chapter 6: implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and adapting implementing,monitoring, 6 … ·...

CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTING, MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND ADAPTING

FINAL MANUSCRIPT – 5/11/98 6 – 1

Part II

6Implementing,Monitoring,Evaluating, andAdapting

6.A Restoration Implementation

6.B Restoration Monitoring, Evaluation,and Adaptive Management

The development of restoration goals andobjectives and the formulation and selectionof restoration alternatives does not mark theend of the restoration plan developmentprocess. Successful stream corridor restora-tion requires careful consideration of how therestoration design will be implemented, moni-tored, and evaluated. In addition, it requires acommitment to long-term planning and man-agement that facilitates adaptation and adjust-ment in light of changing ecological, social,and economic factors.

This chapter focuses on the final stages ofrestoration plan development. It presents thebasics of restoration implementation, monitor-ing, evaluation, and management within aplanning context. Specifically, the administra-tive and planning elements associated withthese activities are discussed in detail. Thischapter is intended to set the stage for thetechnical or “how to” discussion of restorationimplementation, monitoring, maintenance,and management presented in Chapter 9.The present chapter is divided into two mainsections.

Section 6.A: Restoration ImplementationThe first section examines the basics ofrestoration implementation. It includes adiscussion of all aspects relevant to carryingout the design, including funding, incentives,division of responsibilities, and the actualimplementation process.

Section 6.B: Restoration Monitoring,Evaluation, and Adaptive ManagementOnce the basic design is executed, the moni-toring, evaluation, and adaptation processbegins. This section explores some of thebasic considerations that need to be ad-dressed in examining and evaluating thesuccess of the restoration initiative. In addi-tion, it emphasizes the importance of makingadjustments to the restoration design basedon information received during the monitoringand evaluation process. Note especially thatthe plan development process can be reiter-ated if conditions in or affecting the streamcorridor change or if perceptions or goalschange due to social, economic, or legaldevelopments.

STREAM CORRIDOR RESTORATION: PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES, AND PRACTICES

6 – 2 FINAL MANUSCRIPT – 5/11/98



Implementation is a critical compo-nent of the stream corridor restorationprocess. It includes all the activitiesnecessary to execute the restorationdesign and achieve restoration goalsand objectives. Although implementa-tion is typically considered the “do-ing,” not the “planning,” successfulrestoration implementation demands ahigh level of advance scheduling andforesight that constitutes planning byany measure.

Securing Funding forRestoration ImplementationAn essential component of any streamcorridor restoration initiative is theavailability of funds to implement therestoration design. As discussed inChapter 4, identifying potential fund-ing sources should be one of the firstpriorities of the advisory group anddecision maker. By the time therestoration initiative reaches theimplementation stage, however, theinitial identification of sources shouldbe translated into tangible resourceallocations. In other words, all neededfunding should be secured so thatrestoration implementation can beinitiated. It is important to rememberthat financing might ultimately comefrom several sources. All benefactors,both public and private, should beidentified and appropriate cost-sharingarrangements should be developed.

An important element of securingfunding for restoration is linking theavailable resources to the specificactivities that will be part of imple-

mentation. Specifically, it should bethe responsibility of the restorationplanners to categorize the variousactivities that will be part of therestoration, determine how much eachactivity will cost to implement, anddetermine how much funding isavailable for each activity. In per-forming this analysis it should benoted that funding need not be thoughtof exclusively in terms of available“cash.” Often many of the activitiesthat are part of the restoration effortcan be completed with the work of thestaff of a participating agency or otherorganization.

It is important to note that there mightbe insufficient funding to carry out allof the activities outlined in the streamcorridor restoration design. In thissituation, planners should recognizethat this is, in fact, a common occur-rence and that restoration shouldproceed. An effort should be made,however, to prioritize restorationactivities, execute them as effectivelyand efficiently as possible, and docu-ment success. Typically, if the restora-tion initiative is demonstrated asproducing positive results and ben-efits, additional funding can be ac-quired.

Identifying Tools toFacilitate RestorationImplementationIn addition to securing funding, it isimportant to identify the various toolsand mechanisms available to facilitatethe implementation of the restoration

6.A Restoration Implementation



design. Tools available to the streamcorridor restoration practitioner in-clude a mix of both nonregulatory orincentive-based mechanisms andregulatory mechanisms. The Tools forFacilitating the Implementation ofStream Corridor Restoration Mea-sures box contains a list and descrip-tion of some of these tools.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the use ofincentives can be effective in obtain-ing participation from private land-owners in the corridor and in gainingtheir support for the restoration initia-tive (Figure 6.2). Incentive programsinvolving cost shares, tax advantages,or technical assistance can encourageprivate landowners to implementrestoration measures on their property,even if the results of these practices

are not directly beneficial to the owner.

In addition to incentives, regulatoryapproaches are an important option forstream corridor restoration. Regula-tory programs can be simple, direct,and easy to enforce. They can beeffectively used to control land use andvarious land use activities.

Deciding which tool, or combinationof tools, is most appropriate for the

Important Components of RestorationImplementation

• Securing Funding for Restoration Implementation

• Identifying Tools to Facilitate Implementation

• Dividing Implementation Responsibilities

• Installing Restoration Measures

Securing Funding for Anacostia Restoration Initiatives

The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee annually seeks funding for many restoration initiatives.In FY91, more than 50 projects were funded by over a dozen local, state, and federal agencies. Fundingsources are matched with appropriate watershed projects. In about half adozen cases, special funding came from federal agencies like the Corps ofEngineers, USDA, and EPA. The overwhelming majority of projects,however, involved a skillful coordination of existing sources of support fromstate and local governmental programs combined with additional help fromnongovernmental organizations such as Trout Unlimited and from othercitizen volunteers. The signatory agencies (e.g., the District of Columbia,Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, and the state of Maryland) fundmost of the storm water retrofit, monitoring, and demonstration projects, aswell as public participation activities.

A key element in maximizing resources from existing programs is theorganization of special technical assistance teams for prioritysubwatersheds (Figure 6.1 ). Subwatershed Action Plan (SWAP)coordinators carry out public education and outreach efforts, and they alsoassist in comparing the management needs of their subwatersheds withactivities of local government. Because many of the problems in theAnacostia relate to urban storm water runoff, many infrastructure projectscan have a bearing on restoration needs. When such infrastructure projectsare identified, SWAP coordinators try to coordinate with the project sponsorand involve the sponsor in the Anacostia program. If possible, the SWAPcoordinator attempts to integrate the retrofit and management objectives ofthe program and the project.

Figure 6.1: Anacostia Basin.Nine priority subwatershedscompose the Anacostia Basin.Source: MWCOG 1997. Reprinted bypermission.

Tidal Anacostia

g

Sligo Creek

Upper Paint Branch

Northwest Branch

BeaverdamCreek

Northeast Branch

Indian Creek

Watts Branch

HickeyRun

Review Chap. 4'sconservation ease-ment section.

REVERSE FAST FORWARDFAST FORWARD



Programs that target the key audience involved with or affected by therestoration initiative to elicit awareness and support. Programs can includetechnical information as well as information on the benefits and costs ofselected measures.

One-to-one interaction between professionals and the interested citizen orlandowner. Includes provision of recommendations and technical assistanceabout restoration measures specific to a stream corridor or reach.

Benefits that can be provided through state and local taxing authorities or by achange in the federal taxing system that rewards those who implement certainrestoration measures.

Direct payment to individuals for installation of specific restoration measures.Most effective where the cost-share rate is high enough to elicit widespreadparticipation.

A type of quasi-regulatory incentive/disincentive that conditions benefitsreceived on meeting certain requirements or performing in a certain way.Currently in effect through the 1985, 1990, and 1996 Farm Bills.

Direct purchase of special areas for preservation or community-ownedgreenbelts in urban areas. Costs of direct purchase are usually high, but theresults can be very effective. Sometimes used to obtain access to critical areaswhose owners are unwilling to implement restoration measures.

Periodic site visits by staff of local, state, or federal agencies can be a powerfulincentive for voluntary implementation of restoration measures.

Simple social acceptance by one’s peers or members of the surroundingcommunity, which can provide the impetus for an individual landowner toimplement restoration measures. For example, if a community values the useof certain agricultural BMPs, producers in those communities are more likely toinstall them.

Regulatory programs that are simple, direct, and easy to enforce. Suchprograms can regulate land uses in the corridor (through zoning ordinances) orthe kind and extent of activities permitted, or they can set performancestandards for a land activity (such as retention of the first inch of runoff fromurban property in the corridor).

Conservation easements on private property are excellent tools forimplementing parts of a stream corridor restoration plan (see more detaileddiscussion in following box). Flowage easements may be a critical componentin order to design, construct, and maintain structures and flow conditions.

In some instances, private landowners may be willing, or may be providedeconomic or tax incentives, to donate land to help implement a restorationinitiative.

Normally, a restoration initiative will require multiple sources of funds, and nosingle funding source may be sufficient. Non-monetoray resources may also beinstrumental in successfully implementing a restoration initiative.

Tools for Facilitating the Implementation of Stream Corridor Restoration Measures

Education

Technical Assistance

Tax Advantages

Cost-share to Individuals

Cross-compliance AmongExisting Programs

Direct Purchase of StreamCorridors or of LandsCausing the GreatestProblems

Nonregulatory SiteInspections

Peers

Direct Regulation of LandUse and ProductionActivities

Easements

Donations

Financing



restoration initiative is not an easyendeavor. The following is a list ofsome important tips that should bekept in mind when selecting amongthese tools (USEPA 1995a).

• Without targeted and effectiveeducation programs, technicalassistance and cost sharingalone will not ensure imple-mentation.

• Enforcement programs canalso be costly because of thenecessary inspections andpersonnel needed to makethem effective.

• The most successful effortsappear to use a mix of bothregulatory and incentive-basedapproaches. An effectivecombination might includevariable cost share rates,market-based incentives, andregulatory backup coupledwith support services (govern-mental and private) to keepcontrols maintained and prop-erly functioning.

Dividing ImplementationResponsibilitiesWith funding in place and restorationtools and activities identified, thefocus should shift to dividing theresponsibilities of restoration imple-mentation among the participants.This process involves identifying allthe relevant players, assigning respon-sibilities, and securing commitments.

Identifying the Players

The identification of the individualsand organizations that will be respon-sible for implementing the design isessential to successful stream corridorrestoration. Since the restorationpartners are identified early in theplanning process, at this point thefocus should be on “reviewing” the listof participants and identifying the oneswho are most interested in the imple-mentation phase. Although some newplayers might emerge, most of theparticipants interested in the imple-mentation phase will already havebeen involved in some aspect of the

Figure 6.2: Landownerparticipation.Restoration on privatelands can be facilitatedby landowners.



Figure 6.3: Conservation easement.Conservation easements are an effective tool for protecting valuable areas ofthe stream corridor.

Conservation Easements

Conservation easements are an effective stream corridor management tool on private property regardlessof whether the stream reach supports high biodiversity or the stream corridor would benefit from activerestoration in conjunction with a modification of adjacent land use activities (Figure 6.3 ). Through aconservation easement, landowners receive financial compensation for giving up or modifying some of theirdevelopment rights while the easement holder acquires the right to enforce restrictions on the use of theproperty.

Specific details of a conservation easement are developed on a case-by-case basis. Only those activitieswhich may be considered incompatible with stream corridor management objectives may be restricted. Thevalue of a conservation easement is typically estimated as the difference between the values of theunderlying land with and without the restrictions imposed by the conservation easement. Governmentagencies or nonprofit organizations must compensate landowners for the rights they are giving up, but notto exceed more than the results are worth to society. The fair market values of the land before and after aneasement are established is based on the “highest and best” uses of the land with and without therestrictions imposed by the easement. Once a conservation easement is established, it becomes part of thetitle on the property, and any stipulations of the conservation easement are retained when the property issold. Conservation easements may be established indefinitely or for 25 to 30 years.

Conservation easements may be established with federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService or the Natural Resources Conservation Service, with state agencies, or through nonprofitorganizations like The Nature Conservancy or Public Land Trusts. It is often beneficial for federal, state, orlocal governments to establish conservation easements in partnership with nonprofit organizations. Theseorganizations can assist public agencies in acquiring and conveying easements more efficiently since theyare able to act quickly, take advantage of tax incentives, and mobilize local knowledge and support.

Conservation easements are beneficial to all parties involved. The landowners benefit by receiving financialcompensation for giving up the rights to certain land use activities, enhancing the quality of the naturalresources present on their property,and, when applicable, eliminatingproblems associated with human usein difficult areas. The quality of theland will also increase as a result ofproviding increased fish and wildlifehabitat, improving water quality byfiltering and attenuating sedimentsand chemicals, reducing flooding,recharging ground water, andprotecting or restoring biologicaldiversity. Conservation easementsare also beneficial to public resourceagencies because, in addition to thepublic benefit of improved quality ofthe stream corridor’s naturalresources, they provide anopportunity for public agencies toinfluence resource use withoutincurring the political costs ofregulation or the full financial costs ofoutright land acquisition.



restoration effort (Figure 6.4). Typi-cally, partners will change theirparticipation as the process shifts from“evaluating” to “doing.”

The decision maker(s), with assistancefrom the advisory group, shouldidentify the key partners that will beactively involved in the implementa-tion process.

Assigning Responsibilities

To ensure the effective allocation ofresponsibilities among the variousparticipants, the decision maker(s) andadvisory group should rely on aspecial interdisciplinary technicalteam. Specifically, the technical teamshould oversee and manage the imple-mentation process as well as coordi-nate the work of other participants,such as contractors and volunteers,involved with restoration implementa-tion. The following are some of theresponsibilities of the major partici-pants involved in the implementationprocess.

Interdisciplinary Technical Team

As noted above, the interdisciplinarytechnical team is responsible foroverseeing and coordinating restora-tion implementation and will assignimplementation responsibilities.Before identifying roles, however, thetechnical team should establish someorganizational ground rules. SomeImportant Organizational Consider-ations for Successful Teamworkreviews some of the important logisti-cal issues that need to be addressed bythe team. Organizational consider-ations are also addressed in Chapter 4.

In addition to establishing groundrules, the technical team should ap-point a single project manager. Thisperson must be knowledgeable aboutthe structure, function, and conditionof the stream corridor; the variouselements of the restoration design; andthe policies and missions of the vari-ous cooperating agencies, citizengroups, and local governments. Whenconsensus-based decisions are notpossible due to time limitations, theproject manager must be able to makequick and informed decisions relevantto restoration implementation.

Once the organizational issues havebeen taken care of, the technical teamcan begin to address its coordinationand management responsibilities. Ingeneral, the technical team mustgrapple with several major manage-ment issues during the implementationprocess. The following are some ofthe major questions that are essentialto successful management:

• How much time is required toimplement the restoration?

• Which tasks are critical tomeeting the schedule?

Figure 6.4:Communication flow.This depicts a possiblescenario in whichvolunteers andcontractors may becomeactively involved.

Review Chap. 4'sorganizationalconsideration section.


Technical TeamResearching and evaluating funding options for the stream corridor restoration initiative.

Technical TeamAnalyzing economic issues and concerns relevant to the stream corridor restoration initiative.

Technical TeamCoordinating and managing restoration implementation

Volunteers Contractors

Technical TeamAnalyzing social and cultural issues and concerns relevant to the stream corridor restorative initiative.

Technical TeamAnalyzing condition of stream corridor structure and functions.

Advisory GroupProvides consensus based recommendations to the decision maker based upon information from the technical teams and input from all participants.

Decision MakerResponsible for organizing the advisory group and for leading the stream corridor restoration initiative. The decision maker can be a single organization or a group of individuals or organizations that have formed a partnership. Whatever the case it is important that the restoration effort be locally led.



• What resources are necessaryto complete the restoration?

• Who will perform the variousrestoration activities?

• Is the implementation teamadequately staffed?

• Are adequate lines of commu-nication and responsibilityestablished?

• Are all competing and poten-tially damaging interests andconcerns adequately repre-sented, understood, and ad-dressed?

Volunteers

Volunteers can be very effective inassisting with stream corridor restora-tion (Figure 6.5). Numerous activi-ties that are part of the restorationimplementation process are suitablefor volunteer labor. For example, soilbioengineering and other uses ofplants to stabilize slopes are labor-intensive. Two crews of at least twopeople each are needed for all but thelargest installations—one crew at theharvest location and the other at the

Figure 6.5: Volunteerteam.Volunteers can performimportant functionsduring the restorationimplementation process.

n How often will the team meet?n Where?n What will the agenda include?n How do members get items on the

agenda?n Who will take minutes?n How will minutes be distributed?n Who will facilitate the meetings?

n How will the team make decisions(vote, consensus, advise only)?

n What decisions must be deferred tohigher authorities?

n How will problems be addressed?n How will disagreements be

resolved?n What steps will be taken in the

event of an impasse?

n What additional information doesthe team need to function?

n How will necessary information beshared among team members, andby whom?

n Who handles public relations?

n What is needed from supervisorsand/or managers to ensure projectsuccess?

Some Important Organizational Considerationsfor Successful Teamwork

MeetingMechanics

TeamDecisionMaking

ProblemSolving

Communicationand Information

LeadershipSupport



implementation site. However, a highlevel of skill or experience is often notrequired except for the crew leader,and training can commonly occur onthe job. Restoration installationsinvolving plant materials are thereforeparticularly suitable for youth, JobCorps, or volunteer forces.

It should be noted that the use ofvolunteers is not without some cost.Equipment, transportation, meals,insurance, and training might all berequired, and each carries a real dollarneed that must be met by the projectbudget or by a separate agency spon-soring the volunteer effort. However,those costs are still but a fraction ofwhat would otherwise be needed fornonvolunteer forces.

Contractors

Contractors typically have responsi-bilities in the implementation of therestoration design. In fact, manyrestoration efforts require contractingdue to the staff limitations of partici-pating agencies, organizations, andlandowners.

Contractors can assist in performingsome of the tasks involved in imple-menting restoration design. Specifi-cally, they can be hired to performvarious tasks such as channel modifi-cation, installation of instream struc-tures, and bank revegetation (Figure6.6). All tasks performed by thecontractor should be specified in thescope of the contract and should besubject to frequent and periodic in-spection to ensure that they are com-pleted within the proper specifications.

Although the contract will outline therole the contractor is to perform, itmight be helpful for the technical team(or a member of the technical team) tomeet with the contractor to establish aclear understanding of the respectiveroles and responsibilities. Thispreinstallation meeting might also beused to formally determine the fre-quency and mechanisms for reportingthe progress of any installation activi-ties. Contained below is a checklist ofissues that are helpful in determiningsome of the roles and responsibilities

Figure 6.6: Contractorteam.Contractors can assist inperforming tasks thatmight be involved inrestoration such asinstalling bankstabilization measures.Source: Robin Sotir andAssociates.



associated with using contractors toperform restoration-related activities.

Securing Commitments

The final element of the division ofresponsibilities is securing commit-ments from the organizations andindividuals that have agreed to assistin the implementation process. Twotypes of commitments are particularlyimportant to ensuring the success ofstream corridor restoration implemen-tation (USEPA 1995b):

• Commitments from publicagencies, private organizations,individuals, and others whowill fund and implementprograms that involve restora-tion activities.

• Commitments from publicagencies, private organizations,individuals, and others whowill actually install the restora-tion measures.

One tool that can be used to helpsecure a commitment is a Memoran-dum of Understanding (MOU). AnMOU is an agreement between two ormore parties that is placed in writing.Essentially, by documenting what eachparty specifically agrees to, definingambiguous concepts or terms, andoutlining a conflict resolution processin the event of misunderstandings, anMOU serves to formalize commit-ments, avoid disappointment, andminimize potential conflict.

A second tool that can be effective ispublic accountability. As emphasizedearlier, the restoration process shouldbe an “open process” that is accessibleto the interested public. Once writtencommitments have been made andannounced, a series of periodic publicmeetings can be scheduled for thepurpose of providing updates on theattainment of the various restorationactivities being performed. In thisway, participants in the restorationeffort can be held accountable.

Some Issues That Should be Considered in Addressing Contractor Roles andResponsibilities

What constitutes successful completion of the contract obligations by the contractor?

What is the planned order of work and necessary scheduling?

Who is responsible for permitting?

Where are utilities located and what are the related concerns?

What is the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractors? (In general, the chain ofcommunication should always pass through the prime contractor, and the prime contractor’srepresentative is always present on site. Normally, clients reserve the right to approve or rejectindividual subcontractors.)

What records and reports will be needed to provide necessary documentation (forms, required job sitepostings, etc.)?

What arrangements are needed for traffic control?

What specific environmental concerns are present on the site? Who has permit responsibility, both forobtaining and for compliance?



Installing RestorationMeasuresA final element of stream corridorrestoration implementation is theinitiation of management and/orinstallation of restoration measures inaccordance with the restoration design(Figure 6.7). If the plan involvesconstruction, implementation responsi-bilities are often given to a privatecontractor. As a result, the contractoris required to perform a variety ofrestoration implementation activities,which can include large-scale actionslike channel reconfiguration as well assmall-scale actions like bank revegeta-tion.

Whatever the scale of the restorationaction, the process itself typicallyinvolves several stages. These stagesgenerally include site preparation, siteclearing, site construction, and siteinspection. Each stage must be care-fully executed to ensure successfulinstallation of restoration measures.(See Chapter 9 for a more detailedexplanation of this process.)

In addition to careful execution of theinstallation process, it is important that

all actions be preceded by carefulplanning. Such preinstallation plan-ning is essential to achieve the desiredrestoration objectives and to avoidadverse environmental, social, andeconomic impacts that could result.The following is a discussion of someof the major steps that should be takento ensure successful implementation ofrestoration-related installation actions.

Determining the Schedule

Scheduling is a very important andhighly developed component of imple-mentation planning and management.For large-scale installation actions,scheduling is now almost alwaysexecuted with the assistance of acomputer-based software program.Even for small actions, however, theprinciples of scheduling are worthfollowing.

For tasks that are part of the actualinstallation work, scheduling is mostefficiently done by the contractoractually charged with doing the work.All supporting activities, both beforeand during installation, must be care-fully scheduled as well and should bethe responsibility of the project man-ager.

Figure 6.7: Installationof erosion controlfabric.Installing measures canbe considered a "mid-point" in restoration andnot the completion.Preceding installation isthe necessary planning,with monitoring andadaptive managementsubsequent to theinstallation.

REVERSEREVERSE FAST FORWARD

Preview Chap. 9'srestoration measuressection.



Obtaining the Necessary Permits

Restoration installation actions con-ducted in or in contact with streams,wetlands, and other water bodies aresubject to various federal, state, andlocal regulatory programs and require-ments. At the federal level, a numberof these are aimed at protecting naturalresources values and the integrity ofthe nation’s water resources. Asdiscussed in Chapter 5, most of theserequire the issuance of permits bylocal, state, and federal agencies.

If the action will be conducted orassistance provided by a federalagency, the agency is required tocomply with federal legislation,including the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act; sections 401, 402, and 404of the Clean Water Act; the Endan-gered Species Act; Section 10 of theRivers and Harbors Act of 1899;executive orders for floodplain man-agement and wetland protection; andpossibly other federal mandates

depending on the areas that would beaffected (see Table 6.1).

For example, under the EndangeredSpecies Act, federal agencies mustensure that actions they take will notjeopardize the continued existence oflisted threatened or endangered speciesor destroy or adversely modify theircritical habitats (Figure 6.8). Wherean action would jeopardize a species,reasonable and prudent alternativesmust be implemented to avoid jeop-ardy. In addition, for federal agencies,an incidental take statement is requiredin those instances where there will bea “taking” of species associated withthe federal action. For non-federalactivities that might result in “taking”of a listed species, an incidental takepermit is required.

Any work in floodplains delineated forthe National Flood Insurance Programmight also require participating com-munities to adhere to local ordinancesand obtain special permits.

Table 6.1: Examples ofpermit requirements forrestoration activities.

Review Chap. 5'spermit section.


Permits Required Activities Covered Administered By

Permits Required Activities Covered Administered By

Local/State

Varies—thresholds and definitions vary by state

e.g., clearing/grading, sensitive/critical areas, water quality,aquatic access

Local grading, planning, or buildingdepartments; variousstate departments

Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Actof 1849

Building of any structure in the channel or along the banks of “navigable waters“ of the U.S. that changes the course,condition, location, or capacity

U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers

Section 401, Federal Clean Water Act Water quality certification State agencies

Section 402, Federal Clean Water ActNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Point source discharges, as well as nonpoint pollution discharges

State agencies

Endangered Species ActIncidental Take Permit

Otherwise lawful activities that may take listed species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Section 404,Federal CleanWater Act

Letters of permission Minor or routine work with minimum impacts

Regional permits Small projects with insignificant environmental impacts

Individual permits Proposed filling or excavation that causes severe impacts,but for which no practical alternative exists; may require an environmental assessment

Nationwidepermits

3 Repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of structures destroyed by storms, fire, or floods in past 2 years

13 Bank stabilization less than 500 feet in length solely for erosion protection

26* Filling of up to 1 acre of a non-tidal wetland or less than 500 linear feet of non-tidal stream that is either isolated from other surface waters or upstream of the point in a drainage network where the average annual flow is less than 5cfs

27 Restoration of natural wetland hydrology, vegetation, and function to altered and degraded non-tidal wetlands, and restoration of natural functions of riparian areas on privatelands, provided a wetland restoration or creation agreement has been developed

U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers

Federal

19, 1998 and will be replaced by a series of activity-specific nationwide permits.



If the activity will affect lands such ashistoric sites, archaeological sites andremains, parklands, National WildlifeRefuges, floodplains, or other federallands, meeting requirements under anumber of federal, state, or local lawsmight be necessary. Familiarity withthe likely requirements associatedwith the activities to be conducted andearly contact with permitting authori-ties will help to minimize delays.Local grading, planning, or buildingdepartments are usually the best placeto begin the permit application pro-cess. They should be approached assoon as a conceptual outline of theproject has been developed. At such apreapplication meeting, the projectmanager should bring such basicdesign information as the following:

• A site map or plan.

• A simple description of therestoration measures to beinstalled.

• Property ownership of the siteand potential access route(s).

• Preferred month and year ofimplementation.

Whether or not that local agencyclaims jurisdiction over the particular

activity, its staff will normally beaware of state and federal require-ments that might be applicable. Localpermit requirements vary from place toplace and change periodically, so it isbest to contact the appropriate agencyfor the most current information. Inaddition, different jurisdictions handlethe designation of sensitive or criticalareas differently. Work that occurs inthe vicinity of a stream or wetlandmight or might not be subject to stateor local permit requirements unique toaquatic environments. In addition,state and local agencies might regulateother aspects of a project as well.

The sheer number of permits requiredfor an aquatic restoration effort mightappear daunting, but much of therequired information and many of theremedial measures are the same for all.An example of how Montana’s permit-ting requirements mesh with those atthe federal level (Figure 6.9).

Holding PreinstallationConferences

Preinstallation conferences should beconducted on site between the projectmanager and supervisor, crew fore-man, and contractor(s) as appropriate.The purpose is to establish a clearunderstanding of the respective rolesand responsibilities, and to formallydetermine the frequency and mecha-nisms for reporting the progress of thework. In a typical situation, theagency reviews consultant work,provides guidance in the interpretationof internal agency documents orguidelines, and takes a lead or at leastsupporting role in acquiring permitsand satisfying the requirements im-posed by regulatory agencies. An

Figure 6.8:Southwestern willowflycatcher.Prior to initiatingimplementation activities,permits may be neededto ensure the protectionof certain species such asthe Southwestern willowflycatcher.



additional conference with any inspec-tors should be held with all affectedcontractors and field supervisors toavoid potential misunderstandings.Volunteers and noncontractor person-nel should also be involved if they arecritical to implementation.

At particularly sensitive sites, the needto avoid installation-related damageshould be valued at least as highly asthe need to complete the plannedimplementation actions as designed.An on-site meeting, if appropriate tothe timing of installation and theseasonality of storms, can avoid manyof the emergency problems that mightotherwise be encountered in the future.At a minimum, the project manager oron-site superintendent and the localinspector(s) for the permittingjurisdiction(s) should attend. Otherpeople with relevant knowledge andresponsibility could also include thegrading contractor’s superintendent,

Figure 6.9: Example ofpermits necessary forworking in and aroundstreams in Montana.The number of permitsrequired for an aquaticrestoration effort mayappear daunting but theyare all necessary.Source: MDEQ 1996.Reprinted by permission.

the civil engineer or landscape archi-tect responsible for the erosion andsediment control plans, a soil scientistor geologist, a biologist, and the planchecker(s) from the permittingjurisdiction(s) (Figure 6.10).

The meeting should ensure that allaspects of the plans are understood bythe field supervisors, that the keyactions and most sensitive areas of thesite are recognized, that the sequenceand schedule of implementing controlmeasures are agreed upon, and that themechanism for emergency response isclear. Any changes to the erosion andsediment control plan should be notedon the plan documents for futurereference. Final copies of plans andpermits should be obtained, andparticular attention should be paid tochanges that might have been recordedon submitted and approved plancopies, but not transferred to archivedor contractor copies.

g

streambank

A, B, C, D, F, I, J, K

A, E, F, G, H, I, J, K

floodplain

B, C, D, E, K

streambed wetland

B,C,E,G,I,K

Using this diagram, determine where your activity will occur. The letters refer to the permits listed below.

Permit Government AgencyA Montana Stream Protection Act (124) Montana Fish, Wildlife & ParksB Storm Water Discharge General Permits Department of Environmental QualityC Streamside Management Zone Law Department of Natural Resources & ConservationD Montana Floodplain and Floodway Department of Natural Resources & Conservation

Management ActE Short-term Exemption from Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality

Surface Water Quality Standards (3A)F Montana Natural Streambed and Montana Association of Conservation Districts and

Land Preservation Act (310) Department of Natural Resources & ConservationG Montana Land-use License or Department of Natural Resources & Conservation/

Easement on Navigable Waters Special UsesH Montana Water Use Act Department of Natural Resources & ConservationI Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) U.S. Army Corps of EngineersJ Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) U.S. Army Corps of EngineersK Other laws that may apply various agencies

depending upon your location & activity



Involving Property Owners

If possible, the project manager shouldcontact and meet with neighborsaffected by the work, including thosewith site ownership, those grantingaccess and other easements, and othersnearby who might endure potentialnoise or dust impacts.

Securing Site Access

Obtaining right of entry onto privateproperty can be a problematic andtime-consuming part of restoration(Figure 6.11). Several types of accessagreements with differing rights andobligations are available:

• Right of entry is the right topass over the property for aspecific purpose for a limitedperiod of time. In many cases,if landowners are involvedfrom the beginning, they willbe aware of the need to enterprivate property. Various typesof easements can accomplishthis goal.

• Implementation easementdefines the location, timeperiod, and purpose for whichthe property can be usedduring implementation.

• Access easement provides forpermanent access across andon private property for mainte-nance and monitoring of aproject. The geographic limitsand allowable activities arespecified.

• Drainage easement allows forthe implementation and perma-nent maintenance of a drainagefacility at a particular site.Usually, the property ownerhas free use of the property forany nonconflicting activities.

• Fee acquisition is the outrightpurchase of the property. It isthe most secure, but mostexpensive, alternative. Nor-mally, it is unnecessary unlessthe project is so extensive thatall other potential activities onthe property will be precluded.

In many cases little or no money maybe exchanged in return for the ease-ment because the landowner receivessubstantial property improvements,such as stabilized streambanks, im-proved appearance, better fisheries,and permanent stream access andstream crossings. In some instances,however, the proposed implementation

Figure 6.10: On-sitemeeting.Many problems that mightotherwise be encounteredcan be avoided byappropriately timed on-site meetings.



is in direct conflict with existing orplanned uses, and the purchase of aneasement must be anticipated.

Locating Existing Utilities

Since most restoration efforts have alower possibility of encounteringutilities than other earthwork activi-ties, special measures might not benecessary. If utilities are present,however, certain principles should beremembered (King 1987).

First, field location and highly visiblemarkings are mandatory; utility atlasesare notoriously incomplete or inaccu-rate. Utilities have a particular sizeand shape, not just a location, whichmight affect the nature or extent ofadjacent implementation. They alsorequire continuous support by theadjacent soil or temporary restrainingstructures. Rights-of-way might alsocreate constraints during and afterimplementation. Even though allpotential conflicts between utilitiesand the proposed implementationshould be resolved during implemen-tation planning, field discovery of

unanticipated problems occurs fre-quently. Resolution comes only withthe active involvement of the utilitycompanies themselves, and the projectmanager should not hesitate to bringthem on site as soon as a conflict isrecognized.

Confirming Sources and EnsuringMaterial Standards

First, the project manager must deter-mine the final sources of any requiredfill dirt and then arrange a pickup and/or delivery schedule. The projectmanager should also confirm thesources of nursery and donor sites forplant materials. Note, however, thatdelaying the initial identification ofthese sources until the time of sitepreparation almost guarantees that theproject will suffer unexpected delays.In addition, it is important to doublecheck with suppliers that all materialsscheduled for delivery or pickup willmeet the specified requirements. Earlyattention to this detail will avoiddelays imposed by the rejection ofsubstandard materials.

Figure 6.11: Site access.In certain areas, accessagreements, such as aright of entry orimplementationeasement, might have tobe obtained to installrestoration measures.



Characteristics ofSuccessful ImplementationAs was discussed earlier, successfulrestoration requires the efficient andeffective execution of several coreimplementation activities, such asinstalling restoration measures, assign-ing responsibilities, identifying incen-tives, and securing funding. TheWinooski River Case Study is a goodexample. Cutting across these coreactivities, however, are a few keyconcepts that can be consideredcharacteristics of successful restora-tion implementation efforts.

Central Responsibility in OnePerson

Most restoration efforts are a productof teamwork, involving specialistsfrom such disparate disciplines asbiology, geology, engineering, land-scape architecture, and others. Yet thevalue of a single identifiable personwith final responsibility cannot beoveremphasized. This project man-ager ignores the recommendations andconcerns of the project team only athis or her peril. Rapid decisions,particularly during implementation,must nonetheless often be made.

Rarely are financial resources avail-able to keep all members of the designteam on site during implementation,and even if some members are present,the time needed to achieve a consen-sus is simply not available.

The success of restoration effortsdepends more on having a competentproject manager than on any otherfactor. The ideal project managershould be skilled in leadership, sched-uling, budgeting, technical issues,human relationships, communicating,negotiating, and customer relations.Most will find this a daunting list ofattributes, but an honest evaluation ofa manager’s shortcomings beforerestoration is under way might permita complementary support team toassist the one who most commonlyguides restoration to completion.

Thorough Understanding ofPlanning and Design Materials

Orchestrating the implementation ofall but the simplest restoration effortsrequires the integration of labor,equipment, and supplies, all within acontext determined by requirements ofboth the natural system and the legalsystem. Designs must be adequate andbased on a foundation of soundphysical and biological principles,tempered with the experience of pastefforts, both successful and unsuc-cessful. Schedules must anticipatethe duration of specific implementa-tion tasks, the lead time necessary toprepare for those tasks, and theconsequences of inevitable delays. Amanager who has little familiaritywith the planning and design effortcan neither execute the implementa-tion plans efficiently nor adjust those

Characteristics of Successful Implementation

• Central responsibility in one person

• Thorough understanding of planning and designdocuments

• Familiarity with the site and its biological and physicalframework

• Knowledge of laws and regulations

• Understanding of environmental control plans

• Communication among all parties involved in the projectaction



In the late 1930s, an extensive watershed restoration effort known as “Project Vermont” was implementedin the Lower Winooski River Watershed, Chittenden County, Vermont. The project encompassed the lower111 square miles (including 340 farms) of the 1,076-square-mile Winooski River Watershed.

The Winooski River Watershed sustained severe damage from major floods during the 1920s and 1930s.In addition, overgrazing, poor soil conservation practices on cropland areas, encroachment to thestreambanks, and forest clear-cutting also led to excessive erosion (Figure 6.12 ). Annual iceflows andjams during snowmelt runoff further exacerbated riverbank erosion. Throughout the watershed, both waterand wind erosion were prevalent. In addition to problems in the low-lying areas, there were manyenvironmental problems to address on the uplands. The soil organic matter was depleted in some areas,cropland had low productivity, pastures were frequently overgrazed, cover for wildlife was sparse, andforest areas had been clear-cut in many areas.In some cases, this newly cleared land wassubject to grazing, which created additionalproblems.

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) joinedwith the University of Vermont (UVM) and locallandowners to formulate a comprehensive, low-input approach to restoring and protecting thewatershed. One hundred eighty-nine farmersparticipated in developing conservation plansfor their farms, which covered approximatey 57square miles. Other cooperators appliedpractices to another 38-square-mile area.Their approach relied heavily on plantings or acombination of plantings and mechanicaltechniques to overcome losses of both land andvegetated buffer along the river corridor, and inthe uplands to make agricultural landsustainable and to restore deterioratingforestland.

The measures, many of which were experimental at the time, were installed from 1938 to 1941 primarily bylandowners. Landowners provided extensive labor and, occasionally, heavy equipment for earthmovingand transportation and placement of materials too heavy for laborers. SCS provided interdisciplinary (e.g.,agronomy, biology, forestry, soil conservation, soil science, and engineering) technical assistance in theplanning, design, and installation. UVM provided extensive educational services for marketing andoperation and maintenance.

In the stream corridor, a variety of measures were implemented along 17 percent of the 33 river miles tocontrol bank losses, restore buffers, and heal overbank floodflow channels. They included the following:

• Livestock Exclusion: Heavy-use areas were fenced back 15 feet from the top of the bank on straightreaches, 200 feet or wider on the outsides of curves, and 200 feet wide in flood overflow entrance andexit sections.

• Plantings and Soil Bioengineering Bank Stabilization: Where the main current was not directed towardthe treatment, streambanks were sloped back and planted with more than 600,000 cuttings and70,000 plants, primarily willow. Brushmattresses, which involved applying a layer of brush fasteneddown with live stakes and wire, were used to protect the bank until plantings could be made andestablished. Where streamflow was directed toward the bank, rock riprap was embedded at the toeup to 2 or more feet above the normal water line. Other toe protection techniques, such as pile jetties,were used.

• Structures: In reaches where nearshore water was deep (up to 14 feet) and bank voiding was

Successful Implementation: The Winooski River Watershed Project, Vermont

Figure 6.12: Brushmattress and plantings after springrunoff in March 1938. Note pole jetties.Brushmatting involves applying a layer of brush fasteneddown with live stakes and wire.



occurring, whole tree deflectors were used to trap sediment and rebuild the voided section. Trees withbutt diameters of 2 to 3 feet were placed longitudinally along the riverbank with branches intact andwith butts and tops slightly overlapped. The butts were cabled to wooden piles driven 8 to 10 feet intothe bank. The slope above the normal waterline was brushmatted and planted.

• Log pile check dams were constructed at the entrances of flood overflow channels and filled with one-person-size rocks for ballast. These served as barriers to overbank flow along channels sculpted byprevious floods. They were installed in conjunction with extensive buffer plantings, and in somecases, whole tree barricades, that were laced down parallel to the river along the top of the denudedbank.

• At overbank locations where flow threatened buffer plantings, log cribs were inset parallel to the bankand filled with rock. Various tree species were planted as a 200-foot or wider buffer behind the cribs.The cribs provided protection needed until the trees became well established.

In the watershed, the conservation plans provided for comprehensive management for sustainable farming,grazing, forestry, and wildlife. The cropland practices included contour strips, contour tillage, cover crops,crop and pasture rotation, grass and legume plantings, diversions, grassed waterways, log culvertcrossings, contour furrows in pastures, livestock fencing, planting of hedgerows, field border plantings,reforestation, and sustainable forest practices.

Wildlife habitat improvement practices provided connectivity among the cropland, pasture, and forestareas; hedgerow plantings as travelways, food sources, and cover; livestock exclusion areas to encourageunderstory herbaceous growth for cover and food sources; snags for small mammals and birds; and slashpile shelters as cover for rabbits and grouse.

One reason for this historic project’s usefulness to modern environmental managers is the extensivedocumentation, including photos, maps, and detailed observations and records, available for many of thesites. Complete aerial photography is available from before, during, and after implementation. More than600 photos provide a chronology of the measures, and three successive studies (Edminster and Atkinson1949, Kasvinsky 1968, Ryan and Short 1995) document the performance of the project.

The restoration measures implemented are continuing to function well today, more than 55 years afterinstallation. Tree plantings along the corridor have matured to diameters as great as 45 inches and heightsexceeding 100 feet (Figure 6.13 ). The woodedriver corridor averages 50 feet wider than it did inthe 1930s. Some of the measures have failed,however, including all plantings without toeprotection. Lack of maintenance and long-termfollow-up also resulted in the failure of restorationefforts at several sites.

Although the Winooski project was experimentalin the 1930s, many of its elements were highlysuccessful:

• Recognition of the importance of landscaperelationships and an emphasis oncomprehensive treatment of the entirewatershed rather than isolated, individualproblem areas.

• Using an interdisciplinary technical team forplanning and implementation.

• Strong landowner participation.

• Empowerment of landowners to carry out therestoration measures using low-cost approaches (often using materials from the farm).

• Fostering the use of experimental methods that are now recognized as viable biotechnicalapproaches.

Figure 6.13: Same site (Figure 6.12) in April 1995. Noteremnants of old jetties and heavy bank cover.Restoration measures are continuing to function well, morethan 55 years after installation.



plans in the face of unanticipatedconditions. A certain amount offlexibility is key. Often specifictechniques are tied to specific buildingmaterial, for example. Adjustmentsare often made according to what isavailable.

Familiarity With the Reach

Existing site conditions are seldom asthey appear on a set of engineeringplans. Variability in landform andvegetation, surface water and groundwater flow, and changing site condi-tions during the interval betweeninitial design and final implementationare all inevitable. There is no substi-tute for familiarity with the site thatextends beyond what is shown on theplans, so that implementation-period“surprises” are kept to a minimum(Figure 6.14). Similarly, when suchsurprises do occur, a sound responsemust be based on the projectmanager’s understanding of both therestoration goals and the likely behav-ior of the natural system.

Knowledge of Laws andRegulations

Site work in and around aquaticfeatures is one of the most heavilyregulated types of implementation inthe United States (Figure 6.15).Restrictions on equipment use, seasonof the year, distance from the water’sedge, and types of material are com-mon in regulations from the local tothe federal level. Not appreciatingthose regulations can easily delayimplementation by a year or more,particularly if narrow seasonal win-dows are missed. The cost of a projectcan also multiply if required measuresor mitigation are discovered late in thedesign or implementation process.

Understanding of EnvironmentalControl Plans

A project in which a designed restora-tion measure is installed but the eco-logical structure and function of anarea are destroyed is no success. Thedesigner must create a workable planfor minimizing environmental degra-dation, but the best of plans can fail inthe field through careless implementa-tion.

Figure 6.14: Workersinstalling a silt fence.Familiarity with on-siteconditions is critical tosuccessfulimplementation ofrestoration measures.



Figure 6.15: Instreamconstruction activity.Site work in and aroundaquatic features is one ofthe most heavilyregulated types of activityin the United States andshould not be attemptedwithout a soundknowledge of the relevantlaws and regulations.

Communication Among All PartiesInvolved in the Action

Despite the emphasis here on a singleresponsible project manager, thesuccess of a project depends on regu-lar, frequent, and open communicationamong all parties involved in imple-mentation—manager, technical sup-port people, contractor, crews, inspec-tors, and decision maker(s). Norestoration effort proceeds exactlyaccording to plans, and not everycontingency can be predicted ahead oftime. But well-established lines ofcommunication can overcome mostcomplications that arise.



The restoration effort is not consideredcomplete once the design has beenimplemented. Monitoring, evaluation,and adaptive management are essentialcomponents that must be undertakento ensure the success of stream corri-dor restoration. Each is carried out ata different level depending on the sizeand scope of the design.

Monitoring includes both pre- andpost-restoration monitoring, as well asmonitoring during actual implementa-tion. All are essential to determiningthe success of the restoration designand require a complete picture orunderstanding of the structure andfunctions of the stream corridor.Monitoring provides needed informa-tion, documents chronological andother aspects of restoration succession,and provides lessons learned to beused in similar future efforts (Landin1995).

Directly linked to monitoring arerestoration evaluation and adaptivemanagement. Using the informationobtained from the monitoring process,the restoration effort should be evalu-ated to ensure it is functioning asplanned and achieving the restorationgoals and objectives. Even with thebest plans, designs, and implementa-tion, the evaluation will often result inthe identification of some unforeseenproblems and require midcoursecorrection either during or shortlyfollowing implementation. Mostrestoration efforts will require somelevel of oversight and on-site adaptivemanagement.

This section examines some of thebasics of restoration monitoring,evaluation, and adaptive management.A more detailed discussion on thetechnical aspects of restoration moni-toring management is provided inChapter 9 of this document.

Monitoring as Part ofStream CorridorRestoration InitiativeRestoration monitoring should beguided by predetermined criteria andchecklists and allow for the recordingof results in regular monitoring re-ports. The technical analyses in amonitoring report should reflectrestoration objectives and shouldidentify and discuss options to addressdeficiencies. For example, the reportmight include data summaries thatindicate that forest understory condi-tions are not as structurally complex asexpected in a particular managementunit, that this finding has negativeconsequences for certain wildlifespecies, and that a program of canopytree thinning is recommended to

6.B Restoration Monitoring, Evaluation, andAdaptive Management

Restoration Monitoring, Evaluation, andAdaptive Management

Restoration Monitoring

• Progress Toward Objectives

• Regional Resource Priorities and Trends

• Watershed Activities

Restoration Evaluation

• Reasons to Evaluate Restoration Efforts

• A Conceptual Framework for Evaluation

Preview Chap. 9'srestoration monitoringmanagement section.

REVERSEREVERSE FAST FORWARD



rectify the problem. The recommen-dation should be accompanied by anestimate of costs associated with theproposed action, a proposed schedule,and identification of possible conflictswith other restoration objectives.

Monitoring plans should be conceivedduring the planning phase when thegoals and performance criteria aredeveloped for the restoration effort.Baseline studies required to providemore information on the site, todevelop restoration goals, and to refinethe monitoring plan often are con-ducted during the planning phase andcan be considered the initial phase ofthe monitoring plan. Baseline infor-mation can form a very useful data seton prerestoration conditions againstwhich performance of the system canbe evaluated.

Monitoring during the implementationphase is done primarily to ensure thatthe restoration plans are correctlycarried out and that the natural habitatssurrounding the site are not undulydamaged.

Actual performance monitoring of thecompleted plan is done later in theassessment phase (Figure 6.16).Management of the system includesboth management of the monitoringplan and application of the results tomake midcourse corrections.

Finally, results are disseminated toinform interested parties of theprogress of the system toward theintended goals.

Components of aMonitoring PlanBased on a thorough review of marinemonitoring plans, some of which hadbeen in place for over 30 years, theNational Research Council (NRC)recommended the following factors toensure a sound monitoring plan (NRC1990):

• Clear, meaningful monitoringplan goals and objectives that

Figure 6.16: Monitoringof revegetation efforts.Monitoring the results ofrevegetation efforts is acritical part of restoringriparian zones alonghighly eroded channels.

Goals of a Restoration Monitoring Plan

• Assess the performance of the restoration initiativerelative to the project goals.

• Provide information that can be used to improve theperformance of the restoration actions.

• Provide information about the restoration initiative ingeneral.



provide the basis for scientificinvestigation.

• Appropriate allocation ofresources for data collection,management, synthesis, inter-pretation, and analysis.

• Quality assurance proceduresand peer review.

• Supportive research beyondthe primary objectives of theplan.

• Flexible plans that allowmodifications where changesin conditions or new informa-tion suggests the need.

• Useful and accessible monitor-ing information available to allinterested parties.

The box, Developing a MonitoringPlan, shows the monitoring stepsthroughout the planning and imple-mentation of a restoration. Each step isdiscussed in this chapter.

When to Develop theMonitoring PlanThe monitoring plan should be devel-oped in conjunction with planning forthe restoration. Once the goals andobjectives have been established in theplanning phase, the condition of thesystem must be considered.

Baseline monitoring enables plannersto identify goals and objectives andprovides a basis for assessing theperformance of the completed restora-tion. Monitoring therefore begins withthe determination of baseline condi-tions and continues through the plan-ning and implementation of the resto-ration plan.

Developing a MonitoringPlan

Step 1: Define the RestorationVision, Goals, and Objectives

The goals set for the restoration drive themonitoring plan design. Above all, it isimportant to do the following:

• Make goals as simple andunambiguous as possible.

• Relate goals directly to thevision for the restoration.

• Set goals that can be measuredor assessed in the plan.

Step 2: Develop the ConceptualModel

A conceptual model is a useful tool fordeveloping linkages between plannedgoals and parameters that can be usedto assess performance. In fact, aconceptual model is a useful toolthroughout the planning process. Themodel forces persons planning therestoration to identify direct andindirect connections among the physi-cal, chemical, and biological compo-nents of the ecosystem, as well as theprincipal components on which tofocus restoration and monitoringefforts.

Baseline studies might be necessary tomeet the following needs:

• To define existing conditionswithout any actions.

• To identify actions required torestore the system to desiredfunctions and values.

• To help design the restorationactions.

• To help design the monitoringplan.



Developing a Monitoring Plan

A. Planning

Step 1: Define the restoration, vision, goals, and objectives

Step 2: Develop the conceptual model

Step 3: Choose performance criteria

• Link performance to goals

• Develop the criteria

• Identify reference sites

Step 4: Choose monitoring parameters and methods

• Choose efficient monitoring parameters

• Choose methods for sampling design, sampling, and sample handling/processing

• Conduct sociological surveys

• Incorporate supplemental parameters

Step 5: Estimate cost

• Cost for developing the monitoring plan itself

• Quality assurance

• Data management

• Field sampling program

• Laboratory sample analysis

• Data analysis and integration

• Report preparation

• Presentation of results

Step 6: Categorize the types of data

Step 7: Determine the level of effort and duration of monitoring

• Incorporate landscape ecology

• Determine timing, frequency, and duration of sampling

• Develop statistical framework

B. Implementing and Managing

• Manager must have a vision for the life of the monitoring plan

• Roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined

• Enact quality assurance procedures

• Interpret the results

• Manage the data

• Provide for contracts

C. Responding to the Monitoring Results

• No action

• Maintenance

• Adding, abandoning, or decommissioning plan elements

• Modification of project goals

• Adaptive management

• Documentation and reporting

• Dissemination of results



Step 3: Choose PerformanceCriteria

Link Performance to Goals

A link between the performance of thesystem and the planned goals iscritical. If the goals are stated in aclear manner and can be reworded as aset of testable hypotheses, perfor-mance criteria can be developed.Performance criteria are standards bywhich to evaluate measurable orotherwise observable aspects of therestored system and thereby indicatethe progress of the system towardmeeting the planned goals. The closerthe tie between goals and performancecriteria, the better the ability to judgethe success of the restoration efforts.

Develop the Criteria

The primary reason for implementingthe monitoring plan must be kept inmind: to assess progress and to indi-cate the steps required to fix a systemor a component of the system that isnot successful.

Criteria are usually developed throughan iterative process that involveslisting measures of performancerelative to goals and refining them toarrive at the most efficient and rel-evant set of criteria.

Identify Reference Sites

A reference site or sites should bemonitored along with the restored site.Although pre- and post-implementa-tion comparisons of the system areuseful in documenting effects, thelevel of success can be judged onlyrelative to reference systems.

Step 4: Choose MonitoringParameters and Methods

Monitoring should include an overallassessment of the condition anddevelopment of the stream corridorrelative to projected trends or targetconditions. In some cases, this assess-ment may involve technical analysesof stream flow data, channel and bankcondition, bedload measurements, andcomparisons of periodic aerial photog-raphy to determine whether streammigration and debris storage andtransport are within the range ofequilibrium conditions. Monitoringmay also include forest inventories,range condition assessments, evalua-tions of fish and wildlife habitat orpopulations, and measurements of firefuel loading. In small rural or urbangreenbelt projects, more generalqualitative characterization of corridorintegrity and quality might be suffi-cient.

Developing PerformanceCriteria Involves:

• Linking criteria to restorationgoals.

• Linking criteria to the actualmeasurement parameters.

• Specifying the bounds or limitvalues for the criteria.

Primary Functions ofReference Sites

• Can be used as models fordeveloping restoration actionsfor a site.

• Provide a target to judgesuccess or failure.

• Provide a control system bywhich environmental effects,unrelated to the restorationaction, can be assessed.



Numerous monitoring programs andtechniques have been developed forparticular types of resources, differentregions, and specific managementquestions. For example, generalstream survey techniques are de-scribed by Harrelson et al. (1994),while a regional programmatic ap-proach for monitoring streams in thecontext of forest management prac-tices in the Northwest is described inSchuett-Hames et al. (1993). Simi-larly, monitoring of fish and wildlifehabitat quality and availability can beapproached from various avenues,ranging from direct sampling ofanimal populations to application ofthe habitat evaluation proceduresdeveloped and used by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (1980a). Tech-niques specific to riparian zone moni-toring are given by Platts et al. (1987).

Choose Efficient Monitoring Parameters

There are two critical steps in choos-ing efficient monitoring parameters.The first is to identify parameters tomonitor. A scientifically based,relatively easily measured set ofparameters that provide direct feed-back on success or failure of restora-tion actions are identified. The NRC(1992) has recommended that at leastthree parameters should be selected

and that they include physical, hydro-logical, and ecological measures. Thesecond step is to select regional andsystem-specific parameters. Criteriadevelopment must be based on athorough knowledge of the systemunder consideration.

Those responsible for resources in thestream corridor must be aware ofchanging watershed and regionalresource priorities. The appropriateplace to consider the implications ofregional needs is in the context ofperiodic reevaluation of restorationobjectives, which is a function of themonitoring process. Therefore, anannual monitoring report shouldinclude recognition of ongoing orproposed initiatives (e.g., changes inregulations, emphasis on restoration ofspecific fish populations, endangeredspecies listings) that might influencepriorities in the restored corridor.Awareness of larger regional programsmay produce opportunities to securefunding to support management of thecorridor.

Review Watershed Activities

The condition of the watershed con-trols the potential to restore andmaintain ecological functions in thestream corridor. As discussed inChapter 3, changes in land use and/orhydrology can profoundly alter basicstream interactions with the flood-plain, inputs of sediment and nutrientsto the system, and fish and wildlifehabitat quality. Therefore, it is impor-tant that stream corridor monitoringinclude periodic review of watershedcover and land use, including pro-posed changes (Figure 6.17).

Basic Questions to Ask WhenSelecting Methods for Monitoring

• Does the method efficiently provide accuratedata?

• Does the method provide reasonable andreplicable data?

• Is the method feasible within time and costconstraints?

Review Chap. 3'sland use and hydrol-ogy sections.




Patterns of water movement throughand within the stream corridor arebasic considerations in developingobjectives, design features, and man-agement programs. Proposals toincrease impervious surfaces, developstorm water management systems, orconstruct flood protection projects thatreduce floodplain storage potentialand increase surface and ground waterconsumption are all of legitimateconcern to the integrity of the streamcorridor. Stream corridor managersshould be aware of such proposals andprovide relevant input to the planningprocess. As changes are implemented,their probable influence on the corri-dor should be considered in periodicreevaluation of objectives and mainte-nance and management plans.

In rural settings, the corridor managersshould be alert to land use changes inagricultural areas (Figure 6.18).Conversions between crop and pasturelands might require verification thatfencing and drainage practices areconsistent with agreed-upon bestmanagement practices (BMPs) orrenegotiation of those agreements.Similarly, in wildland areas, majorwatershed management actions (tim-ber harvests, prescribed burn pro-grams) should be evaluated to ensurethat stream corridors are adequatelyconsidered.

Increasing development and urbaniza-tion may reduce the ability of thestream corridor to support a widevariety of fish and wildlife speciesand, at the same time, generate addi-tional pressure for recreational uses.Awareness of development and popu-lation growth trends will allow arational, rather than reactive, adjust-

ment of corridor management andrestoration objectives. Proposals forspecific implementation activities,such as roads, bridges, or storm waterdetention facilities, within or near thestream corridor should be scrutinizedso that concerns can be consideredbefore authorization of the implemen-tation.

Figure 6.18:Confinement farm.Practitioners monitoringstream corridorrestoration in rural areasshould be aware ofchanges in agriculturalland use.

Figure 6.17: Urbansprawl.Understanding changesin watershed land uses,such as increasedurbanization, is animportant aspect ofrestoration monitoring.Source: C. Zabawa.



Choose Methods for Sampling Design,Sampling, and Sample Handling andProcessing

Parameters that might be included in arestoration monitoring plan are wellestablished in the scientific literature.Any methods used for sampling aparticular parameter should have adocumented protocol (e.g., Loeb andSpacie 1994).

Conduct Sociological Surveys

Scientifically designed surveys can beused to determine changes in socialattitudes, values, and perceptions fromprerestoration planning throughimplementation phases. Such surveysmay complement physical, chemical,and biological parameters that arenormally considered in a monitoringplan. Sociological surveys can revealimportant shifts in the ways a commu-nity perceives the success of a restora-tion effort.

Rely on Instream Organisms forEvidence of Project Success

The restoration evaluation shouldusually focus on aquatic organismsand instream conditions as the “judgeand jury” for evaluating restorationsuccess. Instream physical, chemical,and biological conditions integrate theother factors within the stream corri-dor. Instream biota, however, haveshown sensitivity to complex prob-lems not as well detected by chemicalor physical indicators alone in statewater quality monitoring programs.For instance, in comparing chemicaland biological criteria, the state ofOhio found that biological criteriadetected an impairment in 49.8 percentof the situations where no impairmentwas evident with chemical criteria

alone. Agreement between chemicaland biological criteria was evident in47.3 percent of the cases, while chemi-cal criteria detected an impairment inonly 2.8 percent of the cases wherebiological criteria indicated attainment(Ohio EPA 1990). As a result, Ohio’sSurface Water Monitoring and Assess-ment Program has recognized thatbiological criteria must play a key rolein defining water quality standards andin evaluating and monitoring standardsattainment if the goal to restore andmaintain the physical, chemical, andbiological integrity of Ohio's waters isto be met.

Minimize the Necessary Measurementsof Performance

A holistic perspective is needed whenmonitoring restoration performance.Still, monitoring should focus nar-rowly on the fewest possible measure-ments or indicators that most effi-ciently demonstrate the overall condi-tion of the stream corridor system andthe success of the restoration effort.Costs and the ability to developstatistically sound data may quicklyget out of hand unless the evaluationmeasures chosen are narrowly fo-cused, are limited in number, andincorporate existing data and workwherever appropriate.

Existing data from state and federalagencies, community monitoringprograms, educational institutions,research projects, and sportsmen’s andother groups should be consideredwhen planning for restoration evalua-tion. For example, turbidity data aregenerally more common than sedimentdata. If one of the objectives of arestoration effort is to reduce sedimentconcentrations, turbidity may provide



a suitable surrogate measurement ofsediment at little or no expense torestoration planners. Table 6.2 pro-vides some other examples of restora-tion objectives linked to specificperformance evaluation tools andmeasures.

Incorporate Supplemental Parameters

Although the focus of the monitoringplan is on parameters that relatedirectly to assessment of performance,data on other parameters are oftenuseful and may add considerably tointerpretation of the results. Forexample, stream flow should bemonitored if water temperature is aconcern.

Step 5: Estimate Cost

Various project components must beconsidered when developing a costestimate. These cost componentsinclude:

• Monitoring plan. Develop-ment of a monitoring plan is animportant and often ignoredcomponent of a monitoringcost assessment. The planshould determine monitoringgoals, acceptable and unac-ceptable results, and potentialcontingencies for addressingunacceptable results (Figure6.19). The plan should specifyresponsibilities of participants.

• Quality assurance (QA). Themonitoring plan should includean independent review toensure that the plan meets therestoration goals, the dataquality objectives, and theexpectations of the restorationmanager. The major cost

component of quality assuranceis labor.

• Data management. Monitoringplans should have data man-agement specifications thatstart with sample tracking (i.e.,

Table 6.2:Environmentalmanagement.Source: Kondolf andMicheli 1995.

General Objectives

Potential Evaluation Tools and Criteria

Channel capacity and stability

Improveaquatichabitat

Improveriparianhabitat

Channel cross sections

Flood stage surveys

Width-to-depth ratio

Rates of bank or bed erosion

Longitudinal profile

Aerial photography interpretation

Water depths

Water velocities

Percent overhang, cover, shading

Pool/riffle composition

Stream temperature

Bed material composition

Population assessments for fish,invertebrates, macrophytes

Percent vegetative cover

Improvewater quality

Temperature

Recreation andcommunityinvolvement

Visual resource improvement based on landscape control point surveys

Recreational use surveys

Community participation inmanagement

pH

Dissolved oxygen

Conductivity

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Herbicides/pesticides

Turbidity/opacity

Suspended/floating matter

Trash loading

Odor

Species density

Size distribution

Age class distribution

Plantings survival

Reproductive vigor

Bird and wildlife use

Aerial photography



that define the protocols andprocedures) and conclude withthe final archiving of theinformation. Major costsinclude staff labor time for datamanagement, data entry,database maintenance, com-puter time, and data audits.

• Field sampling plan. Sam-pling may range from the verysimple, such as photo monitor-

ing, wildlife observation, andbehavioral observation (e.g.,feeding, resting, movement), tothe more complex, such asnutrient and contaminantmeasurement, water qualityparameter measurement,plankton group measurement,productivity measurement inwater column and substratesurface, macrophyte or vegeta-

Figure 6.19: Monitoring.It is important to developa framework for themonitoring protocol and aplan for monitoringevaluation.

Types of Data Important to Various Phases ofthe Restoration

Restoration Planning

• Develop baseline data at the site.

Implementation of Restoration Plan

• Monitor implementation activities.

• Collect as-built or as-implemented information.

Postimplementation

• Collect performance data.

• Conduct other studies as needed.



tion sampling, and hydrologi-cal monitoring. The costcomponents for a complex planmay include the following:

- Restoration managementand field staff labor.

- Subcontracts for specificfield sampling or mea-surement activities(including costs ofmanaging and oversee-ing the subcontractedactivities).

- Mobilization and demo-bilization costs.

- Purchase, rental, or leaseof equipment.

- Supplies.

- Travel.

- Shipping.

• Laboratory sample analysis.Laboratory analyses can rangefrom simple tests of waterchemistry parameters such asturbidity, to highly complexand expensive tests, such asorganic contaminant analysesand toxicity assays. The costcomponents of laboratorysample analysis are usuallyestimated in terms of dollarsper sample.

• Data analysis and interpreta-tion. Analysis and interpreta-tion require the expertise oftrained personnel and mayinclude database management,which can be conducted by adata management specialist ifthe data are complex or by atechnician or restorationmanager if they are relativelystraightforward.

• Report preparation. One ofthe final steps in the monitor-ing plan is to prepare a reportoutlining the restoration action,monitoring goals, methods,and findings. These docu-ments are meant to serve asinterpretative reports, synthe-sizing the field and lab dataanalysis results. These reportsare typically prepared by aresearch scientist with the aidof a research assistant. Reportproduction costs depend on thetype and quality of reportsrequested.

• Presentation of results.Though not often considered acritical component of a moni-toring plan, presentation ofplan results should be consid-ered, including costs for laborand travel.

Step 6: Categorize the Types ofData

Several types of data gathered as partof the monitoring plan may be usefulin developing the plan or may provideadditional information on the perfor-mance of the system. The restorationmanager should also be aware ofavailable information that is not partof the monitoring plan but could beuseful. Consultation with agencypersonnel, local universities andconsultants, citizen environmentalgroups (e.g., Audubon chapters), andlandowners in the area can revealimportant information.



Step 7: Determine the Level ofEffort and Duration

How much monitoring is required?The answer to this question is depen-dent on the goals and performancecriteria for the restoration as well ason the type of ecological system beingrestored. A monitoring plan does notneed to be complex and expensive tobe effective.

Incorporate Landscape Ecology

The restoration size or scale affects thecomplexity of the monitoring required.As heterogeneity increases, the prob-lem of effectively sampling the entiresystem becomes more complex.Consideration must be given to thepotential effect on the restorationsuccess of such things as road noise,dogs, dune buggies, air pollution,waterborne contamination, streamflow diversions, human trampling,grazing animals, and myriad otherelements (Figure 6.20).

Determine Timing, Frequency, andDuration of Sampling

The monitoring plan should be carriedout according to a systematic sched-ule. The plan should include a startdate, the time of the year during which

field studies should take place, thefrequency of field studies, and the enddate for the plan. Timing, frequency,and duration are dependent on theaspects of system type and complexity,controversy, and uncertainty.

• Timing. The monitoring planshould be designed prior toconducting any baselinestudies. A problem oftenencountered with this initialsampling is seasonality. Imple-mentation may be completed inmidwinter, when vegetationand other conditions are not asrelevant to the performancecriteria and goals of the resto-ration, which might focus onmidsummer conditions.

The field studies should becarried out during an appropri-ate time of the year. Thedriving consideration is theperformance criteria. Becauseweather varies from year toyear, it is wise to “bracket” theseason with the sampling. Forexample, sampling temperaturefour times during the midsum-mer may be better than a singlesampling in the middle of theseason. Sampling can be

Figure 6.20: Streams inthe (a) western and (b)eastern United States.The wide variability ofstream structure andfunction among differentregions of the countrymakes standardizedrestoration evaluationdifficult.

(a) (b)



performed either by concen-trating all tasks during a singlesite visit or by carrying out onetask or a similar set of tasks atseveral sites in a single day.

• Frequency. Frequency ofsampling refers to the period oftime between samplings. Ingeneral, “new” systems changerapidly and should be moni-tored more often than oldersystems. As a system becomesestablished, it is generally lessvulnerable to disturbances.Hence, monitoring can be lessfrequent. An example of this isannual monitoring of a marshfor the first 3 years, followedby monitoring at intervals of 2to 5 years for the duration ofthe planned restoration or untilthe system stabilizes.

• Duration. The monitoring planshould extend long enough toprovide reasonable assuranceseither that the system has metits performance criteria or thatit will or will not likely meetthe criteria. A restored systemshould be reasonably self-maintaining after a certainperiod of time. Fluctuations onan annual basis in some param-eters of the system will occureven in the most stable maturesystems. It is important for theplan to extend to a pointsomewhere after the period ofmost rapid change and into theperiod of stabilization of thesystem.

Develop a Statistical Framework

The monitoring study design needs toinclude consideration of statisticalissues, including the location ofsample collection, the number ofreplicate samples to collect, the samplesize, and others. Decisions should bemade based on an understanding of theaccuracy and precision required for thedata (Figure 6.21). The ultimate useof the data must be kept in mind whendeveloping the sampling plan. It isuseful to frequently ask, “Will thissampling method give us the answerswe need for planning?” and “Will webe able to determine the success orperformance of the restoration?”

Monitoring can consist of manydifferent methods and can occur atvarying locations, times, and intensi-ties, depending on the conditions to bemonitored. The costs or expendituresof time and resources also vary ac-cordingly. The challenge is to designthe monitoring plan to provide, in acost-efficient and timely manner,accurate information to provide therationale for decisions made through-out the planning process, and duringand after implementation to assesssuccess.

Figure 6.21: Patterns ofshots at a target.Monitoring designdecisions should bemade based on anunderstanding of theaccuracy and precisionrequired of the data.Source: Gilbert 1987 afterJessen 1978

low bias + high precision = high accuracy

high bias + high precision = low accuracy

low bias + low precision = low accuracy

high bias + low precision = low accuracy



The accuracy of the data to defineenvironmental conditions is of para-mount concern, but the acceptableprecision of the data can vary, depend-ing on the target of concern. Forexample, if the amount of pesticides insurface water is a concern, it is muchcheaper to assay for the presence ofgroups of pesticides than to test forspecific ones. Also, if overall waterquality conditions are needed, seasonalsampling of biological indicators mayact as a surrogate for long-term sam-pling of specific chemical parameters.

Choose the Sampling Level

The appropriate level of sampling orthe number of replicates under anyparticular field or laboratory samplingeffort depends on the informationrequired and the level of accuracyneeded. Quantity and quality ofinformation desired is in turn depen-dent in part on the expenditures neces-sary to carry out the identified compo-nents of the sampling plan.

Implementing andManaging the MonitoringPlanManagement of the monitoring plan isperhaps the least appreciated but oneof the most important components ofrestoration. Because monitoringcontinues well after implementationactivities, there is a natural tendencyfor the plan to lose momentum, for thedata to accumulate with little analysis,and for little documentation anddissemination of the information tooccur. This section presents methodsfor preventing or minimizing theseproblems.

Envisioning the Plan

The restoration manager must have avision of the life (i.e., duration) of themonitoring plan and must see how theplan fits into the broader topic ofrestoration as a viable tool for meetingthe goals of participating agencies,organizations, and sponsors.

Determining Roles

Carrying out the monitoring plan isusually the responsibility of the resto-ration sponsor. However, responsibil-ity should be established clearly inwriting during the development of therestoration because this responsibilitycan last for a decade or more.

Ensuring Quality

The restoration manager should con-sider data quality as a high priority inthe monitoring plan. Scientificallydefensible data require that at leastminimal quality assurance proceduresbe in place.

Interpreting Results

Results of the monitoring plan shouldbe interpreted with objectivity, com-pleteness, and relevance to the restora-tion objectives. The restoration man-ager and the local sponsor may shareresponsibility in interpreting theresults generated by the monitoringplan. The roles of the restorationmanager and local sponsor need to bedetermined before any data-gatheringeffort begins. Both parties should seekappropriate technical expertise asneeded.



Managing Data

Data should be stored in a systematicand logical manner that facilitatesanalysis and presentation. Develop-ment of the monitoring plan shouldaddress the types of graphs and tablesthat will be used to summarize theresults of the monitoring plan. Mostmonitoring data sets can be organizedto allow direct graphing of the datausing database or spreadsheet soft-ware.

Managing Contracts

One of the most difficult aspects ofmanaging a monitoring plan can bemanagement of the contracts requiredto conduct the plan. Most restorationrequires that at least some of the workbe contracted to a consultant or an-other agency. Because monitoringplans are frequently carried out on aseasonal basis, timing is important.

Restoration EvaluationDirectly linked to monitoring is theevaluation of the success of the resto-ration effort. Restoration evaluation isintended to determine whether restora-tion is achieving the specific goalsidentified during planning, namely,whether the stream corridor hasreestablished and will continue tomaintain the conditions desired.

Approaches to evaluation most oftenemphasize biological features, physi-cal attributes, or both. The primarytool of evaluation is monitoringindicators of stream corridor structure,function, and condition that werechosen because they best estimate thedegree to which restoration goals weremet.

Evaluation may target certain aquaticspecies or communities as biologicalindicators of whether specific waterquality or habitat conditions have beenrestored. Or, for example, evaluationmay focus on the physical traits of thechannel or riparian zone that wereintentionally modified by projectimplementation (Figure 6.22). In anycase, the job is not finished unless thecondition and function of the modifiedstream corridor are assessed andadjustments, if necessary, are made.The time frame for evaluating restora-tion success can vary from months toyears, depending on the speed of thestream system’s response to the treat-ment applied. Therefore, performanceevaluation often means a commitmentto evaluate restoration long after it wasimplemented.

Reasons to Evaluate RestorationEfforts

The evaluation of stream corridorrestoration is a key step that is oftenomitted. Kondolf and Micheli (1995)indicate that despite increased commit-ment to stream restoration,postrestoration evaluations havegenerally been neglected. In one study

Figure 6.22: Instreammodifications.Restoration evaluationmay focus on the physicaltraits of the channel thatwere intentionallymodified during projectimplementation such asthe riffles pictured.



in Great Britain, only 5 of almost 100river conservation enhancementprojects had postimplementationappraisal reports (Holmes 1991).

Why do practitioners of restorationsometimes leave out the final evalua-tion process? One probable reason isthat evaluation takes time and moneyand is often seen as expendable excessin a proposed restoration effort when itis misunderstood. It appears that thefinal restoration evaluation is some-times abandoned so the remainingtime and money can be spent on therestoration itself. Although an under-standable temptation, this is not anacceptable course of action for mostrestoration efforts, and collectively thelack of evaluation slows the develop-ment and improvement of successfulrestoration techniques.

Protecting the RestorationInvestment

Stream corridor restoration can beextremely costly and represent sub-stantial financial losses if it fails towork properly. Monitoring during andafter the restoration is one way todetect problems before they becomeprohibitively complex or expensive tocorrect.

Restoration may involve a commit-ment of resources from multipleagencies, groups, and individuals toachieve a variety of objectives withina stream corridor. All participantshave made an investment in reachingtheir own goals. Reaching consensuson restoration goals is a process thatkeeps these participants aware of eachothers’ aims. Evaluating restorationsuccess should maintain the existing

group awareness and keep participantsinvolved in helping to protect theirown investment.

Helping to Advance RestorationKnowledge for Future Applications

Restoration actions are relatively newand evolving and have the risk offailure that is inherent in efforts withlimited experience or history. Restora-tion practitioners should share theirexperiences and increase the overallknowledge of restoration practices—those that work and those that do not.Shared experience is essential to ourlimited knowledge base for futurerestoration.

Maintaining Accountability toRestoration Supporters

The coalition of forces that make arestoration effort possible can includea wide variety of interest groups,active participants, funding sources,and political backers, and all deserveto know the outcome of what theyhave supported. Sometimes, restora-tion monitoring may be stronglyrecommended or required by regula-tion or as a condition of restorationfunding. For example, the USEPA haslisted an evaluation and reporting planin guidance for grants involvingrestoration practices to reducenonpoint source pollution. Require-ments notwithstanding, it is worth-while to provide the restorationeffort’s key financial supporters andparticipants with a final evaluation.Other benefits such as enhancingpublic relations or gaining goodexamples of restoration successes andpublishable case histories, can alsostem from well-designed, well-ex-ecuted evaluations.

Review Chap. 5'sgoals and objectivessection.




Acting on the ResultsIdentified goals and objectives, asdiscussed in Chapter 5, should be veryclear and specific concerning theresulting on-site conditions desired.However, large or complex restorationefforts are sometimes likely to involvea wide range of goals. Restorationevaluations are needed to determinewhether the restoration effort ismeeting and will continue to meetspecific goals identified during plan-ning, to allow for midcourse adjust-ments, and to report on any unantici-pated benefits or problems as a resultof the program.

The results from a monitoring plan arean important tool for assessing theprogress of a restoration and inform-ing restoration decision makers aboutthe potential need for action.

Alternative Actions

Because restoration involves naturalsystems, unexpected consequences ofrestoration activities can occur. Thefour basic options available are asfollows:

• No action. If the restoration isgenerally progressing asexpected or if progress isslower than expected but willprobably meet restorationgoals within a reasonableamount of time, no action isappropriate.

• Maintenance. Physical actionsmight be required to keeprestoration development oncourse toward its goals.

• Adding, abandoning, or de-commissioning plan elements.Significant changes in parts of

the implemented restorationplan might be needed. Theseentail revisiting the overallplan, as well as consideringchanges in the design of indi-vidual elements.

• Modification of restorationgoals. Monitoring mightindicate that the restoration isnot progressing toward theoriginal goals, but is progress-ing toward a system that hasother highly desirable func-tions. In this case, the partici-pants might decide that themost cost-effective actionwould be to modify the restora-tion goals rather than to makeextensive physical changes tomeet the original goals for therestoration.

Adaptive Management

The expectations created during thedecision to proceed with restorationmight not always influence the out-come, but they are certainly capable ofinfluencing the opinions of partici-pants and clients concerning theoutcome. The first fundamental rule,then, is to set proper expectations forthe restoration effort. If the techniques

Reasons to Prepare Written Documentation forthe Monitoring Plan

• Demonstrates that the monitoring plan is “happening.”

• Demonstrates that the restoration meets the designspecifications and performance criteria.

• Assists in discussions with others about the restoration.

• Documents details that may otherwise be forgotten.

• Provides valuable information to new participants.

• Informs decision makers.

Adaptivemanagementis not "adjust-ment manage-ment" but away of estab-lishing hy-pothesesearly in theplanning, thentreating therestorationprocess as anexperiment totest the hy-potheses.



to be used are experimental, havesome risk of failure, or are likely toneed midcourse corrections, thesefacts need to be made clear. Oneeffective way to set reasonable expec-tations from the beginning is to ac-knowledge uncertainty, evaluation ofperformance, and adjustments as partof the game plan.

Adaptive management involves adjust-ing management direction as newinformation becomes available (Fig-ure 6.23). It requires willingness toexperiment scientifically and pru-dently, and to accept occasionalfailures (Interagency EcosystemManagement Task Force 1995). Sincerestoration is a new science withsubstantial uncertainty, adaptivemanagement to incorporate newmidcourse information should beexpected. Moreover, through adaptive

management specific problems can befocused on and corrected.

It is recognized that restoration isuncertain. Therefore, it is prudent toallow for contingencies to addressproblems during or after restorationimplementation. The progress of thesystem should be assessed annually.At that time, decisions can be maderegarding any midcourse correctionsor other alternative actions, includingmodification of goals. The annualassessments would use monitoringdata and might require additional dataor expertise from outside the restora-tion team. Because the overall idea isto make the restoration “work,” whilenot expending large amounts of fundsto adhere to inflexible and unrealisticgoals, decisions would be made re-garding the physical actions that mightbe needed versus alterations in restora-tion goals.

Restoration participants must remainwilling to acknowledge failures and tolearn from them. Kondolf (1995)emphasizes that even if restorationfails, it provides valuable experimentalresults that can help in the design offuture efforts. Repeatedly, a culturalreluctance to admit failure perpetuatesthe same mistakes instead of educatingothers about pitfalls that might affecttheir efforts, too. Accepting failurereiterates the importance of settingappropriate expectations. Participantsshould all acknowledge that failure isone of the possible outcomes of resto-ration. Should failure occur, theyshould resist the natural temptation tobury their disappointment and insteadhelp others to learn from their experi-ence.

Figure 6.23: Adaptivemanagement.Adjusting managementdirection as newinformation becomesavailable requires awillingness to experimentand accept occassionalfailures.

• Modify plans using monitoring, technical, and socialfeedback

• Track restoration policy, programs, and individualprojects as feedback for further restoration policy andprogram redesign

• Restoration initiatives: recommend annual assessments

• use monitoring data and other data/expertise

• midcourse corrections or alternative actions

• Link reporting/monitoring schedules for midcoursecorrections

• Manager may contract some/all monitoring, butperiodically must visit sites, review reports, discuss withcontractors.

monitor

plan

act

eval

uate adaptive

management



Documenting and Reporting

The monitoring report should alsoinclude a systematic review ofchanges in resource managementpriorities and watershed conditionsalong with a discussion of the possibleimplications for restoration measuresand objectives. The review should bewide-ranging, including observationsand concerns that might not requireimmediate attention but should bedocumented to ensure continuity incase of turnover in personnel. Themonitoring report should alert projectmanagers to proposed developmentsor regulation changes that could affectthe restoration effort, so that feedbackcan be provided and stream corridorconcerns can be considered duringplanning for the proposed develop-ments.

Documentation and reporting of theprogress and development of therestoration provide written evidencethat the restoration manager can usefor a variety of purposes. Threesimple concepts are common amongthe best-documented restorations:

• A single file that was therepository of all restorationinformation was developed.

• The events and tasks of therestoration were recordedchronologically in a systematicmanner.

• Well-written documents (i.e.,planning and monitoringdocuments) were produced anddistributed widely enough tobecome part of the generalregional or national awarenessof the restoration.

Main sections in a general format for amonitoring report should include titlepage, summary or abstract, introduc-tion, site description, methods, results,discussion, conclusions, recommenda-tions, acknowledgments, and literaturecited.

Dissemination of the Results

Recipients of the report and othermonitoring information should includeall interested parties (e.g., all state andfederal agencies involved in a permitaction). In addition, complete filesshould be maintained. The audiencecan include beach-goers, birders,fishers, developers, industry represen-tatives, engineers, government envi-ronmental managers, politicians, andscientists. The recipient list andschedule for delivery of the reportsshould be developed by the restorationmanager. If appropriate, a meetingwith interested parties should be heldto present the results of the monitoringeffort and to discuss the future of therestoration. Large, complex, andexpensive restorations might havewide appeal and interest, and meetingson these restorations will require moreplanning. Presentations should betailored to the audience to provide theinformation in the clearest and mostrelevant form.

Planning for Feedback DuringRestoration Implementation

A sound quality control/quality assur-ance component of the restoration planincorporates the means to measure andcontrol the quality of an activity sothat it meets expectations (USEPA1995a). Especially in restoration



efforts that involve substantialearthmoving and other major struc-tural modifications, risk of uninten-tional damage to water quality oraquatic biota exists. Midcoursemonitoring should be part of the plan,both to guard against unexpectedadditional damage and to detectpositive improvements (Figure 6.24).

Making a Commitment to the TimeFrame Needed to Judge Success

The time required for system recoveryshould be considered in determiningthe frequency of monitoring.

• Data on fractions of an hourmight be needed to character-ize streamflow.

• Hourly data might be neededfor water temperature andwater quality.

• Weekly data might be appropri-ate to show changes in thegrowth rate of aquatic organ-isms.

• Monthly or quarterly datamight be necessary to investi-gate annual cycles.

• Annual measures might beadequate to show the stabilityof streambanks.

• Organisms with long life spans,such as paddlefish or trees,might need to be assessed onlyon the order of decades (Fig-ure 6.25).

The time of day for measurementshould also be considered. It might bemost appropriate to measure dissolvedoxygen at dawn, whereas temperaturemight be measured most appropriatelyin the mid- to late afternoon. Migra-tions or climatic patterns might requirethat studies be conducted duringspecific months or seasons. Forexample, restoration efforts expectedto result in increased baseflow mightrequire studies only in late summerand early fall.

The expected time for recovery of thestream corridor could involve years ordecades, which should be addressed inthe duration of the study and its evalu-

Figure 6.25:Revegetatedstreambank.Monitoring and evaluationmust take into accountthe differences in lifespans among organisms.Tree growth along thestreambank will beevaluated on a muchlonger time scale thanother restoration results.

Figure 6.24:Streambank failure.Midcourse monitoring willguard against unexpecteddamages.



ation. Moreover, if the purpose ofrestoration is to maintain naturalfloodplain functions during a 10-yearflood event, it might take years forsuch an event to occur and allow ameaningful evaluation of performance.

Some efforts have been made tointegrate short- and long-term perfor-mance monitoring requirements intooverall design. Bryant (1995) recentlypresented the techniques of a pulsedmonitoring strategy involving a seriesof short-term, high-intensity studiesseparated by longer periods of low-intensity data collection. MacDonaldet al. (1991) have described severaldifferent types of monitoring byfrequency, duration, and intensity.

Evaluating Changes in the Sourcesof Stress as Well as in the SystemItself

Restoration might be necessary be-cause of stress currently affecting thestream corridor or because of damagein the past. It is critical to knowwhether the sources of stress are stillpresent or are absent, and to incorpo-rate treatment of the sources of stressas part of the restoration approach. Infact, some practitioners will not enterinto a restoration effort that does notinclude reducing or eliminating thesource of negative impacts becausesimply improving the stream itself willlikely result in only temporary en-hancements.

The beginning steps of ecological riskassessment are largely designedaround characterization of anecosystem’s valued features, charac-terization of the stressors degradingthe ecosystem, identification of theroutes of exposure of the ecosystem to

the stressors, and description of eco-logical effects that might result. Ifthese factors are documented forrestoration during its design andexecution, it should be clear howevaluating performance should addresseach factor after completion. Has thesource of stress, or its route of expo-sure, been diminished or eliminated?Are the negative ecological effectsreversed or no longer present?