Cross Sections and Longitudinal Profiles This method uses standard methods described by Harrelson et al. (1994).

The process allows for greater precision at exact locations in the project area. With this method you can focus on changes in the bottom contours or can look at water-level profiles through the project area.

Minimum Scale: Although this method is primarily a sample-site method, you can easily expand it to a project scale. Expansion to reach scale may be too expensive.

Suggest Frequency: Gather this data once a year, preproject, postproject, and after each flood.

Analysis: Analysis usually includes comparisons of depths at certain locations. You can easily make these comparisons with spreadsheets and graphs. At least one program on the market (XS pro) automates this analysis. You may also want to include a comparison to a reference or control site.

Pros: l You can get precise information from the frequency of

measurement.

l You can repeat measurements fairly easily once the monumented end points are in place.

Cons: l Creating a plan view of the project area is labor intensive.

l Completing the survey requires two people or a laser level.

l Setting up the stations requires much front-end work.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—24


Method: Total-Station Surveys This method involves using more sophisticated equipment to collect the

data, and to create a topographic map of the project area. Collect the information in the field and download it into a software program that can turn raw-file data into topographic maps. Numerous analysis methods and outputs are available from the collected data and program(s).

Minimum Scale: This is a site-scale tool. Although you can expand it to the project and reach scales, data collection cost and time will increase.

Suggested Frequency: Gather this data once preproject, once postproject, and after each flood.

Analysis: Analysis includes comparisons of depths at certain locations. You will usually make these comparisons by plotting maps with computer-assisted drawing (CAD) programs. Extracting the elevations and distances for numerical comparisons takes CAD skills.

Pros: l Various forms of data analysis are available, including but not

limited to cross-section surveys, longitudinal surveys, structure-elevation surveys, channel length, and sinuosity.

l The end product is a project-area picture that you can use to describe both the site and changes in various attributes.

l Lots of flexibility in information display is available.

Cons: l Method requires permanent monumenting, if you want to repeat

surveys.

l Equipment cost is high.

l Analysis and map creation require additional office time.

Method: Rosgen Geomorphology Surveys This method involves using an established survey method for collecting

data on entrenchment, width/depth ratios, sinuosity, and channel materials (Rosgen, 1996). The procedure is repeatable and allows trends tracking for each variable.

Minimum Scale: This is a reach-scale tool. Although you can expand it to the stream scale, data collection cost and time will increase.

Suggested Frequency: Gather this data once preproject, once

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—25

Chapter 2

postproject, and after each flood.

Analysis: The analysis involves tracking how the measurements change over time and is best compared with control reaches not affected by the project.

Pros: l A trained two-person crew can complete up to four sites a day.

l Numerous indices allow you to make additional assumptions from the data at the collection site.

l The method is repeatable, consistent, and widely accepted.

Cons: l Determination of bankfull level is very important. [why is this a

‘con’]

l You need to have well-trained survey crew.

l You have to base your data collection length on bankfull width (20 to 30 bankfull widths).

Parameter: Substrate Substrate includes the materials of the bed and banks of the channel. Various size classes of this material can help you determine the existing stability of the streambed and will allow you to determine some design aspects of a restoration project.

Example Question: Have the parameters describing the substrate changed?

Method: Pebble Counts Pebble counts characterize the sediment on the surface of the streambed.

You can use the size of sediment as an indicator of channel stability and channel erosion. Many publications describe pebble counts (see Bunte and Abt. 2001).

Minimum Scale: This is a reach-scale tool. Although you can expand it to the stream scale, data collection cost and time will increase.

Suggested Frequency: Gather this data once preproject, once postproject, and after each flood.

Analysis: You can analyze this data in several ways. Many of these concern the percentage of a sample that is greater than a certain size. The d50 is the size of pebbles that are greater than 50 percent of the pebbles sampled.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—26


Pros: l Pebble counts are standardized methods for collecting this type of

data.

l The methods are objective.

Cons: l Pebble counts are surface measurements. Consequently, they are

poor measures of streambed composition below the surface.

Table 3. Restoring or Enhancing Channel Geometry Subobjectives


Channel Reach Aerial Moderate Low Long High Moderate Moderate Geometry Photography

Site Horizontal Low Low Initially. Low High Low Bank Pins moderate, but short after site established

Site Vertical Low Low Initially. Low High Low Bank Pins moderate, but short after site established

Site Cross Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate. Moderate Sections to purchase Depends on and Profiles equipment, intensity of but low survey after initial purchase

Site Total Station Moderate Low Moderate High to Moderate High, purchase requires equipment, CAD but low Software after initial purchase

Reach Rosgen Moderate Low Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate Surveys Moderate

Substrate Site Pebble Moderate Low Short Low Moderate Moderate Counts

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—27

Chapter 2

subobjective—Protect or improve water quality Some channel-structure-placement projects have as a primary or secondary

objective the protection or improvement of one or more water-quality parameters or features. Focus on those water-quality parameters that you wish to restore or improve, rather than attempting to monitor all water-quality parameters (too costly a process). Parameters in this objective include water temperature, turbidity, and total suspended sediment (TSS).

Parameter: Overall Water Quality Overall water quality is an important aquatic habitat feature for many

aquatic organisms. Significant changes in the temperature regime of the aquatic system can affect entire ecosystems, ranging from direct mortality to alteration of species behavior. This parameter is the combination of water temperature, turbidity, and pollutants.

Example Question: Has the quality of the water changed?

Method: Macroinvertebrate Surveys Monitoring invertebrate population can also be used as indicators of

overall water quality and the amount of food in the aquatic system. Rabeni (1996) discusses different types of sampling gear for collecting macroinvertebrates. The National Aquatic Monitoring Center Web page, www.usu.edu./~buglab, also contains links to sampling protocols, and other useful links. Make sure link gets into reference section.

Minimum Scale: Do the sampling at the site scale, but make inferences at reach scale.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data at least seasonally for several years (at least 4) before and after the project.

Analysis: Analysis can be simply a comparison of catches over time. This type of analysis only draws conclusions about the presence of macroinvertebrates. Contract laboratories can also complete analyses that will result in inferences as to water quality, depending on the type and percentage of species composition in the samples.

Pros: l This is a direct measure of macroinvertebrate population.

l Macroinvertebrates can be indicators of habitat and water-quality conditions.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—28


Cons: l Macroinvertebrate populations depend on the time of year you

sample them.

l Macroinvertebrates are difficult to identify and require experts to complete the analysis.

Parameter: Water Temperature Water temperature is an important aquatic-habitat feature for many aquatic

organisms. Significant changes in the temperature regime of the aquatic system can affect entire ecosystems, ranging from direct mortality to alteration of species’ behavior.

Example Question: Has the water temperature changed?

Method: Thermographs The best way to monitor water temperature is to measure water

temperature (rather than relying on some surrogate such as shade or width-to-depth ratio). We recommend using datalogging thermographs. Schuett-Hames et al. (1999) describe one set of procedures for monitoring stream temperature. Although we recommend these procedures, we recognize that the project’s specific monitoring objectives may require your modifying these procedures, or more suitable set of procedures may exist for the local conditions or legal requirements.

The keys to successful temperature monitoring are as follows: calibrating the datalogging thermographs at the beginning and end of the study, placing the instruments correctly, checking the instruments periodically, having well-documented but well-hidden instrument locations, and storing and retrieving data.

Minimum Scale: Use this method to measure effect at different scales. If measuring the effects at a site or a reach, you need to take measures at both the upstream and downstream end. A single measurement point will give you a measure of the cumulative effects of all of disturbances in the watershed above the measurement point.

Suggested Frequency: Measure water temperatures preproject and postproject throughout the critical periods (periods in which the target temperatures are biologically important). Both excessively high and low temperatures can affect many species. Record temperatures at least once every hour. Because water temperatures are subject to yearly fluctuations in climate, you need to measure them over a period of several years.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—29

Chapter 2

Analysis: Local water-temperature standards may set minimum requirements for the analysis. Some standards are based on single readings, while others are based on averages or temperatures over time. Single readings are best for assessing acute effects, while those based on averages over time are better for assessing the effects of chronic exposure.

Habitat features, which influence water temperature, include shade and width-to-depth ratios. We cover monitoring of these habitats in separate sections. (See Restore Riparian/Floodplain Structure and/or Function and Restore or Enhance Channel Geometry.)

Pros:

l Thermographs can provide a continuous record of stream temperatures.

Cons:

l The thermograph’s location can affect the reading.

l Thermographs require periodic checking, to ensure that they have not been tampered with, that they are still running, and that they are still in the right location.

Parameter: Turbidity/Total Suspended Sediment Turbidity and total suspended sediment (TSS) are important aquatic-

habitat attributes for many aquatic organisms. Significant changes in the natural-sediment regime of an aquatic ecosystem can have effects ranging from direct mortality to alteration of species behavior.

Example Question: Has turbidity or the amount of TSS changed?

Method: Optical-Turbidity Meters/Teledyne Isco Automated-Water Samplers

Turbidity is the amount of suspended sediment. Often it is monitored during construction activities. McDonald et al. (1991) discuss turbidity measurements, and Ryan and Emmett (2002) discuss measurement of suspended sediments. Some key turbidity values are salmonid feeding efficiency decreases at between 25 to 75 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU); some salmonids are displaced at a reading of 50 NTUs. Do the following when measuring turbidity:

l Control for the effects of other projects in the watershed by sampling both upstream and downstream of the project.

l Sample upstream of the site (control) and downstream of the site at the same flows, because turbidity is highly dependent upon flows. In

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—30


addition, sample over a wide range of flows. The downstream samples should be in the well-mixed zone of the stream.

l Ensure that the sample bottles are clean, particularly of residues from previous samples.

l Keep in mind that cold-water temperatures can cause the sample tube to fog and give artificially high readings.

l Place the Isco, Inc. sampler in the inlet to ensure that you get a representative sample.

l Use a DH-48 handheld sediment sampler to validate the Isco, Inc. samples.

Minimum Scale: Use this method to measure the effect at different scales. If measuring the effects at a site or reach, take measures at the upstream and downstream ends. A single measurement point will give a measure of the cumulative effects of all the disturbances in the watershed above the measurement point.

Suggested Frequency: Frequency depends on your monitoring objective, such as, short term (acute) or long term (chronic). Do you want to sample right after the peak, or do you want to do a composite sample per storm or time period? The most important time to measure turbidity is often during the construction phase of a project. If the project’s objective is to reduce turbidity, take readings at multiple streamflows before and after project construction. Be aware that taking samples during floods may not be safe, depending on the location.

Analysis: Local water-quality standards may set minimum requirements for the analysis. Some standards are based on single readings, while others are based on averages or temperatures over time. From a biological standpoint, the turbidity plus the amount of time above the quality standard, is most important (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).

Pros: l Modern turbidity meters make turbidity easy to measure.

l Isco, Inc. samplers allow for continuous sampling of TSS.

Cons: l Peak turbidity is often short lived, occurring during storms (when

sampling the stream is difficult or dangerous).

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—31

Chapter 2

Table 4. Monitoring To Protect or Improve Water Quality Subobjectives


Water Reach Thermographs High All Placement Moderate Moderate Moderate Temperature and recovery takes a short time, but the readings take a long time.

Turbidity Reach Optical High All Short Moderate Low turbidity meters

TSS Reach ISCO High All Short High High Moderate/ automated high water samplers

General Watershed Macro- High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High Water invertebrate samples

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—32


Protect or improve aquatic Habitat Maintaining or protecting—and in some cases, improving—habitat for

more than one aquatic organism is usually either a primary or secondary objective for channel-structure placements. Many parameters make up the quality of aquatic habitats. These include spawning habitat, substrate composition, spawning-habitat velocity, substrate stability, stream depth, rearing-habitat pool frequency and quality, rearing-habitat depth, rearing-habitat pool frequency and depth, rearing habitat depth and velocity, rearing-habitat complexity, rearing-habitat woody debris, and rearing-habitat cover.

Parameter: Spawning-Habitat Substrate Composition Streambed-substrate composition is an important aquatic-habitat attribute

that affects the reproduction and movement of aquatic organisms. Undesirable composition of streambed materials can have negative effects on reproduction success in the aquatic ecosystem.

Example Question: Is there more or less fine sediment in the substrate after the construction of the project?

Method: Substrate Embeddedness Platts et al. (1983) briefly discuss embeddedness. Embeddedness is the

degree to which larger particles (boulder, cobble, or gravel) are surrounded or covered by fine sediments. Spawning-gravel quality decreases with increasing embeddedness. This measure is usually visually estimated.

Minimum Scale: Although you collect this information at the site scale, you usually average it over many sites for analysis.

Suggested Frequency: Ideally, take estimates preproject, postproject, and after all flood events. If the results after floods of similar size are the same, the amount of information gained from sampling after a fourth event of the same size is not likely to provide much information. However, if the next flood is larger, take samples then as well.

Analysis: The analysis consists of comparing mean values for embeddedness, using standard statistical methods.

Pros: l It is a very quick way of estimating the quality of spawning gravel.

l It requires little equipment.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—33

Chapter 2

Cons: l It is subjective, so estimates can vary widely between observers.

l It is a surface observation method that does not measure fine subsurface sediments that may impair spawning and incubation success.

Method: McNeil Core/Bulk-Sediment Sampling Two key elements of salmonid-spawning habitat are associated with the

substrate. These are the proportion of the substrate that is comprised of fine sediments and the material size. The survival of eggs and emergence of aelvins (baby salmon that have just hatched from eggs and feed on their yolk sac) decreases with increasing amounts of fine sediment (Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Weaver and Fraley 1991). When the substrate is too large for fish to move, they cannot construct redds (areas in the gravel where salmonids bury their eggs) (Bjornn and Reiser 1991).

The most accurate way to evaluate these elements is with a bulk-sediment sample run through a set of sieves. Although you can derive estimates of the substrate’s percentage comprising sediments and overall sediment-size distributions from surface-fines estimates and pebble counts, both of these methods are subject to observer bias. Neither measures important subsurface sediments (McMahon et al.1996). We therefore do not recommend using these methods to evaluate the condition of spawning gravels.

Scheutt-Hames et al. (1999), describe methods that use a McNeil core sampler to sample the substrate, sieving the samples into the different size classes and measuring the percentage of the sample in each size category. They also provide designs for the equipment. You may need to adjust these designs (such as, size of the sampler, and depth of the sample) to meet the needs of local conditions.

A key element is sample depth. Dig to the bottom of the egg pocket of an average redd. This depth varies, depending on species, fish size, and substrate size.

Minimum Scale: Use this method to assess the quality of individual spawning areas. To assess the quality of spawning habitat within a reach, you need to sample many spawning areas. The number of samples will increase with the size of the area being evaluated. A minimum of 10 samples per site is required.

Suggested Frequency: Ideally, take samples preproject, postproject, and after all flood events.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—34


Analysis: Focus on the percentage of the substrate materials critical for spawning-gravel quality and the way those percentages change over time. We recommend establishing control sites upstream of the project area to determine the project’s contribution to overall condition.

Pros: l These methods directly measure the size of substrates in the redd

environment.

l The samples are easy to store, and you can do your analysis later.

Cons: l The equipment is bulky, and getting to sample sites can be difficult.

l Results can be highly variable, and you may need a large number of samples (up to 12 per reach) for statistical significance.

l Sampling the substrate is labor intensive.

Parameter: Spawning-Habitat Velocity The water’s velocity within the spawning environment is an important

attribute affecting the spawning activity and intergravel-egg development.

Example Question: Did the project change the water’s velocity in spawning areas?

Method: Flowmeter The water’s velocity is one attribute that salmonids key into when

selecting spawning sites. The velocity varies by species. Use a flowmeter to measure the water velocity. Measure all velocities during the spawning period at approximately the same streamflows.

Minimum Scale: Take measurements at points within a site.

Suggested Frequency: Take measurements at multiple streamflows both preproject and postproject, during the spawning season, and after floods.

Analysis: Initially make comparisons between the measured flows and the flows preferred by the fish (species specific). Compare the number of suitable sites or the amount of suitable area changes.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—35

Chapter 2

Pros: l A direct measure of velocity.

Cons: l Velocity is highly dependent upon discharge, which varies

regardless of the influence of the habitat restoration project.

l Other variables may influence the velocity in the site.

Parameter: Substrate Stability Streambed-substrate stability is an important aquatic-habitat attribute that

affects the reproduction and movement of aquatic organisms. Unstable streambed materials can have negative effects on reproduction success in the aquatic ecosystem.

Example Questions: Are the spawning gravels staying in place long

enough for the eggs to develop and for fry to emerge from the gravel? Are the redds being buried by moving substrate material?

Method: Scour Chains Spawning redds in unstable substrate can be buried by bedload or scoured

by high flows. You can place scour chains in spawning habitats to determine the substrate stability. Using lengths of pipe to drive the chains into the substrate (Lisle and Eads 1991), you can partially bury scour chains in the substrate.

Minimum Scale: Take measurements at points within a site. (This technique is most useful at the site scale.)

Frequency: Examine scour chains once a year after a flood.

Analysis: The change at the measurement point is determined by the change in the length of exposed chain. A longer length indicates that scouring has occurred, and a shorter length indicates that deposition has occurred.

Pros: l This method allows the measurement of relatively small, localized

amounts of scour or fill.

l It also allows the measurement of scour when fill has occurred on the descending limb of the hydrograph.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—36


Cons: l Scour chains are vulnerable to human disturbance.

l Scour chains require excavation when fill has occurred.

l Devices can be lost easily if site has not been well documented.

l Many chains may be necessary in large streams.

l Data are localized, and the exact quantification of material is difficult.

Method: Longitudinal Profiles and Total-Station Surveys You can monitor the stability of spawning areas with longitudinal profiles

or total-station surveys. (These methods are described under the parameter Restore/Enhance Channel Geometry.)

Minimum Scale: Although you can analyze the measurements at the site scale, it’s likely you will analyze them at the project scale as well.

Suggested Frequency: Repeat these measurements once preproject, once postproject, and after flood events.

Analysis: Comparisons of graphs and/or maps of channel depth will show where the substrate has been scoured and deposited. The number of sites disturbed, not the average change to a site, is most important.

Pros: l Covering large areas with these methods is easy.

Cons: l These methods may not pick up small amounts of local scour or

deposition.

Parameter: Spawning-Habitat Depth The water’s depth within the spawning environment is an important

attribute affecting the spawning activity and intergravel-egg development.

Example Questions: Are the redds being dewatered? Are the potential spawning areas at a depth that the target species prefers?

Method: Direct Measurement Two elements are associated with depth, which may affect the quality of

spawning habitat. First, use depth as a factor for choosing spawning areas. The preferred depth varies by species. Second, in streams with highly variable flows, redds may become dewatered before the fry emerge. The

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—37

Chapter 2

most direct way to monitor this element is to measure the water depth throughout the spawning season. Place a stadia rod near a redd, and record spawning depth from a distance, without disturbing the redd.

Minimum Scale: This measurement is specific to a point within a site.

Frequency: Measure this subelement at a variety of flows before project implementation, after project implementation, and after changes to channel geometry.

Analysis: The analysis is similar to that for velocity. It involves comparing the amount of suitable area over time.

Pros: l This method directly measures the habitat element.

Cons: l Measurement requires walking near or adjacent to redds, a process

that could damage eggs or fry.

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Quality (general) General aquatic rearing-habitat quality includes a review of the presence,

amount, and quality of rearing-habitat types (especially, pools, riffles, glides).

Example Question: Has the number or area of pool-like habitat units increased?

Method: Habitat Typing Use this technique to depict gross changes in habitat types (such as,

increase or decrease in the number of pools or pool size). It works best at the whole stream—or even watershed—scale. This technique breaks a stream into relatively homogeneous habitats (such as, pools, riffles, glides) and groups them into macrohabitats. Most Forest Service regions have standard habitat-typing protocols. Hankin and Reeves (1988) have identified such a stream-system inventory. Different Forest Service regions have adapted this inventory to meet their ecosystem needs (for example, Pacific Northwest Region, R-6). In addition, several other published protocols—Hawkins et al. (1993); Flosi and Reynolds (1994); and Armantrout (1996)—offer a few more recent systems.

You can derive the number, area, maximum depth, and residual-pool depth from the data collected through most current stream-survey methods. Some of these methods (used in regions 1 and 4) also characterize riffle habitats by the amount of pocket-water (pool-like water) contained in these

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—38


fast-water habitats. This aspect of the survey is critical when the structures are expected to create these types of habitats. We can not recommend any one specific survey method, because each methodology applies to different ecoregions.

A key point is the surveys need to be repeated on the same areas. If the survey area changes, detecting changes in the habitat conditions becomes difficult (see Roper et al., in press) and connecting the changes to the project becomes nearly impossible.

Minimum Scale: Although you can collect the data at the habitat-unit scale, you can summarize it to cover entire watersheds.

Suggested Frequency: Conduct these surveys preproject, postproject, and after floods that create noticeable changes to habitats.

Analysis: The results of these surveys highly depend on streamflow and on the crew collecting the data. To make valid comparisons between control and project reaches, complete surveys within the same season. Analyses typically examine pool frequency, pool-riffle ratios, maximum depth, width-to-depth ratios, residual-pool depth, pieces of wood, and cover.

Pros: l It is a good tool for detecting large changes in habitat (changes

from shallow, fast-water types to slower, deep-water types).

Cons: l Achieving consistency in habitat classification is difficult. Different

observers often classify the same portion of a stream differently. This method is very sensitive to observer bias.

l Changes in habitat are often too subtle for these methods to detect.

l This method is inadequate for quantifying habitats at the margin of streams.

l Habitat types and key habitat measurements are related to the flow at which the survey was conducted.

l Depending on the length of reach surveyed, completing these surveys can take a long time. The average survey time is 1/4- to 1/2-mile per day. Faster rates of survey often compromise both sensitivity and data quality.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—39

Chapter 2

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Depth The depth of the water is an important attribute affecting temperature,

security, and feeding attributes of the rearing environment.

Example Question: Has there been an increase in pool or riffle depth?

Method: Channel Cross Sections (tape only) Kershner et al. (2002) describe how to measure cross sections with a tape

and measuring rod. The key factors are bankfull width, wetted width, bankfull depth at evenly space intervals, and maximum bankfull depth. Olson-Rutz and Marlow (1992) discuss the analysis and interpretation of this type of data.

Minimum Scale: Although you can collect and analyze the data at the site scale, you may summarize it at the project scale.

Suggested Frequency: Collect the data once a year preproject, postproject, and after floods.

Analysis: Data analysis is typically done by graphing the cross sections. Software programs such as XS-PRO automate the graphing and include some modeling. To detect changes created by the project, also be sure to measure a control section unaffected by the project.

Pros: l This method is good at measuring channel parameters such as

bankfull width-to-depth ratios, and channel-entrenchment ratios.

l Only lightweight equipment—which requires little training to use—is necessary.

Cons: l Accuracy of measurement depends on keeping the tape stretched

tightly.

l Method does not pick all of the changes in bottom contour.

l Points or benchmarks used for reference easily can be lost.

l Difficult to measure in areas where water depth exceeds the depth of waders. May require anchoring a floatation device.

l Method may not be precise enough to measure small changes.

l Method is sensitive to the location of the cross section. Changes may not occur at the cross-section but occur just upstream or downstream.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—40


Method: Channel Cross sections (Surveying Equipment) We have discussed this method previously. (See Subobjective: Restore

or Enhance Channel Geometry, Parameter: Channel Geometry, Method: Cross Sections and Longitudinal Profiles.)

Analysis: Analysis of this type of data is typically done by graphing the cross sections. Software programs, such as XS-PRO, automate the graphing and include some modeling. The subtle difference is when you use the methods for habitat objectives, the emphasis becomes determining the loss of pool volume or stream depth rather than on determining the generic scour and fill. To detect changes that the project has created, you also need to measure a control section that the project has not affected.

Method: Scour Chains We have discussed the use of scour chains previously. (See Subobjective:

Protect or Improve Aquatic Habitat, Parameter: Substrate Stability, Method: Scour chains.) The subtle difference is that the scour chains (for this parameter) may be placed to measure changes in bottom contours and gain or loss of habitat depth.

Parameter: Rearing Habitat Pool Frequency, Size, and Depth The size, depth, and frequency of pools are important attributes affecting

temperature, security, and feeding attributes of the rearing environment. An adequate number of deep pools—greater than 3 feet—are important over-wintering habitat and holding habitat for adult fish.

Example Question: Has the number of suitable rearing habitats increased? Has the depth of rearing habitats increased?

Method: Longitudinal Profiles Longitudinal profiles are like stream cross sections, except that these

profiles run up and down the stream instead of across the channel. They must cover at least 20- to 30-channel widths in length. The key attributes for you to measure are the maximum depth, minimum depth, and pool tail-crest. Harrelson et al. (1994) discusses surveying techniques. You also can use this method to break streams into different habitat types, based on streambed elevations.

Minimum Scale: Although you can collect and analyze the data at the site scale, you may expand your analysis to project or reach scale.

Suggested Frequency: Collect the data once preproject, postproject, and then every year with a flood event.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—41

Chapter 2

Analysis: Analysis is done by graphing the profiles. You can use the data to identify the location of pools and pocket water. Use spreadsheets or database programs to store the data and make numerical comparisons.

To detect changes that the project created, establish a control section that the project did not affect.

Pros: l Direct measurement of the channel configuration.

l Data is relatively easy to graph and display visually.

l Process is easy to repeat.

l Most engineering departments can help with equipment and techniques.

Cons: l Reference points can easily be lost.

l Process usually takes two or more people.

l Vegetation can get in the way of reading the elevation at particular spot.

l Difficult to measure in areas where water depth exceeds the depth of waders. May require anchoring a floatation device.

l Method may not be precise enough to measure small changes.

l Method is sensitive to the location of the profile. Changes may not occur at the profile but just off line.

l Method for lengthy profiles require turning points (points at which the observation point must be moved to continue taking measurement), which can be confusing.

Method: Total-Station Surveys This method involves using more sophisticated equipment to collect

the data, and create a topographic map of the project area. Taking measurements at key points results in a topographic map of the area. You can also use this method to break streams into different habitat types based on streambed elevations. Harrelson et al. (1994) thoroughly discusses surveying techniques.

Minimum Scale: Although you can collect and analyze the data at

the site scale, you may expand your analysis to project or larger reach scale.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—42


Frequency: Collect the data once preproject, postproject, and then every year with a flood event.

Analysis: Analysis of the data is typically done by mapping the project area. More expertise is necessary for comparing elevations at specific sites with spreadsheet or databases.

To detect changes that the project creates establish a control section not affected by the project.

Pros: l Direct measurement of the channel configuration.

l Data covers the entire project area not just a relatively few cross sections and the longitudinal profile.

l Data is relatively easy to graph and display visually.

l Method is easy to repeat.

l Most engineering departments can help with equipment and techniques.

Cons: l Reference points can be lost easily.

l Work takes two or more people.

l Vegetation can get in the way of reading the elevation at particular spot.

l Difficult to measure in areas where water depth exceeds the depth of waders. May require a small boat.

l Method may not be precise enough to measure small changes—particularly the topographic lines that are interpolations between points and not actual data. It is easy to miss critical bumps and dips when not enough measurements are taken.

l Lengthy surveys require turning points (points at which the observation point must be moved to continue taking measurement), which can be confusing.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—43

Chapter 2

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Complexity The type, location, and amount of rearing habitat within a channel reflects

the diversity of aquatic organisms. For example, the presence of salmonids (many species) usually is associated with channels containing high rearing-habitat complexity.

Example Question: Has there been a change in the channel sinuosity, channel gradient, or pool-to-riffle ratio?

Method: Low-Level Aerial Photography Aerial photography allows monitoring of habitat complexity at the reach,

watershed, or basin scales. Pick the scale and photographic spectra (infrared, visible infrared, and so forth) that allow you to analyze the channel features. In addition to helping you determine habitat attributes, some photo spectra will allow you to find depths, the location of pools, and microhabitats.

Minimum Scale: Because of the cost, this method is a reach-scale monitoring tool. You can expand it to the stream, watershed, or basin scale.

Suggested Frequency: Take photographs preproject and postproject. The high cost of this method may prevent you from gathering new photos after every flood.

Analysis: Use this method to visually compare the project-area’s condition over time. Digital data from some photo spectra will allow you to compare depths, area, and the location of pools and microhabitats over time.

Pros: l Aerial view of your stream.

l Do not have to fight brush and trees to make these measurements.

l Data gathered with very little effort in the field.

l Easy to compare the data visually.

l Very accurate for large- or open-stream channels. Can cover large reaches of stream.

Cons: l Long hours in the office to trace streams.

l If the scale of the photo is incorrect it can be hard to see the stream channels.

l Aerial photography is expensive.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—44


Method: Site Surveys Overhead vegetation can also block the view of channel location. We

recommend using the total station method for monitoring these habitat subelements. We have previously described the good and bad points of these surveys. You can use them to estimate the available amount of habitat. Habitat typing is too gross of a methodology to measure habitats in pool tails and on the margins of streams.

Minimum Scale: See total stations under “pool frequency, size, and depth.”

Suggested Frequency: See total stations under “pool frequency, size, and depth.”

Analysis: These methods allow the identification of microhabitats,

and track how they change in size, depth, and quality over time.

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Woody Debris Woody debris is critical in creating and maintaining habitat complexity in

many stream channels. The methods for monitoring wood in the channel closely parallel those suggested for monitoring wood in riparian zones.

Example Question: Has the amount of woody debris changed?

Method: Low-Level Aerial Photography See the methods listed under the parameter “woody debris” in the riparian

habitat discussion.

Method: Ground Counts See the methods listed under the parameter “woody debris” in the riparian

habitat discussion.

Method: Mapping Wood See the methods listed under the parameter “woody debris” in the riparian

habitat discussion.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—45

Chapter 2

Parameter: Rearing-Habitat Cover Rearing-habitat cover is necessary for aquatic organisms as a means of

avoiding or escaping predators and competitors. Cover or refuge is a difficult habitat feature to enumerate and monitor because of differences in how cover is defined.

Example Question: Has the amount of protection from predators or isolation from competitors changed?

Method: Grid Bain and Steveson (1999) discuss methods for measuring cover. The

best methods involve randomly placing transects and sighting down from randomly chosen points on those transects. Count a point of cover when the line of sight is blocked by an object (wood, vegetation, bank, or substrate) or feature (depth or turbulence). The difficulty in measuring cover is in deciding what constitutes cover; this decision will vary, depending on the species. Therefore, be sure to make the target species clear in the protocol. In addition, record the object(s) providing cover, because often one type or source of cover will replace another.

Minimum Scale: Gather the data at site-scale and average them over larger areas.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data once preproject, postproject, and after floods.

Analysis: The analysis is a comparison of the number of points that intersect cover.

Pros: l Method provides a systematic way of quantifying cover.

Cons: l Cover is difficult to define, so surveys can have a relatively high

degree of subjectivity.M

on

ito

rin

g f

or

Aq

uat

ic H

abit

at

2—46


Table 5. Monitoring to Protect or Improve Aquatic Habitat Subobjectives


Spawning Site Embeddedness Moderate Low Short Low Low Low Habitat Site McNeil Moderate Low Long Moderate High Moderate Substrate core/bulk Composition sediment sampling

Spawning Point Flow meters Moderate Spawning Short Moderate Low Moderate Habitat season Measurements Velocity will be highly variable.

Substrate Point Scour chains Moderate Low Short Moderate High Moderate Stability Site Longitudinal Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate profiles or to long to high total station

Spawning Point Direct High Spawning Short Low High Moderate Habitat measurement season Depth of depth

Rearing Project Habitat Low Low Depends Low Low Moderate Habitat typing on scale Quality (Genearl)

Rearing Transect Channel Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Habitat cross-sections Depth tape Transect Channel Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate cross-sections survey equipment Point Scour chains Moderate Low Low Moderate High at Moderate scour chain but low elsewhere

Rearing Project Longitudinal Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Habitat profiles Pool Site Total station Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate High Frequency, Size, and Depth

Rearing Reach Low-level Low NA Long High Low Moderate Habitat aerial to High Complexity photography Site Site surveys Moderate Depends Long High to High High (total station to high on moderate or PHABSIM) method

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Hab

itat

2—47

Methods and Procedures for Monitoring restoration treatments

Table 5. Monitoring to Protect or Improve Aquatic Habitat Subobjectives (continued)


Rearing Reach Low-level Low Low Long High Low Moderate Habitat aerial Woody photography

Debris Site Ground Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate counts Site Mapping Moderate Low High Low High Moderate wood

Rearing Site Grid Moderate Low Long Moderate Low Moderate Habitat Cover

MOnitOring fOr aquatiC sPeCies POPulatiOn Objective: Maintain or increase the population of aquatic organisms, or

improve the area for a particular activity in the project area.

Structure placement in channels and floodplains can improve, alter, or modify the behavior of a number of aquatic organisms using a site. More subtle changes may also occur. Organisms may change the way they use an area; for example, a species may use an area for spawning more than it did before the project. Behavior patterns affected include movement (migration), reproduction (spawning), feeding, and sheltering (rearing). The objective is to count the number of individuals. Aquatic organisms include fish, freshwater shellfish, amphibians, reptiles, macroinvertebrates, and some small mammals. Parameters in this objective include fish/amphibians presence, fish passage/abundance, fish abundance, and macroinvertebrate populations.

Parameter: Fish/amphibians Presence The presence or absence of fish or amphibians as a result of channel-

structure placement is usually a primary question following project implementation.

Example Question: Have the targeted species moved into the project area? Method: Species Surveys—Snorkeling Snorkeling is a useful method for detecting the presence of fish or

amphibians in streams and, more importantly for observing the behavior

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—48


of fish. Thurow (1994) and Dolloff et al. (1996) describe techniques for underwater observations of fish.

Minimum Scale: Gather data most often at the site scale and summarize them at the project scale.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data at least yearly for several years before and after the project.

Analysis: The analysis is a comparison of presence over time. This analysis draws conclusions about the presence of only fish and amphibians.

Pros: l Process is relatively harmless to the aquatic organisms.

l Process is relatively cheap and quick to accomplish.

l Changes in observed behavior are easy to record.

Cons: l Requires trained crews.

l Concerns for the crew’s safety.

l Depending on conditions aquatic organisms may be hard spot and identify.

l Similar species are difficult to distinguish at a distance.

l Process is not suitable for streams with shallow depths.

l The snorkeler’s vision can be limited in smaller streams. Method: Electrofishing This method uses electrical currents to attract fish to nets, where they are

captured. Reynolds (1996) thoroughly discusses electrofishing as a means of capturing fish. In addition, many State and Federal fish and wildlife management agencies have guidelines for electrofishing. These include the types of equipment, settings to use, and permits required for fish capture. Local agencies should be consulted before using electrofishing as a monitoring tool. In Endangered Species Act-listed waters consult with U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries or the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Minimum Scale: Gather data at the site scale and summarize them at the project scale.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—49

Chapter 2

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data at least once a year for several years (at least 4) before and after the project.

Analysis: This analysis is a comparison of presence over time. This analysis draws conclusions only about the presence of fish.

Pros: l Efficient method of capturing fish, and species identification is

relatively easy when the species is in hand.

l Most efficient method for shallow streams.

Cons: l This method requires at least one experienced crewmember.

l It is very easy to injure fish and other aquatic species.

l Handling electrical current near water is dangerous.

l The equipment is relatively heavy.

l Backpack electrofishing is limited to shallow streams.

l Deeper streams require a floating shocking device and risk of injury to crews is greatly increased with these devices.

l The conductivity of the water limits the efficiency of this method.

l Difficult to determine fish behavior at the time of capture.

Method: Netting This group of methods includes seines, dip nets, and similar techniques.

Hubert (1996), Hayes et al. (1996) and Kelso and Rutherford (1996) discuss several methods of capturing fish with nets. With seines the surveyors vertically deploy a net with a weighted bottom then walk it toward shore in the fashion of a swinging gate. In rivers, surveyors use boats to move the seines.

With dip nets, the netter uses small nets to scoop fish out of the water. The netter either dips the net into likely habitats, or upstream crewmembers herd fish toward a netter.

Gill nets trap fish by the gills. These are set for a period of time, and then removed.

Minimum Scale: Netting covers a wide variety of landscape scales. Active methods and larval-capture methods gather data at the site scale, and passive methods gather data at the watershed scale.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—50


Suggested Frequency: Gather the data on a yearly basis for several years (at least 4) before and after the project.

Analysis: This analysis is a comparison of counts over time. This analysis can draw conclusions only about the presence of fish.

Pros: l This method is relatively inexpensive, requires little equipment,

and is relatively gentle to fish (except for gill netting). l It allows the surveyors to get close at the fish or amphibian,

making identification relatively easy.

Cons: l Seining requires a smooth-bottom stream. l Dip netting is practical only in small, clear streams. l Gill netting has a high potential to kill or injure fish. l Fish behavior is difficult to determine at the time of capture.

Method: Weirs and Traps A wide variety of devices fall into this category. Hubert (1996) and Kelso

and Rutherford (1996) are two sources of information about weirs and traps. These methods are most widely used by fisheries-management agencies, which can provide more details on their uses.

For fisheries management, weirs are generally fence-like porous dams that block the movement of fish upstream. Fish are captured in traps, which fish find easy to swim into but difficult to escape from.

“Trap” is generic term for a device that lures migrating fish into a box. A screw trap is a floating selfcleaning sieve, which leads to a live well. Other traps use nets to funnel fish into a box. Finally there are traps at dams, which use currents to attract fish into a box. Practitioners often use these “dam traps” to facilitate the passage of fish around dams.

Minimum Scale: The scale depends on the device. Adult weir and smolt (young salmonid) traps sample everything upstream from their location, thus, they are watershed or subwatershed sampling tools. Larval traps or redd caps are a site-sampling tool.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data on a yearly basis (for at least 4 years) before and after the project.

Analysis: This analysis is a comparison of counts over time. This analysis can draw conclusions only about the presence of fish.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—51

Chapter 2

Pros: l Efficient means of counting fish migrating past a point.

l Devices can be run for a long time.

l Fish identification is relatively easy, because you can handle the fish.

Cons: l They require frequent monitoring to keep them operating and to

prevent injury to fish.

l They can delay migrating fish.

l The fish are often handled and there is some risk of injury to the fish.

l The efficiency of a trap or weir is highly dependent on streamflow.

l High flows may damage weirs and other temporary traps.

l Experienced crews are required to operate most of these traps.

l Adult weirs and smolt traps are only effective for migratory populations.

l Difficult to determine fish behavior at the time of capture.

Method: Spawner Counts and Redd Surveys For this method, surveyors simply travel along the stream and count the

number of spawning fish, carcasses, and redds (or fish nest) that they can see. If repeating the samples during the year, surveyors often mark carcasses and redds.

Minimum Scale: Although you usually apply these techniques to index reaches, sometimes you will survey the entire accessible stream.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data at least once a year for several years (at least 4) before and after the project. Because spawning periods vary from year to year, and because redds and carcasses disappear, repeat these surveys throughout the spawning period.

Analysis: This analysis is a comparison of counts over time. This analysis can only draw conclusions about the presence of fish.

Pros: l The methods are relatively simple, involving very little training of

crews.

l The fish are not handled, lessening the chance of injury to the fish.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—52


l These methods require very little specialized gear (a pair waders and warm dry clothing).

l These methods provide a good way to document a change in spawning behavior.

Cons: l When multiple species are present, distinguishing the species or

nests can be difficult.

l Spotting fish or redds in deep or cloudy water is difficult.

Method: Underwater Biotelemetry Winter (1996) describes biotelemetry. For this method, a transmitter is

attached to an individual of the species being traced. The surveyors follow the movements of the fish with an antenna, receiver, or hydrophone.

Minimum Scale: Although you usually apply this technique at the watershed scale, you can also apply it to passage surveys at modified barriers such culverts, dams, and modified waterfalls.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data before the project and after its completion. You may need to track many fish for the life of the transmitters.

Analysis: The analysis can be a map of the location of fish over time or just a count of the number of fish passing certain points.

Pros: l Finding individuals is relatively easy. l Where populations are relatively small and the stream system is

large, this is an efficient way of finding out where fish are going.

Cons: l The equipment is relatively expensive. l The transmitters are relatively short lived. l Tracking fish can be difficult where access to the stream is limited. l The individuals being tracked are injured during the attachment of

the transmitter.

Method: Angling and Creel Census Malvestuto (1996) describes the use of creel censuses. With the angling

method, fish are caught with a hook and line. The creel census goes one step further and interviews anglers about the species, number, location of the catch, and amount of effort.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—53

Chapter 2

Minimum Scale: Angling can be focused on a particular habitat unit; however, creel censuses are usually applied to large regions that may cover several watersheds or lakes.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data at least once a year for several

years (at least 4) before and after the project.

Analysis: This analysis is simply a comparison of catches over time. This analysis can draw conclusions only about fish presence.

Pros: l The fish are captured, so identification is for an experienced angler.

Cons: l Fish are harassed and often injured or killed with this method.

l Anglers have been known to be dishonest about their catch and its location.

l This method depends highly on angler skill.

l This method only applies to species that readily take bait or artificial lures.

l Difficult to determine the behavior at the time of capture.

Parameter: Passage (Migration)/Abundance Some channel-structure placements will have an objective of protecting

or improving the movement or passage of fish or amphibians within a channel. The project’s objective is to allow a species to occupy an area it was excluded from by a barrier.

All the methods and procedures listed under Fish Presence are appropriate for evaluating fish response to passage or migration restoration/improvement. The most powerful techniques use a mark-and-recapture method or biotelemetry (a fish or other species is captured and marked with a unique identifier and released). The surveyors then search for the individual above the modified barrier. You can use mark-and-recapture methods with any methods described as techniques for fish presence. The methods differ only in the method of recapture. For determining passage over or around a potential barrier, biotelemetry is the most robust of these methods.

Example Questions: Can the targeted species make it through the culvert? Are there more fish upstream of the culvert after its replacement?

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—54


Method: Underwater Biotelemetry Winter (1996) describes biotelemetry. For this method, a transmitter is

attached to an individual of the species being traced. The surveyors follow the movements of the fish with an antenna, receiver, or hydrophone.

Minimum Scale: This technique is usually applied at the watershed scale. It also applies to passage surveys at modified barriers such culverts, dams, and modified waterfalls.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data before the project and after its completion, at a variety of streamflows. Many fish need to be tracked for the life of the transmitters.

Analysis: This analysis is a map of the location of fish over time or a count of the number of fish passing certain points.

Pros: l It is relatively easy to find individuals.

l Where populations are relatively small and the stream system is large this is an efficient way of finding out where fish are going.

Cons: l The equipment is relatively expensive.

l The transmitters are relatively short lived.

l Tracking fish can be difficult where access to the stream is limited.

l The individuals being tracked are injured during the attachment of the transmitter.

Method: Mark and Recapture This method involves marking a fish or other organism so that it can be

identified later. A wide variety of marking techniques exist, including physically marking the body (fin clipping, opercular punches, toe clipping, and so forth), paints or dyes, and tags and flags (Guy et al. 1996).

Minimum Scale: This technique is usually applied at the reach scale. It also applies to passage surveys at modified barriers such culverts, dams, and modified waterfalls.

Suggested Frequency: Gather data before the project and after its completion at a variety of streamflows. Many fish need to be tracked for the life of the transmitters.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—55

Chapter 2

Analysis: The analysis is a map of the location of fish over time or a count of the number of fish passing certain points.

Pros: l It is an easy way of finding out where individual fish or other

organisms are going. l Marking fish or aquatic organism is generally less expensive than

attaching a telemetry device.

Cons: l Tracking fish can be difficult where access to the stream is limited. l The individuals being tracked are injured during the tagging

process. l Tagged individuals can be hard to relocate. l Requires frequent sampling during the study period to map the

location of individuals.

Parameter: Fish Abundance There are three basic methods for estimating fish abundance:

l Density in sample area estimates.

l Mark and recapture estimates.

l Depletion sampling estimates.

You can use most observation methods (described under Fish Presence) to estimate abundance of fish.

Example Question: Has the fish population changed after the construction of the project?

Method: Density-Based Estimates With this method, count the numbers of individuals in a sample plot or

plots smaller than entire study area and divide the number by the area of these plots. The final number is the density. To gain accurate estimates of density, place blocking devices such as nets at the upstream and downstream ends of plots. Snorkeling, electrofishing, sonar readings, and active netting are the most common techniques for counting fish for density estimates. (See methods in fish presence section, page 85.) To derive population estimates, multiply the density by total area of the monitoring project.

Minimum Scale: Although you will usually apply this technique at the reach scale, you can use it for areas as small as microhabitats.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—56


Suggested Frequency: Gather the data before the project begins, and after its completion.

Analysis: The analysis can be a comparison of the density of fish over time.

Pros: l It is the least expensive and least time-consuming way of

estimating population.

l It requires little training and minimal equipment.

Cons: l It can be hard to get an accurate count of individuals in

complex habitats. Water depth and clarity may limit the options for observation.

l Method assumes that individuals are evenly spread throughout the project areas. However, individuals are often clustered in microhabitats, which are usually not equally distributed in the project area.

l It is easy to count the same individual more than once, especially with snorkeling techniques.

Method: Mark and Recapture Estimates With this method, you catch and tag (mark) many individuals, then release

them. The next step is to make another capture or survey. You derive the population estimate from the ratio of marked to unmarked fish in the second sample (Guy et al. 1996). Use more sophisticated multiple capture and marking techniques to derive birth and death rates. Electrofishing, netting, and angling are the most common methods of capture and recapture. Snorkeling, however, is useful for counting the number of marked and unmarked individuals in the area.

Minimum Scale: This technique is usually applied at the reach scale, but could be used at the microhabitat scale.

Suggested Frequency: Data should be gathered prior to the project and after the completion of the project.

Analysis: A comparison the population of fish or other organisms over time. Studies with multiple sets of marking over a large time period can be used to estimate population growth, and population age structure.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—57

Chapter 2

Pros: l There is little chance of double counting the marked individuals.

l The method is not dependent on finding every individual, so you can use it in situations where visibility is poor and where habitat complexity prevents you from observing all individuals.

l You can use complex analysis methods (with multiple sets of markings) to estimate population structure and population growth rates.

Cons: l The method requires training the crew in the proper handling and

marking of individuals.

l The method may injure the fish during the tagging process.

l The method assumes that tagged and untagged individuals have an equal chance of capture.

l The method assumes that tagging procedures do not influence the survivorship of the tagged individuals.

l The method assumes that the number of individuals entering the study area is equal to the number of individuals leaving it.

l The method assumes equal birth and death rates.

l The method requires repeat sampling in the area, often just days apart.

Method: Depletion Estimates Use depletion estimates primarily for assessing population size, not for

assessing fish passage. Derive depletion estimates from multiple (more than two) captures in the same area.

Platts et al. (1983) describes the Zippin removal method of population estimation. The idea is that sampling the population depletes it. Therefore, fewer individuals are caught with each sample because there are fewer individuals in the population. Derive the population estimate from the difference in the number of individuals that are caught in the different samples. Microfishtm is a software program that automates the calculation of population estimates. Platts et al. (1983) also display a computer program that calculates population estimates from depletion estimate data. You can use Electrofishing, active netting (trawls), and sometimes angling techniques to capture fish.

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—58


Minimum Scale: Although you usually apply this technique at the habitat-unit scale, you can apply it to larger or smaller areas. However, you would limit the application to an area that you can easily resample.

Suggested Frequency: Gather the data before the project begins, and after it is completed.

Analysis: The analysis is a comparison of the estimated fish or other organism population over time.

Pros: l This method is generally more thorough for density estimates than

are single-pass methods.

l You can often do sampling in a single day.

Cons: l It requires the capture of most of the population. Electrofishing is

particularly hard on individuals that were not captured during the first round of sampling.

l Complex habitats make it difficult to thoroughly sample the area.

l The population estimates require at least three samples for calculating variance for estimates; fewer individuals are captured with each sample. If more individuals are captured in the second or third sample than in the first, the estimate is not valid.

Parameter: Macroinvertebrate Populations Projects may also have an objective benefiting not only fish but also

other aquatic species. Many riparian-dependent species may benefit from restoration projects, and many survey protocols exist for these species. We focus on the most dependent group—macroinvertebrates.

Example Questions: Has the macroinvertebrate population in the project area changed? Has the composition of the macroinvertebrate population changed?

Method: Macroinvertebrate Surveys We have previously discussed this method (see Monitoring for Aquatic

Habitat Objectives: Macroinvertebrate Surveys on page 2—27)

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

2—59

Chapter 2

Table 6. Monitoring for Aquatic Species Population


Fish/ Site Snorkeling Low Low Low Low Moderate Low amphibians Site Electrofishing Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Presence Site Netting Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Low to low

Adults Weirs and High Variable Long High High Low and smolt traps watershed. Fry and larva site

Site Spawner High Spawning Moderate Low Moderate Low counts season to high Site Biotelemetry Low Variable High High High Moderate Site Angling/ Moderate Variable High Low Low High creel census Site Telemetry Low All High High High Moderate

Fish Site Mark Passage Passage Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Passage/ recapture high, all, abundance estimates abundance abundance moderate low Site Density- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low based estimates

Fish Site Depletion Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Abundance estimates

Macro- Site Macro- High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High invertebrate invertebrate Populations surveys

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

3—1

Chapter 3

IntroduCtIon Thissectionoutlinestheprocessusedforgeneratingfieldinput,andcontains examples of completed or ongoing monitoring projects.

BaCkground FromJanuarythroughMarch2003,aquestionnairewassentoutbytheauthorsthroughtheFishTalescomputermailinglist,seekingresponsestowhatandhowprojectswerebeingmonitored.Theyreceived27responsesandchose11toreviewforinclusioninthispublication.Fundswereallocated in 2003 to a majority of these projects to help collect additional data(ifneeded),analyzeexistingprojectdata,andtodocumenttheirresultsusingthestandardizedreportingformat.Theprojectleadersweregivenuntilspring2004tocompleteandsubmittheirreports.Tenofthe11casestudiesappearinthispublication.Theauthorsbelievethatthesecasestudiesrepresentagoodcross-sectionofcurrentaquaticstructureplacementmonitoringthattheForestServiceiscompletingacrossthecountry.

Theauthorsbelievethatusingastandardizedreportingoutlinefor

documentingresultswillkeepmonitoringeffortsontrackanddisplaymonitoringresultsmorescientifically.UseoftheoutlinecouldfacilitatebettersharingofmonitoringresultsacrosstheForestServiceandamongtheagency’spartners.Therecommendedoutlineincludesthefollowingsixparts:

Part one—Project overview a)Includetheprojectname,location,implementationtime(single

yearormultiyear),andastatementsummarizingtherationaleforprojectimplementation(suchas,whywastheprojectidentifiedandimplemented).

b)Includeasuccinctstatementdescribingthepurposeoftherestorationtreatment,usuallyincludingtheamountofchangetobeinducedoveraspecifiedtime.Thesetwofactors—purposeplusamountofchange—allowsformeasuringthetreatmentresults.

c)Writeastatement(posedasaquestion)todeterminetheresultsfollowingimplementationofstructureplacement.Thisquestionservesasthehypothesistoanswerthequestionortoevaluatetheeffectsoftheproject.Thisstatementquestionmustclearlylinktotherestorationobjectivestatementin(b).Thissectionshouldbenolongerthana1/2to3/4ofapage.

Cas

e S

tud

ies

3—2

developing Monitoring Plans

Part two—Project Methods, design, and Monitoring a)Outlineanddescribethemonitoringparametersidentifiedas

appropriateforevaluatingtheresultsofchannelorfloodplainstructure placements for the project. Compare this selected procedure withtheparameterslistedinSectionII(toolbox)ofthestructureplacement monitoring report.

b)Statetheprocedures/method(s)employed(alistingofoneormoreproceduresormethodologiesusedforevaluatingtheselectedmonitoringparameters).Astheseproceduresshouldbedocumentedinthecurrentliterature,citethepublisheddocuments.Fullydescribeanyundocumentedandunpublishedprocedures.

c)Outlinethespatialandtemporalscopeoftheevaluation;context(suchas,thecontext—whereandwhen—formonitoring).Thisstatementshouldincludemonitoringfrequency.

d)Takeoneormorestatementsdescribingthecriteriafordeterminingwhethertheprojectwasasuccess(orfailure).Statehowyouevaluatedorcomparedtheresultsofthemonitoringwithpast,present,orfutureconditionsorevents.

e)Describehowthechangedconditionscomparetosomeothersimilarsetofconditionshavingsimilarordifferentspatialortemporalscalefactors(suchas,referenceconditionsortoacontrol).

f)Stateallassumptionsanddatalimitations.Inotherwords,listallpertinentandrelevantassumptionsanddatalimitationsthatyoumadeindevelopingandimplementingthemonitoring.

Part three—Monitoring results and Interpretation Thispartdescribesandinterpretstheresultsofthemonitoring,basedon

thecriteriafrom(d),(e),and(f)inPartTwo.Includeconclusions(evenifpreliminary)abouttheprojectresults.Alsoincludeawrittendiscussionbytheprojectleadersontheappropriatenessofthemonitoringdesign/protocol.

PartsTwoandThreearethekeycomponentsofamonitoring/casestudywriteup.Therecommendedlengthis1-1/2to2pageseach.

Cas

e S

tud

ies

3—3

Chapter 3

Part Four—Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs Thispartacknowledgestheuseofanypartnershipsinimplementingand

monitoring the project. Display the total cost of monitoring (to date) and any estimated future monitoring costs.

Part Five—Lessons Learned Summarizetheinformation,experience,andknowledgegained(positive

andnegative)fromthemonitoringelementoftheproject.Forexample,includelessonslearnedfromtheresultsabouttheappropriatenessofthemonitoringdesign/protocolyouused.Inaddition,identifytheleadcontactname and address (e-mail and surface mail) for the monitoring phase.

Part Six—references Cited List all references that you cited.

Case Study Examples ThefollowingcasestudiesusethesuggestedoutlineanddisplayawiderangeofprojectandmonitoringactivitiesbeingcompletedbytheForestServiceanditsvariouspartnersacrossthecountry.

Cas

e S

tud

ies

3—5

Case Study 1

Project overview BeaverCreekdrains13,451acresandisafourth-ordertributarytotheApplegateRiverinsouthwesternOregon(figure1).Themeanannualprecipitationisabout38inches.Thewatershedexperiencesperiodicfloodingfromrain-on-snowevents,withthemostrecentmajoreventoccurringinJanuary1997(50-yearevent)andanabove-bankfulleventinDecember2002(10-yearevent).ThewatershedgeologycomprisesvolcanicswithhighlyerosivegraniticintrusionsthatcontributelargeamountsofdecomposedcoarsesandtoBeaverCreek.BeaverCreekisoneofthelasttributariesoftheApplegateRiverusedforspawningandrearingbythefederally-threatenedsouthernOregon,northernCaliforniacoastpopulationofcohosalmonbeforeApplegateDamblocksupstreampassage.RegionallysensitivesummerandwintersteelheadandcoastalcutthroattroutalsooccurinBeaverCreek,asdoreticulatesculpinand,possibly,Pacificlamprey.

TheBeaverCreekwatershed,designatedakeywatershedforsalmonidrestorationandprotectionunderthePacificNorthwestForestPlan,islocatedintheApplegateAdaptiveManagementArea.TheStateofOregonhasproposedthatBeaverCreekbedesignatedasEssentialAnadromousFishHabitat,andBeaverCreekisoneofonlythreestreamsontheApplegateRangerDistrictwherewildcohostilloccur.BeaverCreekislistedas“waterqualitylimited”underSection303(d)oftheCleanWaterActforhighsummertemperatures,sediment,andbiologicalcriteria,includingsimplifiedmacroinvertebratecommunities.

Theprimarypurposeofthecurrentrestorationprojectwastoimprove

spawningandsummerandwinterrearinghabitatsforcohosalmonandothersalmonidsbyadding103piecesoflargewoodydebris(LWD)to1.5milesofBeaverCreek.Becauseofprivatepropertyconcernsdownstream,wetiedtheLWDtostandingtreesandtooneanotherwithcablestopreventdownstreammovement.

Thespecificshort-termobjectivesoftherestorationprojectwere: lAnincreaseinmedium-andlarge-sizedinstreamwood,from0pieces

permileto75piecespermile.

lAnincreaseintotalpoolareaby20percent.

l An increase in entrenchment ratio from 1.0 to 2.0.

lAreductioninwidth-to-depthratiosby20percent.

lAchangeinsubstrate-sizeclassdominancefromcobbletogravel.

lAnincreaseinmacroinvertebrateabundanceanddiversityby20percent.

Beaver Creek Structure Monitoring

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—6

developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

lAnincreaseincohosalmonsmoltproductionby20percent(USDAForestService2003)

lAnincreaseincohosalmonspawningintheprojectarea.

EvaluatingthesuccessofthisrestorationprojectinvolvescomparingphysicalandbiologicalparametersintheprojectreachofBeaverCreektoacontrolreach(bothbeforeandafterrestorationactivities)anddeterminingiftheprojectmetitsobjectives.

Figure 1. Map of the Beaver Creek watershed, study area, and adjacent region.

#

Study Area

#

Falls

#

Project Reach#

Control Reach

Beaver Creek

N

EW

S

Applegate Ranger District

#

#

#

Grants Pass

Medford

Ashland

Applegate Rive r

Rogue R iv e r

,

/

/

/199

238

5

62

Oregon

California

0 0. 9 1. 8 2. 7 Miles

#

Study Area #

Beaver Creek Watershed

r

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—7

Case Study

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring Thismonitoringdesigndelineateda0.9mileprojectreach(withinthe1.5

mileoverallprojectarea),whichhadstructuresaddedin2002fromtheconfluenceofCharleyBuckGulchupstreamtoalargebedrockfalls,anda0.9milecontrolreachthatlackedrestorationactivitiesfromtheconfluenceofArmstrongGulchupstreamtoHanleyGulch(Cederholmetal.1997).Theprojectreachwaslocatedapproximately1-miledownstreamfromthecontrolreach.Bothreachessharedsimilargeomorphology(thatis,theywerebothlocatedwithinReach2ofa1998ForestServicestreamsurveyandclassifiedasRosgenB-typechannels).

EvaluatingthesuccessofstructureplacementinBeaverCreekcalledforbothimplementationandeffectivenessmonitoring.ImplementationmonitoringinvolvedcountingprojectLWDpiecesandquantifyingtheirsizeandpositioninthestreamchannelorbankfullarea.Weinitiallydividedeffectivenessmonitoringparametersintotwocategories:physicalandbiological.Physicalmeasurementscomparedafterrestorationwerethenumberofhigh-qualitypools,totalpoolarea,residual-pooldepth,side-channelarea,substrate-sizedistribution,width-to-depthratio,andentrenchmentratio,becausetheseparametershadrelativelyhighsignal-to-noiseratios(ScholzandBooth1998).Typesofbiologicalmonitoringweremacroinvertebrate,andfishpopulationsampling.

Weuseda100-footnylontapewith0.1-footincrementstomeasurelog length and used a logger’s tape (D-tape) to calculate (in inches) the diameter of the log at the stream. The presence of cut ends determined whetheraloghadanartificialornaturalorigin.Wefurtherseparatedartificially-placedwoodaccordingtowhetheritwasplacedinorbefore2002,andwhethercablewaspresentornot.Wemeasuredtheamountofwoodincontactwithoroverhangingthewettedchanneltothenearest0.1foot,aswellasthelineardistanceofwoodthatcontactedorintersectedtheestimatedbankfullheightplane.Ifapieceofprojectwoodhadnosurfaceincontactwiththebankfullarea,wenotedthatpiecebutdidnotofficiallycountoruseitinsubsequentcalculations.WeplacedwoodintocategoriesbasedonamodifiedForestServiceLevelIIstreamsurveyprotocol,wheresmallequalsgreaterthan12-inchdiameteratthestreamandatleast25feetlong,mediumequalsgreaterthan24-inchdiameteratthestreamandatleast50feetlong,andlargeequalsgreaterthan36-inchdiameteratthestreamandatleast50feetlong.Woodconfigurationswereclassifiedas“single”(onepiecethatdidnottouchanyothers),“multiple”(twotothreepiecesofLWDincontact),or“jams”(morethanthreepiecesofLWDtouching each other).

1

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—8


WebasedhabitatmeasurementprotocolonamodifiedForestServiceLevelIIstreamsurvey(USDAForestService1996).Forconsistencywiththe1998streamsurvey,weusedanolderversionoftheLevelIIprotocol.WealsoconsultedamoredetailedForestServiceLevelIIIstreamsurveypriortosummerandwinter1998,andaftersummerandwinter2003restorationactivitiesfromthebeginningoftheprojectreachtothebeginningofthecontrolreach.

Thecurrentstudyclassifiedhabitatsaspools,riffles,falls,orsidechannels.Habitatsthathadlaminarflow,withaverylowgradient(lessthanorequalto0.5percent),wereclassifiedaspoolseveniftheylackedobviousscourorwereshallow.Tobecounted,allunitsexceptplungepoolsandfallshadtobeaslongastheywerewideandchannel-spanningtobecounted.High-qualitypoolsweregreaterthan3feet(USDAForestService1994b)atthedeepestspot,whiledepthwasestimatedinpoolsgreaterthan4-feetdeep.Wedeterminedtotalpoolandside-channelareasbysummingthearea(averagewidthxlength)ofeachpoolandsidechannelrespectivelyinthereach.Wecalculatedresidual-pooldepthbysubtractingthepooltail-crest depth from the maximum pool depth. Residual-pool depth is a usefulmeasurementforcomparingpooldepthsbetweentimesofdifferentdischarge(Lisle1987).

Weusedpebble-counttransectsandocularestimatestoquantifythedistributionofsubstratesizes.During2003,wemeasuredpebble-counttransectsandsubstratesizesfromthebankfullareawithagravelometertoreducemeasuringbias.Wemadepebblecountsinthesamehabitatunitsin2003asin1998,althoughtheexact1998locationisunknown.Duringocularestimates,weestimatedtheproportionofeachhabitatunitthatcontainedsiltandsand,gravel,cobble,boulder,orbedrock-sizedsubstratetothenearest5percent.

Wecalculatedwidth-to-depthratiobydividingbankfullwidthbyaveragebankfulldepth(Rosgen1996).Wetookbankfullandflood-pronemeasurementsateachunitinwhichapieceofLWDwascountedintheprojectreach,andatevery10thriffleinthecontrolreach.Wedeterminedbankfullheightbyusingphysicalindicatorssuchasscourlinesorchangesinvegetationorsubstratesize(USDAForestService1994c).Althoughhighflowsinwinter2002removedsomebankfullindicators,bankfullwidthanddepthmeasurementswere,onaverage,consistentandsimilartothoseobservedin1998.Wecalculatedreachentrenchmentratiosbydividingaunit’sflood-pronewidthbybankfullwidthandaveragingfortheentire reach.

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—9

Case Study

V*method(HiltonandLisle1993)forpoolfine-sedimentmonitoringwasconductedat11pools,mostlylocatedwithintheprojectreach,insummers2000and2003,usingstandardprotocol.

ForestServicepersonnelcollectedmacroinvertebratesamplesinBeaverCreekfromasitelocatedbetweentheprojectandcontrolreachesinearlyfall1996andin1998to2000.Samplescamefromerosional-,marginal-,anddetritus-habitatsusingstandardizedcollectingprotocol(USDAForestService1998b),andAquaticBiologyAssociates(Corvallis,Oregon)identifiedandenumeratedthem,andthenassignedbiologicalindicesanddiversityscores.

Fish-populationsamplinginvolvedusingForestServicesteelhead

(summerandwinterrun)andOregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(ODFW)andForestServicecohoescapementestimatesintheprojectreachtoestimateannualanadromoussalmonidspawningsuccessin2000to2003(ODFW1999,2002).ForestServicesurveyorsalsocountedcohoparrinpoolswithintheprojectreachinthesummersof2000to2003,determiningyoung-of-the-yearseedingdensitieswithdaytimesingle-passsnorkelingmethods(Thurow1994).Becausecoho-spawnercountswereoftenabsentfromBeaverCreek,cohoescapementestimatesfortheentireApplegateRiversubbasin(ODFW2003)wereusedtocalculatecohostock-recruitmentcurves(e.g.,Ricker1975)forBeaverCreek.

Weusedchi-squaretestsforhomogeneityofpopulationstocompareproportionsofnaturalandartificialwoodlengthincontactwiththestreamchannel,andchangesinpoolareaandsubstratesizedistributionsfrom1998to2003.Weusedstudents’t-teststocompareresidualpooldepthsbetweenyears,andusedMann-WhitneyU-testsofmedianstocomparedifferences in entrenchment ratios that failed to meet assumptions for normalityorsamplesize.Forallhypothesistests,α=0.05.Weassumednoobserverbiasinhabitatdelineationormeasurementbetween1998streamsurveysperformedbycontractorsand2003surveysconductedbyForestServicepersonnel.Inspectionofthedatasuggeststhatsomebiasesmayhaveexistedindefiningpools.

Monitoring results and Interpretation Implementation monitoring Approximately4,200cubicfeetofcountablewoodbiomasswasaddedto

theprojectreachin2002.Theaveragesizeofwoodplacedintheprojectareain2002was40.9feetinlength(95percentCI=2.1feet)and18inchesindiameter(95percentCI=1inch)attheendclosesttothestream.Naturalwoodlocatedintheprojectreachwas,onaverage,2incheslargerindiameterand3feetshorterthan2002projectwood.Almost90percent(60)ofthewoodpiecesaddedintheprojectreachin2002wereclassified

1

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—10


assmallunderPacificNorthwestRegion(R-6)streamsurveyguidelines,andnonewereclassifiedaslarge.Thefrequencyofmediumwoodintheprojectreachincreasedby300percentto8permilefrom1998to2003.Almost46percentofthe2002projectwood(22pieces)wasobservedinsingleconfigurations,while46percent(22)wasinmultipleconfigurationsand8percent(4)injams.

Onaverage,9percentof2002project-woodlength(4feet)wasincontactwiththewettedchannel,22percent(9.7feet)wasincontactwiththebankfullarea,and26percent(11feet)wassuspendedoverthewettedchannel.Naturalwoodpieceshad,onaverage,agreaterproportionoftheirlengthincontactwithoroverhangingthewettedandbankfullchannels(figure2).Projectwoodaddedin2002coveredabout30percentofthewettedwidthand50percentofthestream’sbankfullwidth,whilenaturalwoodcoveredasignificantlygreaterproportionofthewettedwidth(P<0.05)(figure2).

Figure 2. Mean proportions of countable 2002 project (N = 67) and Natural (N = 9) wood length located in the project reach that were in contact with or overhung the bankfull or wetted channels. * = significant difference in proportions (df = 2; x2 = 7.9; P < 0.05).

In2003thetotalnumberofartificialwoodpiecesofficiallycountedintheprojectreachincreased78percentsince1998(36piecesto64),forafrequencyof71piecespermile.Intheprojectreach,thefrequencyofallLWDin2003(80piecespermile)wastwicethefrequencyofallLWDcountedin1998.Because48ofthe64artificialpiecescountedin2003wereinstalledin2002,20pieceslefttheprojectreachorbankfullareabetween1998and2003.Wedidnotinclude28percentofall2002projectwoodinstalledwithintheprojectreach(19pieces)inofficial2003counts,becausepieceswereeithersuspendedoutsidethebankfullarea(13),too

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% in contact withwetted channel

% in contact withbankfull width

% overhanging wettedchannel

Natural

Artificial

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—11

Case Study 1

smallindiameter(3),ortooshortinlength(3).ThechangeinthetotalabundanceofLWDinthecontrolreachbetween1998(2)and2003(3)wasneglible.Thecontrolreachhad2LWDpiecesin0.9miles.

Effectiveness Monitoring—Physical Parameters Totalpoolareaincreasedby26percentintheprojectreachandby10

percentinthecontrolreachbetween1998and2003(figure3),however,reachdifferencesbetweenyearswerenotstatisticallysignificant (df=2;x2 control=0.04,x2 project=0.15;P>0.5).Likewise,thenumberofpoolscountedincreasedinbothreachesin2003,althoughtotalpoolvolumestayednearlyconstant(figure4).Thisdifferencesuggeststhatalthoughnewpoolsmayhavebeencreatedinbothreaches,otherpreviouslyexistingpoolsfilledinwithsediment.Insupportofthistheory,weobservedthatmeanresidualpooldepthwassignificantlyshallowerin2003inboththecontrolandprojectreaches(tcontrol=-4.37,tproject=-7.36;P<0.0001).Thenumberofhigh-qualitypoolsgreaterthan3-feetdeepstayedconstant(5)intheprojectreachanddecreasedby50percent(from8to4)inthecontrolreach.

Figure 3. Reach proportion of pools by area surveyed in control and project reaches.

Nochangeinmean-entrenchmentratiosofeitherthecontrolorproject

reachoccurredbetween1998and2003(figure5),andbothreachesremainedhighlyentrenched.Althoughdifferencesbetweenyearswereinsignificant(Mann-WhitneyU;P>0.2),bankfull-width-to-average-bankfull-depthratiosincreasedonaveragebyover30percentinbothreachesin2003(figure6),therebycorroboratingtheobservationthatpoolsinbothreacheshaveaggradedsince1998.Theproportionofoff-channelhabitatintheformofsidechannelsdecreasedinbothreachesin2003,includingalossof110feetintheprojectreach(figure7).Thissidechannelhadnowaterin2003,duetoasedimentplugattheinlet,andwasthereforenotcountedasadistincthabitatunitundersurveyprotocol.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Control Project

Reach

Proportionofpoolarea

1998

2003

Pro

port

ion

of p

ool a

rea

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—12


Figure 4. Total pool volume (residual pool depth x corrected pool area) expressed in cubic feet and number of pools counted in project and control reaches of Beaver Creek.

Figure 5. Calculated mean entrenchment ratio from project and control reaches in Beaver Creek.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Control Project

Reach

PoolVolume(ft

3 * 1000)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

NumberofPools

1998 volume 2003 volume

1998 number 2003 number

1

1.5

2

Control Project

Entrenchment Ratio

1998

2003

Poo

l Vol

ume

( ft3 *

100

0 )

Num

ber

of P

ools

Ent

renc

hmen

t Rat

io

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—13

Case Study

Figure 6. Bankfull-width-to-average-bankfull-depth mean ratios from 1998 and 2003 Beaver Creek surveys. (Error bars represent one standard deviation.)

Figure 7. Reach proportion of side channels by area surveyed in control and project reaches.

Ocularsubstrateabundanceestimatesshowednosignificantdifference(x2=0.1;df=4;P>0.75)insubstratesizedistributionsineithertheprojectreachorcontrolreachbetween1998and2003surveys(figure8).Poolsedimentsurveys(V*)foundnomeaningfuldifferencebetweentheaveragepoolvolumefilledbysedimentin2000(mean=37percent,s=14percent)and2003(mean=38percent,s=19percent).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Control Project

Reach

Width: depth ratio

1998

2003

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Control Project

Reach

Proprtionofsidechannelarea

1998

2003

1

Wid

th:

dept

h ra

tioP

ropo

rtio

n of

sid

e ch

anne

l are

a

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—14


Figure 8. Substrate size distribution of Beaver Creek control and project reaches by proportion of surveyed area.

Effectiveness Monitoring—Biological Threeyearsofmacroinvertebratemonitoringconductedbefore2002

projectimplementationfoundthatBeaverCreekhadmoderatebiologicalintegrityindices,withitserosionalorrifflehabitatsproducingthelowestscores(ABA1998,1999,2000).Erosionalhabitatsalsohadaverylowrichnessofintoleranttaxa,alowrichnessofEPT(Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera)taxa,andastaticforecastedtrendlinepredictingnochangeinthemeanvalue(58.1)oferosionalscoresunlesschangesinwaterqualityorhabitatqualityoccurred(Schroeder2002).

Researcherscalculatedastock-recruitmentcurve,usingalimiteddatasetof3yearsandfoundthatprojectstructureshadnopositiveeffectoncohoparrdensitiesrelativetospawnerescapement,basedonthepositionof2003parrdensitiesbelowthebest-fitline(figure9).However,high

Control Reach

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Silt and Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock

PercentofTotalArea

1998

2003

Project Reach

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Silt and Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock

PercentofTotalArea

1998

2003

Per

cent

of t

otal

are

aP

erce

nt o

f tot

al a

rea

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—15

Case Study 1

winterflowsin2002mighthavenaturallydecreasedparrdensitiesin2003,independentlyofstructureeffects,byscouringredds.Inaddition,2003parrdensitiesinpoolsmighthavedecreasedbecausetheremovalofadiversiondaminfall2002increasedcohohabitatavailabilityanduseinBeaverCreekbyover0.3miles.

Figure 9. Spawner-recruitment curve for Beaver Creek coho salmon calculated using ODFW Applegate River sub-basin escapement estimates from spawner surveys and FS parr density estimates in Beaver Creek from snorkel censuses. (The 2003 data point was calculated after the 2002 restoration activities.)

Insummary,short-termmonitoringfoundthatthisrestorationprojecthasbeenlargelyunsuccessfulinmeetingitsgoals(table1).Whilemanyofthegoalsmayhavebeenoverlyoptimistic,especiallywithinashorttimeframealteringtheprojectdesignmayhavemadeachievingothergoalspossible.Forexample,fewpiecesofprojectwoodwereclassifiedasmediumorlarge,becausethewoodwaseithertooshortortoosmallindiameter.Futurerestorationprojectscouldremedythisproblembymodifyinggoals(i.e.,smallwoodinsteadofmediumorlarge)orbyplacingpiecesofwoodonlyaboveacertainsize.Futuremonitoringwilldetermineiflonger-term(3-5years)goalsaremet,andresultsshouldinfluencefutureprojectdesigns.

2001 2003

2002y = 0.0267e0.0032x

R2 = 0.969

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

ODFW escapement estimate for Applegate River subbasin

BeaverCreekparrdensity(#/yd

2)

Bea

ver

Cre

ek p

arr

dens

ity (

#/y

d2 )

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—16


Table 1: Summary of short-term restoration goals, monitoring status, and results.

Goal Monitoring % Change Goal Complete Observed Attained

IncreaseinMandLwoodfrom0to75pieces/mile Yes +8 No

Increaseinpoolareaby20% Yes +26 Yes

Increaseinentrenchmentratioby1.0 Yes 0 No

Reductioninwidth-to-depthratiosby20% Yes +30 No

Changeinsubstratesizefromcobbletogravel Yes 0 No

Increaseinmacroinvertebratemetricsby20% No N/A ??

Increaseincohosalmonsmoltproductionby20% No N/A ??

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs Monitoring partners for this project are Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife,whichconductscohospawningsurveysintheprojectreach,andtheApplegateRiverWatershedCouncil,whichconductswaterquality(temperatureandmacroinvertebrate)andfinesediment(V*)monitoringinBeaverCreek.Table2showsestimatedannualcostsofprojectmonitoring.

Table 2. Project Monitoring Costs

Monitoring component People Days Cost ($)

Spawningsurveys 2 10 2,000

Parrdensitysurveys 2 1 300

Macroinvertebratemonitoring 1 2 1,000

Temperaturemonitoring 1 3 400

V*surveys 2 2 500

Habitatsurveys(conductedevery2-3years) 2 4 1,000

Dataanalysisandreportwriting 1 13 2,600

Total 7,800

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—17

Case Study 1

For Further Information TheleadcontactforcontinuedprojectmonitoringisIanReid,fisheries

biologist,RogueRiver-SiskiyouNationalForest,AshlandandApplegateRangerDistricts,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520,(541)552-2914,[email protected]

Lessons Learned 1.Oneyearaftertheplacementofrestorationstructuresaquantitative,criticalanalysisofaquatichabitatsatthereachscaleinBeaverCreekfoundnosignificantchangesinstreamgeomorphologyandthesubsequentqualityofaquatichabitat.Themostsubstantialchangesingeomorphologyafterhighflowsin2002werea26-percentincreaseinpoolareaintheprojectreach(comparedtoa10-percentincreaseinthecontrolreach),andavirtuallyunchangedsubstratesizedistributionintheprojectreach(comparedtoadoublingofbedrock—from15percentto30percent—inthecontrolreach).Whileprojectwoodmayhavehelpedtopreventfurtherdegradationintheprojectreach,theincreaseinpoolareaseemsrelativelyunimportanttocohooverwintering.Thereasonisthatthesignificantdecreaseinresidualpooldepthinbothreachessuggeststhatpoolsarefillingwithsedimentandwillnotprovidesubstantialhigh-flowrefugeforjuvenilecohosalmon.Anotherexplanationisthatthedecreaseinresidualpooldepthwasrelatedtosurveyorsin2003definingshallowhabitatunitswithlaminarflowaspoolsthatweregroupedwithrifflesin1998.V*datashowedthatpoolscontainedsedimentlevelsafterhighflowsin2003aresimilartothoselevelsobservedin2000.

2.Possibleexplanationsforthelackofphysicaleffectsobservedincludethefollowing:relativelyshorttimeperiod,movementofwoodduringhighflowsoutoftheactivechannelrelatedtoinadequateprojectdesign,dilutionofphysicaldifferencesbyinclusionofareaswithintheprojectreachthatwerenotenhancedinstatisticalanalyses,andintrinsicallylowstreampotential.However,thattheshorttimeperiodisentirelyresponsibleforthelackofsubstantialdifferencesingeomorphologyandaquatichabitatisunlikely,becauseofthehighflowsofDecember2002.Furthermore,thegoalsandbenchmarksoutlinedintherestorationproposalwere“short-term”goalstobemetwithin2-5years.Thispresumablyaccountedforatleastonebankfulldischargeperiod,whichwasattainedinDecember2002.

3.Movementofcabledwoodwithintheprojectreachmayhavereducedtheefficacyofproducingdesiredchangesinhabitatparameters.Specifically,itislikelythatmostofthestructures,whichwerecabledtoanchortrees,pivotedontheseverytreesduringhighflows,leftthewettedandbankfullchannels,andweredepositedonfloodplainsorhillslopesabovethebankfullchannels.Partofthestructureplacementobjectivewastoreducetheamountofthewoodincontactwiththewettedchannel

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—18


(generallylessthat33percentofthewettedwidthincontactwithprojectwood)becauseofconcernswithdownstreamprivateproperty.Thelowamountofprojectwoodinitiallyincontactwiththestreamchannel,coupledwithitscablingtoanchortrees,couldhaveledtothesignificantlylowerproportionofprojectwood—asopposedtonaturalwood—incontactwiththewettedchannelin2003.Thatprojectwoodwassmallerindiameterthannaturalwoodmayhavealsoinfluencedthemovementofprojectwoodoutofthewettedchannelduringhighflows.

4.Structuresmayhavechangedgeomorphologyandimprovedhabitatforcohosalmonandotheraquaticspeciesatthesite-scale,andthesechangesmayhavebeendilutedbyaveragingmeasurementsoverthereachscale(0.9miles).ThiswouldresultinatypeIIstatisticalerror,wherethenullhypothesis(nodifferenceinhabitatafterstructureswereplaced)shouldhavebeen—butfailedtobe—rejected.Sincethegoaloftherestorationprojectwastoimprovehabitatover1.5milesofstream,changesshouldbehavebeendetectableandquantifiableatthereachscale.However,thelackofdetectableshort-termchangesinhabitatsuggeststhatincreasingLWDdensitiesabovecurrentrestorationlevels(~66permile)maybeappropriateinthissystemtoproducequickerresponses.

5.Duetoitshighsedimentbudgetanddegraded,colluvialchannel(boundbyhillslopes),BeaverCreekmayhavealowintrinsicpotentialforproducingcohosalmon.Fewareasexistalongtheprojectreachforestablishingsidechannelsorotheroff-channelhabitatsthatcohosalmonuseforrearing.Unlesssedimentsourcesareaddressed,truehabitatrestorationinBeaverCreekwilllikelybecompromised.Todate,thebiologicalmonitoringshowedlittlepositiveresponsefromfishpopulationstorestorationprojects.Long-termbiologicalmonitoring,therefore,isnecessaryforseparatingnatural,stochasticfluctuationsinpopulationsizefromresponsescausedbychangesinaquatichabitat.Furthermore,cohosmoltdensitymaybeabettermeasurementofrestorationsuccessthancohoparrdensity,becausesmoltdensityestimatesoverwinteringsuccess.

6.Futuremonitoringplans,contingentuponreceivingfunding,include

ananalysisofWolmanpebblecounttransectsconductedin1998and2003and2003temperaturedata;comparisonsofexisting1998and2003ForestServiceLevelIIIstreamsurveydatameasuredbythesamecontractor(therebyeliminatingpotentialobserverbias);springtimesnorkelcensusestoestimateparr-to-smoltproductionandoverwinteringsurvival;continuingcohoandsteelheadspawnersurveys,summerparrcensuses,andsummerwatertemperaturemonitoring.Collectionofmacroinvertebratesin2004isalsoproposedforfourlocations:withintheprojectreach,atthehistoricreferencesiteupstreamoftheprojectreach,andattwootherlocationswithintheBeaverCreekwatershed.

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—19

Case Study 1

references CitedAquaticBiologyAssociates.1998.RogueRiverNationalForestbenthicmacroinvertebrate

biomonitoringreport.AvailablefromUSDAForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

AquaticBiologyAssociates.1999.RogueRiverNationalForestbenthicmacroinvertebratebiomonitoringreport.AvailablefromUSDAForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

AquaticBiologyAssociates.2000.RogueRiverNationalForestbenthicmacroinvertebratebiomonitoringreport.AvailablefromUSDAForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520

Cederholm,C.J.;Bilby,R.E.;Bisson,P.A.;[andothers].1997.ResponseofjuvenilecohosalmonandsteelheadtoplacementoflargewoodydebrisinacoastalWashingtonstream.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement17:947-963.

Hankin,D.G.;Reeves,G.H.1988.Estimatingtotalfishabundanceandtotalhabitatareainsmallstreamsbasedonvisualestimationmethods.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticScience45:834-844.

Hilton,S.;Lisle,T.E.1993.Measuringthefractionsofpoolvolumefilledwithfinesediment.ResearchNote.PSW-RN-414.Albany,CA:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificSouthwestResearchStation.11p.

Lisle,T.E.1987.Using“residualdepths”tomonitorpooldepthsindependentlyofdischarge.ResearchNote.PSE-394.Arcata,CA:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificSouthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation.

OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.1999.EvaluationofspawninggroundsurveysforindexingtheabundanceofadultwintersteelheadinOregoncoastalbasins.AvailablefromOregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife,CorvallisResearchLab,28655Hwy.34,Corvallis,OR97333.

OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2002.Coastalsalmonspawningsurveyproceduresmanual.AvailablefromOregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife,CorvallisResearchLab,28655Hwy.34,Corvallis,OR97333.

OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2003.Oregonplanmonitoringreport.AvailablefromOregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife,CorvallisResearchLab,28655Hwy.34,Corvallis,OR97333.

Ricker,W.E.1975.Computationandinterpretationofbiologicalstatisticsforfishpopulations.BulletinoftheFisheriesResearchBoardofCanada.191:382.

Rosgen,D.L.1996.Appliedrivermorphology.WildlandHydrology:PagosaSprings,CO.Paginatedbychapter.

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—20


Scholz,J.G.;Booth,D.B.1998.Monitoringurbanstreams:strategiesandprotocolsforhumid-regionlowlandsystems.AvailablefromtheCenterforWaterandWatershedStudies,UniversityofWashington,21WinkenwerderHall,Box352100,Seattle,WA98195

Schroeder,P.C.2002.Benthicinvertebratebiomonitoringtrendanalysis(1992-2000),Oregon,RogueRiverNationalForest,SiskiyouZone.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

Thurow,R.F.1994.UnderwatermethodsforthestudyofsalmonidsintheintermountainWest.Gen.Tech.Rep.GTRINT-GTR-307.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearchStation.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1994a.BeaverandPalmerCreeksWatershedAnalysis.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1994b.Section7fishhabitatmonitoringprotocolfortheupperColumbiabasin.AvailablefromtheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,NationalAquaticEcosystemMonitoringCenter,DepartmentofFisheriesandWildlife,UtahStateUniversity,Logan,UT84322.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1994c.AguidetofieldidentificationofbankfullstageintheWesternUnitedStates.Video.AvailablefromtheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainForestandRangeExperimentCenter,StreamSystemsTechnologyCenter,FortCollins,CO80526.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1996.PacificNorthwestRegionstreaminventoryhandbookLevelIandIIVersion9.6.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1998a.RogueRiverNationalForeststreamandriparianfloodanalysisreport,1997NewYear’sDayfloodeffects.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1998b.Larvalmacroinvertebratecollectingprotocol.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1999.1998BeaverCreekLevelIIstreamsurvey.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.2003.BeaverandPalmerCreekshelicopterwoodfishhabitatenhancement.AvailablefromU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,AshlandRangerDistrict,645WashingtonStreet,Ashland,OR97520.

Bea

ver

Cre

ek S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g

3—21

Case Study 2

Bobtail Creek Channel reconstruction Project

Project overview The14,000acreBobtailwatershedontheKootenaiNationalForestinnorthwestMontana(figure1)hasseennumerousformsofdevelopmentinthepast70years.Almosttheentirewatershedwasclearcutinthe1930sandextensivedevelopmentalongthecreekbyprivatelandownershasresultedinalossofchannellengthduetochannelstraighteningactivities.RoadingandtimberharvestbytheForestService,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,andPlumCreekTimberCompanyinthelate1980shasresultedinadditionalwateryieldconcernsforprivatelandowners.Thewatershedalsohasexperienced3rain-on-snowfloodeventsinthelast10years.Theseeventsresultedinadditionalchannelstraighteningandbedloadmaterialgeneration.Thesecumulativeeffectshaveresultedinanunstablechannelthatispronetoexcessivelateralmigrationacrossthedevelopedfloodplain.

Figure 1. Project area.

TheBobtailWatershedGroup(group)wasformedin1996inanattempt

torectifytheseproblemsandtoultimatelyremovethewatershedfromtheStateofMontana’s303(d)listofimpairedwatersheds.Thegroupestablishedthefollowingobjectivesforstreamprojectsinthewatershed:

lReestablishthepropergradient,sinuosity,andmeanderchannelfeatures.

lIncreasebankstabilitieswithnativematerials.

lUltimatelyremovethestreamfromtheState303(d)listofimpairedstreams.

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—22


In2002,weusedgeomorphictechniquesforreconstructingabout1,500feetofBobtailCreek.Thegoalwastoreestablishthepropersinuosityandmeanderfeaturestothechannelbyaddingsomestreamchannelbackintothesystemandinstallingbankprotectionandgradient-controlstructures.Theuseofanupstreamreferencereach(Rosgen1996)determinedthatthedesiredstream-channeldesignwasa“C4”channel.Thedesignchannelhasabankfullwidthof19feetandabankfullflowof50cubicfeetpersecond.Thiscasestudypresentstheresultsofthatworkandhowthechannelhasreactedtoitsfirstbankfullflowevent.

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring InSeptember1999,surveyorsconductedaninitial“total-station”survey

tohelpdeterminechanneldesignpossibilities.InJuly2000,thegroupreceiveda319grantfortheproposedwork.InAugust2002,weinitiatedstreamreconstructionactivitiesonasectionofBobtailCreekthroughthe“Thompson”property(seefigures1through4).Theconsultingfirmcontractedbythegroupusedthereference-reachdimensionstocreateageomorphicallystablechanneldesign.Thisdesignreceivedtheapprovalofthelandowner,thegroup,andthepermittingagencies(LincolnConservationDistrict,andtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers).Theapprovedworkincludedadding55feetofnewstreamtohelplowerthegradientthroughtheprojectreach,with20root-wadstructuresand17rockveinsalsoincorporatedintothedesign.Thepermitapprovalrequiredthe monitoring of the channel length and the channel gradient for changes fromthe“as-built”condition.InOctober2002,aresurveyoftheareadeterminedthe“as-built”dimensionsofthechannelthroughtheprojectarea.Table1displaysthemonitoringparametersandmethodsused.

Table 1. Monitoring parameters and methods used.

Parameter Methodology Success Criteria

ChannelLength(feet) Totalstation 15-percentallowablechange

ChannelGradient(percent) Totalstation 15-percentallowablechange

AdditionalmonitoringoccurringinthewatershedincludesRosgengeomorphicmeasurementsat20locations,streamcorepercentfines,macroinvetebrateandfishpopulationtrends,watertemperature,andanestablishedcontinuousstreamflowstation.Undertherequirementsofthe404permit,theparametersinthiscasestudyreflectthemonitoringitemsrequiredbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers.

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—23

Case Study

Aresurveyoftheprojectareainfall2003completedthemonitoringrequirement.Figures2through5displaychangesatonelocationintheproject area.

Figure 2. Lower portion of project area before work began (June 2002).

Figure 3. Lower portion of project area “as-built” (August 2002).

2

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—24


Figure 4. Lower portion of project area during runoff event (April 2003).

Figure 5. Lower portion of project area in November 2003.

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—25

Case Study

Monitoring results and Interpretation Thefollowingdiscussionsummarizesourmonitoringresultsthrough

2003.Althoughthestreamexperiencedabelow-normalflowseasonin2003,wemeasuredabankfullflowforapproximately5daysduringthespring runoff.

Total-Station Surveys Thetotal-stationsurveysallowawidevariabilityindisplayoptionsfrom

onesetofdata.Aportionoftheseoptionsareinfigure6,whichshowsthepreprojectaspectsofthestreamchannelalongwiththeas-builtand1-yearaftercompletionplan-viewsoftheproject.Weusedthisdatasettocalculatethechangeinfeetofthechannelthroughtheprojectarea.Table2displays the data for the channel length monitoring parameter.

Table 2. Channel length information

Monitoring Prework As-built 1-Year Percent Element (1999) (2002) After Change (2003) (2002-2003)

Stream Channel Length(feet) 1,580 1,635 1,618 1.0

Table3showsthedataforthechannelgradientmonitoringparameter.Basedontheprojectmonitoringanddesigncriteria,changesintheparametersareexpectedtoremainwithin15percentoftheas-builtcondition.Thisvalueisbasedonthenaturalvariabilityofphysicalparameterswithinstreamsystems.Thetotal-stationsurveysallowefficientcalculationoftheseparameters,whichwecaneasilycomparethroughscheduledresurveysforlong-termmonitoring.

Table 3. Channel gradient information

Monitoring Prework As-built 1-Year Percent Element (1999) (2002) After Change (2003) (2002-2003)

Stream Channel Gradient(percent) 1.8 1.5 1.6 6.0

2

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—26


Conclusions Thefirstyear’srunoffwasagoodtestoftheproject.Wecompletedthe

projectworklateinthefallandthevegetationdidnothaveachancetoestablishagoodroot-holdinthenewchannelbanks.Thecoirmattingcoveringthemosterodiblebankskeptthenewlyconstructedchannelinplace.Alloftheroot-wadandrock-veinstructuresheldupasexpected,withlittleobservedchangeinthechanneldimensions.Thetwomeasuredmonitoringparametersfallintotheacceptablecategoryforallowablevariabilityof15percentfromtheas-builtcondition.Thechannellengthchanged17feetoverthelengthoftheproject,a1-percentchange.Theoveralldropinelevationintheprojectareais24.5feet.Giventhis,thechannelgradienthadachangeof1.37feetoverthelengthoftheproject—a6-percentchange.Continuedmonitoringwillhelpusdocumentthestabilityofthechannelthroughtheprojectreachandallowustocompareitwithotherstreamreconstructionprojects.

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—27

Case Study

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs PartnersinthismonitoringeffortincludetheBobtailWatershedGroup,

USDAForestServiceLibbyRangerDistrict,PlumCreekTimberCompany,andtheMontanaDepartmentofFishWildlifeandParks.Additionalongoingmonitoringinthewatershedwillbecompletedin2010,aswillareportofthatmonitoring.Table4summarizesthemonitoringcoststodate.Thelandownershavebeenveryhappywiththeworkandcontinuetopromotethewatershedgroupanditsefforts.

Table 4. Monitoring costs to date

Tasks People Days Cost ($)

Photographs 1 3 700

SiteSurveys(3) 3 6 4,500

MapProduction 1 3 800

DataAnalysisReport 1 5 1,500

Total 7,500

Lessons Learned Project planning.Gettingpeopletogethertotalkaboutwhatiswrongwithasituationiseasy:thehardpartisgettingdedicatedvolunteerstofixit. Although getting into the granting cycle (actually getting grant funds) seemstotakeforever,onceithappens,thefundsforadditionalprojectstend to come more easily. If the project includes the use of riparian enclosures,ensurethereisawrittenagreementwiththelandownerthatheorshewillnotturnlivestockoutintothestreamcorridorwhereyoujustcompleted your project.

Project implementation.Keepintouchwithyourcontractorbefore the

workbegins,toensurethatyouhaveallthepermitsandtheapprovedaccesstoprivateproperty.Monitoringtheworkwillmostlikelyfallontotheshouldersoftheprojectsponsororvolunteers,sokeepyourcontactlistsavailable.

Coirmattinghasworkedverywell,and,withthelargerweavefabric,thegrasshasaneasiertimecomingupthroughthemat.Plantingsneededprotectionfromdeerbrowsing.Thesuccessratewhenyouallownaturalprecipitationtobetheonlywateringmethodisabout50percent.Wealsosawlotsofweedsmoveintotheprojectareas,andthelandownersarenowdealingwiththem.

2

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—28


For more information contact: SteveWegner,hydrologist,USDAForestService,LibbyRangerDistrict,

12557Hwy37North,Libby,MT.59923 Phone:(406)283-7567;e-mail:[email protected]

references Cited Rosgen,D.1996.Appliedfluvialgeomorphology.WildlandHydrologyConsultants,PagosaSprings,CO.

Bo

bta

il C

reek

Ch

ann

el R

eco

nst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

3—29

Case Study

Project overview TheCispusRiverisasixthorderstreamflowingwestofMt.AdamsandtheGoatRocksRangeinsouthwestWashington.Approximately155,190acres drain into the project area. The project area is a response reach. It is a highlybraidedRosgenD3-typechannel.Meanlowflowatthesiteis250cubicfeetpersecond,andbankfullisapproximately6,000cubicfeetpersecond.

Duringthe1996floodevent,theCispusRiverdamagedtheTomMusicBridgeontheGiffordPinchotNationalForest(siteA)tothepointthatitneededreplacement.Inaddition,theriverchannelchangedposition,cuttingintothenorthernbankandthreateningboththeapproachtothenewbridgeandanarcheologicalsite.AtsiteBtheriverwashedoutasectionofUSDAForestServiceRoad(FSR)23,andasmallflood/sidechannelcontinuestothreatentherebuiltFSR23.AtSiteCtherivercreatedanotherchannelthatcuttowardsFSR23.

Theprimaryobjectiveoftheprojectwastoprotectthesectionsofroads,theTomMusicBridge,archeologicalsites,andstreambanksalongtheCispusRiver.

TheCowlitzValleyRangerDistrictconstructed11engineeredlogjams—andalogcribwall—toprotectthesesites(sitesA,B,andC)aspartoftheCispusRiverEngineeredLogjamRestorationProjectalongtheCispusRiverin1999and2001.GeomorphologistTimAbbedesignedthesestructurestoactasdeflectors,whichwouldpushtheriverawayfromtheroads and archeological sites.

Figure 1—Project locations.

3

Cispus river Engineered Logjam restoration Project

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—30


Table 1. Structures and year constructed

Site Structures Year Constructed

A 4engineeredlogjams 2001

B 4engineeredlogjams 1999 1logcribwall 1996and1999

C 3 engineered logjams 1999

Thesestructureshavebeeninplaceduringthreesmallfloods,withreturnintervalsof2to10years(November1999,8,840cubicfeetpersecond;January2002,8,480cubicfeetpersecond;andJanuary2003,10,500cubicfeetpersecond).Weestimatethesmallerfloodsasbeing2-to5-yearfloodsandtheJanuary2003floodasa5-to10-yearflood.Webasethesereoccurrenceestimatesonabankfullflowofapproximately6,000cubicfeetpersecond(MikePhilbin,districthydrologist,1998to2000).

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring The goal of this monitoring project is to determine if the projects are

meetingtheobjectivesoftheprojectandtheNorthwestForestPlanandtheSalmonRecoveryFundingBoard.

Thetwomonitoringquestionsare: 1)Didtheimprovementsprotecttheexistinginfrastructureand

archeologicalsites?

2)Arefuturethreatstothesitesfromtheriverreduced?

Objective: Protecting Infrastructure Table2showsthecriteriatheGiffordPinchotNationalForest(GPNF)

usedfordeterminingthesuccessoftheprojectorfordeterminingwhenmonitoringindicatesthatfurtherevaluationiswarranted.

Direct Observations TheGPNFexaminedtheTomMusicbridge,roads,andarcheologicalsite

fordamageduringandafterthefloodsthatoccurredsincetheconstructionof the structures.

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—31

Case Study

Table 2. Objective: Protect Infrastructure.

Parameter Methodology Success Criteria *

SiteIntegrity Direct Nodamagetonearbyroadsin Observations 100-yearfloodsorsmallerfloods.

Low-level Nocriteriaforsuccess(These Aerial photographswereusedonlyfor Photography gettingabird’s-eyeviewofthesites andvalidatingthefindingsofthesite surveys.)

Horizontal Lossofnomorethan3feetofbank BankPins orfillduringaflood(Thisisthe practicallimit,forthesesites,at whichthismethoddeterminehow muchbankerosionoccurred.)

SiteSurvey Lossofnomorethanacumulative (TotalStation) amountof10feetoffillfromthe sidesofthelogjamsorcribwall.

Lossofnomorethanacumulative loss15feetoffillfromtheupstream face of the logjams change in channelsizeoralignment(10-15 percent change in bankfull—Rosgen).

* (These are “trigger points” for considering project modifications.)

Low-Level Aerial Photography TheGiffordPinchotNationalForestusedlow-levelaerialphotography

todocumentlarge-scaleshiftsintheCispusRiverchannel.Weusedtwophotographicflightspreproject,July1999;andpost2003flood,August2003,todocumentthelargescaleshiftsintheCispusRiver.Thesephotographsonlydisplaybird’s-eyeviewsofthesitesanddocumentlarge-scalesitechanges.Webasedthecriteriaforsuccessonthesitespecificmeasures(horizontalbankpinsandsitesurveys).Althoughwetooknomeasurementsfromthephotographs,weusedthephotographstodocumentthepositionoftheriverchannelsandproportionoftheriverflowingineachchannel.

3

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—32


Site Survey In1999theGPNFinitiatedtotalstationsurveysasitcompletedeach

structure.Weresurveyedthesesitesinthesummersof2002and2003,becausethesiteshadchanged.Thesitesurveyshelpedquantifychangestothe channels near the roads and archeological sites.

Horizontal Bank Erosion Pins OnJuly18,2001,theGPNFinitiatedmonitoringattheCispusRiver

engineeredlogsites,revisitingthebankerosionpinsinthelatesummerandfalltodeterminetheamountofchange.Wetookthemeasurementsofstreamwidth,andstreamlocationfromthemapgeneratedbythesitesurvey.

Data Limitations and Assumptions TheunstableandbraidednatureoftheCispusRivermadeitimpossibleto

reliablyidentifybankfullwidthandbankfulldepth.Theproportionoftheriverflowinginachannelduringafloodissimilartotheproportionoftheriverflowinginachannelduringlowflow.

Monitoring results and Interpretation Ourinitialobservationoftheparameter“siteintegrity”fortheroads,Tom

MusicBridge,andarcheologicalsitesindicatednoimmediatedamagetothe structures.

Findingnodamagetothebridgeorroad,weturnedourattentiontofuturesiteintegritybymonitoringtherateofbankerosion,usingsitesurveyandhorizontalpinsmethods.

Site A SiteAisonalargebendinthe

CispusRiver(figures2and3).Four engineered logjams acted as deflectors,protectingtheapproachto the Tom Music Bridge and the archeological sites scattered in the areabehindthestructures.Thepoints of interest are the locations oftheengineeredlogjams,thenewperennialchannel,thebridge,andtheareacontainingarcheological sites.

Figure 2. Site A in 1999, no structures installed in 1999.

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—33

Case Study

Figure 3 - Site A in 2003, with labels that show the locations of the structures; logjam formed in the flood of 2003.

Aerial Photography The important points from these photographs are that (1) a greater portion

oftheriverisflowingdownthesidechannelin2003thanin1999,(2)newstreambanksarebuildingbetweentheexistingstructures,and(3)thenewstreambanksprovidegreaterprotectionfortheapproachtothebridgeandthearcheologicalsitesbehindthestructures.

3

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—34


Sites Surveys Overall,sitesurveysshowthattherisktotheTomMusicBridgeapproach

andarcheologicalsitedecreasedafterthefloodof2003.Theperennialriverchannelhassplit,andgreaterproportionoftheriverisflowingdirectlyunderthebridge.

Figure 4. A comparison of the width of the main channel and side channel between years.

Anoverflowchannelisnowperennial,carryingapproximately10percentofstreamflowduringlowflow.Thischannelgoesdirectlyunderthebridge,reducingtheamountofwaterflowinginthemainchannelandreducingerosiveforcesonthearcheologicalsiteandbridgeapproach.

Theshiftofthechannelwasunrelatedtothestructuresinstalledin2001.Duringthefloodof2003,a60-inch-diameterlogwasrecruitedandlodgedontheupstreamportionofthepointbar.Thisloghasformedasmallnaturallogjamthatdeflectstheflowofwateracrossthegravelbaranddirectlyunderthebridge.Thislogjamreducestheoverallrisktothebridgeand archeological sites.

Thefurthestupstreamengineeredlogjam(oneoffour,installedin2001)washedoutduringthe2003flood.Therefore,theriskforbankerosionatthislogjamlocationisnowthesameasthatofthepreprojectcondition.The three remaining logjams are structurally sound and functioning as expected.Thebackwaterareasdownstreamofstructurestwoandthreeallowedsedimenttodepositintheseareas.Asaresult,newbanksarebuildingandprotectingtheareabetweenthestructures.Inaddition,alog

Width of R iver C hannels at S ite A

0

36

71

115

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2001 2003

Y e a r

Average Width of the Channel

in Feet

Side Channel

Main Channel

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—35

Case Study

wasrecruitedintheareabetweenstructurestwoandthreeandcausedtheformationofagravelbarthatdeflectsflowsawayfromstructuresthreeandfour.Thisgravelbarreducestherisktothebridgeapproachandarcheological sites.

Site B ThesiteisinabraidedsectionofCispusRiver.Therearethreemajor

channelstothisbraidedarea(figures5and6).Thepointsofinterestarethethreemajorchannels,thelogjamsandcribwall,andUSDAForestServiceRoad23(FSR23).WerefertothechannelsastheSouth,Middle,andNorthchannels.

Figure 5 - Site B in 1999, before the construction of the logjams.

3

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—36


Figure 6 – The position of the river channels and the structures.

Aerial Photography Thelargechannelhasswitchedsidesofthevalley,sothatthelargest

channelisnowonthenorthsideofthevalleynexttoFSR23.Thekeypointsarethese:(1)theNorthChanneliscarryingagreaterproportionoftheriversflow,and(2)theconstructionofthestructurespushedtheNorthChannelawayfromFSR23,and(3)theNorthChannelincreasedinwidthwhiletheSouthChannelismuchsmaller.

Site Surveys The threats to FSR 23 increased at site B: Channel migration upstream of

siteBincreasedtheamountofwaterflowingbysiteB.

Table 3. Summary of channel width data site B

Measure 1999 2002 2003

AverageWettedWidthn=9 30feet 28feet 45feet

StandardDeviation 10 9 12

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—37

Case Study

Thelow-flowwettedchannelwidthwas15feet(50percent)widerin2003thanin1999,meaningthatmorewaterisnowflowingnexttoFSR23.ThisincreaseinwatervolumeincreasestheerosiveforcesclosetotheFSR23.Therefore,thepotentialfortherivertodamagethisroadhasincreased.

Thesitesurveyswerenotsensitiveenoughtodetectthebankerosionthatthehorizontalbankpinsdetected.

Horizontal Bank Erosion-Pin Results Asmallbutmeasurableamountofbankerosionoccurredthroughoutsite

B.

The results from the erosion pin monitoring are: lAtsiteB,only3ofthe12horizontalpinsremainfunctionalafterthe

January2003flood.

lAtthe9lostpinlocations,atleast3feetofbankwaswashedaway.

• Thethreeremainingpinsareassociatedwiththelogjamseitherjustupstreamoforwithinthestructure.Allofthebankerosionpinsassociatedwiththecribwallstructurehavewashedout.

lTwoofthethreeremainingbankerosionpinsshowedalossofbankmaterial.

lAlthoughtheerosionatsiteBisnotthreateningFSR23,theerosionisthreateningtheintegrityofthestructures,particularlythecribwall.

3

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—38


Site C SiteCisonabackwatersidechannelthatisdisconnectedfromtheriver

duringlow-flowperiods.Waterentersthischannelfromboththeupstreamanddownstreamends.Duringfloods,thelowerendofthechannelisabackwater.Waterflowsacrosstheinterveninganddownstreambaronlyduringfloodsthataregreaterthana5-yearflood.

Figure 7 – Site C, 1999.

Figure 8 – Site C, 2003, with position of the structures.

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—39

Case Study

Aerial Photography Thekeypointsareasfollows:(1)thechannelnexttothestructuresis

wideranddeeperin2003thanin1999,despiteadecreaseinstreamflow,and(2)themainchannelhasshiftedawayfromthechannelacrosstheinterveningbar.

Site Survey WedidnotresurveysiteCbecausethechangeswerelessobvious.This

setofstructureshasnotreceivedthedirectriverflowsobservedatsitesAorB.Directobservationswemadeaftertheconstructionofthestructuressuggestthatthissitemaybefillinginwithfinesedimentsfrombackeddiesandbanksloughing.

Bank Erosion Pins TheamountofbankatsiteChasincreasedslightly.Nearlyallofthe

changesatthebankerosionpinsarepositive,indicatingthebuildingofnewbanks.However,visitstositeChavenotrevealeddepositedstreamsedimentslikethoseobservedatsiteA.WhatweobservedinsteadisthattheupperbanksatsiteCaresloughingmaterialontopofthebankerosionpins.However,wehavenotdeterminedtheexactmechanismofthesloughing.

Table 4 – Data from horizontal bank erosion pins.

Sample ID Change Change Location 2002 2003

(feet)1 (feet)

C1 0.5 0.35 BetweenStructuresC1andC2

C2 0 0.20 BetweenStructuresC1andC2

C3 0.25 0.50 BetweenStructuresC1andC2

C4 -0.2 0.10 BetweenStructuresC1andC2

1The negative numbers represent loss of bank material. Additional observations at the sites indicate that the positive numbers occurred when material sloughed down from the bank above and collected around the bank pin.

Todate,thestructureshaveprotectedtheroadsandarcheologicalsitesthattheyweredesignedtoprotect.However,wehavefoundseveralchangesinconditions at the sites.

TheriverchannelhasshiftedatbothsitesAandB.Forbothofthesesites,recruitedwoodydebris,notthestructuresthemselves,werethecauseofthe channel shifts.

3

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—40


TheseshiftsintheriverchannelhavedifferentconsequencesatsitesAandB.AtsiteAtheshiftofthechannelredirectedpartoftheriver,sothatitnowflowsacrossagravelbar,reducingtheerosiveforcesonthebankwithstructuresanddecreasingthethreattothebridgeandarcheologicalsites.AtsiteBtheshiftintheriverhasincreasedtheamountofwaterflowingnexttoFSR23,increasingthethreattothatroad.

AtsitesAandB,wefounddamagetothestructuresandsomebankerosion.OneofthelogjamswaswashedoutatsiteA.WefoundmeasurableamountsofbankerosionatsiteB,withthegreatestamountatthelogcribwall.TheerosionatsiteBwasgreaterthanthethresholdofconcern(table2).Althoughthiserosiondoesnotthreatentheroad,itdoesthreatentheintegrityofthecribwall.Therefore,wehavetoexploremeasuresforrepairing,redesigning,orreplacingthiscribwall,whichlost5to10feetoffillmaterialsince1999.Thelogjamsarealsolosingfillmaterial at this site.

SiteChasremainedrelativelyunchangedsincetheconstructionofthestructures.

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs MikeKohn,CowlitzFallsprojectbiologist,conductedbiological

monitoringatsitesBandCbetween1999and2001.Theresultsofthisstudy are in a report to Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Kohn2002).

ThefollowingtablesummarizesthetypicalannualcostsfortheUSDAForestServicemonitoringofthisproject.

Table 5 - Summary of estimated annual monitoring costs.


Photographs 1 1.5 300

BankPins 3 2 1,300

SiteSurveys 3 2 1,500

MapProduction 1 4 800


Materials 200

Total 8,600

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—41

Case Study

Lessons Learned Welearnedseverallessonswiththisstudy: lThetotalstationsurveyatsiteBneededtocaptureboththebankfull

channelandthewettedchannel.

lThesiteswereinanareawherethegeneralpubliccouldeasilyaccessthem.Someofthepublicremovedortamperedwiththesomeofthebankerosionpinsandscourchains.Wewerethereforeunabletousethesebankerosionpinsandscourchainsintheanalysis.

lAtotalstationsurveybeforeconstructionwouldhavebenefitedthisproject.

lTheincreasedwaterdepthandvelocityafterthefloodofthe2003madesurveyingthechanneldifficult.Wewerenotabletomeasurethedeepestandswiftestpartsofthechannel.

lThemainchannelatsiteAwasalwaystoodeepandswiftforustomeasure channel depth in the perennial channel.

For Further Information: ForadditionalinformationcontactKenMeyers,districtfishbiologist,

GiffordPinchotNationalForest,NorthZone,Amboy,WA,98601.

references Kohn,M.S.2002.DraftCispusRiverandYellowjacketCreekhabitatenhancementprojectsmonitorreport.PreparedforInteragencyCommitteeforOutdoorRecreationProjectNumber9-1733D.

3

Cis

pu

s R

iver

En

gin

eere

d L

og

jam

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—43

Case Study 4

the Eleven-mile Canyon demonstration Project

Project overview TheEleven-mileCanyonDemonstrationProjectislocatedontheSouthPlatteRiverinParkCounty,Colorado(figure1).Thisprojectareaislocatedinasemiarid(lessthan15inchesofprecipitationperyear)portionofthefoothillszoneoftheRockyMountains(Pennak1977).Thebedrockunderlyingthiscanyonareaiscomprisedprimarilyofbiotitegranitethatproduceshighlyerodible,unproductivesoils.Thisconditionalsoresultsinsparsegroundcover,contributingtothearea’serosivenature.Thelandscapeisbisectedbyrelativelysteep,narrowdrainageswithabundanterosional stream channels.

Figure 1: Vicinity map of Eleven-mile Canyon. Study reaches are identified by reach numbers. (The inset map identifies the location of the canyon within the Pike National Forest.)

Inthelate1800sarailroadwasbuiltintheEleven-mileCanyon,furthernarrowingtheEleven-mileCanyonfloor.Largenativetreeswereremovedfromthevalleyfloorforuseinthenearbymetropolitanareas.

Intheearly1900sthecityofDenverbeganbuildingreservoirsandassociatedconduitsforwaterstorageintheSouthPlatteRivercorridor,forusebytheincreasingpopulation.Thereleasesfromthesereservoirshavecreatedahydrographconsiderablydifferentthanwhatwouldbeexpectedunderhistoricconditions(figure2).Theremovaloftrees,locationandmaintenanceoftheroadcorridor,andmodifiedflowreleasesfromupstreamreservoirshascreatedastreamsystemconsiderablyalteredfrompre-Europeansettlerconditions.

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—44


Figure 2: Comparison of a hydrograph from a regulated section of the South Platte River downstream of Eleven-mile Canyon to a more natural flow regime in Tarryall Creek, a tributary to the South Platte River.

In1993,acompletestream-conditioninventorydeterminedlimitingfactorsfortroutproduction(Winters,Gallagher,McMartin,1993).Theresultsshowedthatthelackofinadequatehabitatcomplexitywastheprimarylimitingfactorinportionsofthecanyon.Low-gradient“glides”wereareasparticularlyassociatedwithrelativelyhomogenoushabitatconditions.Toremedythepoorhabitatconditions,thePike-SanIsabelNationalForestsandtheColoradoDivisionofWildlife(CDOW)signedamultiyearcooperativeagreement.Weidentifiedstrategicboulderplacement,anchoringlargeconiferoustreesinsectionsofthestreamchannel,andreconstructingthestreamchannelasappropriateforthistypeofsystem(RosgenC-typechannel).Constructionbeganin1996.

Weplacedstructuresprimarilyinglideswithfairlyuniformcurrentvelocitiesandlittleheterogeneityinhabitatconditions.

Fromourinventoryefforts,weagreedthatphysicalchangesinthemorphologyoftheriverwerenecessaryforprovidingbetterqualityhabitatavailabilityforvariouslife-stagesofbrownandrainbowtrout.Thedesired changes included:

1)Adecreaseinthewidth-to-depthratiowhereappropriate.

2)Anincreaseinresidualpooldepthinidentifiedpools.

3)Anincreaseinhabitatcomplexityinrelativelysterileglidehabitats.

4)Nolossorimprovementtoaestheticvaluesforvisitors.

5)Anultimateincreaseinabundanceofadultrainbowandbrowntrout.

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—45

Case Study

Todeterminetheeffectivenessoftheinstreamchannelstructures,weattemptedtoanswerthesefourquestions.

1.Doinstreamchannelstructuresinaregulatedmountainriverincreaseaquatichabitatcomplexityandultimatelyadulttroutabundance(densityandbiomass)byincreasinghabitatcomplexityandresidualdepth,anddecreasingthewidth-to-depthratiooftheprojectarea?

2.Dostructureorientationandelevationdeterminetheeffectiveness(scoursuccessandself-maintenance)ofinstreamchannelstructures?

3.Whichtypesofstructuresaremostefficientinincreasingaquatichabitatcomplexity,residualpooldepth,andfishabundance(densityandbiomass)?

4.Whichstructuresandplacementcharacteristicsresultinlimitedmaintenancewhileprovidingthedesiredeffects?

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring In1993,initialpreprojectbasinwidestreamhabitatsurveysuseda

modifiedHankin-Reevesmethod(Winters,etal,1991,rev.1997).Weidentifiedstreamreachesaccordingtochanneltypeandvalleyconfiguration(Rosgen1996).Withineachreach,werecordedspecificstreamchannelmorphologicalandbiologicalhabitatconditions.Also,wetookphotographsforeachhabitatunit(e.g.,pool,riffle,glide)andotheruniqueorimpactedareas,forlatercomparisonswithpostprojectconditions.

Tofurtherquantifythepotentialinfluenceofmodifyingvarioushabitatcomplexitytohomogenousglidesintheprojectarea,wemodeledchangesinstreamvelocities,substrate,anddepthusingthephysicalhabitatsimulationmodel(PHABSIM)fordifferentlife-stagesofbrownandrainbowtroutdevelopedbyBovee(1982).ThepurposeofthisexercisewastodeterminewhetherthePHABSIMmodelcouldaccuratelypredictthechangesinhabitatfordifferentlife-stagesofbrownandrainbowtrout.TheCDOWdevelopedhabitatsuitabilitycurvesfortheSouthPlatteRiver,andusedthemtoidentifypotentialchangesinadultandjuvenilelife-historystagesofbothspecies.Weidentifiedaglideintheprojectareathathadconditionsofbothatypicalhomogenoushabitatintheprojectareaandareasofcomplexityduetobouldersandalargetreewithinthestreamchannel.Thesenatural“structures”comprisedarelativelysmallpercentageofthelargerhabitat.

4

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—46


Wecarefullyplacedseventransectswithintheglide,oneatthedownstreamhydrauliccontrolandsixtorepresentthevariousconditionswithinthehabitatunit.ToapplythePHABSIMmodel,torepresenttheglidewithoutstructure,weweightedthetransectatthehydrauliccontrolandthoseupstreamthatweren’tinfluencedbystructureandmodeleditforvariousflows,species,andlife-historystages.Toelucidatetheeffectofaddingstructuretotheriver,weenteredtheremainingtransectsintothemodelandrantheprocedureasecondtime.Wehypothesizedthatthedifferenceinweighteduseablearea(WUA)betweenthemodelingeffortusingthedifferenttransectswouldberealizedwhenvariousstructureswerebuilt.Becauseofmodelinglimitations,wedidnotincorporateinstreamcover,suchasoverheadseclusionobjects,intothemodel.

TheCDOWhadbeenconductingpopulationestimatesofsalmonidsinthedemonstrationareaforseveralyears,usingthe2-pass,Seber-LeCrenremovalmethodology(Seber1982).Thismethodlocatestwostationsintheprojectreachthatdonotoverlapthestructureplacementsites.Twostationsoccuratthestructuresites.TheCDOWusedtruck-mountedmultiple-arrayelectrofishinggearwitheachfishweighedandmeasuredforpopulationdensityandbiomassestimates.

TheCDOWmademapsofspecificstructureplacements.Afteridentifyingthespecifichabitats,theCDOWstrategicallyplacedcross-sectionaltransects.Todeterminewhat(ifany)changesinstreamchannelmorphologyoccurredasaresultoftheprojectimplementation,theDCOWalsoestablishedpermanentbenchmarksforreference,andmeasuredbothelevationandstreamcurrentvelocitiesbeforeprojectimplementation.

We used pre- and post-project monitoring design to determine changes inchannelscouringanddepositionassociatedwiththestructuresaswellaswithfishpopulationchanges.Wealsodeterminedreferencehabitatconditionsoutsideoftheprojectareawerenotwarrantedforthisstudy.Comparisonsbetweenpre-andpost-microhabitatconditionsattheparticularprojectsitebecamethemeansbywhichwewouldmeasurethesuccessofthestructures.Inaddition,weregularlydocumentedtheeffectivenessofeachstructuretoremainfunctionalovertime.

Fishsamplingtookplaceinthefall.Weconductedhabitattransectsandstreammappingatthelow-flowperiodfollowingrunoff,andconductedPHABSIMmeasurementsatthreedifferentflowlevelstoencompasstherangeofflowsintheprojectarea(Bovee1982).

Wemeasuredfacetslopeofstructureboulders—aswellasmaximumandresidualpooldepthdownstreamofeachofthebouldersthatmakeupthevortexanddeflectorstructures—oncein2003.Thepurposeofcollecting

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—47

Case Study

thisdatawastodeterminewhetheranymeasurablebenefitexistedtoanglingtheslopeofthetopofindividualbouldersslightlydownstream,tomaintaineffectivescour.

Webeganthisprojectwiththefollowingassumptions: lThemonitoringtechniqueswouldbesensitivetochangesrealizedby

the project.

lFundsandpersonnelwouldbeavailablewhenneeded.

lTheSouthPlatteRiverwouldexhibittypicaldynamicflowregimesduring the monitoring efforts.

lChangesinstreamchannelmorphologyandfishpopulationdynamicscouldberelatedtotheproject.

lConsistencyinmonitoringeffortswasparamount.

lStochasticeventssuchaslandslides,unusualflooding,drought,oranthropogenicactivitieswouldnotcompromisethesuccessoftheproject.

Monitoring results and Interpretation (a) Basinwide Inventories Table1presentsasubsetofthebasinwideinventoryresultsconducted

priortoprojectimplementation.Wedesignedthistypeofinventorytoidentify limiting factors and potential project sites. We speculated that the relativelylargesizeoftheriverinthestudyareacouldmakemonitoringwiththistechniquetooimprecisetoquantifychangeswithintheentirereachfollowingprojectimplementation.However,thismonitoringdidprovidesomeinsightsonconditionsobserved.Forinstance,inarelativelylow-gradientstreamchannel(CtypesbasedonRosgen1992),wewouldexpectconsiderablemeanderingwithabundantlateralpoolformation.Insteepersteppoolsections(BorAtypes),wewouldexpectsmallerplungeorscourpoolsinterspersedwithlongerrifflesections.Ourresultsindicatedjusttheopposite,withpoolhabitatbeingmoreabundantinB-typechannels(26percent)thaninC-typechannels(19percent).GlidesaccountedformorethantwicethepercentageofareaintheCchanneltypes(45percent)thanintheBchanneltypes(22percent).

Inaddition,thepercentageofactivelyerodingstreambankswasonlyslightly higher in the C-channel types (29 percent) than the typically more stableB-channeltypes(22percent).Activelyerodingstreambanksweremostlyassociatedwiththeadjacentgravelroad.WedidnotuseReach23,whichincludedbothchanneltypes,forthisestimate.Theseresultsmadeclearthaterosionandsubsequentdepositioninlowergradientstreamhabitatshasdramaticallyalteredtheoverallcharacteristicsoftheriverin

4

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—48


thestudyreaches.Ourobservationswithinthestudyareasuggestedthattheseresultsdidindeedreflectactualconditions.

Reach Channel Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Number Type* Pools** Riffles** Glides** Eroding

23 B3/C4 18 49 33 30

24 C4 7 29 64 31

25 B2 30 44 26 24

26 C3 15 37 48 24

27 B2 23 55 22 29

28 C3 21 45 34 16

29 B2 25 56 19 17

30 C4 11 33 56 30

31 C4 41 38 21 45

Table 1—Results of the preproject basinwide inventory conducted in the Eleven-mile Canyon demonstration area.

* - Based on Rosgen 1996. **- Based on Winters, et al 1991, revised by Winters & Gallagher 1997.

(b) PHABSIM Modeling ThePHABSIMresultsreflectedanobviousbiastowardschangesonlyin

depthandvelocities.Theresultsofthejuvenilelife-stageofbothrainbowandbrowntroutindicatedamajorincreaseinweightedusablearea(WUA)afterweincludedthetransectswiththeinfluenceofthebouldersandtreeswithinthestreamchannel(datacurrentlynotavailable).However,modelingofadultrainbowandbrowntroutwiththesametechniqueresultedinadecreaseofWUAwhenweincludedthehabitattransectsinthemodel(figures3and4).

BothrainbowandbrowntroutpopulationshaveincreasedconsiderablyfollowinghabitatinstallationatthePHABSIMsite,andobservationsindicatenumerousadulttroutwithintheinfluencezoneofthestructures.Nevertheless,thePHABSIMresultedinadecreaseinbothadultrainbowandbrowntroutWUA.TheresultsofthisanalysisindicatethatthistypeofmodelingmaynotbeappropriateorsensitiveenoughtoelucidatethepotentialchangeintheappropriatehabitatmeasureasWUAundertheseconditions.Electrofishingresultsindicatethatwhilestreamvelocities,depth,andsubstratemaynothavechangedconsiderablywith

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—49

Case Study

theintroductionofthe“withhabitat”transects,thecoverprovidedbyplacementoflargetreesandbouldershasprovidedadequatecovertoattracttrout.ItwouldappearthatothertechniquesofmonitoringchangesinhabitatmaybemorecosteffectiveandsensitivethanthisPHABSIM.

Figure 3—Results of the PHABSIM modeling exercise for adult brown trout.

Figure 4—Results of the PHABSIM modeling exercise for adult rainbow trout.

(c) Transect Results We strategically placed transects to monitor the changes in stream cross-

sectional area and contour resulting from the structures in the stream. Weestablishedthesetransectsin1996,immediatelybeforeworkonthe

4

IF IM Weighted U s able Area (WU A) for Adult B rown T rout (S ummer)

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Disc ha rge

WUA (Sq. Ft.)

With Habitat Improvements Without Habitat Improvements

WU

A (

sq.

Ft.

)

IF IM Weighted U s able Area (WU A) for Adult R ainbow T rout (S ummer)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Disc ha rge

WUA (Sq. Ft.)

With Habitat Improvements Without Habitat Improvements

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—50


structures,andresurveyedthembetween1998and2000,withacompleteresurveyin2003.Transectmonitoringturnedouttobeoflimitedvalueforquantifyingthesmallgeomorphicchangesresultingfromtheproject.TransectmonitoringrevealednoticeablechangesinchannelshapeandfunctionatRiversideSite#1,whereconsiderablereshapingofthechanneloccurredthroughconstructionefforts(figure5).Atothersites,wherebouldersandtreeswereplacedinthestreamchannelandnoextensiveexcavationoccurred,wehadtolocatetransectsimmediatelyadjacenttothestructuretocapturetherelativelysmallareaswherebedcontourwasmodified.Asaresult,severaltransectsplacedbeforestructureinstallationshowedlittledetectablechange(figure6).

Figure 5—Example of a transect demonstrating obvious change in channel characteristics at Riverside Site 1 – Transect #4. [Note the post-project “spike” in elevation resulting from a tree placement on the left (approximately 34 feet), and the increased elevation resulting from a point-bar and side channel constructed on the right ( approximately 65 to 100 feet).

Weencounteredseveralproblemswhenusingtransectsformonitoringthestructures.Probablythesinglemostdifficultaspectofthisworkwasrelocatingthecross-sectionpins.Wehadestablishedtransectsusing2-foot-long3/8-inchrebarpinswithyellowsurveycapsstampedwithaU.S.DepartmentofAgricultureForestServicetag.By2003,morethan50percentofthesepinshaddisappeared,particularlyinthemorepopularrecreationareassuchasEleven-milePicnicGround(site5).Additionally,permanentbenchmarksestablishedwithcadastralsurveymarkers,were

R ivers ide S ite 1 - C ros s S ec tion #4

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

S tatio n o n X -S ec (ft)

Elevation

2003 ELEV 1996 ELEV

Ele

vatio

n

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—51

Case Study

disturbedorremoved.Whenweestablishedthetransects,weconductedhorizontalsitesurveys,measuringrangeandbearingfromthebenchmarktoeachofthetransectpins.Thisdataallowedustoreestablishmissingpins,aslongaswecouldfindoneortwoexistingpins.However,atthetimeweestablishedthetransects,wehadnoaccesstoglobalpositioningsystemequipment—anassetthatmighthavemaderelocatinglostpinsconsiderablyeasier.

Figure 6—Example of transect showing little measurable change at site 4 – Transect #2.

(d) Fish Monitoring Figure2presentstheresultsofthefishpopulationsamplingresultsforthe

twositescorrespondingtostructureplacement(Gerlich2001andSpohn2003).Theseresultsshowapositivetrendintotaltroutbiomasssinceprojectinitiationin1996fortheMiddleStationandin1998fortheHabitatStation.Whilepretreatmentsamplinginformationwouldhavebeenvaluableforcomparison,thepositivetrendfollowingtreatmentindicatesthatthegoalofimprovingtroutpopulationsisbeingmet.Inaddition,observationsduringsamplingindicatedthatlargeadulttroutwereusingthecoverthattheinstreamstructuresprovided.Habitatareasexhibitingthehomogenousconditionsassociatedwithouttreatmenttypicallyresultedinfew(ifany)adulttroutcaptured.Whilesnorkelingobservationswouldprovideabetterwayofquantifyingactualhabitatuse,theelectrofishingresults—aswellasourvisualobservationsstronglysuggestaninfluencefrom the structures.

4

S IT E 4 - C ros s S ec tion #2

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

S tatio n o n X -S ec (F t)

Elevation

2003 ELEV 1996 ELEV

Ele

vatio

n

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—52


Figure 7—Fish sampling biomass for two habitat modification sites in the Eleven-mile Canyon project area.

(e) Boulder-Facet Measurements Preliminaryanalysisofthedataindicatesthattherelativepositionof

thetopoftherocktothebankfullstageisthemorecriticalelementinmaintainingeffectivescour.However,wheretherockplacementissufficientlylow(1/2ofbankfullorless),thefacetslopeoftheindividualrocksappearedtohavesomeeffectonscourandresidualpooldepthofthehabitatimmediatelydownstream.Weknowofnoresearchofthis parameter in the literature that may aid in future construction and monitoringofrockstructures.

Photo Points In1993,whileconductingthebasinwidestreamhabitatsurveysofthe

ninereachesinEleven-mileCanyon,wetookextensivephotographsofeachhabitatunitatthedownstreamboundarieslookingupstream,andoftherightandleftbanksofeachunit.WeusedaNikonos35-millimeter

Middle S tation - C ombined B iomas s T rend Analys is

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Lbs / Acre

Middle Station Linear Regression

H abitat S tation - C ombined B iomas s T rend Analys is

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Lbs / Acre

Habitat Station Linear Regression

No SurveyConducted

in2001

Lbs

/ Acr

eLb

s / A

cre

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—53

Case Study

single-lensreflexcamerawitha35-millimeterwide-anglelensandKodakEktachrome200slidefilmforthiswork,andstoredtheslidesinarchivalslidefilefolders.Weintendtodigitizetheseimagesforelectronicstorage.

Photo-pointmonitoringoftheindividualhabitatunitsmayprovetobethemostcosteffectiveandrepeatablemonitoringtoolinthisproject.Thephotosclearlyshowbankstabilityconditions,presenceofmid-channelbars,andriparianvegetationcommunitiesatthemeso-habitatscale.Photo-pointlocationsarerelativelyeasytorelocateusingthebasinwidestreamhabitatsurveydatasheets(Winterset.al.1993)andatapeformeasuringupstreamfromthebeginningofthestreamreach.

Weneedmoretimetodeterminewhichstructuresandplacementcharacteristicsresultedinlimitedmaintenancewhileprovidingthedesiredeffects.

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs Partners: CDOW- FS – Monitoring

Electrofishingsites andConstruction ($) ($)

Constructioncost: 50,000 15,000

IFIMstudy: 10,000

Monitoringcost: 38,000 25,750

Totalcost: 88,000 50,750

Totalmonitoringcosttodate: $73,750 Totalconstructioncost: $65,000 Totalprojectcost: $138,750

For further information contact: DavidS.Winters,regionalaquaticecologist,RockyMountainRegion,

USDAForestService,740SimmsStreet,Golden,CO80401

TeresaWagner,wildlife,fishandaquaticsprogramleader,OttawaNationalForest,USDAForestService,E6248USHwy2,Ironwood,MI49938

J.PeterGallagher;forestfisherytechnician;PikesPeakRangerDistrict;PikeandSanIsabelNationalForests,ComancheandCimarronNationalGrasslands;

4

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—54


Lessons Learned lThebasinwideinventoryapproach(WintersandGallagher1997)wasanimportanttoolforestablishinglimitinghabitats,sourcesofimpacts,andinfluencestostreamhabitatstructure.However,wedonotfeelthattheapproachwassensitiveenoughtoquantifychangesatamicrohabitatscaleinariverofthisrelativelylargesize.

lThePHABSIMmodelingeffortwascostlyandinadequatefordeterminingchangesrelativetoinstreamhabitatfordifferentspeciesandlife-historychanges.Ifnotappliedcorrectly,theresultscouldbeverymisleading.

lStrategiccross-sectionalmeasurementscanbeacosteffectiveandaccuratewaytoquantifychangesinstreambedelevation.However,repeatabilityisaconcern.Crewsneedtobehighlytrainedinsurveyingtechniques,andanglerscanremovebenchmarksandsurveying“headpins.”Changesthattransecttrendsshowasminimalmayactuallybeimportanttofishpopulations.Transectplacementiscritical.

lToaccountfornaturalvariability,wemayneedtoconductsomefish-populationmonitoringforseveralyearsbeforeandafterprojectimplementation.

lAlthoughfishsamplingandcreelsurveysarerelativelyexpensive,they are important monitoring tools. Angler’s successes and opinions oftheprojectcanbevaluableindeterminingthesuccessoftheproject.

lPhotopointsareacosteffectiveandvisuallybeneficialwayofcommunicatingsuccessandfailureofvariousrestorationtechniques.

lIfgoalsaretobemet,allappropriatepartiesmustagreeuponfundingandpersonnelneedsbeforeprojectimplementation.

We intend to continue monitoring transects and facet slope scour to see if thesetoolsarebeneficialovertime.Additionally,wewouldliketodigitizeour existing collection of photo points and to repeat the photo monitoring doneduringthe1993basinwidestreamsurveys,usingdigitalphotographicequipment.CDOWplanstocontinuemonitoringtheexistingfourelectrofishingstationsfortheforeseeablefuture.Furthermore,theUSDAForestServiceisworkingwiththeCDOWareafisheriesbiologisttoestablishmeso-habitatsamplingstationsatthemiddleelectrofishingstation,wheretheagencieswillbeaddingseveralmorelargewoodstructuresinthefallof2004.Thesesamplingsiteswillconsistofwiregridsinstalledintheriversubstratebelowthetreesbeforetreeinstallation,withwireterminalsleadingtopermanentaccesspointsonthebank.

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—55

Case Study

references Cited Bovee,K.D.1982.Aguidetostreamhabitatanalysisusingtheinstreamflowincrementalmethodology.UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeInstreamFlowInformationPaperNumber12.FWS/OBS-82/26.FortCollins,Colorado:U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService.

Earthman,E.M.2001.Sustainablefishingregulations:acasestudyofElevenMileCanyon.(Master’sthesis,ColoradoCollege,DepartmentofEconomicsandBusiness,ColoradoSprings,Colorado.)

Gerlich,G.W.2001.SouthPlatteRiver–ElevenMileCanyonfisheriesmanagementreport.NERegionTechnicalReport(unnumbered).Denver,CO:ColoradoDivisionofWildlife.11pp.

Pennak,R.W.1977.Trophicvariablesinrockymountaintroutstreams.ArchivfurHydrobiologie80:253-285.

Rosgen,Dave.1996.Appliedrivermorphology.WildlandHydrology.PagosaSprings,Colorado.

Seber,G.A.F.;LeCren,E.D.1967.Estimatedpopulationparametersfromcatcheslargerelativetothepopulation.JournalofAnimalEcology.36:631-643.

Spohn,J.2003.[personalcommunication].Areafisheriesbiologist.Onfileat:ColoradoDivisionofWildlife,N.E.Region.

Winters,D.S.;Gallagher,J.P.1993.Basin-widestreamhabitatinventory:acooperativeinventoryconductedbytheUSDAForestServiceandtheColoradoDivisionofWildlife.Unnumberedinternaltechnicalreport.Pueblo,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,Pike-SanIsabelNationalForestsandCimarronandComancheNationalGrasslands.

Winters,D.S.;Bennett,E.N.;Gallagher,J.P.1991.Basin-widestreamhabitatinventory:aprotocol.Pueblo,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PikeandSanIsabelNationalForests,CimarronandComancheNationalGrasslands.30p.

Winters,D.S.;Gallagher,J.P.1997.Basin-widestreamhabitatinventory:aprotocolforthePikeandSanIsabelNationalForestsandCimarronandComancheNationalGrasslands.Pueblo,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PikeandSanIsabelNationalForestsandCimarronandComancheNationalGrasslands.42p.

4

Ele

ven

-mile

Can

yon

Dem

on

stra

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—57

Case Study 5

grande ronde river Fish Habitat restoration Project

Project overview TheGrandeRondeRiverFishHabitatRestorationProjectwasimplementedin1995ontheWallowa-WhitmanNationalForest,LaGrandeRangerDistrict,nearLaGrande,Oregon(figure1).Theprojectislocatedina3.5-milereachoftheUpperGrandeRondeRiver(UGRR),atributaryoftheColumbiaRiver.TheUGRRwatershedislocatedinNortheasternOregonwithintheBlueMountainSubprovinceoftheColumbiaRiverPlateauPhysiographicProvince.Thissubprovinceischaracterizedbybroadrollinguplandsurfacestothenorthandcomplexmountainsanddissectedvolcanicplateaustothesouth.AvarietyofrocktypesexistintheUpperGrandeRondeareawiththedominanttypebeingColumbiaRiverBasalt.Thisbasaltflowedthroughthefissuresanddikes,floodingtheareawithmanypulsesformingathicksequenceofbasalt.

Thisareaexperiencesarelativelycool,moistclimatewithashortgrowingseason and little-to-no summer precipitation. Annual precipitation averages20inchesperyearandrangesfrom15to30inches,muchofitfallingaswintersnow.Temperaturesrangefromanaveragesummerhighof80degreesFahrenheittoanaveragewinterlowof17degreesFahrenheit.Summertemperaturesfluctuatewidely,withhotdaysandcoldnights.Portionsofthedrainagearelocatedwithinsummerlightningcorridorsandmayexperiencelocalizedbrief,torrentialrainevents.Athigherelevations,frostcanoccuralmostanynightoftheyear.Wintertemperaturesremainlowforlongperiods,withconsiderablesnowaccumulation.

VariouspastmanagementactivitiesofstreamsandriparianareasinthePacificNorthwesthavereducedtheinteractionoflargewoodydebris(LWD)withstreams,simplifyingandthusdegradingaquatichabitatforthreatenedpopulationsofanadromousfish(Keimetal.1999).IntheUGRR,timberwasremovedfromtheriparianareaalongthemainstemGrandeRondeRiverandtributariesformakingrailroadgradesandbuildingroads.Becausetreesinandnearvalleybottomswereeasiertoreachandtransportthantreeslocatedfurtherupslope,fewertreeswereavailableforrecruitmentasLWDtothestreamchannel.MiningactivitiesintheUGRRtookcobbleandgravelfromthestreamchannelanddepositeditinlargetailingpilesonthebanks,destroyingexistingvegetationandreducingchancesforfuturevegetativegrowth(UGRRWatershedAnalysis1995).

Inaddition,installationofroads5100and5125constrictedlateralmovementofthestreamchannel,reducedeffectivefloodplainarea,andrestrictedinteractionsbetweenthestreamandriparianarea.Splashdamsused around the turn of the century for transporting logs resulted in high

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—58


streamenergy,therebyremovingmuch-neededsediment-retainingandhabitat-formingstructure.Moreover,inthe1970s,muchoftheLWDintheUGRRandtributarieswasremovedbecauseitwasviewedasanunsightlybarriertofishmigration(BraudrickandGrant2000).

LWDisimportantinformingmorphologyofstreamchannelsandaquatichabitat,bothlocallyandatthereachscaleinstreamswithinforestedwatersheds(Wingetal.1999).LWDinfluencesstreammorphologybydissipatingthehydraulicpowerofthestream(BeschtaandPlatts1987)toformpools(Lisle1986;Montgomeryetal.1995)storingsedimentinchannelsandcreatinggravelbars(BilbyandWard1989;Smithetal.1993b;NakamuraandSwanson1993).PhysicalhabitatstreamsurveysoftheUGRRconductedinthe1940sandrepeatedinthe1990srevealedthatpoolhabitathadreduced78percent(McIntosh1992).PoolfrequenciesforallthereachesintheUGRRwatershedarebelow7poolspermile,whichisconsideredverypoor.Thewidth-to-depthratioforallreachesintheUGRRwatershedaregreaterthan15(>10considereddesirable).Piecesofwoodydebrisperstreammilearelessthan40for(desiredfuturecondition)allreaches.Cobbleembeddednesshasalsobeenshowntobegreaterthan50percent,whichcanpotentiallybedetrimentaltospawningsalmonids.TheseconditionsidentifiedaneedtoreestablishtheaquatichabitatneededtoprotectandmaintainthethreefederallylistedfishspeciesthatoccupytheUGRR.

TheGrandeRondeRiverFishHabitatRestorationProjectproposedtocreatepoolhabitat,decreasechannelwidths,andprovidefishhidingcoverbyplacing92wholeconifertreeswithrootwadsandcrownswithnopermanentanchoringdevices(suchascableorrebar).Todeterminethelevelofchangestreamchannelsurveys,weusedphotopointsandmappedtreelocationstomeasurewhethertheprojectreachwasmeetingtheriparianmanagementobjectives(RMOs)describedinPACFISH(USDAandUSDI1994).TheRMOsaredescribedintermsofhabitatfeatures.TheobjectivesfortheUpperGrandRondeRiver(UGGR)are26poolspermile,greaterthan20piecesoflargewoodymaterial(LWM)(greaterthan12inchesdiameterbreastheightandgreaterthan35feetinlength)permile,greaterthan80-percentstablestreambanks,andwidth-to-depthratiooflessthan10.Wemonitoredpoolfrequency,amountofLWM,streambankstability,andwidth-to-depthratiosforthisproject(table1).Wemonitoredprojecteffectivenessbyaskingandansweringthefollowingquestion:“Didtheadditionofwholetreeswithrootwads,crowns,andnoanchoringintheriverbasinincreasethechannelandhabitatcomplexityforanadromousfish?”

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—59

Case Study 5

Figure 1. General location of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande Ranger District Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project.

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—60


Project Methods, design, and Monitoring TheLaGrandeRangerDistrictoftheWallowa-WhitmanNationalForest

initiatedmonitoringin1995todetermineeffectivenessofthestructuresinenhancingchannelmorphologyandassessingvegetativeresponseovertime.Toconductstreamsurveys,weusedaUSDAForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion(Region6)LevelIIIstreaminventorymethodologydevelopedfrommodifyingHankinandReeves(1988)protocol.Tomeasurechangesinchannelandhabitatconditions,wesurveyedtheentireprojectareabeforeprojectimplementationin1995,immediatelyafterprojectcompletionin1996,andagainin2003(table2).Immediatelyaftertheprojectbegan,wetaggedallthedownLWMmeetingthelargecriteria(greaterthan12inchesdiameterbreastheightandgreaterthan35feetinlength)withmetallictagsandmappedthemonaerialphotooverlays.Tomeasurethemovementandstabilityofalltaggedandrecruitedtrees,werecordedtreelocationsannuallyfor5years—usingastringboxafterprojectimplementation—andagainin2003.Tovisuallyassessvegetativeresponse,weestablishedmonumentedphotopointsat10sitesthroughouttheprojectarea.Wehaverepeatedthephotopointsannuallysince1995.

ThecriteriafordeterminingthesuccessofthisprojectwerechangesinstreamchannelmorphologyandhabitatcomparedtotheRMOssetbyPACFISH(USDAandUSDI1994).Table1displayseachparametermonitoredintheprojectarea,themethodologyused,andthemonitoringresultsrelativetotheRMOthattheparameterwasintendedtomeet.

Table 1. Channel and habitat parameters monitored, methodology used, and project success criteria.


Largewoodydebris Directmeasurements NonetlossofLWD stability andphotos inprojectarea

LargeWoodyDebris R6LevelII&III >20pieces/mileof (piecespermile) SteamHabitatSurvey LWD(>12”:>35’)

Poolfrequency(pool- R6LevelII&III RMOof26pools to-mile,pooldepth) SteamHabitatSurvey permile

Width-to-depthratio R6LevelII&III RMOwidth/depth SteamHabitatSurvey ratioof<10

Bankcover R6LevelII&III RMOof>80% (stability)% SteamHabitatSurvey stablebanks

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—61

Case Study 5

Weusedthefollowingassumptionsforthisproject: 1.Increasedhabitatcomplexitywillincreaserearingcapabilityand

ultimately increase smolt production.

2.IncreasedamountsofLWDwillcreatemorecomplexhabitatandincreasefloodplaininteractionwiththechannel.

3.Increasedriparianvegetationwillreducewidth-to-depthratios.

4.LWDaddedtothechannelwillstabilizeinthestreamsystem.TheLWDwilltrapsedimentthatwillincreasethelevelofthestreambedandraisethewatertable,andwillresultinanincreaseinripariantypevegetationthatwillhelptostabilizethestreambanks.

ThedatalimitationsinthisprojectareobserverbiasduringcollectionofstreamsurveydataandtheuseofastringboxformeasuringthemovementofLWD.Thestringboxisnotanacceptablemeasuringtoolforchannelunitlengthforseveralreasons.First,thestringassumesstraight-linepositionsbetweenpointsandassuresthateachobserverwillwalkadifferentline.Second,ifthestringisnotkepttaut,thecurrentcaneasilypulloutanunknownamountofstring.Third,thestringcanstretchintherain.Alloftheseproblemscancauseinaccuratemeasurementsoftreelocations.Amoreaccurateyetresource-demandingmethodwouldbeusingaglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)anddigitizingorinsertingthetreelocationsintoageographicalinformationsystem(GIS)layer.

Monitoring results and Interpretation Weachievedthemainobjective—addingLWMtoincreasehabitat

complexitytothelevelthattheindividualstreamattributesmetRMOs—withtheexceptionofwidth-to-depthratios(tables2and3).Thewidth-to-depthratiofortheUGRRintheprojectreachisclosetoequilibriumandshouldnotfurtherincrease,becauseoftherestrictionstothechannelimposedbythe5100and5125roads.ThereachisalsoaRosgenB-typechannel,ismoderatelyconfined,andhasanaturalwidth-to-depthratioofgreaterthan12.TheLWDadditionsmettheRMOrequirementof26poolspermile,with27poolspermile.

Bankstability,asmeasuredbypercentofbankcover,wasratedat75percent,5percent-belowthegreaterthan80-percentRMOrequirement.

EventhoughweachievedtheobjectiveofaddingLWMintheprojectreachtorestorelargewoodcomplexesandprovidehidingcoverforanadromousfish,theriverappearstobedynamic(figures2,3,4,and5).In1995,wetagged176treesintheprojectreach.In1996,wecounted181trees,meaningthat5treeswererecruitedintotheprojectreachaftera100-yearfloodevent(1996flood).In2003,wecounted110treesinthe

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—62


projectarea.Ofthe110trees,67werepartofthe176originallytagged(table4).Thesecountsresultinapproximately38piecesofLWDpermileanda40-percentnetlossofLWD(or8treesperyearlostover8years)inthisreachofstream.However,however,thisnumberstillmeetstheRMOrequirementofgreaterthan20piecesofLWMpermiletosupportanadromousfish.

TheadditionofLWDresultedinanincreaseinhabitatcomplexitysupportiveofanadromousfish.However,thenetlossofLWD(bothartificiallyandnaturallyrecruited)affirmedthedynamicnatureofstreamecosystems,showingthattheyarecontinuallychangingandmovingtowardsomedynamicequilibriumovertime.

Table 2. R6 level II stream habitat survey summary for the upper grande ronde river, including the project area.

Stream Attribute 1990 1991 1995 2003

PiecesofLWDpermile 77 16 6 38

Numberofpoolspermile 18 3 7 27

Meanpooldepth(feet) 2 2 1.7 1.9

Wettedwidth-to-depthratio 18 26 22 22

Bankcover(stability)percent 66 69 63 75

Table 3. R6 Level III stream habitat survey summary at the three sites in the project area.

Stream Attribute Site Number 1995 1996 2003

AverageStreamLength 1 2,723 2,340 1,848 (feet) 2 2,316 2,208 2,165 3 3,390 2,739 2,218 AverageStreamWidth 1 14.9 16.5 17.4 (feet) 2 14.7 20.8 16.9 3 13.9 20.4 17.3 AverageMaximumPool 1 0.82 0.93 1.97 Depth(feet) 2 0.90 1.09 1.96 3 0.76 1.07 1.90 AverageWidth-to-Depth 1 18.2 17.8 8.8 Ratio 2 16.3 19.1 8.6 3 18.3 19.1 9.1 LargeWoodyDebris 1 6 8 6 (pieces) 2 10 21 10 3 48 48 21

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—63

Case Study 5

Table 4. Results of measuring stability of tagged and recruited trees in the project area.

LWM Tree Measurements 1995 1996 2003

Totalnumberoftaggedtrees 176 136 67

Totalnumberoftrees(taggedandrecruited) 176 181 110

Figure 2. Photo point 3 in 1995 just after project implementation.

Figure 3. Photo point 3 in 1996 after a 100-year flood event.

Figure 4. Photo point 3 in 2001 after a major windstorm that increased downed LWM.

Figure 5. Photo point 3 in 2003 illustrated the lack of stability of the recruited LWM.

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—64


Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs PartnersinthismonitoringeffortincludetheOregonWatershed

EnhancementBoard(OWEB)andBonnevillePowerAdministration(BPA).TheOWEBandBPAassistedwithfundingforprojectimplementation,andLaGrandeRangerDistrictpersonnelconductedtheR6LevelIIandIIIstreamsurveys,photopointmonitoring,andtreemapping.Table5summarizesthetasksandcostsneededtocontinuecollecting,summarizing,andreportingthedataforthisproject.

Table 5. Summary of the typical annual costs for the project monitoring.


Photographs 1 1 150.00

Treemapping 2 1.5 450.00

Streamsurvey(LevelIIandIII) 3 8 3,600.00

Mapproduction 1 5 1,500.00

Dataanalysisreport 1 10 3,000.00

Total 8,700.00

Lessons Learned 1.Thiswasawell-designedandimplementedproject.Theobjectiveswerespecific,andthemethodologiesweusedtomeasurethesuccessoftheprojectwere,forthemostpart,effective.TheR6LevelIIsurveyprovidesfairlyconsistentdata,withlittleobserverbias.However,theLevelIIIsurveyisverydifficulttorepeatconsistentlyandissusceptibletoobserverbias.Thestring-boxmethodologyformeasuringtreelocationdidnotsupplyspecific,reliable,repeatabledata.Wingetal.(1999)haveshownthatmappingthetreesonoverlaysofaerialphotosandinputtingthelocationsintoGISprovidesaquantitativeapproachforexaminingmovementanddistributionofLWMinstreams.TheapplicationofGIStothisprojectwouldprovideanaccuratemethodofmeasuringstabilityandimpart export of the LWM.

2.ThestabilityoftheLWMdidnotmeetourassumptions.Althoughpotentiallyfewertreeswouldbelostifthestructureshadbeenanchored,thetreelosswasmainlyaproductofadynamicsystemattemptingtoreachequilibrium.TobetterassessthestabilityoftheLWMandthechangesoccurringovertime,weneedtocollectdatathatcomparestheamountof

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—65

Case Study 5

naturalrecruitmenttotheamountartificiallyintroduced.AnassessmentoftheconditionoftheriparianareatorecruitLWMovertimewouldincludeaninventory(mapping)oftrees,intheriparianarea,thatareoftheclasssizedefinedasLWM.Wewouldthenmonitorthesestandingrecruitsfortheircontributiontothestreamchannelovertime,inadditiontotheLWMthatwewouldimportintotheprojectreachfromupstreamlocations.

For more information, contact: TeenaBallard,fisherybiologist,LaGrandeRangerDistrict,LaGrande,

Oregon;phone:541–523–1382;e-mail:[email protected]

references Cited Beschta,R.L.;Platts,W.S.1987.Morphologicalfeaturesofsmallstreams:significanceandfunction.WaterResourcesBulletin22:369-379.

Bilby,R.E.;Ward,J.W.1989.ChangesincharacteristicsandfunctionoflargewoodydebriswithincreasingsizeofstreamsinwesternWashington.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety118:368-378.

Braudrick,C.A.;Grant,G.E.2000.Whendologsmoveinrivers?WaterResourcesResearch36:571-583.

Hankin,D.G.;Reeves,G.H.1988.Estimatingtotalfishabundanceandtotalhabitatareainsmallstreamsbasedonvisualestimationmethods.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticScience43:883-884.

Keim,R.F.;Skaugset,A.E.;Bateman,D.S.2000.DynamicsofcoarsewoodydebrisplacedinthreeOregonstreams.ForestScience46:13-22

Lisle,T.E.1986.StabilizationofagravelchannelbylargestreamsideobstructionsandbedrockbendsJacobyCreek,northwesternCalifornia.GeologicalSocietyofAmericaBulletin97:999-1011.

McIntosh,B.A.1992.HistoricalchangesinanadromousfishhabitatintheUpperGrandeRondeRiver,Oregon,1941-1990.Thesis.OregonStateUniversity.Corvallis,Oregon.

Montgomery,D.R.;Buffington,J.M.;Smith,R.D.;Schmidt,K.M.;Pess,G.1995.Poolspacinginforestchannels.WaterResourcesResearch31:1097-1105.

Nakamura,F.;Swanson,F.J.1993.EffectsofcoarsewoodydebrisonmorphologyandsedimentstorageofamountainstreamsysteminwesternOregon.EarthSurfaceProcessesandLandforms18:43.61.

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—66


Smith,R.D.;Sidle,R.C.;Porter,P.E.1993b.Effectsonbedloadtransportofexperimentalremovalofwoodydebrisfromaforest,gravel-bedstream.EarthSurfaceProcessesandLandforms.18:455-468

U.S.DepartmentofAgricultureForestServiceandU.S.Departmentofthe

InteriorBureauofLandManagement.1994.Environmentalassessmentfor the implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producingwatershedsineasternOregonandWashington,Idaho,andportionsofCalifornia(PACFISH).

U.S.DepartmentofAgricultureForestService.1994.UpperGrandeRondeWatershedAnalysis.LaGrande,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,Wallowa-WhitmanNationalForest,LaGrandeRanger District.

Wing,M.G.;Keim,R.F.;Skaugset,A.E.1999.Applyinggeostatisticstoquantifydistributionoflargewoodydebrisinstreams.ComputersandGeosciences25:801-807.

Gra

nd

e R

on

de

Riv

er F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—67

Case Study 6

Griffith Brook Structure Addition Monitoring Project

Project overview ThisisaninterimreportfortheGriffithBrookLargeWoodyDebris(LWD)restorationproject.Monitoringcontinuesandwillbereportedeveryyearofimplementation(seedetailsinreport).

GriffithBrookisatypical2ndorderuplandstreaminthesouthernpartoftheGreenMountainNationalForest(GMNF)incentralandsouthernVermont(figure1).GriffithBrookispartoftheWestRiverbasin,amajortributaryoftheUpperConnecticutRiverwatershedenteringthemainstreamConnecticutinthevicinityofBrattleboro,Vermont.MaximumelevationoftheGriffithBrookwatershedisabout2,500feet,andisabout1,600feetatthetreatmentandreferencestreamsections,withawatershedareaofabout3.7squaremiles.

Thestreambottomisdominatedbylargesubstrateelements,suchasbouldersandcobbles,andoverallhabitatclassificationcharacteristicsaresimilartosmalluplandstreamsthroughouttheGMNF(table1).Thewatershedandriparianzoneislargelyforested,withapredominanceoftypicalnorthernhardwoodsforesttypespeciessuchasAmericanbeech,sugarandredmaple,yellowbirch,ash,andeasternhemlock,withsomewhitepineandbalsamfir.Theforestissecond-growthtomatureinsuccessionalage,andsomesmalltimberharvests(lessthan30acresandnoneintheriparianzone)haveoccurredinthelastfewdecades.Althoughahard-packeddirtroadrunsparalleltothebrookformostofitslength,sedimentationimpactsappeartobeminimal,duetothelimiteduse.

Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Griffith Brook study area in the Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont.

V E R M ONT

Griffith Brook

g reen M ountain

n at ional Forest Boundary

West river Watershed

g riffith Brook

LEgEnd

NOR T H

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—68


Table 1—Rosgen Stream Classification for Griffith Brook

GriffithBrook Classification Description

ChannelType B2 Gradientaveragewithameanof2.0thatcontains dominantsubstrateoflargecobble,smallboulders,and coarsegravel.Alluvialterraceswithstable,moderately steep,sideslopesarethepredominantlandformfeatures. The channel is moderately entrenched.

OrganicDebris D3,D5 BeforehabitatrestorationGriffithBrookwasaD3.D3 Composition organicdebriscompositionscontainmixturesof small-to-mediumsizedebristhataffectslessthan10 percentofthechannel.Afterhabitatrestoration,Griffith BrookwasclassifiedasaD5.D5consistsoflargewoody debristhataffectsover30to50percentofthechannel andoftenoccupiestheentirechannelwidth.

Riparian V6,V7, Thevegetationisacombinationofadeciduoustrees Vegetation V8,V9 (V9)andconiferoustrees(V8)thathaveamid-and-low storyoflow-brushspecies(V6),inadditiontohigh-brush species(V7).Theconiferoustrees(V8)arethe predominantmeansofhabitatrestoration.

StreamSize HighS-4to S-4stream-sizechannelsarecharacterizedbya LowS-5 bankfullwidthof15to30feet.S-5,ontheotherhand, haveabankfullwidthof30to50feet.

Depositional B-4 Depositionalfeaturesobservedwerepredominantlyside Features bars.

FlowRegimen P-1 Flowisaperennialstreamchannelwithpersistent year-longsurfacewaterthathasseasonalvariationin streamflow,dominatedprimarilybysnowmeltrunoff.

MeanderPattern M1 Themeanderpatternisregular.

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—69

Case Study

ThefishcommunityisfairlytypicalforanuplandGMNFstream.Themostabundantspeciesarewildnativebrookcharr(Salvelinusfontinalis)andslimysculpin(Cottuscognatus).Threespeciesofnativecyprinids,blacknosedace(Rhinchthysatratulus),longnosedace(Rhinichthyscataractae),andcreekchub(Semotilusatromaculatus)arecommoninUtleyBrook,thereceivingstreamofGriffithBrook,andareoccasionallyfoundinGriffith.JuvenileanadromousAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)arealsofairlyabundant;thereiscurrentlynonaturalreproductionofsalmoninthebrook,andthejuvenilepopulationissupportedbystockingunfedfryderivedfromConnecticutRiverbroodstockinthespring.Weestimate(basedonpresmoltdensities)thatover100salmonsmoltsemigratefromGriffithBrookeachyear.Wildbrowntrout(Salmotrutta),whichoccurcommonlyinotherWestRivertributarystreams,werepreviouslyencounteredinfishsurveysintheearly1990sbuthavenotbeenrecordedrecently.MacroinvertebratecommunitiesaredominatedbyaquaticinsectsoftheordersEphemeroptera(mayflies),Plecoptera(stoneflies),andTrichoptera(caddisflies).WaterconductivityandpHisgenerallylow(conductivityabout20microsiemens/Liter)reflectingthecombinedinfluenceofold(Precambrian)crystallineunderlyingbedrockandacidicprecipitation,typicaloftheupperWestRiverbasin.

WeidentifiedandimplementedtheprojectwiththeobjectiveofimprovinghabitatqualityandsalmonidproductionofuplandstreamsintheGMNF.TheGMNFhasidentifiedlowlevelsofinstreamLWDresultingfromlarge-scaledeforestationafterEuropeansettlement,withconcomittantreductionsinhabitatheterogeneity,poolfrequency,andpoolareaasamajorlimitationtosystemproductivity.AsisthecaseformanyGMNFstreams,resultsofhabitatsurveysindicatedthatthefrequencyandpercentageareaofpoolhabitatinGriffithBrookfellbelowdesiredfutureconditions(DFCs)(seefollowingsection).Thisattribute,combinedwiththeavailabilityofalong-termfishpopulationmonitoringsite,madeGriffithBrookagoodcandidateforrestorationactivities.

Structure Addition and Stream Treatment Activities and Objectives: Between1993and1999,weaddedstructuresto0.75-streammilesofGriffithBrook.TheoverallgoaloftheworkwastoachieveDFCsaccordingtostandardsandguidessetforthintheGMNFForestPlan.ThespecificDFCmostrelevanttostructureadditionmonitoringconcernsresidentfish.Itstatesthat“streamsshallconsistofatleast33-percentpoolhabitatarea.”

6

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—70


Overallstructuraltreatmentobjectivesareasfollows: 1.Structuraltreatmentissuccessfullyinstalledasdesigned,durable,and

abletowithstandenvironmentalconditions(floods,icefloes,etc.).

2.Desiredhabitatandchannelmorphologyconditionsareattained(i.e.,increaseofhabitatcapabilityanddiversity)

3.Desiredfishpopulationparametersareattained(i.e.,fishrespondpositively).

From1993to1999,weadded110structuresencompassingsinglelog(10),rock/log(15),debrisjam(15),wholetree(30),andmultiplelog(40)treatments(figures2and3).Westabilizedsomestructureswithacableandgluingsystem,whilewekeyedotherlogsandtrees(stabilizedthemwithbyotherLWDpieces)ordugthemintothestreambank.Thetreatment,designedin-house,wasimplementedbyGMNFfisheriesbiologists.WebasedtheoveralldesignonobservationsofnaturalLWDinGMNFstreams,andbasedtheoverallloadingratesonguidelinessuggestedbytheworkofBilbyandLikens(1980)ondebrisjamsinHubbardBrook,NewHampshire,withanestimatedfrequencyof300LWDpiecesgreaterthan12inchesdiameterbreastheightperstreammile.Weevaluatedprojectsuccessaccordingtotheextenttowhichtreatmentobjectives1through3wereachieved(seepart2)

Figure 2. Photographs and schematic diagram of some of the LWD structures added to Griffith Brook.

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—71

Case Study

Figure 3. Photographs comparing control (left column) and treatment (right column) sections of Griffith Brook.

6

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—72


Project Methods, design, and Monitoring Severalimportantaspectsofthestructuraladditionswereandcontinue

tobemonitored,withthegoalofaddressingspecifictreatmentobjectivesinthecontextofimplementation,validation,andresearch.WedesignedmonitoringactivitiesatGriffithBrooktoevaluatestructureadditionsattwospatialscales:toassesssite-specificeffects,andtouseGriffithBrookresults as a replicate for across-project analyses of structure effects on the GMNF.

Treatment Objective 1: Structural treatment is successfully installed as designed,durable,andabletowithstandenvironmentalconditions(floods,icefloes,etc.).Wemonitoredstructuralintegrity,durability,andlongevityannuallythroughphotoandobservationaldocumentation.

Treatment Objective 2:Desiredhabitatandchannelmorphologyconditionsareattained(increasehabitatcapabilityanddiversity).Weusedseveralmethodstomeasuretheresponseofstreamhabitat.OurprimarymethodwasHankin-Reevessurveysconductedbeforeandafterstructureaddition in treatment and reference sites. We recorded channel unit frequency,dimensions,andspatialarrangement,aswellasotherimportanthabitatcharacteristicsspecifiedinForestPlanStandardsandGuides.Inaddition,weusedRosgenchanneltyping,whichincorporatesadditionalchannelandvalleydimensions,aswellasriparianconditions.

Treatment Objective 3:Desiredfishpopulationparametersareattained(i.e.,fishrespondpositively).Wesampledpopulationsofsalmonidfishesannuallyorsemiannuallybeforeandafterstructureaddition.Samplinginvolvedmultiplepassremovalswithabackpackelectroshockerusingblockingnetstorestrictimmigrationandemigration.Weidentified(astospecies),weighed,andmeasuredallindividualscaptured,thenreturnedthemtothestream.In2003,inadditiontosalmonids,wesampledalloccurringfishspecies.

Thesemonitoringeffortshavesomeimportantlimitationsandassumptions.Fishsurveysassumethatgreaterabundancesoffishinassociationwithstructureadditionsimpliesanimprovementinhabitatconditionsandincreasedfishgrowthandsurvival,notmerelyredistributionoffishes.Inaddition,severalimportantbioticandabioticcharacteristicsofthesystem(substrategrainsizedistribution,macroinvertebrateabundanceandcommunitystructure,andabundance)werenotmonitoredbeforestructureaddition.

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—73

Case Study

Monitoring results and Interpretations Treatment Objective 1—Implementation and Stability:Structureshave

generallybeenextremelystable,withstandingannualicebreakupandamajoricejamandscoureventduringthewinterof1999.(Thelowprofilenatureofthestructureinstallationallowstheice,whichgenerallymovesduringahighwater/stageevent,toflowoverthestructureswithminimaldamage.)

Structurestability,alongwiththeintensityoftreatment,resultedinthemaintenance of high LWD loadings in the treatment sections. While LWDloadings(piecesper100feetofstream)increasedovertimeinthereferencestreamsection(fromlessthan2togreaterthan4pieces,loadingsinthetreatmentsectionsincreasedbymorethantwice(lessthan1togreaterthan10piecesper100feet)(figure1).LWDincreaseditsinfluenceoverthechannelfrom10percentofchannelinfluencedtogreaterthan40percent(table1)inthetreatmentsection.Thesechangesareontheorderof,butonthehighsideof,overallchangesinLWDoverthe10streamrestorationsitesimplementedintheGMNF(NislowandRoy,unpublishedreport).

Treatment Objective 2—Habitat: Structure addition resulted in a significantchangeininstreamhabitatconditionsinGriffithBrook.Thesechangesweremostapparentwithrespecttopoolhabitat.Whiletotalpoolareaincreasedinbothtreatmentandreferencesections,thechangewassignificantlygreaterinthetreatmentsection,wherepoolarea increased from less than 10 percent of the section to greater than 35percent,andmettheDFCforpoolhabitat(greaterthan33percent)(figure4).Poolfrequency(numberofpoolsper100feetofstream)alsoincreasedsignificantlyinthetreatmentsection,whileremainingessentiallyunchanged in the reference section. These increases in pool area and frequencyinGriffithBrookareinlinewithincreasesobservedacrossthereferenceandtreatmentsitesintheGMNF.

Figure 4. Changes in LWD, percentage pool habitat, and pool frequency in treatment and control sites in Griffith Brook after LWD structure addition to the treatment site.

6

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—74


Treatment Objective 3 — Effects on fish populations: Structure addition wasassociatedwithincreasedsalmonidabundanceinGriffithBrook(figure2).In2003,biomassofbrooktroutinbothtreatmentsections(211and176gramsperunit(1unit=100squaremetersofstreamhabitat))wasmorethanthreetimesthebiomassobservedinthereferencesection(53gramsperunit).Atlanticsalmonbiomasswaslowerthantroutbiomassinallsectionsandwasslightlygreaterinthereferencesection(43gramsper unit) than in the treatment sections (32 and 30 grams per unit). As aresult,totalsalmonidbiomass(brooktroutandsalmoncombined)intreatmentsections(208and239gramsperunit)wasmorethantwicethatobservedinthereferencesection(96gramsperunit).Resultsofthewholecommunitysurveyweconductedin2003wereinconclusivebecauseofhighflowconditionsandpoordepletionestimates.

Resultsoffishpopulationmonitoringarelargelyconsistentwithlong-termtrendsinGriffithBrook,andwithacross-sitedifferencesbetweenLWDadditionandreferencesitesacrosstheGMNF.BrooktroutbiomassinGriffithBrookincreasedafterLWDadditionin1995totheintensively-monitoredtreatmentsite,whileshowingnotrendinthereferencesite(figure2).Atlanticsalmonbiomassdeclinedovertimeinthereferencesectionbutshowednodeclineinthetreatmentsite(figure2).AcrosssitesintheGMNF,totalsalmonidbiomassincreasedabout20-percentmoreintreatment sites than in reference sites.

Figure 5. Salmonid biomass (grams per 100 square meters of stream habitat) in reference section and treatment section over time. Stippled bars indicate the date of structure addition to the treatment section (Fall 1995).

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—75

Case Study

AdditionofLWDstructurestoGriffithBrookfulfilledawiderangeofmanagementandresearchobjectives.Weinstalledstructuresbothpromptlyandcosteffectively,andachievedDFCsforbothhabitat(increasedpoolhabitatareatogreaterthan33percent)andecologicalgoals(positiveresponseofsalmonidabundance).GiventheextentofmonitoringalreadyaccomplishedatGriffithBrook,andtherelationshipbetweenthissiteandthenetworkofstructure-additionsitesthroughouttheGMNF,futureeffortsshouldcontinuetoinformboththemanagementandresearchcommunitiesontwopoints:theroleofLWDinforestedlandsintheNewEnglandregion,andthemosteffectivelocation-appropriatetechniquesforrestoringandenhancingstreamhabitats.

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs Buildingonourknowledgebasefrompreviousandcurrentmonitoring

efforts,weplantoextendassessmentofLWDstructureadditionsalongseveraldifferentlines.RecognizingthatthewayinwhichLWDinfluencesthetransport,spatialdistribution,andgrainsizeoffluvialsedimentsisamajordeterminantofhabitatandbioticresponse,weplanonmonitoringsedimentprocessesinGriffithBrookandotherLWDadditionsitesintheGMNF.Wealsoplantoexpandourmonitoringofotherecosystemattributesincludinghydrologicretention,waterchemistry,leaflitterdynamics,primaryproduction,andsecondaryproduction(invertebrates).Finally,weareconstructingandtestingamodelforLWDloadingtonortheasternuplandstreams,andanalyzinglarge-scaleLWDsurveysconductedoverhundredsofkilometersofGMNFstreams.Predictionsfromthismodel,alongwithsurveydata,willallowustoplaceLWDloadingsachievedviastructureadditioninthecontextofcurrentandpredictedconditions(givenalternativemanagementscenarios).BothcurrentandfuturemonitoringeffortswilltakeplacethroughthepartnershipofGMNFandtheUSDAForestServiceNortheasternResearchStation.Inthispartnership,theresearchstation’sroleistoanalyzedatafromlong-termmonitoringandsurveyeffortsontheGMNF,constructandtestappropriatemodels(incooperationwithGMNF),andprovidefeedbackonmanagementactivities.Costsofmonitoringuptothispoint—includingannualfishpopulationcensuses,semi-annualhabitatassessments,andresearchactivities—areabout$2,000peryear.

Lessons Learned EvaluationofmonitoringactivitiesassociatedwithlargestructureadditionatGriffithBrooktaughtsomeimportantlessons.Commontoanumberofstructureadditionmonitoringprojects,withlimitedavailabilityofpre-additiondata.Thislimitationstronglyconstrainsourabilitytoassesstheimpactsoflargestructureadditiononanumberofimportantstreamecosystemcharacteristics,particularlythosethatexhibithighnaturalvariability(e.g.,streamfishpopulationabundances).Thepotential

6

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

3—76


advantagesofonestrategyfordealingwiththisissue,placingstructureadditionprojectsinthecontextoflong-termmonitoring—mustbeweighedagainstthepossibledisadvantagesofcompromisinglong-termdatasets.Thisissue,whichisalsorelevanttohabitatresponse,reinforcestheimportanceofappropriatespatialcontrols—becauseLWDloads,poolarea,andpoolhabitatfrequencyallincreasedinthespatial-controlsiteoverthecourseofthestudy.

For further information, contact: KeithH.Nislow,researchfisherybiologist,USDAForestService,

NortheasternResearchStation,Amherst,MA01003

SteveRoy,fisherybiologistandFishTeamLeader,USDAForestService,GreenMountainandFingerLakesNationalForest,Rutland,VT07301

ScottWixsom,fisheriestechnician,USDAForestService,GreenMountainNationalForest,ManchesterCenter,VT05255

DanaJedlicka,graduateresearchassistant,DepartmentofNaturalResourcesConservation,UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst,MA01003

Gri

ffith

Bro

ok

Str

uct

ure

Ad

dit

ion

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

ject

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


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


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


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


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


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


Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs TheUSDAForestServicefundedandconductedallmonitoringforthis

project.

ThefollowingtablesummarizesthetypicalannualcostsfortheUSDAForestServicemonitoringofthisproject:


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


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:[email protected]

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

3—89

Case Study 8

north Fork nooksack river In-channel Project

Project overview TheNorthForkNooksackIn-channelprojectwasdevelopedcooperativelybetweentheUSDAForestServiceandtheNooksackSalmonEnhancementAssociation(NSEA),withtheobjectivesof(1)decreasingegg-to-frylossofnativechinook,coho,cutthroat,pink,sockeye,steelhead,andcharduetoreddscourand(2)decreasingfrequencyofdewateringofside-channels,whichareareascontainingvaluablespawningandrearinghabitat.The3-mileprojectreachmarkstheuppermost extent of anadromous use and consistently sees a high amount ofusebyspawningNorthForkNooksackRiversalmon.ThereachisalsousedextensivelyforstockenhancementintheNooksackChinooksalmonrecoveryprogram.TheNorthForkIn-channelProjectwascompletedintwophasesinthesummersof2003and2004.Itconsistsof36logjams(9smallunballastedand27largeballastedstructures)throughthe3-milereach(figure1).TheLummiIndianNation’sNaturalResourcesDepartment(LNR)hasbeenworkingwiththeUSDAForestServicetomonitorthehabitateffectsoftheproject,whileNSEAhascompletedtopographicsurveysthroughthereachtohelpcharacterizethegeomorphicresponse of the channel to the structures.

Weexpectthatdifferentiatingtheriverresponsetotheprojectfromthenaturalrangeofconditionswilltakelong-termmonitoring.Thisreportrepresentsonlythefirstyearofpost-constructionmonitoring.Theprojectreliesonthedynamicthatexistsbetweenriparianforest,woodrecruitment,andwoodjamsintheNorthForkNooksack.Thisprojectisthefirststageinrestoringaself-sustainingdynamicrivermorphologyandhabitattoaforestedfloodplainriver.Thefollowingmonitoringresultsonlyaddressthefirststageof“riverdevelopmentsuccession,”hasteningwoodcollectionandbardevelopment.Oncethebarsbecomemorestable,vegetationcolonizationofbarscanbegin.Establishedvegetationisexpectedwithin3years,includingeffectivevegetationfilteringoffloatingwoodduringfloodevents.Finally,continuedvegetationandwoodcollectionwillleadtoperiodicalchannelblockageandresultantshiftingintooverflowchannelswithaprojected25-percentincreaseinreconnectedfloodplainchannels.

Eachofthesedevelopmentstakestime.Thissystemaveragesa4-yearadjustmentperiodfrommajorstormsduetolimitedstabilizingelementslikelargewoodypieces.Sixmajorevents(greaterthan10-yearreturninterval)haveoccurredsince1989,andstormsofthissizearethetriggerforthelargersedimentpulsesandwoodrecruitment(USDAForestService1995).SincethestormofrecordfortheNorthForkNooksackoccurredin2003,weprojectthatitwillbe2007whenthetellingresultsandconclusionscanbemade.Weexpectthatthesechangesinhabitat-

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—90


formingprocesseswillleadtoreducedscourofreddsandmorestableside-channelhabitat.Abasin-widereportonreddscourintheNooksackBasinfoundreddscourtobegreatestinmain-stemandbraidedreaches,anditsuggestedusingwoodtostabilizebarsandincreasesidechannelhabitatasameansofreducingreddscourandlimitingthedewateringofsidechannels(HyattandRabang2003).

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring Thebasicdesignformonitoringtheresultsofthismultiyearstructure-

placementprojectwastocomparefishhabitatchangesbetweenthepre-andpost-projectconditions.First,weusedafive-levelhierarchicalhabitatclassificationsystem(basedonmodificationsofthehabitatclassificationsystemdescribedbyHawkinsetal.1993)todescribehabitatinthereach.Thefirst-levelclassificationidentifiedthechanneltypesasmainchannel,braidedchannel,orsidechannel,whilelevels2through4classifythemaingeomorphicunits(pools,riffles)ofthechannel.Forlevel2,thewaterisclassifiedasfastorslowmoving.Level3furtherseparatesthesetwoclassesasturbulentornonturbulentfastwater,andscourpoolordammedpool.Level4dividesthesegroupsfurther.Forexample,turbulentrifflescanbeclassifiedasfalls,cascades,rapids,riffle,orchute;andscourpoolscanbeclassifiedaseddy,lateral,midchannel,trench,convergence,orplunge.Weclassifiedbankconditionsbyresistancetochannelmigration,eitherbedrock,boulder,orarmored.Ifthebanksfellinnoneofthosecategories,weclassifiedthembytheriparianstandcharacteristics(DuckCreekAssociates2000).

Second,foreachhabitatwemeasuredunit,length,width,maximumandaveragedepth,bankangle,vegetationoverhang,undercutbanks,lengthandwidthofavailablecover,anddominant/subdominantsubstrateweremeasured.Wemeasureddepthwithastadiarodandrecordedittothenearest0.1meter.Tocharacterizethebankangle,wemeasuredthedistancefromthetoeofthebedtothewateredge(measuredhorizontallyalongthewatersurface)andthedepthofthewateratthetoe.Forexample,aperfectlyflat(horizontal)bankwouldbe0degreesandaverticalbankwouldbe90degrees.Undercutbankswouldhavebankanglevaluesofgreaterthan90degrees.Wemeasuredvegetationoverhangwithastadiarodandincludedonlyvegetationwithin300millimeters(1foot)ofthewatersurface.Weestimatedeachcovercomponentbasedonlengthandaveragewidth,or(inthecaseofsubstrate)asapercentageoftheentirehabitatunit.

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—91

Case Study

Figure 1. General location of the North Fork Nooksack in-stream project.

Third,wemappedlargewoodydebrisaslogjamsandkey-sizedpieces.Sincethebankfullwidthofthechannelwasgreaterthan20meters(65feet),wedefinedakey-sizedpieceasgreaterthan9cubicmeters(11.7cubicyards)involume(WashingtonForestPracticesBoard[WFPB]1997).Inthisassessment,the“key-sized”designationdoesnotindicatethesizeforasinglepieceofwoodtobestableinthechannel.Instead,itrepresentsthesizeofwoodbeingcontributedbytheapproximately500-year-oldriparianstandsthatexistintwolocationsinthereach.Forwoodaccumulations,welocatedeachlogjamanddescribedanygeomorphicorhabitateffects.Thegeomorphicandhabitateffectsincludedthefollowing:

lsplitlowflow:Thelogjamwasactivelysplittingflowaroundorthroughitduringlow-flowconditions.

lsplitbankfullflow:Thelogjamwouldbesplittingflowwhenthestagewasapproachingbankfull.

lchanneldeflection:Thelogjamwasactivelyturningordeflectingthechannelatlowflow.

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—92


lsedimentstorage:Theevidenceshowedthatthechannelslowedvelocityanddepositedsedimentadjacenttothelogjam.

lpoolformation:Theevidenceshowedscouradjacenttothestructure.

lcover:Thelogjamwasprovidinghidingcoverforjuvenilesduringlow-flowconditions.

Weestimatedthestabilityofthelogjamfromindicatorssuchaspersistentvegetation,effectsonthechannel,andpersistenceofthestructureonaerialphotos.Weindependentlyidentifiedanddescribedanykey-sizedpiecesassociatedwiththelogjams.Themainlimitationofthemappingwasthatsmallerpiecesofdriftwerenotcharacterized.Therefore,wecouldnotcharacterizethetotalvolumeofwoodinthereach.

Monitoring results and Interpretation Project Reach Changes Althoughthereachhasanaverageslopeof0.008,thisslopevaries

considerablywithinthereachfrom0.005to0.02(Indrebo1998;GeoEngineers,Inc.2001).Theactivechannelwidthvariesfromapproximately50feet,whereitisconfinedbetweenbedrockwalls,tomorethan650feet,whereitisoftenbraidedorhasvegetatedislandssplittingthechannel.Thechannelisdominatedbyriffle-poolmorphology,withsubstrate,vegetation,andwoodydebrisformingthedominantroughnesselements,dependingonthedegreeofchannelconfinement.Weestimatedthebankfulland2-yearreturnintervalsforthedischargeinthereachat4,400cubicfeetpersecondforthebankfullintervaland6,000cubicfeetpersecondforthe2-yearreturn(Indrebo1998,GeoEngineers,Inc.2001).Sinceconstruction,theprojecthasbeensubjectedtoseveralflowsgreaterthanbankfullstage,whichoccurredinmid-October2003.AlthoughaU.S.DepartmentoftheInteriorU.S.GeologicSurveygaugeatroadmarker63andwithintheprojectreachwasnotreporting,theflowwasestimatedtohavebeenapproximately14,000cubicfeetpersecond,withasecondarypeak5dayslaterofover12,000cubicfeetpersecond(GaryKetcheson,U.S.ForestService,personalcommunication,May2004).Thesewerethelargestfloodssincethegaugebeganoperationin1937,andbothofthesepeakswereestimatedtohavebeengreaterthanthe100-yearfloodlevel.Thefloodappearstohavehadonlyamodestimpactonthechannelplanform,largelyintheunconfinedsectionsoftheprojectreach.Intheseareas,meanderbendshavemigratedslightlydownvalley,orsedimentdepositionhasledtobraidingofthechannel.Inothersectionsofthereach,thechannelappearstohaveincisedandnarrowedduringtheflood.

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—93

Case Study

Fish Habitat-forming Processes—Sediment Production and Transport Intheprojectreach,sedimentissuppliedfromtributarieswithinthe

reachandasbedloadtransportedfromupstream.Acomparisonofaerialphotos,conductedbyGeoEngineers,Inc.(2001),indicatestheoccurrenceoffrequentfluctuationsinchannelwidth—episodesofacceleratedlateralmigration,bankerosionandchannelavulsion(theremovalofapieceofland from one property onto another as a result of a shift in the course of aboundarystream).TheNorthForkWatershedAnalysis(USDAForestService1995)foundarelationshipbetweenchannelwideningandfloodoccurrenceintheresponse(lowergradientandunconfined)reachesoftheNorthForkNooksack.

Evidenceofpastperiodsofaggradationandincisionarepresentinthenumerousterraceswithinthemoreconfinedportionsofthereach,alongwithin-situstumps(exposedinthechannel)thatrepresentaforestthatwasburiedinsedimentandisnowbeingexhumedbythechannel.Somecharredstumpsareattributedtothevastforestfiresthatburnedintheregion(R.Nichols,USDAForestService,personalcommunication,May2002).Severallargeprehistoricfireshavebeendocumentednearthereachincludinglargefiresin1300,1500,and1700(USDAForestService1995).Inonecase,nearly15feetdifferentiatethecharredstumpsintheactivechannelandtheyoungerstumpsonanadjacentterrace.Whenviewedincontextwithoneanother,theseobservationssuggestthattheobservedchannelinstabilityisaresultofepisodicsedimentdepositionandchannelaggradation,followedbyerosion,incision,andchannelmigration(GeoEngineers,Inc.2001).

Theestimatedstreampower(theslope-dischargeproduct)forthisreachisroughly1/4thatoftheupstreamreach,indicatinganabruptreductionintransportcapacity(GeoEngineers,Inc.2001).Therefore,largesedimentpulsesgeneratedfromtributariesupstreamaretransportedintosectionsoftheprojectreachanddeposited,wheretheyaretemporarilystoredastheymoveslowlythroughthereach.Thesesectionsaregenerallytheunconfinedareaswherethechannelisfreetorespondtothesedimentbyaggradation,channelmigration,andbraiding.Intheseareas,thechannelisgenerallybetterconnectedtothefloodplainthanarethemoreconfinedreaches,andwooderodedfromthebanksremainsmorestableinsidechannelsandongravelbars.Intheseresponseareas,thehabitatismostdiverseandthegravelmostsuitableforspawning.Habitatmappingshowedsecondarychanneldevelopmentoccurringprimarilyintheseareas.Whilethesecondarychannelsappearedtobemoreephemeral,thegravel-dominatedsubstrateintheseareaswasmuchmoresuitableforspawningthanmainchannelhabitatunits(figure2).

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—94


Figure 2: Substrate difference between secondary and main-stem channel types in 2004.

Sincetheprimaryobjectiveoftheprojectwastodecreaseegg-to-frylossofnativesalmonidspeciesduetomainchannelscouranddewateringofsidechannels,theprojectwilllikelyneedtochangelocalscouranddeposition through the reach in places that maintain multiple channels. Increasingtheflowresistanceinthereachbyaddingstableaccumulationsofwoodcanslowthewatervelocity,leadtosedimentdeposition,andcauselocalscourwherethestructureconstrictstheflow.Theincreaseinwood(associatedwiththeproject)inthemoreconfinedreacheshaslikelyincreasedflowresistancefortheseareas,andinmanycases,localeffectsoftheengineeredlogjamsonthechannelwereevident.Weidentifiedlocalsedimentstorageassociatedwiththeman-madestructuresfor16ofthe26logjams,and,localscourfor13ofthe26logjams.Butweidentifiedonly26oftheoriginal36structuresafterthefloodevent.Incaseswheremultiple-engineeredstructureswerecoveredinaccumulateddebrisordepositedtogether,weidentifiedandmappedthemasonestructure.

Fish Habitat-forming Processes—Channel Migration and Wood Recruitment

Bankconditionsnaturallyinhibitwoodrecruitmentinsectionsofthereach.Insectionswherethebankscompriselargeboulderdepositsorbedrock,channelmigrationisslowedorhaltedandthemodeof

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—95

Case Study

recruitmentisdominatedbyslopefailureandwind-throw,ratherthanbychannelprocesses.Thisleavesapproximately64percentofthechannellengthasareasinwhichrecruitmentfromchannelmigrationprocessescanoccur(table1).Intheseareas,weclassifiedtherecruitmentpotentialaccordingtostandtype,size,anddensity(DuckCreekAssociates2000).Wedefinedhighwoodrecruitmentpotentialasstandsthatweredense(lessthan1/3exposedground)andeitherconifer-dominatedormixed,withtreesgreaterthan12inchesindiameter(WashingtonStateForestPracticesBoard1997).Sincethe“high”designationrequiresonlya12-inch-diametertree,thesestandsdonotnecessarilyreflectthesizeneededforstablelargewoodydebris.Onlyabout1/3ofthe“highrecruitment”length(about3,280feet)comprisesstandsthatgeneratethesizeofwoodmappedinthechannel.Fromthisclassification,wedesignated34percentoftheriparianlengthas“low”or“moderate.”Thisdesignationislargelytheresultoffloodsandpasttimberpracticeswheretheriparianareaswereharvested.Withprotectionoftheriparianareas,weexpectthatthestandsshouldreach“high”statusfairlyrapidly—dependingonsiteconditions.Thistimelagmaybeimportant,becausetheriverwillrelyonthelimitedamountofcurrent“high”recruitmentareauntiltheregeneratingareasfullyrecover.Oncetheseareasrecover,themorestablein-channelwoodshouldrapidlyincreaseinthewidersectionsofthevalley.Themoreconfinedsectionswilllikelycontinuetobedominatedbywoodtransportand temporary storage.

Table 1: Bank condition and wood recruitment potential of the project reach.

Banks Length (feet) Percent

Armored 2,950 9

Bedrock 4,310 13

NaturalBoulder 4,720 14

HighRecruitment 10,100 30

ModerateRecruitment 3,720 11

LowRecruitment 7,500 23

Beforeconstruction,key-sizedpiecedistributionandhabitatcreationinthereachappearedtostronglyreflectbankconditions.Thehighestdensityoflargepieceswasinanunconfinedsectionofthereachimmediatelyadjacenttoasourceoflargediametertrees.Thecombinationoflarge-diameterriparianforest,unconfinedchannel,andunarmoredbanksmakethissectionanaturalplaceforlargewoodtohavealongerresidencetimeintheactivechannelandprovideimportanthabitatfunctions,suchas

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—96


complexcoverandpool-formation.Inaddition,becausethisreachisalessconfinedandlowerenergyreach,secondarychannelscandevelopandsubstrateisbettersuitedtospawningthaninthehigher-energysections.Inthemoreconfinedsectionsofthereach,poolformationisdominatedbyboulderbanksandbedrock,whileintheunconfinedreach,poolformationwasdominatedbywood.Evenundertheseconditions,muchofthelargewoodwastransporteddownstreamduringtheOctoberflood,somepiecesasfaras4,000feet(R.Nichols,USDAForestService,personalcommunication).Followingconstruction,thisunconfinedsectionofthereachstillhadthehighestdensityofkey-sizedpieces.However,sectionsmoreconfinedandsectionsthatlackedrecruitmentpotentialsawanincreaseinkey-sizedpieces,becauseofstructuressitedinthosesections.

Channelmigrationandwoodrecruitmentthroughthereachislargelyunimpededbyhumaninfluences.TheMountBakerHighwayliesontheboundaryofthemigrationzoneonthenorthside,andaUSDAForestServiceroadliesonthesouthernboundaryofthemigrationzone(GeoEngineers,Inc.2001).Bothoftheseroadshavearmoredsectionswheretheriverhasmigratedtotheroad.Theselocationshaveonlyaminoreffectonhabitatformationandprovidelittlebenefitforin-streamhabitat.Oneofthesevenmainchannelpoolsmappedin2004wasattributedtobankprotection.However,inthiscase,itwasaseriesoflogscabledtogetherbetweenrockdeflectorstoprotecttheUSDAForestServiceroad.Becausemuchoftheprojectreachhasnaturalbankscomprisedoflargeboulders,therockbankprotectionprojectsareconsistentwithnaturalbankconditionsbutlackthestreamsidevegetationthatcharacterizethenaturalboulderbanks.

Fish Habitat-forming Processes—Large Woody Debris Largewoodydebrisprovidesimportantfunctionstothechannelthrough

sectionsoftheprojectreach.Thepreprojectdistributionofinstreamwoodstronglyreflectedthechannelbankfullwidthandentrenchment,aswellastheproximitytorecruitmentareas.Formuchofitslength,theprojectreachhasnorecruitmentfrombankerosion,becauseofbedrockoutcrop,boulderlagdeposits,orbankprotection.About37percentoftheleftbankand46percentoftherightbankdonotactivelycontributewoodtothechannel,exceptthroughwind-throworlandslides.Beforetheproject,thewoodintheactivechannelareawaslargelylocatedimmediatelyadjacenttorecruitmentareasintheunconfinedreaches.Oncethewoodistransportedfromtheunconfinedareastothemoreconfinedareas,itislikelytoberapidlymoveddownstreamtothenextunconfinedarea,whereit has a longer residence time.

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—97

Case Study

InFebruary2002andMarch2004,wemappedkey-sizedpiecesofwoodthroughouttheprojectreach.Weidentifiedkey-sizedpiecesasthosegreaterthan9cubicmeters(11.7cubicyards)involume(WFPB1997).Beforeconstruction,woodsizeappearedtohavelesstodowithstabilityandfunctionthanthechannelcharacteristicsandthepositionofthewoodinthechannel.Stablepiecesrangedinsizefrom2feetto6.1feetindiameter,asizesimilartounstablepieces(2feetto5.2feetindiameter).Ofthepiecesidentifiedasstable,nearlyallwerelocatedinthebraidedreachesoftheriver.Inaddition,ofthose38piecesweidentifiedashavingapool-formingfunction,only6occurredinasinglethreadmain-stemchannel.Allotherswerefunctioninginbraidedchannelsorsidechannels.Thisobservationfurthersuggeststhatthewoodisbeingmovedmorequicklythroughtheconfinedareasanddepositedintheunconfinedreaches,whereitfunctionstoprovidehabitat.Oncethewoodisdepositedintheunconfinedareas,itmayfurthercontributetocreatingbarsandsplittingtheactivechannelintoabraidedoranastomosingsystem.

Afterconstruction,thedistributionofkey-sizedpiecesinsectionsoftheprojectareachanged.Theprojectwhichfocusedonincreasingtheresidencetimeofthewooddriftintherivertreatedthemoreconfinedportionsoftheprojectreach.Thefurthestdownstreamsectionsawadramaticincreaseintheamountofkey-sizedpiecesafterconstruction.Abouthalfthekey-sizedpiecesidentifiedinthereachin2004wererelatedtotheproject.Theriverdepositedtheotherhalf.Asidefromthisincreaseintheamountofkey-sizedpiecesinthefurthestdownstreamsection,theunconfinedareasstillcontainedthehighestwooddensity.

Beforeconstruction,twogeneraltypesofaccumulationsoccurredinthereach:Logjamsformedviastabilizeddriftmovingthroughthesystem,andlogjamsformedin-situwheretheriverhasmigratedintoaforestedterraceorfloodplain.Thissecondgroupoflogjamstendedtoformintheunconfinedreaches,whereterracesandawiderfloodplainexist.Inareaswithnolocalsourceforrecruitment,onlylogjamsformedbydepositionandstabilizationofdriftoccur.

Logjamsprovideavarietyoffunctionstothechannelinthereach,includingchanneldeflection,channelaggradation,poolformation,coverforfish,andbankprotection.Ingeneral,thein-situlogjamsprovidedbankstabilityanddeflectedflowawayfromthebanks—inseveralcasesmeteringflowintosidechannelsbehindthelogjams.Insomereaches,wherestumpsarebeingexhumedinthechannel,thedrift-formedlogjamsareoftenformedbymobilewoodrackinguponthestumps.Theselogjams

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—98


arestableatlowflows,butasthestageincreases,woodbuoyancytendstoliftthedriftoffthestumpsandallowittocontinuedownstream.Oneaccumulationwasassociatedwithabankprotectionproject,wherelargelogsarecabledintothechannel.ThisprojecthasbeensuccessfulincausingsomeaggradationalongthebankandisprovidingprotectionfortheUSDAForestServiceroadwhileprovidingcoverforfish.

Afterconstruction,thenumberoflogjamsintheprojectreachincreasedsubstantially.Ofthe42logjamsinthereachaftertheflood,26wereengineeredstructures.Fiveofthe27largeengineeredstructuresmovedorcameapartintheflood,andwemappedtheseas“engineered”iftheywerestillcabledtogetherandfunctioningasaunit.Theyseremappedas“natural”iftheyhadcomeapartandwerefunctioningmoreasanaturallogjam.MostofthemanmadeandnaturallogjamsthatsurvivedtheOctoberfloodappearedtobestable,with88percentofthenaturallogjamsand96percentoftheengineeredlogjamsshowingstability.

Thebigdifferencebetweentheman-madeandnaturallogjamswasinthelocalgeomorphicandhabitatvaluesassociatedwiththestructure.Thesevaluesdependonthestageoftheriver(table2).Evidently,thenaturallogjamshadamuchgreaterimpactonhabitatfunctionthantheconstructedlogjams,aneffectthatcouldberelatedtothedifferentchannel position of the man-made and natural logjams. Most of the natural logjamswereatthesameelevationastheactivechannel,whilemanyoftheengineeredstructuresweresitedhighonterracesadjacenttotheactivechannel,withtheintentofcapturingdriftduringfloodstage.Manyofthosestructuresthatwereintheactivechannelareainconfinedreachesoftheriverweremoveddownstreamtomoreunconfinedreaches.Ifthesestructurescameapartduringtransport,thenweclassifiedthemasnaturallogjamsandattributedtheirhabitatvaluestonaturalaccumulations.

Table 2: Comparison of habitat functions provided by natural and man-made logjams in the project reach.

Type(count) Percentage of Logjams Providing Function

Split Low Split Channel Sediment Pool Cover Flow Bankfull Deflection Storage Formation

Natural(16) 25 56 38 63 63 75

Manmade(26) 4 46 0 62 50 62

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—99

Case Study

Fish Habitat—Habitat Distribution and Character Geologyprovidesastrongcontrolonhabitatformationintheproject

reach.Inareaswherethevalleybottomiswide,thechannelisabletomigrateandavulseacrossthefloodplain,recruitingwoodasitmovesandcreatingmultiplechannelsthatincreasethediversityoffishhabitatinthereach.Inthesereaches,localaccumulationsofwoodappearveryimportantforgravelsortingandscour.Inmoreconfinedreaches,thechannelrespondsthroughchannelaggradationandincision,formingandmaintaininghabitatthroughinteractionoftheriverwiththebedrockorlargebouldersthatcomprisethevalleywalls.

Wechosethelow-flowperiodforhabitatmapping,becausetheseconditionsshouldrepresenttheminimumaccessiblehabitatareaforthereach.Thedischargein2002was233,288,289,and540cubicfeetpersecondduring4daysofmapping,whilein2004thedischargewas362,438,409,and431cubicfeetpersecond,whichwasrepresentativeoftheaveragemonthlydischargeforthatperiod(474cubicfeetpersecondinFebruaryand408cubicfeetpersecondinMarch).FollowingtheOctoberflood,thereachsawanetincreaseinhabitatareaduringthelow-flowperiod(table3).Thisincreaseinmainchannelareareflectsanincreaseinlengthfrom30,960feetto36,670feetandanaverageincreaseinwidthfrom78feetto94feet.Themainchannelareaincreasedbymorethan300,000squarefeet,whileeachofthesecondarychanneltypesshowedadecreaseinarea,inspiteofhigherdischargeduringthe2004mappingperiod than in the 2002 mapping period. The secondary channel location alsochangedasexistingchannelswereabandonedandreoccupiedfollowingtheflood.Inonecase,down-valleymigrationofameandercouplethasevidentlyopened1,400feetofsidechannelonthenorthsideofthevalley,whileabandoning2,600feetofsidechannelonthesouthsideofthevalley.

Table 3: Area of channel types from 2002 and 2004.

Year Channel Type ( in square feet)

Main channel Side channel Braided channel Total Area

2002 732,670 222,135 621,680 1,576,490

2004 1,046,530 159,060 584,950 1,790,530

Habitatmappingintheunconfinedreachalsoshowedachangeinthedistributionofhabitatclassesbetweenthetwoyears.Theamountofareaclassifiedas“rapid”increasedmarkedly,whiletheamountofareaclassifiedas“riffle”decreased.Poolandrunareastayednearlyconstantbetweenthetwoyears.Poolscharacteristicsweremeasuredduringthe

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—100


winterlow-flowperiodoftheNorthForkNooksackinFebruary2002andMarch2004.In2002,wemappedonlysixchannel-spanningpoolsintheprojectreach,comprising7.5percentofthemain-stemhabitatarea(table4)andyieldingapool-to-riffleratioof1:12.3forthereach.Fiveofthepoolswereformedbyscouralongbedrockoutcrops,andonewasformedbywoodydebris—aseriesofin-situstumps.Complexwoodycoverforholdingadultsorjuvenilerearingdominatednoneofthelargepools.Channelspanningpoolswerespacedevery33channelwidths(basedona95-footaveragechannelwidth).Inallcases,thelargepoolswerelocatedfarfromthebraidedareaswherethemostsuitableandstablespawningsubstrateislocated.

Habitatmappingin2004showedareductioninpoolhabitatfollowingtheOctoberflood.Whilesevenofthemainchannelunitswerepools,theycomprisedonly4.3percentofthemain-stemhabitatarea(table5).Thisyieldsapool-to-riffleratioof1:17.4forthereach.Abigchangeoccurredinthepool-formingfeaturesinthereach:Whilein2002bedrockdominatedpoolformation(table4),in2004poolformationwasdominatedbywood(table5).Themeanresidualpooldepthdecreasedslightly,from5.2feetto5.0feet,from2002to2004.Whilethechangeindominantpool-formingfeaturefrombedrocktowoodmayimplythatthepoolhabitatislessstablethanitwas,thechangealsoshowsanimprovementincoverquality(table6).Cover,particularlyfromhighwatervelocity,canbecriticalforrearingjuvenileandholdingadultsalmon.

Table 4: 2002 main channel pool statistics (LNR2002).

Unit Forming Area Residual Number Feature (square feet) Depth (feet)

13 Bedrock 14,625 6.9

14 Bedrock 13,452 5.1

21 Bedrock 20,124 7.8

26 Bedrock 23,760 5.4

32 Wood 9,720 2.2

35 Bedrock 29,280 3.8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—101

Case Study

Table 5: 2004 main channel pool statistics (LNR 2004)

Unit Forming Area Residual Number Feature (square feet) Depth (feet)

20 Wood 6,327 5.2

53 Wood 18,225 3.3

72 Wood 13,671 2.7

73 Wood 10,080 3.6

75 Wood 5,832 6.7

80 Bedrock 9,072 6.6

82 Bedrock 14,337 6.6

Thepresenceoffewlargepoolslikelydemonstratestheimportanceofsmallholdingareasandpocketpoolsinthereachforsalmonbeforespawning.Althoughgenerallysmall,pocketpoolswereprevalentthroughthereachandwerecreatedbyeitherwoodydebrisorlargeboulders.Thepocketpoolscreatedbywoodaccumulationofferedcomplexcoverand,astheywereoftenlocatedinbraidedreaches,offerednearbygravelforspawning.Pocketpoolscreatedbybouldersweregenerallylocatedinthehigherenergysectionsofthereach,wherelocalscourresultedinlittlegravelsorting.

Another change is the increase in pools in secondary channel areas. In 2002,noneofthebraidedsectionsshowedsignificantpooldevelopment,whilein2004fivepoolswereformedinbraidedsectionsoftheriver.Inthelowestdownstreamsectionoftheprojectreach,wherewehaddoneextensivewoodplacement,thebraidedportionofthechannelnowhasthreepools—twoformedbyengineeredlogjams(figure3).Ofthefivepoolsformedinsecondarychannels,largenaturallogjamsontheoutsideofmeanderbendsformedtwo,localscouradjacenttoanengineeredstructureformedtwo,andbedrockformedthelast.

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—102


Figure 3: New pool development in braided section of the project reach following construction.

Fish Habitat—Cover Wecharacterizedcoverforallhabitatunitsintheprojectreachin2002

andin2004.Formainchannelpools,thedominantcovercharacteristicschangedbetween2002and2004,reflectingthechangeinpool-formingfeature(table6).Dominantcovertypeisdefinedasthemostabundantcoverpresent.Inmostcases,theunitshavemultiplecovertypesofvaryingcomplexity.Thechangetowoodasadominantcovertypeshouldimprovetheuseofthepoolsbyrearingjuvenilesandholdingadults,bothofwhichshowastrongpreferenceforwoodcover.Coverforjuvenilerearingthroughoutthereachismostlyprovidedbythesubstrate,eithernonembeddedcobblesorboulders.Woodydebrisformedalargerportionofthecoverintheside-channelandbraidedareaswherethewoodtendedtoaccumulateandremainmorestable.

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—103

Case Study

Table 6: Dominant cover type in main channel pool units 2002 and 2004.

Year Dominant Cover Type

Bedrock Substrate Wood Riprap

2002 1 4 0 0

2004 1 3 3 0

Fish Habitat—Substrate Composition Ingeneral,cobblerifflesdominatethemainchannelthroughthe

reach,eveninthelowergradient,lessconfinedsections.Thecobble-dominatedreachesofthereachchangedincharacterfollowingthelargefloodinOctober2004,whenthesubdominantclasssizewentfrombeingpredominantlybouldertopredominantlygravel(table7).Beforeconstruction,28percentofthemainandbraidedchannelarea(orabout409,680squarefeet)wasdominatedbygravel-sizedmaterialatlowflow(about250cubicfeetpersecond).Afterconstruction,littlechangeoccurredinthegravel-dominatedarea,with25percent(orabout402,040squarefeet)ofthetotalmainandbraidedchannelarea.Althoughwedidnotcharacterizesubstrateforthesidechannelareas,itwasgenerallyfinerthanthatinthemainchannel,andgravelrepresentedalargerproportionofit.Localsortingeffectsresultingfromwood,boulders,andinteractionwithstreambanksandbarsyieldedpatchesofspawninggravelthroughoutthereach,although,forthemoreconfinedareas,theseweregenerallysmall and appeared ephemeral.

Table 7: Substrate in habitat units (2002 and 2004).

Substrate Percentage of Total Main and Braided Channel (Dominant/ Subdominant) 2002 2004

Cobble/Boulder 39 11

Cobble/Gravel 33 64

Cobble/Sand 0 <1

Gravel/Boulder 2 <1

Gravel/Cobble 20 18

Gravel/Sand 6 6

Sand/Cobble 0 <1

TotalArea 1,450,505ft2 1,659,061ft2

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—104


Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs PartnersinthismultiyearmonitoringeffortincludestheLummiIndian

Nation,NooksackTribeofIndians,NooksackSalmonEnhancementAssociation,WhatcomCounty’sUSDANaturalResourceDistrict,WhatcomCountyConservationDistrict,U.S.DepartmentoftheInteriorNationalParkService,andWashingtonDepartmentofTransportation.Table8showsthecostsforthismonitoring.

Table 8. Costs for monitoring.

Task(s) Organization Costs by Year ($)

Habitatandwood LummiIndianNation 15,000in2002mapping 10,000in2004

OrthoPhotoandCross NooksackTribe 7,800in2002 section/scour of Indians monitoring

Crosssections; NooksackSalmon 10,000in2002 GPSstationing EnhancementAssociation 5,000in2004

Aerialmappingand WhatcomCounty’s 1,500in2003 GISproducts; NaturalResource 4,000in2004 surveyingtraverse. ConservationDistrict

Aerialmappingand WhatcomCounty 1,500in2002 GISproducts ConservationDistrict 1,500in2003

PhotoPoint NationalParkService, 1,000in2002 NorthCascades 1,000in2003 NationalPark 3,000in2004

GPSStationing WashingtonDepartment 1,500in2004 of Transportation

Reports USDAForestService 4,000in2004 MtBaker-Snoqualmie NationalForest

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—105

Case Study

Lessons Learned Sincetheprojectwasconstructed,theprojectreachhasundergoneseveralchangesthathaveimplicationsforhabitatquality.Muchofthechangethatoccurredinthereachwasrelatedtotwofloodsinmid-October,bothofwhichweregreaterthanthepreviousfloodofrecord.Changesthatweobservedanddocumentedare:

lChangesindominantpool-formingfeaturefrombedrocktowoodinmain channel reaches.

lIncreaseinpoolsinbraidedchannelareas.

lIncreaseinwoodasadominantcovertypeinpools.

lIncreaseinrapids,decreaseinriffles.

lChangeindominantsubstrateclassinmainandbraidedchanneltypesfromcobble/bouldertocobble/gravel.

l Local effects of engineered logjams on channel including sediment deposition and scour.

lIncreaseinkey-sizedpiecesinconfinedportionsofthereach.

lIncreaseinnumberoflogjamsthroughthereach.

lReductioninsecondarychanneltypes(braidedandsidechannels),increase in main channel area.

Many of these changes directly relate to the engineered logjams constructedasapartoftheNorthForkNooksackIn-channelproject,whileothersaremoredifficulttoattributetorestorationactivities.

For more information contact: RogerNichols,MtBakerRangerDistrict,MtBakerSnoqualmieNational

Forest,2105Highway20,SedroWoolley,WA98284;phone:360-856-5235.

references Cited DuckCreekAssociates.2000.NooksackRiverWatershedRiparianFunction Assessment.

Geoengineers.2001.NorthForkNooksackRiverCorridorAnalysis.(UnpublishedreportpreparedfortheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation).56p.

Hawkins,C.P.;Kershner,J.L.;Bisson,P.et.al.1993.Ahierarchicalapproachtoclassifyingstreamhabitatfeatures.Fisheries18:3-12.

8

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—106


Indrebo,M.1998.StreamchannelclassificationandhistoricalchannelchangesalongtheNorthForkNooksackRiver,Washington.PreparedforLummiNaturalResources,Bellingham,WA.47p.

LummiNaturalResources.2002.Habitatmappingandwoodcharacterizationdataforthefour-mileflatsreach.GISdata.

LummiNaturalResources.2004.HabitatmappingandwoodcharacterizationoftheNorthForkNooksackIn-channelprojectreach.GISdata.

Ketcheson,G.2004.CommentsregardingthepeakdischargesexperiencedinthenationalforestattheU.S.GeologicalSurveygaugelocatedattheNooksackPowerhouseduringthetwoOctober2003floodsevents;personal communication.

Nichols,R.2002.Commentsregardingthefirehistorythatburnedintheregionoverthepast500years;personalcommunication.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1995.Pilotwatershedanalysisforcanyoncreek.SedroWoolley,WA:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,MtBaker-SnoqualmieForest,MountBakerRangerDistrict.276p.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1995.Northforknooksackriverwatershedanalysis.SedroWoolley,WA:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,MtBaker-SnoqualmieForest,MountBakerRanger District.

WashingtonForestPracticesBoard.1997.Standardmethodologyforconductingwatershedanalyses.Version4.0.

No

rth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksac

k R

iver

In-c

han

nel

Pro

ject

3—107

Case Study 9

tepee Creek restoration Project

Project overview Inthefallof2000,theUSDAForestServiceimplementedamajorrestorationprojecttoreturnadegradedsectionofTepeeCreektoamorenaturalcondition.Theprojectreachwasapproximately7,200feetlong.Pastmanagementhadstrippedthevegetationforthefloodplainandmovedthechanneltocontrolblisterrust,producehay,andprovideadeckingareaforanoldlumbermill.Patternedafternaturalstreams,thenewchannelincorporatesmaterialssuchasboulders,trees,androotwadstostabilizestreambanksandprovidefishhabitat.Weusedover5,000piecesofwood(2,000withrootwads)and1,000bouldersduring channel construction,and transplanted displacedbrushandtreesalongthenewstream channel. The designcalledfor18meanders,increasingpoolnumbers,increasing pool depthsbythreefold,and increasing pool volumesbytwofold.Thechannel(C-4)wasdesignedtoaccommodate bankfullflows(1.5-yearevent)andsediment,andstillmaintainingitspattern,profile,andform.WedevelopedamonitoringprotocolforTepeeCreek,withpermanentbenchmarkedsiteslocatedintwosectionsofthestream.

ThemainobjectiveofthisprojectwastorestoreproperhydrologicfunctiontothereconstructedsectionofTepeeCreek.Thenewchannelmeandersthroughthevalleyinasinuouspaththatwillhandlewaterflowandtransportsedimentbetterthanthepreviouschanneldid.Streamreconstructionhaseliminatedchannelinstabilityandbraiding.Asecondaryobjectivewastoprovidemorefishhabitat,therebyincreasingfishpopulations,throughthecreationoflarge,deeppools.

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—108


Project Methods, design, and Monitoring Wedesignedthemonitoringplantoanswerthefollowingquestions:Did

thechannelmaintaindesigncharacteristicssuchaswidth-to-depthratio,entrenchment,cross-sectionalarea,meanriffledepth,andmean/maximumdepthofpools?Weconductedbarsamplesandpebblecountstoseewhetherthenewchannelwascorrectlytransportingwaterandsediment.Wealsowantedtoevaluatethesuccessofbankprotectionstructuresandtonotewhetherrevegetatingtheconstructionareastabilizedstreambanksandthefloodplain.Weperformedsnorkelsurveystoseewhetheroursecondaryobjectiveofimprovinghabitatandsubsequentlyincreasingfishpopulationswassuccessful.Table1showstheseparametersandsurveyfrequencies.

Toallowreplicationofresults,weselectedtwosectionsintherestoredareaofTepeeCreekformonitoring.Eachsectionis20to30timesthebankfullchannelwidth.Figure1delineatesthesemonitoringareas.

Table 1. Monitoring parameters, frequency, and methodology for the Tepee Creek restoration project.

Parameter Methodology Frequency (years)

Channel x-section,barsamples, 1,3,5,* Morphology pebblecounts,photos

FishPopulation snorkelsurveys 1,5,*

* Collect data after flood recurring intervals of bankfull (1.5 years), 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 years.

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—109

Case Study

Figure 1. An aerial photo showing monitoring areas in Tepee Creek, North Fork

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Channel Morphology—Allsurveysdonewitharodandlevelaretiedtoknownelevationsofpermanentbenchmarks.Thismethodallowsustoaccuratelycomparesurveysovertime.

Cross Sections Inthetwomonitoringareas,weestablishedsixrifflecrosssections

andfivepoolcrosssections.Thepurposeofthecrosssectionsistoshowchangesinwidth-to-depthratio,entrenchment,cross-sectionalarea,meanriffledepth,andmean/maximumdepthofpools.Tokeepwithinthe10-pagelimitforthisreport,wechosetoevaluateonepoolandonerifflecrosssection.Encasingaconduitinconcreteinthegroundpermanentlymarkedeachendofeachcrosssection.Topreventmovementoftheconduit,wedugtheholebelowfrostline.Wecouldthensliderebarintotheconduitandattachameasuringtapetotherebarwithaclamp.Surveyingthecrosssectionswitharodandlevelallowedusaccuratelysurveytheselectedcrosssectionsovertime.

9

MonitoringArea

1

MonitoringArea

2

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—110


Bar Samples and Pebble Counts WecompletedbarsamplesatfivedifferentsitesinNovember1999,

beforeconstructingthenewchannel.Barsamplesareusefulfordeterminingtheparticlesizedistributionsofbedloadbeingtransportedatbankfullstage.Inthesummersof2001,2002,and2003werepeatedbarsamplesatsixlocationsthatdifferedfromtheoriginalsamplingsites.Thischangewasnecessarybecausetheoriginalsitesnolongerexistedafterchannelreconstruction.Tokeepthereportshort,wereportedonlythreebarsamplingsites.Weusedacoresamplertodothesampling.Tomonitorbroadscalechangesinsedimenttransportbothwithinandoutsideoftherestoredchannel,wesetupfourpebble-countsites.Twositesarelocatedatpermanentcrosssectionlocationswithintherestoredchannelandtwoarelocatedabovetherestoredchannel.

Photos Wetooktwouniquesetsofphotostomonitorchannelmorphology

andvegetativerecoveryoftheprojectarea.Theseincludeoverviewphotosandclose-upphotosofthechannel.Carsonitepostsonthewesthillsidemarkthephotographerlocationsforoverviewphotos.Close-upphotobenchmarksarethemonumentedendsofthecrosssectionsdescribedinthesectiononcrosssections.Becausephotographerlocationsaresowelldesignated,repeatingthesamepicturesyearafteryearisrelativelysimple.Toshowgrowthinvegetation,weincludedameterboardineverycloseupphoto.Thesephotosareanexcellentmethodofmonitoringvegetativerecoveryandstabilityofchannelshape.

Fish Population Weusedsnorkelingtoassessfishpopulations.Weeliminated

electrofishingasamethod,becauseoftheextremewaterdepthinthepools.Wesurveyedsixpoolsandreportedfishtotalsinfishper100squaremeters.

Monitoring results and Interpretation Channel Morphology Cross Sections AnevaluationofFigure2showedchannelchangesintheriffleresulting

from the designed channel. These changes occurred after the channel experiencedafloodwitharecurrenceintervalof25years(2002).Thechannelshoweda13-percentincreaseincrosssectionalarea,a26-percentincreaseinbankfullwidth,anda51-percentincreaseinmaximumdepth(table2).Theincreasesindicatethatthedesignchannelintherifflesectionmayhavebeenunderbuiltandisadjustingtoaccommodateflows.

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—111

Case Study

Figure 2. Riffle cross-section graph shows changes in channel form in Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho, 1999 (preconstruction), 2001-2003.

Table 2. Changes in Riffle #127 cross-sectional area, bankfull width, and maximum depths for the designed channel for years 2001 to 2003 in Tepee Creek, Idaho.

Year Cross Sectional Area Bankfull Width Max Depth

2000(design) 12.9 14.0 1.0

2001 12.8 14.7 1.48

2002 13.9 16.4 1.50

2003 14.6 17.6 1.51

Poolschangedverylittle,asdisplayedinthepoolcrosssection(figure3).The5-metershifttotherightincross-sectionsurveysfrom2001to2003wasnotashiftinthechannel.Webelievethatthepermanentbenchmarkedcrosssectioninstalledin2001wasnotanexactoverlayofthedesignchannelcrosssection,whichusedtemporarybenchmarks.Weplacedthepermanentcrosssectionsin2001,aftertheconstructionofthenewchannel.Althoughthepointbarhasbeenreshapedwithaslightlowering,pooldepthhasstayedthesame.Thestaticpooldepthindicatesthatthenewchannelisroutingsedimentefficientlyinpoolsectionsandthatourpooldesignisadequate.

9

T e pe e C re e k R i ffle C ro ss S e c tio n #127

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

L e ngth (m )

Elevation (m)

Before Construction Design 2001 2002 2003

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—112


Figure 3. Pool cross-section graph shows changes in channel form in Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho, 1999 (preconstruction), 2001-2003.

Bar Samples and Pebble Counts Thebarsamples(figure4)showedsomevariabilityinfinerparticles

from1999to2002.Fines—whichwere30percentofthebarsamplein1999—droppedto5percentin2001andincreasedto15percentin2002.Totalweightsoflargerparticlesinthesampleremainedstableacrosstheyears.Thehigherpercentagesin1999couldbetheresultofthedifferentsamplinglocation.Thesamplescollectedin2001and2002appearquitesimilar,asthed-50andd-84aresimilarinbothyears.Webelievethatchannel is routing sediment properly.

Weconductedpebblecountsinside(treated)andoutside(untreated)therestoredchannelsection(figure5).Counts#1and#4werelocatedabovetherestoredsection,andcounts#2and#3werewithinthenewchannel.Theresultsindicatethatthesizedistributionofsedimentissimilaraboveandwithintherestoredsection.

Tepee Creek P ool Cros s S ec tion #143

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

L e ngth (m )

Elevation (m)

before Construction

Design

2001

2002

2003

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—113

Case Study

Figure 4. A bar sample analysis from 1999, 2001, 2002 in Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho.

Figure 5. A pebble count analysis, comparing pebble size pre and postconstruction in Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho.

Photos Close-upmonitoringphotosofcrosssection#127indicatethatsomebank

erosionandsedimentdepositionisoccurring(figures6and7).Afterthechannelwasconstructed,weplanteda5-meter-wideswathalongthebankintherestoredsectionwithwillow,dogwood,andconifers.Theseplantsweretoosmallanddidnotestablishanadequaterootmasstoadequatelystabilizethebanksandpreventerosion.Littlenaturalvegetativerecovery

9

Tepee Creek P oint B ar #3 B ar S amples

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<0.84mm 0.84mm 6.25mm 9.5mm 25mm 75mm 80mm

S iz e C las s

Cumulative Percent

P o o l 3 (2001)

P o o l 3 (2002)

S am ple 3 (1999)

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

ent

Pebble Count, Tepee Creek

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

particle size (mm)

Cumulative

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

weighted percent of particles

in range

weighted percent Count #1 Count#2Count #3 Count #4 % of particles

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

ent

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—114


hastakenplacealongthebanks.Overviewphotos(figures8and9)showthattherecoveryofthegrassspecieshasbeenexcellentinthefloodplain,whichwehydroseededwithagrassandfertilizermixture.Bothclose-upandoverviewphotosshowthatbasicchannelshapehasbeenmaintainedovertime.

Figure 6. 2001 monitoring photo of riffle cross-section #127 Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho.

Figure 7. 2002 monitoring photo of riffle cross-section #127 Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho.

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—115

Case Study

Figure 8. 2000 overview monitoring photo #6 of Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Figure 9. 2002 overview monitoring photo #6 of Tepee Creek, North Fork Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Snorkelcountsexhibitedhighvariabilitybetweenyears.Inthefirstyearofmonitoring,webelievethatwemisidentifiedsomeofthefishandcounteddaceastrout.Thisledtotheveryhighcounts(Table3).Therootwadrevetmentswerenotundercutduringthefirstyearofsnorkelingand,possibly,fishweremorevisible.Webelievethatthecountsin2002and2003moreaccuratelyrepresenttroutabundanceintherehabilitatedarea.CountsconductedbytheIdahoDepartmentofFishandGameintherestoredareafoundtroutnumberssimilartowhatweobservedinthose

9

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—116


years(0.87fishin2002and0fishin2003).Currently,wedonothaveenoughtrenddatatodeterminewhetherfishabundancewillincreasewithintherehabilitatedsection.

Table 3. Area sampled, number of trout counted, and average fish densities for six pools in the Tepee Creek restoration project, Tepee Creek, Idaho, 2001-2003.

Year 2001 2002 2003

Areasnorkeled(squaremeters) 1,680 4,052 4,171

Numberoftrout 327 77 17

Fishper100squaremeters 19.4 0.4 0.1

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Cost TheUSDAForestServicefundedandconductedallmonitoringforthis

project.

Thefollowingtablesummarizesthetypicalannualcostsformonitoringofthis project.

People Days Cost ($)

Photographs 2 2 600

FishHabitatSurveys 2 1 300

WoodydebrisSurveys 2 1 300

SnorkelSurveys 3 1 450

Crosssections 3 4 1,800

LongitudinalProfiles 3 2 900

ScourChains 2 2 600

BarSamples 2 2 600

PebbleCounts 2 1 300


Materials Film,batteries,surveygear 500

Total 9,350

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—117

Case Study

Lessons Learned Wedevelopedaverythoroughmonitoringprogram,whichwewereabletocarryoutinthefield.However,findingmoneytoimplementandanalyzethedatahasbeenverydifficult.Crosssectionsareavaluablemonitoringtool,astheycanshowchangesinchannelshapeandcross-sectionalarea—changesveryimportanttomonitorinacompletechannelreconstructionproject.Becausebarsamplesareamorethoroughmeansofmonitoringsedimenttransportthanarepebblecounts,wecoulddropfuturetolowercosts.

Projectphotosthatmonitorchangesovertimeareavaluablemonitoringtool.Thekeyconceptbehindphotomonitoringistheabilitytorepeatthesamephotosyearafteryear,somethingthatweaccomplishedbyintegratingphotographerlocationswithpermanentlyestablishedcrosssections.Establishingexactlywhatisbeingmonitoredbythephotosinthebeginningisveryimportant,becauseitallowsustotakethemostrepresentativepicture.

Snorkelcountscanbequitevariable,dependingonthepresenceoftrainedobserverswiththeknowledgeoflocalfishspeciesandsnorkel-countingtechniques.Webelievethatthehighlycomplexrootwadbanksmakeobservingandcountingfishaccuratelyverydifficult.Werecommendsettingupthesnorkeltransectbeforedoingtherestorationwork,aswellassetting up controls outside the restored section of the stream.

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

PanhandleNationalForest;phone:(208)769-3030;e-mail:[email protected]

references Cited Hall,FredrickD.2002.Photopointmonitoringhandbook:PartA-FieldProceduresandPartB-ConceptsandAnalysis.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-526.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.

Harrelson,C.C.;Rawlins,C.L.;Potyondy,J.P.1994.Streamchannelreferencesite:anillustratedguidetofieldtechnique.Gen.Tech.Rep.RM-245.FortCollins,CO:USDAForestService,RockyMountainForestandRange Station.

Leopold,LunaB.;Silvey,HiltonL.;Rosgen,DavidL.1998.TheReferenceReachFieldBookSecondEdition.WildlandHydrologyBooks.PagosaSprings,CO.pp.8and9.

9

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

Tep

ee C

reek

Res

tora

tio

n P

roje

ct

3—119

Case Study

Lower Yellowjacket Structure Monitoring report

Project overview YellowjacketCreekisanaverage-sizedwestsidecascademountainstreamwithsummerstreamflowsaveraging25cubicfeetpersecond.Overalllengthisalittleover12miles,andthestreamhasstreamreachesrangingfromA2toC3(Rosgen1996).Chinook,coho,andsteelheadpopulatethestreamuptoaseriesoffallsatapproximatelyrivermile5.5.Thestreamhasoneculvertandtwobridgecrossings.Thewatershedis66.5squaremilesand,fromtheU.S.GeologicalSurveyregressiontables(WRIR97-4277),the2-year-floweventis2,650cubicfeetpersecond.

In1996theCispusRiverWatershedwashitbya250-yearfloodevent.ThiseventcausedcatastrophicdamageforestwideandnumerousslidesandculvertfailuresoccurredintheYellowjacketCreekwatershed.Thealluvialreach(projectarea)ofYellowjacketCreekwasstrippedofallvegetation,poolswerefilled,andanewseriesoflogjamsweredeposited.

TheprojectareaisdividedbyForestRoad28Bridge(figure1).Theareaabovethebridgehasanaveragefloodplainwidthof750feet,withlittleremainingvegetation.Thesectionbelowthebridgehasanaverageflood-plainwidthof1,100feetwithsomeareasofvegetation,consistingmostlyofwillowsandalders.

WecompletedtheLowerYellowjacketEnhancementProjectduringthesummerof2000,placing48structures(110logs)bothinthechannelandinthefloodplain.Theprojectreachis1.5milesinlength.Wedesignedthesestructureswithtwoobjectivesinmind:

lProvidestructuretothefloodplainforlong-termstability.(Addenoughwoodtothefloodplainsothatthefloodplainreachesabalance.)

lProvidestructuretothestreamchannelforpooldevelopmentintheformoflogjamsandsinglelogs.(Increasethenumberofpoolstoaround25poolswithinthereach.)

Ofthe48structures,weplaced31(65percent)inthefloodplainorindrysidechannelsattimeofconstruction.Weplacedtheremaining17(35percent)inthechannelasfishhabitatstructures.

10

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—120


Figure 1: Topographic map of the project area. (Streamflow is from bottom of page to top.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—121

Case Study 10

Project Methods, design, and Monitoring Wetookserialphotographsin1996ofYellowjacketandotherstreams

intheCispusRiverwatershed.Photosfromthisflightshowthechannellocationandfloodplainconditiononlymonthsafterthe1996flood.By1997,thechannelhadmoved.Wesawclearlythatwithoutsomekindofstructureonorinthefloodplain,thechannelwasgoingtocontinuetomigrateatwill,anyfishstructuresaddedtothechannelwouldbeabandoned,andnothingcouldholdthemeandersinplace.

Giventhisnewinformation,wechangedthedesignstrategy.Thefirstentryontothefloodplainwouldincludeadesignfor48structures,eithersingle-logorsmalljams.Forthefirstentry,weplacedthesestructuresintheoverflowchannels,addedlogstotheexistingstructures,andbuiltjamstoprotectislandsofvegetation.Inafewcases,webuiltjamsonthefloodplainatareaswithahighprobabilityofbecomingameanderlocation.

Monitoring Objectives l Test the hypotheses:

cThatasthechannelmovedacrossthefloodplain,structuresplacedonorinthefloodplainwouldprovidestructureforpooldevelopmentandotherfunctionsofahealthychannelsegment.

cThatprovidingstructuretothestreamintheformoflogjamsandsinglelogswoulddeveloppools,increasingthenumberofqualitypoolstoabout25fortheentirereach.(Wedefinedaqualitypoolasonewitharesidualdepthof3feetormore.)

Monitoring Parameter lCountwoodydebrispiecesatstructuresites.

l Count and measure pools in the project area.

lTrackchannelmovementandinteractionofstructuresandchannel.

Procedures and Methods Duringtheinitialdesignphase,weestablished14photo-pointlocations,

andatopographicalsitesurvey.WesurveyedthesitewithaNikon430TMTotalStationGun.Thesurveycoveredtheprojectsitefromabedrockcontrolpointapproximately0.5milesupstreamfromFR28BridgetotheconfluenceofYellowjacketCreekandCispusRiver.Thesurveycoveredapproximately128acres,inwhichweestablished15controlpoints.Wedevelopedasitemapfromthesurveydataandusedthemapto

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—122


locatestructures,crosssections,photopoints,largelogjams,roadaccess,vegetationislands,sidechannel,andthemainchannel.Thesitemapalsoallowedustocalculatebeltwidthandmeanderwavelength.

WeusedRegion6LevelII(USDAForestService1990,2001)surveydatafrom1990and2001forwoodcounts,poolnumbers,andquality.Wealsouseddatafromthe1997designsurveyanda2003monitoringsurvey.

Thedistricthasanaerialphotolibrarystartedin1937,withdistrictcoverageto1999andspecialflightsto2003.TheconfluenceofCispusRiverandYellowjacketCreekhascoveragefrom1939to2001.Weusedthephotointerpretationtomeasurethechangesintheflood-plainvegetationandchannelmovement,andusedsitevisitsandphotopointstodocumentinteractionbetweenthestructuresandthechannel.

Monitoring results and Interpretation (a) Parameter: Count woody debris pieces at structure sites. Theoriginalprojectconsistedof35sites,withsomesiteshavingmultiple

structures.Thefinalnumberwas48structures,consistingof178logs(figure2).

Figure 2. Log count at the various sites.

Aspartofthemonitoringeffort,wephotographedeachsite,countedthelargerwoodydebris,andmatchedthecountagainsttheoriginalnumbers.WelocatedeachstructurebyGPS.Oftheoriginal48structuresbuiltinAugust2000,5sitesweredestroyedorhadmoveddownstream.These5

L ow er Y el l ow j ack et C r eek

M on i tor i n g R ep or t

L og C ou n t

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Site 1 Site 3 Site5 Site7 Site 9 Site 11 Site 13 Site15 Site17 Site 19 Site 21 Site 23 Site25 Site27 Site 29 Site 31 Site 33 Site35

Logs per Site

Construction Year, 2000

Monitoring Year, 2003

Logs

per

site

Site Number

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—123

Case Study

sitesconsistedof48logs(27percentofthetotalnumberofpiecesplacedinAugust2000).Overall,weobservedanetgainoffivelogs,a3-percentincrease.

Weidentifiedsomelogsthathadmovedfurtherdownstream.However,wehavenotfoundallofthelogs,andbelievethatsomehavemadeittotheCispusRiver.Oneofthelargerlogs(67feetlongand96inchesaround,at4.5feetfromroots)atsite4Bhasmovedapproximately560feetandisnowinthemiddleofthechannel.Wefoundlogsfromsites14,15,and17scattereddownthestreamcourseandinanewlogjamthatformedjustupstreamfromthebridge—adistanceofabout1,100feet.Thelargerlogsdroppedoutearly,andthesmalllogsmadeittothejamabovethebridge.Belowthebridge,halfofsite24hasbeenrelocated:Averylargestump(mostofthestructure’smass)movedadistanceof640feet,buttherestofthestructureismissing.Site29,asmalllogjamkeyedintothechannelsubstrateandtheleftbank,appearstohavebeencompletelydestroyed.Noneofthelogsfromthisstructurehavebeenfound.

(b) Parameter: Count and measure pools in the project area. ThedistricthasdatafromtwoRegion6LevelIIsurveys(1990and2001)

andfromasitesurveydonein1997aspartofthedesigncriteriafortheproject.Wedidafourthpoolsurveyin2003,aspartofthemonitoringeffort(usingRegion6LevelIIprotocol).Twoofthepoolsin2003areadirectresultofinteractionbetweenaconstructedstructureandthechannelmoving(figure3).

Figure 3. Pool abundance within project area.

10

L ow er Y el l ow j a ck et C r eek

M on itor i n g R ep or t

P ool s

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 1997 2001 2003Y e a r o f S u r v e y

# of Pools

Num

ber

of p

ools

Year of survey

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—124


Qualitypoolsintheprojectreachhavefluctuatedforthelastfewyears.Thelowyearwas2001(fivepools),oneyearafterprojectimplementation.However,by2003thenumberofqualitypoolshadincreasedto12pools,anetincreaseof4poolsover13years.Twelvepoolsisabout48percentofthegoalfortheprojectarea.Twoofthenewpools(in2003)arearesultofchannelmovementandinteractionwithstructuresplacedin2000.

(c) Parameter: Track channel movement and interaction of structures and channel.

Directinteractionorabandonmenthasoccurredbetweensites2,4,7,8,13,25,26,27,28,30,33,34,andthechannel.Mostofthechangeshappenedduringa10-yeareventthattookplaceinJanuary2002.Duringthisevent,afewofthesiteswereabandonedandothersbecamepartofthechannel.Sites2,4,8,33,and34arenowinthechannelorwithinthebankfullflows,andabandonedsitesare13,25,26,27,and30.Theinteractionbetweensites8and34andthechannelhaveledtothedevelopmentofqualitypools.Duringhigh-flowperiods,allstructures(exceptsite3)havewaterflowingaroundthem.

Aseriesofaerialphotosfrom1939to2001showstheincreaseanddecreaseinriparianvegetationintheprojectareaandtheshiftingofthechannel.

Thechannelhastwohardpointsthatcontrolthelocationofthechannel;ForestRoad2800bridgeatthemiddleofthereachandabedrockpointatavalleychangeattheupperend.

In1939thealluvialfanofYellowjacketCreekwasstillrecoveringfromtheeffectsoftwomajorwildfiresthatburnedover65percentofthewatershed,timbersalvageonthefloodplain,anda25-yearflowevent.The1959photoflightsshowedareductioninthenumberofopenacresandanincreaseinsinuosity.Betweenphotoflights1959and1989,10floodeventsoccurred,timberharvestoccurredon12percentofthewatershed(5,120acres),androadconstructionadded38.3milesofforestroads.Bythe1989photoflight,theamountofopenspaceonthefloodplainhaddecreasedto17acres,andthesinuosityincreased.

Eightyearslater(1996),thewatershedwashitwithaneventthathasbeenratedbetweena250-year-to500-year-flowevent.Beforethisevent,therewere123.5milesofforestroadsconstructed(roaddensityof1.9milespersquaremile)and16percent(6,656acres)ofopenedtimberlands.The1996floodeventstrippedmostofthevegetationoffthefloodplain,leavingtwosmallislandsofvegetationonthetophalfoftheprojectarea,amountingtolessthananacreofcover.Thisonefloodeventstripped30acresofvegetationfromthefloodplain,exposing1.5milesofthestream

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—125

Case Study

todirectsunlightandincreasingavianpredation.Wewilltracktheamountofriparianvegetationwithadditionalphotographsandothervegetationmonitoring.

Figure 4. Aerial photographs showing changes in channel (blue lines), meander

patterns, and flood plain area (red lines). Yellowjacket Creek, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Note: We did a photo analysis only on the upper section of the project area because photos for the lower section were missing.

Twoover-bankfulleventshaveoccurredinthebasinsincethecompletionoftheprojectin2000.ThefirstwasinJanuary2002,andthesecondwasinFebruary2003(seefigures9through13).Aftereachoftheseevents,thechannelmovedandafewlogjamsthathaddevelopedduringthe1996floodweremoved,brokenapart,ordestroyed.

10

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—126


Project Monitoring, Partnerships, and Costs TheimplementationoftheprojectwasfundedbytheLowerColumbia

SalmonRecoveryFund,andthetotalcostwas$19,662.50.Thiscostdidnotincludesalary.Themonitoringoftheprojectwasmadepossiblebyfunds($8,000)fromtheSanDimasTechnologyandDevelopmentCenter.Wewillcollectdata(logcount,vegetationplots)fromthelowerhalfoftheproject area during the summer.

Lessons Learned or developed Thefollowingarefewthingstothinkaboutwhensettingupamonitoring

project. 1.Theoriginalphotopointlocationswereidentifiedwith4-inch

by4-inchyellowplastictags.Someofthetagscameloose,andwithoutamapofthelocation,reestablishingthemwouldhavebeenimpossible.ThisyearwedidGPSmappingofalllocationsandaddeddescriptionstomostofthephotopointnarratives.WerecommendusingGPSforalllocationsandincreasingthedetailsinnarrativedescriptions.

2.Thechannelismovingeveryyear,destroyingsomeoftheflagging,paint,ormonumentsplacedonthefloodplain.WerecommendusingGPSforallsites,photopoints,andanythingelseyouwanttofindlater.

3.IfGPSisnotanoption,setamonumentormonumentsoutsideofthefloodplain,asdescribedinStreamChannelReferenceSites:AnIllustratedGuidetoFieldTechnique(April1994).

4.Thinkabouthowandfromwhereyoucanviewasite(structure)duringafloodevent.Beingabletoobserveandgetphotosduringalltypesofweatherandflowsiscriticaltounderstandinghowthestructures are functioning.

For more information on this project contact: TerryLawson,CowlitzValleyR.D.,GiffordPinchotNationalForest,P.O.Box670,Randle,WA98377;phone:360-497-1100.

references Cited Rosgen,D.1996.AppliedRiverMorphology.WildlandHydrologyBooks.PagosaSprings,CO.

Sumioka,S.S.;Kresch,D.L.;Kasnick,K.D.1998.MagnitudeandfrequencyoffloodsinWashington:waterinvestigationsreport97-4277.Denver,CO:U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,U.S.GeologicalSurvey.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—127

Case Study

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1990.Streaminventoryhandbook,levelIandlevelII,version4.0.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.2001.Streaminventoryhandbook,levelIandlevelII,version2.1.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion.

U.S,DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.1994.Streamchannelreferencesites:anillustratedguidetofieldtechniques.Gen.Tech.Rep.RM-245.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainForestandRangeExperimentStation.

10

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—128


Figure 5. Site #7, Looking down stream. Photo taken on September 11, 2000. Channel is approximately 100 feet from structure. Main channel is in the background at center left of photo.

Figure 6. Site #7, Looking down stream and across at structure. Photo taken on January10, 2002. The main channel is in background, center of photo.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—129

Case Study

Figure 7. Site #7, Looking down stream at structure. Photo taken on February 3, 2003. The main channel can not be seen in photo but it is at the shadow line.

Figure 8. Site #8, Looking down stream at structure. Photo taken on September 12, 2000. The main channel can not be seen in photo and is on the left side of the structure.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—130


Figure 9. Site #8, Looking down stream at structure. Photo taken on January 10, 2002. The new channel is on the left side of the structure.

Figure 10. Site #8, Looking down stream and across to structure. Photo taken on March 2, 2002. The new channel is in the center of the photo.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—131

Case Study

Figure 11. Site #25, Looking down stream and across to structure. Photo taken on September 23, 2000. The channel is on the right of the photo

Figure 12. Site #25, Looking up stream from behind the structure. Photo taken on January 7, 2002. The channel has overtopped the banks, main flow is on the left of photo.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

3—132


Figure 13. Site #25, Looking down stream and across to structure. Photo taken on February 23, 2002. The channel is flowing from left to right of the photo.

Lo

wer

Yel

low

jack

et S

tru

ctu

re M

on

ito

rin

g R

epo

rt

4—1

Chapter 4

Learning is the reconstruction or reorganization of experiences which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases the ability to direct the course of subsequent experience. John Dewey

The10casestudiesprofiledinSection3exhibitanumberofsimilarlessonslearned.Atleasthalfofthemstatedthedifficultyofdetectingchangeinchannelconditionswithinjustacoupleofyearsofcompletingaproject.Evenwiththeoccurrenceofabankfulleventwithinthisshorttime,channelchangeswerenotdetectable.Twoofthecasestudiesactuallyexperiencedmajorrunoffeventsduringthe3-yeartimeperiodoftheirprojects(2003-2005),andmajorchannelchangeswererecordedanddocumented.Inmostcases,however,atleast5yearsisnecessaryforseeingphysicalchannelchangesresultingfromstructureplacement.Evenmoretimeisnecessaryfordocumentingandrecordingbiologicalresponsestosuchchanges(forexample,fishspeciespresenceandutilizationstatusandtrends).

Thesecondmost-mentionedlessonlearnedwasdecidingwhatparameter(s)tomonitorforagivenproject.Withlimitedresourcesformonitoring,mostoftheseprojectswereunderpressuretoselectthebestparametersforyieldinginformationwithaminimumofexpenditure.Allofthesecasestudiesemphasizedtheneedfortakingtimeatthestartforrealisticallyestimatingwhatshouldorcanbemonitored,givenlimitedresources.

Thethirdlessonaboutdetectingchannelchangewasthechallengeofdeterminingwhatspatialscaletomonitor--theproject,thechannelreach,orthestream-systemscale.Theappropriatescaleisdeterminedbythespatialscaleaddressedinthequestion(s)tobeanswered.Insomecases,answeringrelevantquestionsrequiredaddressingmorethanonespatialscale.Establishingthespatialscale(s)whendevelopingamonitoringschemeforaprojectiscrucial.

Theproperuseofphotopointsfordetectingchannelchangewasalsocitedasveryimportant.Followingagoodmethodologyorprotocolfortakingpre-andpost-projectphotosiscritical.Usingphotographstotrackchangesinsiteconditionsovertimeisanimportantlearningtool.Twocasestudiesemphasizedtheimportanceofgettinggoodsitephotosduringandimmediatelyafterfloodevents.Thesephotoscontainagreatdealofinformationontheresponseofplacedstructurestohighchannelflows.

Anotherlessonthatseveralcasestudiesmentionedwastheneedtoidentifyanddescribeprojectbenchmarks(controls),bothonthegroundandontheprojectmaps.Benchmarksmustbeinlocationswherehuman

Lit

erat

ure

an

d R

efer

ence

s o

n S

tru

ctu

re-P

lace

men

t R

esto

rati

on

4—2


beingsandnaturaleventswillleastdisturbthem.Besidessitebenchmarks,severalcasestudiesusedchannel-reachscalebenchmarksforpre-andpost-comparisons.

Twostudiescitedthevalueofhavingpre-projectdataandinformation.Moreoftenthannot,mostchannelstructureplacementevaluationhastobedonewithoutpre-projectinformation.Wecannotoverstatethevalueofhavingpre-projectbaselineinformation.Anotherstudyexpressedthedesireformoregeographicinformationsystem(GIS)dataforevaluatingchannelandfloodplainchangesovertime.

Untilrecently,verylittlepublishedliteraturehasprovidedguidanceandinformationonenvironmentalrestorationmonitoringandevaluation.In2003and2005however,twopiecesofliteraturehavebeenpublishedonthesubjectofmonitoringrestorationactions,suchaschannelandfloodplainstructureplacements.MonitoringStreamandWatershedRestoration(2005)andIntegratedStreambankProtectionGuidelines(2003)provideexcellentguidanceandinformationonidentifying,designing,andimplementingmonitoringeffortsforaquaticenvironmentstructureplacementactivities.Thesedocumentsprovideapplicationsatvariousspatialscales,fromindividualsite-specificactionstomultipleprojectsthroughoutawatershed.Thesetwodocuments,alongwiththispublication,belonginthereferencelibraryofallaquaticrestorationimplementers.

A Final Note Aftercompletingasuccessfulaquaticrestorationproject,shareyourknowledgeandexperiencewithothers.OnewaytodosoistoaddyourrestorationinformationtotheNationalRiverRestorationScienceSynthesisWebsite.[http://www.nrrss.umd.edu]Thisnationalprojectdrawsonexistinglocalandregionaldatabasesandprojects.Itsgoalistoanalyzetheextentandnature--andscientificbasis--forsuccessofstreamandriverrestorationprojects,andtopresentthisinformationinawaythatisusefultoscientistsandrestorationpractitioners.

Lit

erat

ure

an

d R

efer

ence

s o

n S

tru

ctu

re-P

lace

men

t R

esto

rati

on

4—3

Chapter 4

References Cited Armantrout,N.B.1996.AlaskaAquaticResourcesInformationManagementSystem(AARISMS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,BureauofLandManagement,Anchorage,Alaska

Bain,M.B.;Steveson,N.J.,eds.1999.Aquatichabitatassessment:commonmethods.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland.

Bovee,K.D.editor,1996.ThecompleteIFIM:acoursebookforIF250.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,U.S.GeologicalSurvey,BiologicalResourcesDivision,WashingtonD.C.20240

Bunte,K.;Abt,S.R.2001Samplingsurfaceandsubsurfaceparticle-sizedistributioninwadablegravelandcobble-bedstreams:foranalysisinsedimenttransport,hydraulicsandstreambedmonitoring.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-74.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.

Dolloff,C.A.;Kershner,A.J.;Thurow,R.1996.Underwaterobservation.In:B.R.Murphy;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:533-554.

Flosi,G.,andF.L.Reynolds.1994Californiasalmonidstreamhabitatrestorationmanual.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,InlandFisheriesDivision,Sacramento,CA.

Guy,C.S.;Blankenship,H.L.;Nielsen,L.A.1996.Markingandtagging.

In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:353-384.

Hall,F.C.2001.Ground-basedphotographicmonitoring.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-503Portland,Oregon:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.340p.

Harrelson,C.;Rawlings,C.L.;Potyondy,J.P.1994.Streamchannelreferencesites:anillustratedguidetofieldtechnique.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-245.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation,RockyMountainForestandRangeExperimentStation.

Hayes,D.B.;Ferreri,C.P.;Taylor,W.W.1996.Activefishcapturemethods.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:193-220.

Lit

erat

ure

an

d R

efer

ence

s o

n S

tru

ctu

re-P

lace

men

t R

esto

rati

on

4—4


Hankin,D.G.;Reeves,G.R.1988.Estimatingtotalfishabundanceandtotalhabitatareaissmallstreamsbasedonvisualestimationmethods.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticScience45:833-844

HawkinsC.P.;[and10others].1993.Ahierarchicalapproachtoclassifyingstreamhabitatfeature.Fisheries18(6)3-12.

Hubert,W.A.1996.Passivecapturetechniques.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:157-192.

Kelso,W.E.,andD.A.Rutherford.1996.Collection,preservation,andidentificationoffisheggsandlarvae.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:255-285.

Kershner,J.;Henderson,R.;Archer,E.2002.EffectivenessmonitoringforstreamandriparianareaswithintheupperColumbiaRiverBasin:sampleprotocolforintegratorreachesstreamchannelparameters.Logan,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,FishandAquaticEcologyUnit.

Lisle,T.E.;Eads,R.E.1991.Methodstomeasuresedimentationofspawninggravels.Res.Note.PSW-RN-411.Berkeley,CA:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificSouthwestResearchStation.7p.

McDonald,L.H.;Smart,A.W.;Wissmar,R.C.1991.MonitoringguidelinestoevaluateeffectsofforestryactivitiesonstreamsinthePacificNorthwestandAlaska.GuidelinesdevelopedforRegion10,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Seattle,Washington.

McMahon,T.E.;Zale,A.Z.V.;Orth,D.J.1996.Aquatichabitatmeasurements.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:83-120.

MalvestutoS.P.1996.Samplingtherecreationalcreel.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:83-120.

Newcombe,C.P.;MacDonald,D.D.1991.Effectsofsuspendedsedimentsonaquaticecosystems.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement11:72-82.

Lit

erat

ure

an

d R

efer

ence

s o

n S

tru

ctu

re-P

lace

men

t R

esto

rati

on

4—5

Chapter 4

Olson-Rutz,K.M.;Marlow,C.B.1992.Analysisandinterpretationofstreamchannelcross-sectionaldata.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement12:55-61.

Platts,W.S.;Megahan,W.F.;Minshall,G.W.1983.Methodsforevaluatingstream,riparian,andbioticconditions.Gen.Tech.Rep.GTR-INT-138.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainForestandRangeExperimentStation.

Reynolds,J.B.1996.Electrofishing.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.

Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:83-120.

Roni,P.,ed.2005.Monitoringstreamandwatershedrestoration.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland.

Roper,B.;Kershner,J.L.;Henderson,R.C.[Inpress].Thevalueofusingpermanentsiteswhenevaluatingattributesatthereachscale.JournalofFreshWaterEcology.

Rosgen,D.1996.Appliedrivermorphology.PogosaSprings,CO:

WildlandHydrology.Paginatedbychapter.

Ryan,S.E.;Emmett,W.2002.ThenatureofflowandsedimentmovementintheLittleGraniteCreeknearBondwast,Wyoming.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-90.Ogden,Utah:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.48p.

Schreuder,H.T.;Ernst,R.;Ramirez-Maldonado,H.2004.Statisticaltechniquesforsamplingandmonitoringnaturalresources.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-126.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.111p.http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr126.pdf

Schuett-Hames,D.;Conrad,R.;Pleus,A.;McHenry,M.1999.Methodmanualforthesalmonidspawninggravelcompositionsurvey.Olympia,WA:TFW-AM9-99-006.NorthwestIndianFisheriesCommission,Timber,Fish,Wildlife(TFW)MonitoringProgram.

ThurowR.F.1994.Underwatermethodsforstudyofsalmonidsintheintermountainwest.Gen.Tech.Rpt.INT-GTR-307.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearchStation[RockyMountainResearchStation].

Lit

erat

ure

an

d R

efer

ence

s o

n S

tru

ctu

re-P

lace

men

t R

esto

rati

on

4—6


WashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2003.Integratedstreambankprotectionguidelines.DevelopedbyWashingtonStateAquaticHabitatGuidelinesProgram.Olympia,Washington.

Weaver,T.;Fraley,J.1991.Fisherieshabitatandfishpopulations.FlatheadBasinForestPractices-WaterQualityandCooperativeProgram.Kalispell,MT:51-68.

Winter,J.1996.Advancesinunderwaterbiotelemetry.In:Murphy,B.R.;Willis,D.W.,eds.Fisheriestechniques,2ndedition.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland:555-590.

Lit

erat

ure

an

d R

efer

ence

s o

n S

tru

ctu

re-P

lace

men

t R

esto

rati

on

u.s. forest service plan/lores... · information contained in this document has been developed for...

Documents