getting organizedand identifying problems and opportunities · ing problems/opportunities need to...

CHAPTER 4: GETTING ORGANIZED AND IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

FINAL MANUSCRIPT – 5/11/98 4 – 1

Part II

4Getting Organizedand IdentifyingProblems andOpportunities

4.A Getting Organized

4.B Problem and Opportunity Identification

The impetus for a restoration initiative maycome from several sources. The realizationthat a problem or opportunity exists in astream corridor may warrant communityaction and any number of interested groupsand individuals may be actively involved inrecognizing the situation and initiating therestoration effort. Federal or state agenciesmay be designated to undertake a corridorrestoration effort as a result of a legislativemandate or an internal agency directive.Citizen groups or groups with special culturalor economic interests in the corridor (e.g.,native tribes, sport fishermen) may also ini-tiate a restoration effort. Still others mightundertake stream corridor restoration as partof a broad-based cooperative initiative thatdraws from various funding sources andaddresses a diversity of interests and objec-tives.

Accompanying the recognition of the situationand initiation of the restoration effort is theinitial proposal of “the solution.” This almostinstantaneous leap from problem/opportunityrecognition to the identification of the initial

“solution” occurs during the formative stage ofnearly every initiative involving water andmultiple landowners. This instantaneous leapmight not always address the true causes ofthe problem or identified opportunity andtherefore might not result in a successfulrestoration initiative. Projects that comethrough a logical process of plan developmenttend to be more successful.

Regardless of the origins of the restorationinitiative or the introduction of the proposed“solution,” it is essential that the focus of theleadership for the restoration planning pro-cess be at the local level; i.e., the people whoare pushing for action, who own the land, whoare affected, who might benefit, who canmake decisions, or who can lead. With thislocal leadership in place, a logical, iterativerestoration plan development process can beundertaken. Often, this approach will involvegoing back to the identification of the problemor opportunity and realizing that the situationis not as simple as initially perceived andneeds further definition and refinement.

STREAM CORRIDOR RESTORATION: PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES, AND PRACTICES

4 – 2 FINAL MANUSCRIPT – 5/11/98

This chapter concentrates on thetwo initial steps of stream corridorrestoration plan development—getting organized and problem/opportunity identification. Thechapter is divided into two sectionsand includes a discussion of thecore components of each of theseinitial steps.

Section 4.A: Getting OrganizedThis section outlines some of theorganizational considerations thatshould be taken into account whenconducting stream corridor restora-tion.

Section 4.B: Problem and Op-portunity IdentificationOnce some of the organizationallogistics have been settled, thedisturbances affecting the streamcorridor ecosystem and the result-ing problems/opportunities need tobe identified. Section B outlines thecore components of the problem/opportunity identification process.One of the most common mistakesmade in planning restorations isthe failure to characterize thenature of the problems to besolved and when, where, andexactly how they affect the streamcorridor.



This section presents the key compo-nents of organizing and initiating thedevelopment of a stream corridorrestoration plan and establishing aplanning and management frameworkto facilitate communication among allinvolved and interested parties. Ensur-ing the involvement of all partners andbeginning to secure their commitmentto the project is a central aspect of“getting organized” and undertaking arestoration initiative. (See Chapter 6for detailed information on securingcommitments.) It is often helpful toidentify a common motivation fortaking action and also to develop arough outline of restoration goals. Inaddition, defining the scale of thecorridor restoration initiative is impor-tant. Often the issues to be addressedrequire that restoration be consideredon a watershed or whole-reach basis,rather than by an individual jurisdic-tion or one or two landholders.

Setting BoundariesGeographical boundaries provide aspatial context for technical assess-ment and a sense of place for organiz-ing community-based involvement.An established set of project bound-aries streamlines the process of gather-ing, organizing, and depicting infor-mation for decision making.

When boundaries are selected, the areashould reflect relevant ecologicalprocesses. The boundaries may alsoreflect the various scales at whichecological processes influence streamcorridors (see Chapter 5, Identifying

Scale Considerations). For example,matters affecting the conservation ofbiodiversity tend to play out atbroader, more regional scales. On theother hand, the quality of drinkingwater is usually more of a basin-specific or local-scale issue.

In setting boundaries, two other factorsare equally as important. One is thenature of human-induced disturbance,including the magnitude of its impacton stream corridors. The other factoris the social organization of people,including where opportunities foraction are distributed across the land-scape.

The challenge of establishing usefulboundaries is met by conceptuallysuperimposing the three selectionfactors. One effective way of startingthis process is through the identifica-tion, by public forum or other free andopen means, of a stream reach oraquatic resource area that is particu-larly valued by the community. Thescoping process would continue byhaving resource managers or landown-

4.A Getting Organized

Core Components of Getting Organized

• Setting boundaries

• Forming an advisory group

• Establishing technical teams

• Identifying funding sources

• Establishing points of contact and a decisionstructure

• Facilitating involvement and informationsharing among participants

• Documenting the process

Review Chap 1.Preview Chap. 5'sIdentifying ScaleConsiderations

REVERSE FAST FORWARD



ers define the geographical area thatcontributes to both the function andcondition of the valued site or sites.Those boundaries would then befurther adjusted to reflect communityinterests and goals.

Forming an Advisory GroupCentral to the development of a streamcorridor restoration plan is the forma-tion of an advisory group (Figure 4.1).An advisory group is defined as acollection of key participants, includ-ing private citizens, public interestgroups, economic interests, publicofficials, and any other groups orindividuals who are interested in ormight be affected by the restorationinitiative. Grassroots citizen groupscomprise multiple interests that hope-fully share a stated common concernfor environmental conservation. Suchbroad-based participation helps ensurethat self-interest or agency agendas donot drive the process from the topdown. Local citizens should beenlisted and informed to the extentthat their values and preferences drivedecision-making with technical guid-

ance from agency participants.

The advisory group generally meetsfor the following purposes:

• Carrying out restoration plan-ning activities.

• Coordinating plan implementa-tion.

• Identifying the public’s interestin the restoration effort.

• Making diverse viewpoints andobjectives known to decisionmakers.

• Ensuring that local values aretaken into account during therestoration process.

The point to remember is that the truerole of the advisory group is to advisethe decision maker or sponsor—theagency(s), organization(s), orindividual(s) leading and initiating therestoration effort—on the developmentof the restoration plan and executionof restoration activities. Although theadvisory group will play an activeplanning and coordinating role, it willnot make the final decisions. As aresult, it is important that all membersof the advisory group understand theissues, develop practical and wellthought-out recommendations, andachieve consensus in support of theirrecommendations.

Typically, it is the responsibility of thedecision maker(s) to identify andorganize the members of the advisorygroup. Critical to this process is theidentification of the key participants.Participants can be identified bymaking announcements to the newsmedia, writing to interested organiza-tions, making public appearances, ordirectly contacting potential partners.

Figure 4.1: Advisorygroup meeting.The advisory group,composed of a variety ofcommunity interests,plays an active role inadvising the decisionmaker(s) throughout therestoration process.Source: S. Ratcliffe.Reprinted by permission.

Forming anadvisorygroup is aneffective andefficient wayto plan andmanage therestorationeffort, al-though not allrestorationdecision mak-ers will chooseto establishone.



Lower Missouri River Coordinated Resource Management Efforts in NortheastMontana

The Lower Missouri River Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) Council is an outgrowth of the LowerFort Peck Missouri River Development Group, which was formed in September 1990 as a result of anirrigation and rural development meeting held in Poplar, Montana. The meeting was held to determine thedegree of interest in economic and irrigation development along the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam.

A major blockade to development seemed to be the erosion problems along the river. The RooseveltCounty Conservation District and other local leaders decided that before developing irrigation along theriver, streambank erosion needed to be addressed.

The large fluctuation of the water being released from Missouri River dams is causing changes in thedownstream river dynamics, channel, and streambanks. Before the dams, the river carried a sediment loadbased on the time of the year and flowevent. Under natural conditions, ariver system matures and tries to be inequilibrium by transporting anddepositing sediment. Today, below thedams, the water is much cleanerbecause the sediment has settledbehind the dams (Figure 4.2 ). Theclean water releases have changedthe river system from what it was priorto the dams. The clean water nowpicks up sediment in the river andattacks the streambanks, while tryingto reach equilibrium. These probablecauses and a river system out ofequilibrium could be part of the causeof the river erosion.

Leaders in the group are politicallyactive, traveling to Washington, D.C.,and meeting with congressionaldelegates and the US Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) to secure fundingto address streambank erosion. As a result of the trips to Washington, $3 million was appropriated andtransferred to the USACE for streambank erosion abatement. However, efforts to agree on a mutuallybeneficial solution continued to delay the progress. The USACE had completed an economic analysis ofthe area, and the only viable alternative it could offer was sloughing easements. This would do little to savethe valuable soils along the Missouri River.

The group seemed to be at a stalemate. In July 1994, then Chief of the Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS), Paul Johnson, met with the members of the Lower Fort Peck Missouri River DevelopmentGroup, local landowners, surrounding Conservation District members, NRCS field office staff, and BillMiller, Project Manager for the Omaha District of the USACE, at an erosion site along the Missouri River.After sharing of ideas and information, Chief Johnson suggested that a Coordinated ResourceManagement (CRM) group be formed to resolve the sensitive issues surrounding the erosion and otherproblems of the river. He instructed local and state NRCS staff to provide technical assistance to the CRMgroup. The group followed Chief Johnson’s idea, and the Lower Missouri River CRM Council was formed.This has helped those involved in solving the problems to overcome many of the stumbling blocks withwhich they were being confronted. Some of these successes include:

Figure 4.2: Lower Missouri River.Water released from dams is causing downstream erosion.



• Through the CRM Council the $3 million transferred to the USACE was used to try some newinnovative erosion solutions on a site in Montana and one in North Dakota. The group helped theUSACE to select the site. NRCS assisted in the design and implementation. For the first time in thisarea, materials such as hay bales, willow cuttings, and log revetments were used.

• An interagency meeting and tour of erosion sites was sponsored by the CRM Council in September of1996. In addition to local producers, CRM Council members, NRCS state and national staff, USACEstaff, researchers from the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National SedimentationLaboratory of Oxford, Mississippi, attended the session. The group agreed that the erosion problemneeded to be studied further. The NRCS, USACE, and ARS have been doing studies on the RiverSystem below Fort Peck Dam since the 1996 meeting. A final report on the research in planned forsummer of 1998.

• The CRM Council has been surveying producers along the river to determine what they perceive to betheir major problems. This helps the group to stay in tune with current problems.

• The CRM Council contracted with a group of Montana State University senior students from the Filmand TV Curriculum to develop an informational video about the Missouri River and its resources. Thisproject has been completed, and the video will be used to show legislators and others what theproblems and resources along the river are.

The group has been successful because of the CRM process. The process takes much effort by allinvolved, but it does work.



Watershed Planning Through a Coordinated Resource Management PlanningProcess

The American River watershed, located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, comprises 963square miles. It is an important source of water for the region. The watershed also supports a diversity ofhabitats from grassland at lower elevations, transitioning to chaparral and to hardwood forest, andeventually to coniferous forest at upper elevations. In addition, the watershed is a recreational and touristdestination for the adjacent foothill communities like the greater Sacramento metropolitan area and the SanFrancisco Bay area.

Urban development is rapidly expanding in the watershed, particularly at lower elevations. This additionaldevelopment is challenging environmental managers in the watershed and stressing the natural resourcesof the area. In 1996, the Placer County Resource Conservation District (PCRCD) spearheaded a multi-interest effort to address watershed concerns within the American River watershed. Due to the range ofissues to be addressed, they sought to involve representatives from various municipalities, environmentaland recreational groups, fire districts, ranchers, and state and federal agencies. The group established abroad goal “to enhance forest health and the overall condition of the watershed,” as well as a set of specificgoals that include the following:

• Actively involve the community and be responsive to its needs.

• Optimize citizen initiative to manage fuels on private property to enhance forest and watershed.

• Restore hydrologic and vegetative characteristics of altered meadows and riparian areas.

• Create and sustain diverse habitats supporting diverse species.

• Ensure adequate ground cover to prevent siltation of waterways.

• Reduce erosion from roads and improvements.

• Prevent and correct pollution discharges before they adversely affect water quality.

• Reduce excessive growths of fire-dependent brush species.

• Increase water retention and water yield of the watershed.

• Optimize and sustain native freshwater species.

Because of past conflicts and competing interests among members of the group, a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) was prepared to develop a cooperative framework within which the various expertsand interest groups could participate in natural resource management of the watershed. The signatoriesjointly committed to find common ground from which to work. The first step was to establish “future desiredconditions” that will meet the needs of all the signatories as well as the local landowners and the public.

By including all of the signatories in the prioritization of implementation actions, PCRCD continues to keepthe watershed planning process moving forward. In addition, PCRCD has encouraged the development ofa small core group of landowners, agency representatives, and environmental organizations to determinehow specific actions will be implemented. Several projects that incorporate holistic ecosystemmanagement and land stewardship principles to achieve measurable improvements within the watershedare already under way.



The exact number of groups or indi-viduals that will compose the advisorygroup is difficult to determine and isusually situation-specific. In general,it is important that the group not be sosmall that it is not representative of allinterests. Exclusion of certain com-munity interests can undermine thelegitimacy of or even halt the restora-tion initiative. Conversely, a largegroup might include so many intereststhat organization and consensusbuilding become unmanageable.Include a balance of representativeinterests such as the following:

• Private citizens

• Public interest groups

• Public officials

• Economic interests

It is important to note that whileforming an advisory group is aneffective and efficient way to plan andmanage the restoration effort, not allrestoration decision makers willchoose to establish one. There mightbe cases where a landowner or smallgroup of landowners elect to take onall of the responsibilities of the advi-sory group in addition to playing aleadership or decision-making role.

Regardless of the number of individu-als involved, it is important for allproject participants (and funders) tonote at this early stage that the usualduration of projects is 2 to 3 years.There are no guarantees that everyproject will be a success, and in somecases a project may fail simply due tolack of time to allow nature to "healitself" and restoration methods to takeeffect. All participants must be re-minded up front to set realistic expec-tations for the project and for them-selves.

Establishing TechnicalTeamsPlanning and implementing restorationwork requires a high level of knowl-edge, skill, and ability, as well asprofessional judgment. Often, theadvisory group will find it necessary toestablish special technical teams, orsubcommittees, to provide moreinformation on a particular issue orsubject.

In general, interdisciplinary technicalteams should be organized to drawupon the knowledge and skills ofdifferent agencies, organizations, andindividuals. These teams can providecontinuity as well as important infor-mation and insight from varied disci-plines, experiences, and backgrounds.

The expertise of an experiencedmultidisciplinary team is essential. Nosingle text, manual, or training coursecan provide the technical backgroundand judgment needed to plan, design,and implement stream corridor restora-tion. A team with a broad technicalbackground is needed and shouldinclude expertise in both engineeringand biological disciplines, particularlyin aquatic and terrestrial ecology,hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphol-ogy, and sediment transport.

Team members should representinteragency, public, and private inter-ests and include major partners, espe-cially if they are sharing costs or workon the restoration initiative. Teammakeup is based on the type of taskthe team is assembled to undertake.Members of the technical teams canalso be members of the advisorycommittee or even the decision-making body.



Some of the technical teams that couldbe formed to assist in the restorationinitiative will have responsibilitiessuch as these:

• Soliciting financial support forthe restoration work.

• Coordinating public outreach.

• Providing scientific support forthe restoration work. Thissupport may encompass any-thing from conducting thebaseline condition analysis todesigning and implementingrestoration measures andmonitoring.

• Investigating sensitive legal,economic, or cultural issuesthat might influence the resto-ration effort.

• Facilitating the restorationplanning, design, and imple-mentation process outlined inthis document.

It is important to note that technicalexpertise often plays an important rolein the success of restoration work. Forexample, a restoration initiative mightinvolve resource management or land

use considerations that are controver-sial or involve complex cultural andsocial issues. An initiative mightaddress issues like western grazingpractices or water rights and requirethe restriction of certain activities,such as timber or mineral extraction,certain farming and grazing practices,or recreation (Figure 4.3). In thesecases, involving persons who have theappropriate expertise on regulatoryprograms, as well as social, political,and legal issues, can prevent derail-ment of the restoration effort.

Perhaps the most important benefit ofestablishing technical teams, however,is that the advisory group and decisionmakers will have the necessary infor-mation to develop restoration objec-tives. The advisory group will be ableto integrate the knowledge gainedfrom the analysis of what is affectingstream corridor structure and functionswith the information on the social,political, and economic factors opera-tive within the stream corridor. Essen-tially, the advisory group will be ableto help define a thorough set of resto-ration objectives.

Interdisciplinary Nature of Stream Corridor Restoration

The complex nature of stream corridor restoration requires that any restoration initiative be approachedfrom an interdisciplinary perspective. Specialists from a variety of disciplines are needed to provide boththe advisory group and sponsor with valuable insight on scientific, social, political, and economic issuesthat might affect the restoration effort. The following is a list of some of the professionals who can provideimportant input for this interdisciplinary effort:

• Foresters • Legal consultants • Botanists

• Microbiologists • Engineers • Hydrologists

• Economists • Geomorphologists • Archaeologists

• Sociologists • Soil scientists • Rangeland specialists

• Landscape architects • Fish and wildlife biologists • Public involvement specialists

• Real estate experts • Ecologists • Native Americans and Tribal Leaders



Identifying FundingSourcesIdentifying funding sources is often anearly and vital step toward an effectivestream restoration initiative. Thefunding needed may be minimal orsubstantial, and it may come from avariety of sources. Funding may comefrom state or federal sources that haverecognized the need for restoration dueto the efforts of local citizens’ groups.Funding may come from counties or

any entity that has taxing authority.Philanthropic organizations, nongov-ernmental organizations, landowners’associations, and voluntary contribu-tions are other funding sources. Re-gardless of the source of funds, thefunding agent (sponsor) will almostcertainly influence restoration deci-sions or act as the leader and decisionmaker in the restoration effort.

Establishing a DecisionStructure and Points ofContactOnce the advisory group and relevanttechnical teams have been formed, it isimportant to develop a decision-making structure (Figure 4.4) and toestablish clear points of contact.

As noted earlier, the advisory groupwill play an active planning andcoordinating role, but it will not makethe final decisions. The primarydecision-making authority shouldreside in the hands of the stakeholders.The advisory group, however, will

play a strong role byproviding recommenda-tions and informing thedecision maker(s) ofvarious restorationoptions and the opin-ions of the variousparticipants.

It is important to notethat the decision maker,as well as the advisorygroup, may be com-posed of a collection ofinterests and organiza-tions. Consequently,both entities shouldestablish some basicprotocols to facilitate

Figure 4.3: Livestockgrazing.Technical teams can behelpful in addressingcontroversial and complexissues that have thepotential to influence theacceptance and successof a restoration initiative.

Figure 4.4: Flow ofcommunication.Restoration plandevelopment requires adecision structure thatstreamlinescommunication betweenthe decision maker, theadvisory group, and thevarious technical teams.

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 public outreach efforts and soliciting input from interested participants.

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.



decision making and communication.Within each group some of the follow-ing rules of thumb might be helpful:

• Select officers

• Establish ground rules

• Establish a planning budget

• Appoint technical teams

In conjunction with establishing adecision structure, the sponsor, advi-sory group, and relevant subcommit-tees need to establish points of contact.These points of contact should bepeople who are accessible and possessstrong outreach and communicationskills. Points of contact play animportant role in the restorationprocess by facilitating communicationamong the various groups and part-ners.

Facilitating Involvement andInformation Sharing AmongParticipantsIt is important that every effort bemade to include all interested partiesthroughout the duration of the restora-tion process. Solicit input from par-ticipants and keep all interested partiesinformed of the plan development,including uncertainties associated witha particular solution, approach, ormanagement prescription and whatmust be involved in modifying andadapting them as the need arises. Inother words, it is important to operateunder the principles of both informa-tion giving and information receiving.

Receiving Input from RestorationParticipants

In terms of information receiving, aspecial effort should be made todirectly contact landowners, resourceusers, and other interested parties toask them to participate in the planningprocess. Typically, these groups orindividuals will have some personalinterest in the condition of the streamcorridor and associated ecosystems intheir region. A failure to provide themthe opportunity to review and com-ment on stream corridor restorationplans will often result in objectionslater in the process.

Private landowners, in particular, oftenhave the greatest personal stake in therestoration work. As part of therestoration effort it might be necessaryfor private landowners to place someof their assets at increased risk, makethem more available for public use, orreduce the economic return theyprovide (e.g., restricting grazing inriparian areas or increasing bufferwidths between agricultural fields anddrainage channels). Thus, it is in thebest interest of the restoration initiativeto include these persons as decisionmakers.

A variety of public outreach tools canbe useful in soliciting input fromparticipants. Some of the most com-mon mechanisms include publicmeetings, workshops, and surveys.Tools for Facilitating ParticipantInvolvement and Information SharingDuring the Restoration Process,provides a more complete list ofpotential outreach options.



Informing Participants Throughoutthe Restoration Process

In addition to actively seeking inputfrom participants, it is important thatthe sponsor(s) and the advisory groupregularly inform the public of thestatus of the restoration effort. Therestoration initiative can also beviewed as a strong educational re-source for the entire community. Someeffective ways to communicate thisinformation and to provide educationalopportunities include newsletters, factsheets, seminars, and brochures. Amore complete list of potential out-reach tools is provided in the boxTools for Facilitating ParticipantInvolvement and Information SharingDuring the Restoration Process.

It is important to note that the educa-tional opportunities associated withinformation giving can help supportrestoration initiatives. For example, incases that require the implementationof costly management prescriptions,

outreach tools can be effective inimproving landowner awareness ofways in which risks and losses can beoffset, such as incentive programs(e.g., Conservation Reserve Program)or cost-sharing projects (e.g., Section319 of the Clean Water Act). In thesecases, the most effective approachmight be for the representative land-owners serving on the decision-making team to be responsible forconducting this outreach to theirconstituents.

In addition, educational outreach canalso be viewed as an opportunity todemonstrate the anticipated benefits ofrestoration work, on both regional andlocal levels. One of the most effectiveways to accomplish this is with peri-odic public field days involving visitsto the restoration corridor, as well aspilot demonstration sites, model farms,and similar examples of restorationactions planned.

Finally, wherever possible, informa-tion on the effectiveness and lessonslearned from restoration work shouldbe made available to persons interestedin carrying out restoration workelsewhere. Most large restorationinitiatives will require relativelydetailed documentation of design andperformance, but this information isusually not widely distributed. Sum-maries of restoration experiences canbe published in any of a variety oftechnical journals, newsletters, bulle-tins, Internet Web sites, or other mediaand can be valuable to the success offuture restoration initiatives.

Tools for Facilitating Participant Involvementand Information Sharing During the RestorationProcess

Tools for Receiving Input Tools for Informing• Public Hearings Participants• Task Forces • Public Meetings

• Training Seminars • Internet Web Sites

• Surveys • Fact Sheets

• Focus Groups • News Releases

• Workshops • Newsletters

• Interviews • Brochures

• Review Groups • Radio or TV Programs or

• Referendums Announcements

• Phone-in Radio Programs • Telephone Hotlines

• Internet Web Sites • Report Summaries

• Federal Register



Selecting Tools for FacilitatingInformation Sharing and ParticipantInvolvement

Although a variety of outreach toolscan be used to inform participants andsolicit input, attention should be paidto selecting the best tool at the mostappropriate time. In making thisselection, it is helpful to consider thestage of the restoration process as wellas the outreach objectives.

For example, if a restoration initiativeis in the early planning stages, provid-ing community members with back-ground information through a newslet-ter or news release might be effectivein bringing interested parties to thetable and in generating support for theinitiative (Figures 4.5 and 4.6).Conversely, once the planning processis well under way and restorationalternatives are being selected, apublic hearing may be a useful mecha-nism for receiving input on the desir-ability of the various options underconsideration (Figure 4.7).

Some additional factorsthat should be takeninto account in select-ing outreach toolsinclude the following:

• Strengths andweaknesses ofindividualtechniques.

• Cost, time, andpersonnelrequired forimplementation.

• Receptivity ofthe community.

Again, no matter what tools are se-lected, it is important to make an effortto solicit input from participants aswell as to keep all interested partiesinformed of plan developments. TheInteragency Ecosystem ManagementTask Force (1995) provides the fol-lowing suggestion for a combinationof techniques that can be used tofacilitate participant involvement andinformation sharing:

Figure 4.5: ChesapeakeBay Foundationnewsletter.Newsletters can be aneffective way tocommunicate the statusof restoration efforts tothe community.

Figure 4.6: Regionalrestoration newsreleases.A news release is aneffective tool for informingthe community of theplanning of therestoration initiative.Source: River Networks,1995



Figure 4.7: Local publichearing.Public hearings are agood way to solicit publicinput on restorationoptions.Source: S. Ratcliffe.Reprinted by permission.

• Regular newsletters or infor-mation sheets apprising peopleof plans and progress.

• Regularly scheduled meetingsof landowner and citizengroups.

• Public hearings.

• Field trips and workdays onproject sites for volunteers andinterested parties.

In addition, the innovative communi-cation possibilities afforded by theInternet and the World Wide Webcannot be ignored.

Documenting the ProcessThe final element of getting organizedinvolves the documentation of thevarious activities being undertaken aspart of the stream corridor restorationeffort. Although the restoration plan,when completed, will ultimatelydocument the results of the restorationprocess, it is also important to keeptrack of activities as they occur.

An effective way to identify importantrestoration issues and activities as wellas keep track of those activities isthrough the use of a “restorationchecklist” (National Research Council,1992) The checklist can be main-tained by the advisory group or spon-sor and used to engage project stake-holders and to inform them of theprogress of restoration efforts. Thechecklist can serve as an effectiveguide through the remaining compo-nents of restoration plan developmentand project implementation. In addi-tion, a draft version of Developing aMonitoring Plan (see Chapter 6)should be prepared as part of planningdata collection.

Preview Chap. 6'sDeveloping a Monitor-ing Plan.

REVERSEREVERSE FAST FORWARD



Restoration Checklist ( Adapted from National Research Council 1992 )

During Planning...

o Have all potential participants been informed of the restoration initiative?

o Has an advisory committee been established?

o Have funding sources been identified?

o Has a decision structure been developed and points of contact identified?

o Have steps been taken to ensure that participants are included in the restoration processes?

o Has the problem that requires treatment been investigated and defined?

o Has consensus been reached on the mission of the restoration initiative?

o Have restoration goals and objectives been identified by all participants in the restoration effort?

o Has the restoration been planned with adequate scope and expertise?

o Has the restoration plan had an annual or midcourse correction point in line with adaptive managementprocedures?

o Have the indicators of stream corridor structure and function been directly and appropriately linked to the restorationobjectives?

o Have adequate monitoring, surveillance, management, and maintenance programs been specified as an integralpart of the restoration plan? Have monitoring costs and operational details been integrated so that results will beavailable to serve as input in improving techniques used in the restoration work?

o Has an appropriate reference system (or systems) been selected from which to extract target values ofperformance indicators for comparison in conducting the evaluation of the restoration initiative?

o Have sufficient baseline data been collected over a suitable period of time on the stream corridor and associatedecosystems to facilitate before-and-after treatment comparisons?

o Have critical restoration procedures been tested on a small experimental scale to minimize the risks of failure?

o Has the length of a monitoring program been established that is sufficiently long to determine whether therestoration work is effective?

o Have risk and uncertainty been adequately considered in planning?

o Have alternative designs been formulated?

o Have cost-effectiveness and incremental cost of alternatives been evaluated?

During Project Implementation and Management...

o Based on the monitoring result, are the anticipated intermediate objectives being achieved? If not, are appropriatesteps being taken to correct the problem(s)?

o Do the objectives or performance indicators need to be modified? If so, what changes might be required in themonitoring program?

o Is the monitoring program adequate?

During Postrestoration...

o To what extent were restoration plan objectives achieved?

o How similar in structure and function is the restored corridor ecosystem to the reference ecosystem?

o To what extent is the restored corridor self-sustaining (or will be), and what are the maintenance requirements?

o If all stream corridor structure and functions were not restored, have the critical structure and functions beenrestored?

o How long did the restoration initiative take?

o What lessons have been learned from this effort?

o Have those lessons been shared with interested parties to maximize the potential for technology transfer?

o What was the final cost, in net present value terms, of the restoration work?

o What were the ecological, economic, and social benefits realized by the restoration initiative?

o How cost-effective was the restoration initiative?

o Would another approach to restoration have produced desirable results at lower cost?



Development of stream corridorrestoration objectives is preceded byan analysis of resource conditions inthe corridor. It is also preceded by theformulation of a problem/opportunitystatement that identifies conditions tobe improved through and benefit fromrestoration activities. Although prob-lem/opportunity identification can bevery difficult, in terms of measurablestream corridor conditions, it is thesingle most important step in thedevelopment of the restoration planand in the restoration process. Thissection focuses on the six steps of theproblem/opportunity identificationprocess that are critical to any streamcorridor restoration initiative.

Data Collection andAnalysisData collection and analysis areimportant to all aspects of decisionmaking and are conducted throughoutthe duration of the restoration process.The same data and analytic techniques

are often applied to, and are importantcomponents of, problem/opportunityidentification; goal formulation;alternative selection; and design,implementation, and monitoring. Datacollection and analysis, however,begin with problem/opportunityidentification. They are integral todefining existing stream corridor andreference conditions, identifyingcauses of impairment, and developingproblem/opportunity statements. Datacollection and analysis should beviewed as the first step in this process.

Data Collection

Data collection should begin with atechnical team, in consultation withthe advisory group and the decisionmaker, identifying potential data needsbased on technical and institutionalrequirements. The perspective of thepublic should then be solicited fromparticipants or through public inputforums. Data targeted for collectionshould generally provide information

4.B Problem and Opportunity Identification

The Six Steps of the Problem/OpportunityIdentification Process

1. Data collection and analysis

2. Definition of existing stream corridor conditions (structure and function)and causes of disturbance

3. Comparison of existing conditions to desired conditions or a referencecondition

4. Analysis of the causes (disturbances) of altered or impaired streamcorridor conditions

5. Determination of how management practices might be affecting streamcorridor structure and functions

6. Development of problem and opportunity statements



on both the historical and baselineconditions of stream corridor structureand functions, as well as the social,cultural, and economic conditions ofthe corridor and the larger watershed.

Data are collected with the help of avariety of techniques, includingremote sensing, historical maps andphotographs, and actual resourceinventory using standardized on-sitefield techniques, evaluation models,and other recognized and widelyaccepted methodologies. Communitymapping (drawing areas of importanceto the community or individuals) isbecoming a popular method of involv-ing the public and children in restora-tion initiatives. This technique cansolicit information not accessible totraditional survey or data collectiontechniques and it also makes the datacollection process accessible to thepublic. Additional data collection andanalysis methods are discussed in PartIII, Chapter 7.

Collecting Baseline Data

Restoration work should not be at-tempted without having knowledge ofexisting stream corridor conditions. Infact, it is impossible to determinegoals and objectives without this basicinformation. As a result, it is impor-tant to collect and analyze informationthat provides an accurate account ofexisting conditions. Due to the dy-namic nature of hydrologic systems, arange of conditions need to be moni-tored. Ultimately, these baseline datawill provide a point from which tocompare and measure future changes.

Baseline data consist of the existingstructure and functions of the streamcorridor and surrounding ecosystemsacross scales, as well as the associated

disturbance factors. These data, whencompared to a desired referencecondition (derived from either existingconditions elsewhere in the corridor orhistorical conditions), are important indetermining cumulative effects on thestream corridor’s structure and func-tions (i.e., hydrologic, geomorphic,habitat, etc.). Baseline data collectionefforts should include informationneeded to determine associatedproblems and opportunities to beaddressed in later design and imple-mentation stages of the restorationprocess.

Collecting Historical Data

As described in earlier chapters,stream corridors change over time inresponse to ongoing natural or human-induced processes and disturbances. Itis important to identify historicalconditions and activities to understandthe present stream corridor condition(Figure 4.8). Part of collecting his-torical data is collecting backgroundinformation on the requirements of thespecies and ecosystems of concern.Historical data should also includeprocesses that occurred at the site.The historic description may also beused to establish target conditions, orthe reference condition, for restoration.Often the goal of restoration will notbe to return a corridor to a pristine, orpre-European settlement, condition.However, by understanding thiscondition, valuable knowledge isgained for making decisions on restor-ing and sustaining a state of dynamicequilibrium.

In terms of gathering historical data,emphasis should be placed on under-standing changes in land use, channelplanform, cover type, and other physi-

Preview Chap. 7'sData Collection andAnalysis Methodssections.




cal conditions. Historical data, such asmaps and photographs, should bereviewed and long-time residentsinterviewed to determine changes tothe stream corridor and associatedecosystems. Major human-induced ornatural disturbances, such as landclearing, floods, fires, andchannelization, should also be consid-ered. These data will be critical inunderstanding present conditions,identifying a reference condition, anddetermining future trends.

Collecting Social, Cultural, andEconomic Data

In addition to physical, chemical, andbiological data, it is also important togather data on the social, cultural, andeconomic conditions in the area.These data more often than not willdrive the overall restoration effort,delimit its scale, determine its citizenand landowner acceptance, determineability to coordinate and communicate,and generally decide overall stabilityand capability to maintain and man-age. In addition, these data are likelyto be of most interest to participantsand should be collected with theirassistance to avoid derailment oralteration of the restoration effort dueto misconceptions and misinformation.

Properly designed surveys of socialattitudes, values, and perceptions canalso be valuable tools both to assessthe changes needed to accomplish therestoration goals and to determinechanges in these intangible values overtime, throughout the planning process,and after implementation.

Prioritizing Data Collection

Although data on both the historicaland baseline conditions related toecosystem structure and functions andsocial, cultural, and economic valuesare important, it is not always practicalto collect all of the available informa-tion. Budgets and technical limitationsoften place constraints on the amountand types of data that can be collected.It is therefore important for the techni-cal team, advisory group, and decisionmaker to prioritize the data needed.

At a minimum, the data necessary toexplain the mechanisms or processesthat affect stream corridor conditionsneed to be collected. To illustrate thechallenges of data prioritization,consider the example of identifyingdata for assessing habitat functions.Potential habitat data could includeitems such as the extent of impactedfish, wildlife, and other biota; ecologi-cal aspects; biological characteristicsof soils and water; vegetation (both

Figure 4.8: TheWinooski River (a) inthe 1930s and (b) at thesame location in the1990s.Using photographs is oneway to identify thehistorical condition of thecorridor.

(a) (b)



native and nonnative); and relation-ships among ecological considerations(Figure 4.9). Depending on the scopeof the restoration plan, however, datafor all of these elements might not benecessary to successfully accomplishrestoration. This holds especially truefor smaller restoration efforts inlimited stream reaches.

An effective way to prioritize datacollection is through a scoping processdesigned to determine those datawhich are critical to decision making.The scoping process identifies signifi-cant concerns by institutional recogni-tion (laws, policies, rules, and regula-tions), public recognition (publicconcern and local perceptions), ortechnical recognition (standards,criteria, and procedures).

Data Analysis

Data analysis, like data collection,plays an important role in all elementsof problem identification as well asother aspects of the restoration pro-cess. Data analysis techniques rangefrom qualitative evaluations usingprofessional judgment to elaborate

computer models.

The scope and complexity of therestoration effort, along with thebudget, will influence the type ofanalytical techniques selected. Awealth of techniques are discussed inthe literature and various manuals andwill not be listed in this document.Part I, however, provides examples ofthe types of processes and functionsthat need to be analyzed. In addition,Part III discusses some analyticaltechniques used for condition analysisand restoration design, offers someanalytic methodologies, and providesadditional references.

Existing Stream CorridorStructure, Functions, andDisturbancesThe second step in problem identifica-tion and analysis is determining whichstream corridor conditions best charac-terize the existing situation. Corridorstructure, functions, and associateddisturbances used to describe theexisting condition of the streamcorridor will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Just as human health isindexed by such parameters as bloodpressure and body temperature, thecondition of a stream corridor must beindexed by an appropriate suite ofmeasurable attributes.

There are no hard-and-fast rules aboutwhich attributes are most useful incharacterizing the condition of streamcorridor structure and functions.However, as a starting point, consider-ation should be given to describingpresent conditions associated with thefollowing eight components of thecorridor:

Figure 4.9:Characterizing streamcorridor conditions.Data collection andanalysis are importantcomponents of problemidentification.



• Hydrology

• Erosion and sediment yield

• Floodplain/riparian vegetation

• Channel processes

• Connectivity

• Water quality

• Aquatic and riparian speciesand critical habitats

• Corridor dimension

Since the ultimate goal is to establishrestoration objectives in terms of thestructure and functions of the streamcorridor, it is useful to characterizethose attributes which either measureor index the eventual attainment of thedesired ecological condition. Somemeasurable attributes that might beuseful for describing the above com-ponents of a stream corridor are listedin the box Measurable Attributes forDescribing Conditions in the StreamCorridor. Detailed guidance forquantifying many of the followingattributes is either described or refer-enced elsewhere in this document.

Existing vs. DesiredStructure and Functions:The Reference ConditionThe third step in problem identifica-tion and analysis is to define theconditions within which the streamcorridor problems and opportunitieswill be defined and restoration objec-tives established. It is helpful todescribe how the present baselineconditions of the stream corridorcompare to a reference condition thatrepresents, as closely as possible, thedesired outcome of restoration (Figure4.10). The reference condition mightbe similar to what the stream corridor

would have been like had it remainedrelatively stable. It might represent acondition less ideal than the pristine,but substantially improved from thepresent condition. Developing a set ofreference conditions might not be aneasy task, but it is essential to conduct-ing a good problem/opportunityanalysis.

Several information sources can bevery helpful in defining the referencecondition. Published literature mightprovide information for developingreference conditions. Hydrologic datacan often be used to describe naturalflow and sediment regimes, andregional hydraulic geometry relationsmay define reference conditions forchannel dimensions, pattern, andprofile. Published soil surveys containsoil map-unit descriptions and inter-pretations reflecting long-term eco-logical conditions that may be suitablefor reference. Species lists of plantsand animals (both historical andpresent) and literature on specieshabitat needs provide information ondistribution of organisms, both byhabitat characteristics and by geo-graphic range.

Figure 4.10: Examplereference condition inthe western UnitedStates.A reference conditionmay be similar to whatthe corridor would havebeen like in a state ofrelative "dynamicequilibrium."



In most cases, however, referenceconditions are developed by compari-son with reference reaches or sitesbelieved to be indicative of the naturalpotential of the stream corridor. Thereference site might be thepredisturbance condition of the streamto be restored, where such conditionsare established by examining relicareas (enclosures, preserves), histori-cal photos, survey notes, and/or otherdescriptive accounts. Similarly, refer-ence conditions may be developedfrom nearby stream corridors insimilar physiographic settings if thosestreams are minimally impacted by

natural and human-caused distur-bances.

Causes of Altered orImpaired ConditionsConditions that provide the impetusfor stream corridor restoration activi-ties include degraded stream channelconditions and degraded habitat. Athorough analysis of the cause orcauses of these alterations or impair-ments is fundamental to identifyingmanagement opportunities and con-straints and to defining realistic andattainable restoration objectives.

Hydrology

- total (annual) discharge

- seasonal (monthly)discharge

- peak flows

- minimum flows

- annual flow durations

- rainfall records

- size and shape of thewatershed

Erosion and Sediment Yield

- watershed cover and soilhealth

- dominant erosionprocesses

- rates of surface erosionand mass wasting

- sediment delivery ratios

- channel erosion processesand rates

- sediment transportfunctions

Floodplain/RiparianVegetation

- community type

- type distribution

- surface cover

- canopy

- community dynamics andsuccession

- recruitment/reproduction

Channel Processes

- flow characteristics

- channel dimensions, shape,profile, and pattern

- substrate composition

- floodplain connectivity

- evidence of entrenchmentand/or deposition

- lateral (bank) erosion

- floodplain scour

- channel avulsions/realignments

- meander and braidingprocesses

- depositional features

- scour-fill processes

- sediment transport class(suspended, bedload)

Connectivity

Water Quality

- color

- temperature, dissolvedoxygen (BOD, COD, andTOC)

- suspended sediment

- present chemical condition

- present macroinvertebratecondition

Aquatic and RiparianSpecies and Critical Habitats

- aquatic species of concernand associated habitats

- riparian species of concernand associated habitats

- native vs. introduced species

- threatened or endangeredspecies

- benthic, macroinvertebrate,or vertebrate indicatorspecies

Corridor Dimension

- plan view maps

- topographic maps

- width

- linearity, etc.

Measurable Attributes for Describing Conditions in the Stream Corridor



The Condition Continuum

One helpful way to conceptualize the relationship between the current and reference conditions is to thinkof stream corridor conditions as occurring on a “condition continuum.” At one end of this continuum,conditions may be categorized as being natural, pristine, or unimpaired by human activities. A headwaterwilderness stream could exist near this end of the continuum (Figure 4.11 ). At the other end of thecontinuum, stream corridor conditions may be considered severely altered or impaired. Streams at this endof the continuum could be totally “trashed” streams or completely channelized water conduits.

In concept, present conditions in the stream corridor exist somewhere along this condition continuum. Thecondition objective for stream restoration from an ecological perspective should be as close to the dynamicequilibrium as possible. It should be noted, however, that once other important considerations, such aspolitical, economic, and social values, are introduced during the establishment of restoration goals andobjectives, the target may shift to restoring the stream to some condition that lies between the presentsituation and dynamic equilibrium.

The proper functioning condition (PFC) concept is used as a minimum target in western riparian areas andcan be the basis on which to plan additional enhancements (Pritchard et al.1993, rev. 1995).

Figure 4.11: Condition continuum.The condition continuum runs from (a) untouched by humans to (b) severely impaired.

(a)

(b)

Preview Chap. 7'sPFC section


Source: L. Goldman



As discussed in Chapter 3, for everystream corridor structural attribute andfunction that is altered or impaired,there may be a causal chain of eventsresponsible for the impairment. As aresult, when conducting a problemanalysis, it is useful to consider factorsthat affect stream corridor ecologicalcondition at different levels or scales:

• Landscape

• Stream corridor and reach

Landscape Factors AffectingStream Corridor Condition

When analyzing landscape-scalefactors that contribute to existingstream corridor conditions, distur-bances that result in changes in waterand sediment delivery to the streamand in sources of contamination shouldbe considered. In alluvial streamcorridors, for example, anything thatchanges the historical balance betweendelivery of sediment to the channeland sediment-transport capacity of the

Common Impaired or Degraded StreamCorridor Conditions

The following list provides some examples ofimpaired stream corridor conditions. A morecomplete list of these effects is provided inChapter 3.

• Stream aggradation - filling (rise in bedelevation over time)

• Stream degradation - incision (drop in bedelevation over time)

• Streambank erosion

• Impaired aquatic habitat

• Impaired riparian habitat

• Impaired terrestrial habitat

• Loss of gene pool of native species

• Increased peak flood elevation

• Increased bank failure

• Lower water table levels

• Increase of fine sediment in the corridor

• Decrease of species diversity

• Impaired water quality

• Altered hydrology

Accelerated Bank Erosion: The Importance ofUnderstanding a Causal Chain of Events

To illustrate the concept of a causal chain of events, consider the problem of accelerated bank erosion(Figure 4.12 ). Often the cause of accelerated bank erosion might be attributed to increases in peakrunoff or sediment delivery to a stream when asurrounding watershed is undergoing land usechanges; to the loss of bank vegetation, which alsoincreases the vulnerability of the bank to erosion; or tostructures in the stream (e.g., bridge abutments) thatredirect the water flow into the bank. In this case,determining that bank erosion has increased relative tosome reference rate is central to the identification of animpaired condition. In addition, understanding thecause or causes of the increased erosion is a key stepin effective problem analysis. It is critical to the solutionof the problem that this understanding be factored intothe development of restoration objectives andmanagement alternatives. Figure 4.12: Bank erosion.

The cause(s) of bank erosion should be identified.



stream will elicit a change in channelconditions. When sediment deliveriesincrease relative to sediment-transportcapacities, stream aggradation usuallyoccurs; when sediment-transportcapacities increase relative to sedimentdelivery, stream incision usuallyoccurs. How the channel responds tochanges in flow and sediment regimedepends on the magnitude of changein runoff and sediment and the type ofsediment load being transported by thestream—suspended sediment orbedload.

The analysis of watershed effects onchannels is aided by the use of stan-dard hydrologic, hydraulic, and sedi-ment transport tools. Depending onthe available data, results may rangefrom highly precise to quantitative.Altered flow regimes, for example,might be readily discernible if thestream has a long-term gauge record.Otherwise, numerical runoff modelingtechniques might be needed to placean approximate magnitude on thechange in peak flows resulting from achange in land use conditions. Waterdevelopments such as storage reser-

voirs and diversions also must befactored into an analysis of alteredwatershed hydrology (Figure 4.13).

The effects of altered land use onsediment delivery to streams may beassessed using various analytical andempirical tools. These are discussedin Chapters 7 and 8. However, thesetools should be used with some cau-tion unless they have been verified andcalibrated with actual instream sedi-ment sampling data or measuredreservoir sedimentation rates.

The stream channel itself mightprovide some clues as to whether it isexperiencing an increase or decreasein sediment delivery from the water-shed relative to sediment-transportcapacity. Special attention should bepaid to channel capacities and deposi-tional features such as sand or gravelbars. If flooding seems to be morefrequent, it might be an indication thataggradation is occurring. Conversely,if there is evidence of channel en-trenchment, such as exposed bridgepier or abutment footings, degradationis occurring. Similarly, if the numberand size of gravel bars are signifi-

Figure 4.13: Waterreleases below a dam.Altering the flow regimeof Glen Canyon Damaltered the streamcondition.

Preview Chap. 7 & 8'sAnalytical andempirical toolssection.




cantly different from what is evidentin historical photos, for example, thedifference might be an indication thateither aggradation or erosion has beenenhanced. Care is needed when usingthe channel to interpret possiblechanges in watershed conditions sincesimilar channel symptoms can also becaused by changes in conditionswithin the stream corridor itself or bynatural variation of the hydrograph.

Stream Corridor and Reach FactorsAffecting Stream CorridorConditions

In addition to watershed factorsaffecting stream corridor conditions, itis important to consider disturbancesat the stream corridor and reach scales.In general, stream corridor structuralattributes and functions are greatlyaffected by several important catego-ries of activities if they occur withinthe corridor. Chapter 3 explores thesein more detail; the following are someof the activities that commonly impactcorridor structure and function.

• Activities that alter or removestreambank and riparianvegetation (e.g., grazing,agriculture, logging, andurbanization), resulting inchanges in the stability ofstreambanks, runoff andtransport of contaminants,water quality, or habitat char-acteristics of riparian zones(Figure 4.14).

• Activities that physically alterthe morphology of channels,

Figure 4.14: Residentialdevelopment.Urbanization can severelyimpair conditions criticalfor riparian vegetation byincreasing impervioussurfaces.

Localized Impacts Affecting the Stream Corridor

Spatial considerations in stream corridor restoration are usually discussed at the landscape, corridor, andstream scales (e.g., connections to other systems, minimum widths, or maximum edge concerns).However, the critical failures in corridor systems can often occur at the reach scale, where a single break incontinuity or other weakness can have a domino effect on the entire corridor. Just as uncontrolledwatershed degradation can doom stream corridor restoration effectiveness, so can specific sites wherecritical problems exist that can prevent the whole corridor from functioning effectively.

Examples of weaknesses or problems at the reach scale that might affect the whole corridor are wide-ranging. Barriers to fish passage, lack of appropriate shade and resultant loss of water temperaturemoderation, breaks in terrestrial migration lands, or narrow points that make some animals particularlyvulnerable to predators can often alter conditions elsewhere in the corridor. In addition, other sites mightbe direct or indirect source areas for problems, such as headcuts or rapidly eroding banks that contributeexcessive sediment to the stream and instability to the system, or locations with populations of noxiousexotic plant species that can spread to other parts of the corridor system. Some site-specific land useproblems can also have critical impacts on corridor integrity, including chronic damage from grazinglivestock, irrigation water returns, and uncontrolled storm water outflows.



banks, and riparian zones,resulting in effects such as thedisplacement of aquatic andriparian habitat and the disrup-tion of the flow of energy andmaterials (e.g., channelization,levee construction, gravelmining, and access trails).

• Instream modifications thatalter channel shape and dimen-sions, flow hydraulics, sedi-ment-transport characteristics,aquatic habitat, and waterquality (e.g., dams and gradestabilization measures, bankriprap, logs, bridge piers, andhabitat “enhancement” mea-sures) (Figure 4.15). In thecase of logs, it might be theloss of such structures ratherthan their addition that altersflow hydraulics and channelstructure.

Altered riparian vegetation and physi-cal modification of channels andfloodplains are primary causes ofimpaired stream corridor structure andfunctions because their effects are bothprofound and direct. Addressing thecauses of these changes might offerthe best, most feasible opportunitiesfor restoring stream corridors. How-ever, the altered vegetation and physi-cal modifications also may createsome of the most significant chal-lenges for stream corridor restorationby constraining the number or type ofpossible solutions.

It is important to remember that thereare no simple analytical methodsavailable for analyzing relationshipsbetween activities or events potentiallydisturbing the stream corridor and thestructure and functions defining the

corridor. However, there are modes bywhich stream corridor activities andstructures can affect ecological condi-tions that involve both direct andindirect impacts. The box Examples ofHow Activities Occurring Within theCorridor Can Affect Structure andFunctions provides some examples ofthe modes by which activities canaffect stream corridor structure andfunctions.

Examples of How ActivitiesOccurring Within the CorridorCan Affect Structure andFunctions

• Direct disturbance or displacementof aquatic and/or riparian speciesor habitats

• Indirect disturbance associatedwith altered stream hydraulics andsediment-transport capacity

• Indirect disturbance associatedwith altered channel and riparianzone sedimentation dynamics

• Indirect disturbance associatedwith altered surface water-groundwater exchanges

• Indirect disturbance associatedwith chemical discharges andaltered water quality

Figure 4.15: Anabandoned dam.Instream modificationssuch as a dam candisturb the corridor byaltering flow andrestricting migration.



In conducting the problem analysis, itis important to investigate the variousmodes of ecological interaction at thereach and system scales. The analysismight need to be subjective anddeductive, in which case use of aninterdisciplinary team is essential. Inother cases, the analysis might beenhanced by application of availablehydrologic, hydraulic, sedimentation,water quality, or habitat models.

Whatever the situation, it is likely thatthe analysis will require site-specificapplication of ecological principlesaided by a few quantitative tools. Itwill rarely be possible to determinecausative factors for resource impair-ment using uninterpreted results fromoff-the-shelf analytical models.Part III, Chapter 7, contains a detaileddiscussion of some of the quantitativetools available to assist in the analysisof the resource conditions within thestream corridor ecosystem.

Determination ofManagement Influence onStream Corridor ConditionsOnce the conditions have been identi-fied and the causes of those conditionsdescribed, the key remaining questionis whether the causative factors are afunction of and responsive to manage-ment. Specific management factorsthat contribute to impairment might ormight not have been identified withthe causes of impairment previouslyidentified.

To illustrate, consider again theexample of increased bank erosion.An initial analysis of impaired condi-tions might identify causes such asland uses in the watershed that areyielding higher flows and sediment

loads, loss of streambank vegetation,or redirection of flow from instreammodifications. None of these, however,identify the role of managementinfluences. For example, if higherwater and sediment yields are a func-tion of improper grazing management,the problem might be mitigated simplyby altering grazing practices.

The ability to identify managementinfluences becomes critical whenidentifying alternatives for restoration.Description of past managementinfluences may prevent the repetitionof previous mistakes and shouldfacilitate prediction of future systemresponse for evaluating alternatives.Recognition of management influencesalso is important for predicting theeffectiveness of mitigation and thefeasibility of specific treatments.Identifying the role of management isa key consideration when evaluatingthe ability of the stream corridor toheal itself (e.g., without management,with management, with managementplus additional treatments). The identi-fication of past management, both inthe watershed and in the stream corri-dor, and its influence on those factorscausing impairment will therefore helpto sharpen the focus of the restorationeffort.

Problem or OpportunityStatements for StreamCorridor RestorationThe final step in the process of prob-lem/opportunity identification andanalysis is development of concisestatements to drive the restorationeffort. Problem/opportunity statementsnot only serve as a general focus forthe restoration effort but also become

Preview Chap. 7'sQuantitative ToolsSection.




Bluewater Creek

The watershed analysis and subsequent treatments performed atBluewater Creek, New Mexico, demonstrate successful watershedand stream corridor restoration. Although most of the work hastaken place on federal land, the intermixing of private lands and thevalues and needs of the varied publics concerned with thewatershed make it a valuable case study. The project, begun in1984, has a record of progress and improved land management.The watershed received the 1997 Chief’s Stewardship Award fromthe Chief of the Forest Service and continues to host numerousstudies and research projects.

Located in the Zuni mountains of north-central New Mexico,Bluewater Creek drains a 52,042-acre watershed that entersBluewater Lake, a 2,350-acre reservoir in the East Rio San Josewatershed. Bluewater Creek and Lake provide the only opportunityto fish for trout and other coldwater species and offer a uniqueopportunity for water-based recreation in an otherwise arid part ofNew Mexico.

The watershed has a lengthy history of complex land uses.Between 1890 and 1940, extensive logging using narrow-gaugerailroad technology cut over much of the watershed. Extensivegrazing of livestock, uncontrolled fires, and some mining activityalso occurred. Following logging by private enterprises, largeportions of the watershed were sold to the USDA Forest Service inthe early 1940s. Grazing, some logging, extensive roading, andincreased recreational use continued in the watershed. The Mt.Taylor Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest now manages86 percent of the watershed, with significant private holdings (12.5percent) and limited parcels owned by the state of New Mexico andNative Americans.

In the early 1980s, local citizens worked with the Soil ConservationService (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) to begin aResource Conservation and Development (RC&D) project toprotect water quality in the stream and lake as well as limit lakesedimentation harming irrigation and recreation opportunities.Although the RC&D project did not develop, the Forest Service, asthe major land manager in the watershed, conducted a thoroughanalysis on the lands it managed and implemented a restorationinitiative and monitoring that continue to this day.

The effort has been based on five goals: (1) reduce flood peaksand prolong baseflows, (2) reduce soil loss and resultantdownstream channel and lake sedimentation, (3) increase fish andwildlife productivity, (4) improve timber and range productivity, and(5) demonstrate proper watershed analysis and treatment methods.Also important is close adherence to a variety of legalrequirements to preserve the environmental and cultural values ofthe watershed, particularly addressing the needs of threatened,endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species; preserving therich cultural history of the area; and complying with requirements of the Clean Water Act.

For analysis purposes, the watershed was divided into 13 subwatersheds and further stratified based onvegetation, geology, and slope. Analysis of data gathered measuring ground cover transects and channelanalysis from August 1984 through July 1985 resulted in eight major conclusions: (1) areas forested with

Figure 4.17: Vehicle traffic through wetmeadow in Bluewater Creek, NM. (May1984.)Such traffic compacts and damages soil,changes flow patterns, and induces gullyerosion.

Figure 4.18: Recently installedtreatment. (April 1987.)Porous fence revetment designed toreduce bank failure.

Figure 4.19: Porous fence revetmentaided by bank sloping. (August 1987.)The photo shows initial revegetationduring first growing season followingtreatment installation.



mixed conifer and ponderosa pine species were generally able tohandle rainfall and snowmelt runoff; (2) excessive peak flows, aswell as normal flows continually undercut steep channel banks,causing large volumes of bank material to enter the stream andlake system; (3) most perennial and intermittent channels werelacking the riparian vegetation they needed to maintainstreambank integrity; (4) most watersheds had an excessivenumber of roads (Figure 4.17 ); (5) trails caused by livestock,particularly cattle, concentrate runoff into small streams anderodible areas; (6) several key watersheds suffered from livestockoveruse and improper grazing management systems; (7) someinstances of timber management practices were exacerbatingwatershed problems; and (8) excessive runoff in somesubwatersheds continued to degrade the main channel.

Based on the conclusions of the analysis, a broad range oftreatments were prescribed and implemented. Some were active(e.g., construction of particular works or projects); others weremore passive (e.g., adjustments to grazing strategies). Channeltreatments such as small dams, gully headcut control structures,grade control structures, porous fence revetments (Figures 4.18,4.19, and 4.20 ), and channel crossings (Figure 4.21 ) were usedto affect flow regimes, channel stability, and water quality.Riparian plantings, riparian pastures, and beaver managementprograms were also established, and meander reestablishmentand channel relocation were conducted. Land treatments, suchas the establishment of best management practices (BMPs) forlivestock, timber, roads, and fish and wildlife, were developed toprevent soil loss and maintain site productivity.

In a few cases, land and channel treatments were implementedsimultaneously (e.g., livestock drift fences and seasonal areaclosures). Additional attention was paid to improved roadmanagement practices, and unnecessary roads were closed.

Results of the project have largely met its goals, and thewatershed is more productive and enjoyable for a broad range of goods, services, and values. Although oneweakness of the project was the lack of a carefully designed monitoring and evaluation plan, observersgenerally agree that the completed treatments continue to perform their designed function, while additionaltreatments add to the success of the project.

Most of the small in-channel structures are functioning as designed. The meander reestablishment haslengthened the channel and decreased gradient in a critical reach. The channel relocation project has justcompleted its first year, and initial results are promising. Beaver have established themselves along the mainchannel of Bluewater Creek, providing significant habitat for fish and wildlife, as their ponds capture sedimentand moderate flood peaks. The watershed now provides a more varied and robust population of fish andwildlife species. Changes in road management have yielded significant results. Road closures haveremoved traffic from sensitive areas, and reconstruction of two key roads has reduced sediment damages tothe stream. Special attention to road crossings of wet meadows has begun to rehabilitate scores of acresdewatered by improper crossings. Range management techniques (e.g., combined allotments, improvedfencing, and more modern grazing strategies) are improving watershed condition. A limited timbermanagement program on the federal property has had beneficial impacts on the watershed, but significanttimber harvest on private lands provided a cause for concern, particularly regarding compliance with CleanWater Act best management practices.

The local citizens who use the watershed have benefited from the improved conditions. Recreation usecontinues to climb.

Figure 4.20: Porous fence revetmentsafter two growing seasons.(September 1988.)Vegetation is noticeably established overfirst growing season.

Figure 4.21: Multiple elevated culvertarray at crossing of wet meadow. (June1997.)The culvert spreads flow and decreaseserosion energy, captures sedimentupstream, reduces flood peaks, andprolongs baseflows.



the basis for developing specificrestoration objectives. Moreover, theyform the basis for determining successor failure of the restoration initiative.Problem/opportunity statements aretherefore critical for design of arelevant monitoring approach.

For maximum effectiveness, thesestatements should usually have thefollowing two characteristics:

• They describe impaired streamcorridor conditions that areexplicitly stated in measurableunits and can be related tospecific processes within thestream corridor.

• They describe deviation fromthe desired reference condition(dynamic equilibrium) orproper functioning conditionfor each impaired condition.

Problem/Opportunity Statements

Problem/Opportunity statements should follow directly from the analysis of existing and reference streamcorridor conditions. These statements can be viewed as an articulation of some of the potential benefitsthat can be realized through restoration of the structure and functions of the stream corridor. For example,problem statements might focus on the impaired structural attributes and functions needing attention, whileassociated opportunities might focus on reintroduction of native species that were previously eliminatedfrom the system. Problem/Opportunity statements can also focus on the economic benefits of a proposedrestoration initiative. By identifying such economic benefits to local landowners, it may be possible toincrease the number of private citizens participating in the planning process.

Example problem statement:

Example opportunity statements:

• To prevent streambank erosion and sediment damage and provide quality streamside vegetationthrough bioengineering techniques - Four Mile Run, Virginia.

• To protect approximately 750 linear feet of Sligo Creek through the construction of a parallel pipesystem for storm water discharge control - Sligo Creek, Maryland.

• To enhance the creek through reconstruction of instream habitat (e.g., pools and riffles) - PipersCreek, Washington.

• To reintroduce nongame fish and salamanders in conjunction with implementing several streamrestoration techniques and eliminating point source discharges - Berkeley Campus Creek, California.

Example statements adapted from Center for Watershed Protection 1995.

Coarse sediment

from past

mass wasting

in unit 3

associated with clearcut logging

on unstable slopes is

reducing pools

on segments 1 and 2

and degrading summer rearing habitat.

Geomorphic Input

Time Frame

Watershed Process

Hillslope Unit Locator

Activity

Conditions and Modifiers

Channel Effects

Locator

Resource Effects

getting organizedand identifying problems and opportunities · ing problems/opportunities need to...

Documents