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

FOREST SERVICE

DEP A RTMENT OF AGRICU L T UR

E

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

National Technology & Development Program

7700—Transportation Mgmt0777 1811—SDTDCSeptember 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2007

v

Table of Contents

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

CHAPTER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vi

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 4

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

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

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

Mo

nit

ori

ng

fo

r A

qu

atic

Sp

ecie

s P

op

ula

tio

n

ix

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

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

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

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

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

l To highlight case studies of monitoring efforts.

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

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

Introduction

Intr

od

uct

ion

x

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

Intr

od

uct

ion

1—1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—2

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—4

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—5

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

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

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

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

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

l The ability to repeat measurements over space and time.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—6

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—7

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—8

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plan, including a frequency component.

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

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

and implementing the monitoring plan.

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

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

monitoring, including roles and responsibilities.

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

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—9

Structure Placement in the Aquatic Environment—An Example

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

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

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

through the “Thompson Property.”

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—10

Developing Monitoring Plans

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

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

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

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

end of the project area.

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

Procedures or Method(s)

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

l Total station survey of the project area.

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

Context (where and when) to Monitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts

1—11

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

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

l Changes in the measured parameters are expected to remain within

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

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

Assumptions and Data Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

was completed in 2002.

2. Rosgen geomorphic stream typing completed in 1998.

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

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

data analysis, and report generation for this project.

Chapter 1

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

Ove

rvie

w o

f P

ast

Ch

ann

el S

tru

ctu

re P

lace

men

ts