9.A Restoration Implementation - USDAphy, and preexisting roads make access to every site unique, several principles should guide design, placement, and construction of site access:

99.A Restoration Implementation

• What are passive forms of restoration and how are they "implemented"?• What happens after the decision is made to proceed with an active rather than a passive

restoration approach?• What type of activities are involved when installing restoration measures?• How can impact on the stream channel and corridor be minimized when installing resto-

ration measures (e.g, water quality, air quality, cultural resources, noise)?• What types of equipment are needed for installing restoration measures?• What are some important considerations regarding construction activities in the

stream corridor?• How do you inspect and evaluate the quality and impact of construction activities in the

stream corridor?• What types of maintenance measures are necessary to ensure the ongoing success of

a restoration?

9.B Monitoring Techniques Appropriate for Evaluating Restoration• What methods are available for monitoring biological attributes of streams?• What can assessment of biological attributes tell you about the status of the

stream restoration?• What physical parameters should be included in a monitoring management plan?• How are the physical aspects of the stream corridor evaluated?• How is a restoration monitoring plan developed, and what issues should be addressed in

the plan?• What are the sampling plan design issues that must be addressed to adequately detect

trends in stream corridor conditions?• How do you ensure that the monitoring information is properly collected, analyzed, and

assessed (i.e., quality assurance plans)?

9.C Restoration Management• What are important management priorities with ongoing activities and resource uses

within the stream corridor?• What are some management decisions that can be made to support stream restoration?• What are some example impacts and management options with various types of resource

use within the stream corridor (e.g., forest management, grazing, mining, fish and wild-life, urbanization)?

• When is restoration complete?

9

Figure 9.1: A restored stream.Stream corridor restorationmeasures must be properlyinstalled, monitored, and man-aged to be successful.


9.B Monitoring Techniques Appropriate forEvaluating Restoration

9.C Restoration Management

ompletion of the restoration designmarks the beginning of several impor-

tant tasks for the stream restoration prac-titioner. Emphasis must now be placed onprescribing or implementing restorationmeasures, monitoring and assessing theeffectiveness of the restoration, and man-aging the design to achieve the desiredstream corridor conditions (Figure 9.1).

Implementation, management, and moni-toring/evaluation may proceed as part ofa larger setting, or they may be consideredcomponents of a corridor-specific restora-tion effort. In either case, they requirefull planning and commitment beforethe restoration plan is implemented. Thetechnical complexity of a project must bedetermined by the restoration practitionerbased on available resources, technology,and what is necessary to achieve restora-tion goals. There must be reasonable

assurance that therewill be continuingaccess for ongoinginspection, mainte-

9–2 Chapter 9: Restoration Implementation, Monitoring, and Management

nance, emergency repairs, manage-ment, and monitoring activities aswell. All cooperators should beaware that implementation, moni-toring, and management might re-quire unanticipated work, and thatplans and objectives might changeover time as knowledge improvesor as changes occur.

This chapter builds on the discus-sion of restoration implementation,monitoring, evaluation, and adap-tive management presented inChapter 6. Specifically, it moves be-yond the planning components as-sociated with these key restorationactivities and discusses some of thetechnical issues and elements thatrestoration practitioners must con-sider when installing, monitoring,and managing stream corridorrestoration measures.

The discussion that follows is di-vided into three major sections.

Section 9.A: RestorationImplementation

This first section describes the im-plementation of restoration mea-sures beyond just removingdisturbance factors and takingother passive approaches that allowthe stream corridor to restore itselfover time.

Technical considerations relating tosite preparation, site clearing, con-struction, inspection, and mainte-nance are discussed in this section.

Section 9.B: Monitoring TechniquesAppropriate for EvaluatingRestoration

The purpose of restoration monitor-ing is to gather data that will helpto determine the success of therestoration effort. This section pre-sents some of the monitoring tech-niques appropriate for evaluatingrestoration.

Section 9.C: RestorationManagement

Management of the restoration be-gins with the implementation ofthe plan. The “adaptive manage-ment” approach was presented inChapter 6 as an important part ofthe planning process. It providesthe flexibility to detect whenchanges are needed to achieve suc-cess and to be able to make thenecessary midcourse, short-termcorrections.

Ideally, the long-term managementof a successful restoration will in-volve only periodic monitoring tocheck that the system is sustainingitself through natural processes.However, this is rarely the case forstream corridors in human-inhab-ited landscapes.

New crops, markets, and govern-ment programs can rapidly and sig-nificantly alter the physical,chemical, and biological character-istics of stream corridors and theirwatersheds, destroying restorationefforts. Conversion of rural lands

Restoration Implementation 9–3

and wildlands to urban uses andexploitation of natural resourcescan change the landscape andcause natural processes to becomeunbalanced, leaving the stream cor-ridor with no way to sustain itself.

Additionally, natural imbalances canoccur due to local and regional cli-

matic changes, predation, disease,fire, genetic changes, and catastro-phes like earthquakes, hurricanes,tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, land-slides, and floods. Long-term man-agement of the restored streamcorridor will therefore require vigi-lance, anticipation, and reaction tofuture changes.


Implementation of stream corridorrestoration must be preceded by carefulplanning. Such planning should in-clude the following (at a minimum):

■ Determining a schedule.

■ Obtaining necessary permits.

■ Conducting preimplementationmeetings.

■ Informing and involving propertyowners.

■ Securing site access and easements.

■ Locating existing utilities.

■ Confirming sources of materials andensuring standards of materials.

The careful execution of each planningstep will help ensure the success of therestoration implementation. Fullrestoration implementation, however,involves several actions that requirecareful execution as well as the coopera-tion of several participants. See Chap-ters 4 and 5 for specific guidance onplanning a stream corridor initiative.

Site Preparation

Site preparation is the first step in theimplementation of restoration mea-sures. Preparing the site requires thatthe following actions be taken.

Delineating Work Zones

The area in which restoration occurs isdefined by many disparate factors. Thisarea is determined most fundamentallyby the features of the landscape thatmust be affected to achieve restorationgoals. Boundaries of property owner-ship, restrictions imposed by permit re-quirements, and natural or culturalfeatures that might have special signifi-cance can also determine the work zone.A heavy-equipment operator or crewsupervisor cannot be expected to beaware of the multiple requirements thatgovern where work can occur. Thus,delineation of those zones in the field

Major Elements ofRestoration Implementation■ Review of Plans■ Site Preparation■ Site Clearing■ Installation and Construction■ Site Reclamation/Cleanup■ Inspection■ Maintenance


should be the first activity conductedon the site. The zones should bemarked by visible stakes and morepreferably by temporary fencing (usu-ally a bright-colored sturdy plastic net-ting). This delineation should conformto any special restrictions noted or tem-porary stakes placed during the precon-struction meeting between the projectmanager and field inspector.

Preparing Access and StagingAreas

A site is often accessed from a publicroad in an upland portion of the site.Ideally, for convenience, a staging areafor crew, equipment, and materials canbe located near an access road close tothe restoration site but out of thestream corridor and away from wet-lands or areas with highly erodiblesoils. The staging area should also beout of view from public thoroughfares,if possible, to increase security.

Although property ownership, topogra-phy, and preexisting roads make accessto every site unique, several principlesshould guide design, placement, andconstruction of site access:

■ Avoid any sensitive wildlife habitator plant areas or threatened andendangered species and their desig-nated critical habitat.

■ Avoid crossing the stream if at allpossible; where crossing is unavoid-able, a bridge is almost mandatory.

■ Minimize slope disturbance sinceeffective erosion control is difficulton a sloped roadway that will beheavily used.

■ Construct roadways with low gradi-ents; ensure that storm water runoffdrains to outlets; install an adequateroadbed; and, if possible, set up atruck-washing station at the entranceof the construction site to reduce off-

site transport of mud and sedimentby vehicles.

■ In the event of damage to any privateor public access roads used to trans-port equipment or heavy materials toand from the site, those responsibleshould be identified and appropriaterepairs should be made.

Taking Precautions to MinimizeDisturbance

Every effort should be made to mini-mize and, where possible, avoid sitedisturbance. Emphasis should be placedon addressing protection of existingvegetation and sensitive habitat, erosionand sediment control, protecting airand water quality, protecting cultural re-sources, minimizing noise, and provid-ing for solid waste disposal andworksite sanitation.

Protection of Existing Vegetation andSensitive Habitat

Fencing can be an effective way to en-sure protection of areas within the con-struction site that are to remainundisturbed (e.g., vegetation designatedto be preserved, sensitive terrestrialhabitat, or sensitive wetland habitat).

As in delineating work zones, fencingshould be placed around all protectedareas during initial site preparation,even before the access road is fully con-structed, if possible, but certainly beforewholesale earthmoving begins. Fencingmaterial should be easy to see, andareas should be labeled as protectionareas. Caution should always be exer-cised when grading is planned adjacentto a protected area.

Erosion

Many well-established principles of ef-fective erosion and sediment controlcan be readily applied to stream corri-dor restoration (Goldman et al. 1986).Every effort should be made to prevent


erosion because prevention is alwaysmore effective than having to trap al-ready-eroded sediment particles inrunoff. Erosion and sediment controlsshould be installed during initial sitepreparation.

The most basic method of control isphysical screening of areas to remainundisturbed. Properly chosen, installed,and maintained sediment control mea-sures can provide a significant degree offiltration for sediment-bearing runoff(Figure 9.2).

Where undisturbed areas lie downslopeof implementation activities, onemethod of controlling sediment is theuse of a silt fence, which is normallymade of filter fabric. Silt fences can pro-vide a significant degree of filtration forsediment-bearing runoff, but only ifcorrectly chosen, installed, and main-tained. Design guidelines for silt fencesinclude the following:

■ Drainage area of 1 acre or less.

■ Maximum contributing slope gradi-ent of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.

■ Maximum upslope distance of 100 ft.

■ Maximum flow velocity of 1 ft./sec.

Installation is even more critical thanmaterial type; most fabric fences fail be-cause either runoff carves a channel be-neath them or sediment accumulatesagainst them, causing them to collapse.To help prevent failure, the lower edgeof the fabric should be placed in a 4- to 12-inch-deep trench, which is thenbackfilled with native soil or gravel, andwire fencing should be used to supportthe fabric.

Figure 9.3 presents example silt fenceinstallation guidelines. Properly in-stalled silt fences commonly fail due tolack of maintenance. One rainfall eventcan deposit enough sediment that fail-ure will occur during the next rainfall

event if the sediment against the fenceis not removed.

Straw bales are also common sedimentcontrol measures. Bales should beplaced in trenches about 4 inches deep,staked into the ground, and placed withtheir ends (not just corners) abuttingeach other. Figure 9.4 presents examplestraw bale installation guidelines. Thelimitations on siting are the same as forsilt fences, but straw bales are typicallyless durable and might need to be re-placed.

Where the scope of a project is so smallthat no official erosion control planshave been prepared, control measuresshould be appropriate to the site, in-stalled promptly, and maintained ap-propriately.

Proper restoration implementation re-quires managers to prepare for “unex-pected” failure of erosion controlmeasures. By the time moderate toheavy rains can be expected, the follow-

Figure 9.2: Silt fence at a construction site.Properly chosen and installed silt fences canprovide a significant degree of off-site sedi-ment control.

Erosion andsediment con-trols should beinstalled dur-ing initial sitepreparation.


ing preparations should have beenmade:

■ Additional erosion control materialsshould be stockpiled on site, includ-ing straw bales, filter fabric and wirebacking, posts, sand and burlap bags,and channel lining materials (rock,geotextile fabric or grids, jute netting,coconut fabric material, etc.).

■ Inspection of the construction siteshould occur during or immediatelyafter a rain storm or other significantrunoff event to determine the effec-tiveness of sediment control mea-sures.

■ A telephone number for the sitesuperintendent or project managershould be made available to neigh-boring residents if they witness anyproblems on or coming from thesite. Residents should be educated onwhat to watch for, such as sediment-laden runoff or failed structures.

Water Quality

Although sediment is the major sourceof water quality impairment on con-struction sites, it is not the only source.Motorized vehicles and equipment orimproperly stored containers can leak

Joints in filter fabric shall be spliced at posts. Use staples, wire rings, or equivalent to attach fabric to posts. 2"x 2" 14 ga. wire

mesh or equivalent, if standard strength fabric used

filter fabric

12"

min

.2'

min

.

6' max.

Post spacing may be increased to 8' if wire backing is used.

2"x 4" wood posts, steel fence posts, rebar, or equivalent

Backfill trench withnative soil or 3/4"-1/5"washed gravel.

Note: Filter fabric fences shall be installed along contour whenever possible.

Minimum 4"x 4" trench.

Figure 9.3: Silt fence installation guidelines.Erosion control measures must be installedproperly.Source: King County, Washington.

baled hay or straw

overlap edges

centerline of swale or ditch

2-2"x 2"x 3" pegseach bale

12"

on

cen

ter

flo

w

Notes:Embed bales 4" to 6".Drive stakes min. 12"into ground surface.

Figure 9.4: Strawbale installationguidelines. Strawbales are commonsediment controlmeasures.Source: King County,Washington.


petroleum products. Vehicles should besteam-cleaned off site on a regular basisand checked for antifreeze leaks and re-paired. (Wildlife can be attracted to thesweet taste of most antifreeze and poi-soned.) Various other chemicals such asfertilizers and pesticides can be washedoff by rain. Most of these problems canbe minimized or avoided entirely bythoughtful siting storage areas forchemicals and equipment and stagingareas. Gradients should not favor rapidoverland flow from these areas into ad-jacent streams and wetlands. Distancesshould be as great as possible and theintervening vegetation as dense as sitetraffic will allow.

Occasionally, implementation activitieswill require the entry or crossing ofheavy equipment into the stream chan-nel (Figure 9.5). Construction siteplanning and layout should always seekto avoid these intrusions. When theseintrusions are absolutely necessary, theyshould be infrequent. Gravellystreambeds are best able to receive traf-fic; finer substrates should be reinforcedwith a geoweb network backfilled withgravel. In addition, any equipment usedin these activities should be thoroughlysteam-cleaned prior to stream entry.

Application of fertilizers and pesticidescan also be a source of pollution intowater bodies, and their use may beclosely regulated in restoration settings.Where their use is permitted, the sitemanager should closely monitor thequantity applied, the local wind condi-tions, and the likelihood of rainfall.Potential water quality impacts are afunction of the characteristics of the se-lected pesticide, its form, mode of appli-cation, and soil conditions. Pesticidesand fertilizers must be stored in alocked and protected storage unit thatprovides adequate protection from leaksand spills. Pesticides must be preparedor mixed far from streams and, where

possible, off site. All containers shouldbe rinsed and disposed of properly.

Air Quality

Air quality in the vicinity of a restora-tion site can be affected by vehicleemissions and dust. Rarely, however,will either be a major concern duringimplementation activities. Vehicle emis-sions are regulated at the source (thevehicle), and dust is usually associatedprimarily with haul roads or majorearthmoving during dry periods. Theneed for dust control should be evalu-ated during initial restoration imple-mentation and road planning (if notpreviously determined during the plan-ning phase of the restoration initiative).Site conditions, duration of construc-tion activities, prevailing winds, andproximity to neighbors should be con-sidered when making decisions on dustcontrol. Temporary road surfaces or pe-riodic water spraying of the road surfaceare both effective in controlling dust.Covered loads and speed limits on alltemporary roads will also reduce the

Figure 9.5: Heavy equipment. Avoid heavyequipment in stream channels unless absolutelynecessary.


potential for construction-related dustand debris leaving the site (Hunt1993). Where appropriate, use of vol-unteer labor in lieu of diesel-poweredequipment will help to protect air qual-ity in and surrounding the site. Due tosafety concerns, it is recommended thatvolunteers not be used on a site whereheavy equipment will also be used.

Cultural Resources

Since stream corridors have been apowerful magnet for human settlementthroughout history, it is not uncommonfor historic and prehistoric resources tobe buried by sediment or obscured byvegetation along stream corridors. It isquite possible to discover cultural re-sources during restoration implementa-tion (particularly during restorationthat requires earth-disturbing activities).(See Figure 9.6.)

Prior to implementation, any potentialcultural resources should be identifiedin compliance with section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act. Anarchaeological record search should be

conducted during the planning processin accordance with the State HistoricPreservation Officer (SHPO). If a site isuncovered unexpectedly, all activity thatmight adversely affect the historic prop-erty must cease, and the responsibleagency official must notify the U.S. De-partment of the Interior (USDI) Na-tional Park Service and the SHPO.Upon notification, the SHPO deter-mines whether the activity will cause anirreparable loss or degradation of signif-icant data. This might require on-siteconsultation with a 48-hour responsetime for determining significance andappropriate mitigation actions so as notto delay implementation activities inor-dinately.

If the property is determined not to besignificant or the action will not be ad-verse, implementation activities maycontinue after documenting consulta-tion findings. If the resource is signifi-cant and the on-site activity isdetermined to be an adverse action thatcannot be avoided, implementation ac-tivities are delayed until appropriate ac-tions can be taken (i.e., detailed survey,recovery, protection, or preservation ofthe cultural resources). Under the His-torical and Archaeological Data Preser-vation Act of 1974, USDI may assumeliability for delays in implementation.

Noise

Noise from restoration sites is regulatedat the state or local level. Although cri-teria can vary widely, most establishreasonable and fairly consistent stan-dards.

The U.S. Housing and Urban Develop-ment (HUD) agency has set a maxi-mum acceptable construction noiseemission of 65 A-weighted decibels(dBA) at the property line. Numerousstudies conducted since the late 1960ssuggest that community complaints risedramatically above 55 dBA (Thumann

Figure 9.6: Archaeological site. Culturalresources, such as those at this site in SouthDakota, are commonly found near streams.


and Miller 1986). Meeting the HUDstandard (65 dBA) requires that typicalconstruction equipment be over 300feet away from the listener; avoiding thechance of any significant complaints re-quires about 500 feet of separation ormore. The project manager should con-tact surrounding neighbors prior torestoration implementation. Publicawareness of and appreciation for theproject goals help improve tolerance foroff-site noise impacts. (Impacts fromnoise on equipment operators is usu-ally not significant since most construc-tion equipment meets the noisestandards imposed by the U.S. GeneralServices Administration of 75 dBA at 50feet.)

High noise levels might be a concern towildlife as well, particularly during thebreeding season. Any sensitive speciesthat inhabit the project vicinity shouldbe identified and appropriate actionstaken to reduce noise levels that couldadversely affect these species.

Solid Waste Disposal

Debris is an inevitable by-product ofimplementation activities. The manage-ment of debris is a matter of job sitesafety, function, and aesthetics. Fromthe first day, the locations of equipmentstorage, vehicle unloading, stockpiledmaterials, and waste should be identi-fied. At the end of each workday, allscattered construction debris, plant ma-terials, soil, and tools should be gath-ered up and brought to their respectiveholding areas. The site should be left asneat and well organized as possible atthe end of each day. Even during theworkday, sites in close proximity tobusiness or residential districts shouldbe kept as well organized and “sightly”as possible to avoid complaints and de-lays initiated by unhappy neighbors.

The importance of these measures tothe safety and efficiency of the restora-

tion effort as a whole is sometimes evi-dent only to the project manager.Under such conditions, achieving ade-quate job site cleanliness is almost im-possible because the manager alonedoes not have time to tidy up trash anddebris. Meetings with work crews toemphasize this element of the workshould occur early in the constructionprocess and be repeated as often as re-quired. People working on site, whethercontractors, volunteers, or governmentpersonnel, need to be reminded ofthese needs as an unavoidable part ofdoing their jobs.

Worksite Sanitation

Sanitation facilities for work crewsshould be identified before construc-tion begins. Particularly in remoteareas, the temptation to allow ad hocarrangements will be high. In urbanareas, the existing facilities of a neigh-boring business might be offered. Inmost settings, however, one or moreportable toilets should be provided andmight be required by local building orgrading permits. Although normallyself-contained, any facilities should belocated to minimize the risk of contam-ination of surface water bodies by leak-age or overflow.

Obtaining AppropriateEquipment

Standard earthmoving and plantingequipment is appropriate for mostrestoration work. Small channels orwetland pool areas can be excavatedwith backhoes or track-mounted exca-vators or trackhoes. Trackhoes are mo-bile over rough or steep terrain (Figure9.7). They have adequate reach andpower to work at a distance from thestream channel; with an opposing“thumb” on the bucket, they can ma-neuver individual rocks and logs withremarkable precision. Logs can also be


placed by a helicopter’s cable. Althoughthe hourly rate is about that of the dailycost of ground-based equipment, theability to reach a stream channel with-out use of an access road is sometimesindispensable.

Where access is good but the ripariancorridor is intact, instream modifica-tions can be made with a telescopingcrane. This equipment comes in a vari-ety of sizes. A fairly large, fully mobileunit can extend across a riparian zone100 feet wide to deliver constructionmaterials to a waiting crew without dis-turbing the intervening ground or vege-tation. Where operational constraintspermit their use, bulldozers and scrap-ers can be very useful, particularly forearthmoving activities that are ab-solutely necessary to get the job done.In addition, loaders are excellent toolsfor transporting rocks, transplantinglarge plants, and digging and placingsod.

For planting, standard farm equipment,such as tractors with mounted disks orharrows, are generally suitable unless

the ground is extremely wet and soft.Under these circumstances, light-track-ing equipment with low-pressure tiresor rubber tracks might work. Seedsplanted on restoration sites are com-monly broadcast by hydroseeding, re-quiring a special tank truck with apump and nozzle for spraying the mix-ture of seeds, fertilizer, binder, andwater (Figure 9.8). A wider range ofseed species can be planted more effec-tively with a seed drill towed behind atractor (e.g., Haferkamp et al. 1985).Where access is limited, hand plantingor aerial spreading of seeds might befeasible.

Site Clearing

Once the appropriate constructionequipment has been acquired and sitepreparation has been completed, anynecessary site clearing can begin. Siteclearing involves setting the geographiclimits, removing undesirable plantspecies, addressing site drainage issues,and protecting and managing desirableexisting vegetation.

Geographic Limits

Site clearing should not proceed unlessthe limits of activity have been clearlymarked in the field. Where large treesare present, each should be markedwith colored and labeled flagging to en-sure that the field crew understandswhat is to be cut and what is to remainand be protected from damage.

Removal of Undesirable PlantSpecies

Undesirable plant species include non-native and invasive species that mightthreaten the survival of native species.Undesirable plants are normally re-moved by mechanical means, but thespecific method should be tailored tothe species of concern if possible. Forexample, simply cutting the top growth

Figure 9.7: Backhoein operation at arestoration site.Backhoes aremobile in roughterrain and canmove rocks andlogs with remark-able precision.Source: M. Landin.


might be adequate management forsome plants, but others might resproutrapidly. Where herbicides are selected(and permitted), their use might needto precede clearing of the top growthby up to 2 weeks to allow full absorp-tion of certain chemicals used for thispurpose.

For initial brush removal, a variety oftrack-mounted and towed equipmentis available. Bulldozers are most com-monly used because of their readyavailability, but other equipment canoften work more rapidly or moreeffectively with minimal site distur-bance.

Hand clearing with portable toolsmight be the only appropriate methodin some sensitive or difficult areas.

Drainage

Sites that are very wet and poorlydrained might require extra prepara-tion. However, many of the traditionalefforts to improve drainage are in par-tial or direct conflict with wetland-pro-tection regulations and might conflictwith the restoration goals of the projectas a whole. Standard engineering ap-proaches should be reviewed for appro-priateness, as well as the timing andschedule of the restoration activities.

Specific techniques for improving theworkability of a wet construction site de-pend on the particular access, storageneeds, and site characteristics. Load-bear-ing mats can provide stable areas forequipment and the unloading of plantmaterials. Surface water may be inter-cepted above the working area by a shal-low ditch and temporarily routedaround the construction area. Subsurfacewater can sometimes be intercepted by aperforated pipe set in a shallow trench,such as a French drain, but the topogra-phy must be favorable to allow positivedrainage of the pipe to a surface outlet.

Figure 9.8: Hydroseeding of a streambank.Special tank trucks carrying seed, water, andfertilizer can be used in revegetation efforts.


Protection and Management ofExisting Vegetation

Protecting existing vegetation on arestoration site requires a certain degreeof attention and advanced planning. Anarea on a site plan that is far from allearthmoving activity might appear tothe site foreman as the ideal locationfor parking idle equipment or stockpil-ing excess soil. Only a careless minutewith heavy equipment, however, can re-duce a vegetated area to churned earth(Figure 9.9). Vegetation designed for aprotection zone should be clearlymarked in the field.

Existing vegetation might also requiretemporary protection if it occupies apart of the site that will be worked, butonly late in the implementation se-quence. Before that time, it is best leftundisturbed to improve the level ofoverall erosion control. To save mobi-lization costs, most earthmoving con-tractors normally begin construction byclearing every part of the site that willeventually require it. If clearing is to bephased instead, this requirement must

be specified in the contract documentsand discussed at a preimplementationmeeting.

When identifying and marking vegeta-tion protection zones, the rooting ex-tent of the vegetation should berespected. Fencing and flagging of pro-tected vegetation should be sturdy andmaintained. Despite the cool shade andfencing, vegetation protection zones areneither a picnic area nor a storage/stag-ing area. They are zones of no distur-bance.

When working in riparian corridorswith mature conifers, it is especially im-portant to protect them from mechani-cal operations which can cause severedamage.

Installation and Construction

Following site preparation and clearing,restoration installation activities such asearthmoving, diversion of flow, and theinstallation of plant materials can pro-ceed.

Earthmoving

Fill Placement and Disposal

How and where fill is placed on a siteshould be determined by the finalplacement of restoration measures. Fillsadjacent to retaining walls or similarstructures need to meet the criteria forstructural fill.

Where plants will be the final treatmentof a fill slope, the requirements for soilmaterials and compaction are not as se-vere. Loose soil on a steep slope is stillprone to erosion or landsliding, how-ever. Where fill is to be placed onslopes steeper than about 2:1, a soilsengineer should determine whether anyspecial measures are appropriate (Fig-ure 9.10). Even on gentler slopes, sur-face runoff from above should not beallowed to saturate the new material

Figure 9.9: Lessons to be learned. Heavy equip-ment can quickly reduce a vegetated area tochurned earth.


since the stability of noncompacted fillsis generally quite low.

To reduce grading expenses, the cut andfill should be balanced so no materialneeds to be transported to or from thesite. If the volume of material resultingfrom cuts exceeds that from fills, someof the soil must be disposed of off-site.Disposal sites can be difficult to locateand might require an additional grad-ing permit from the local jurisdiction.These possibilities should be plannedfor far enough in advance to avoidunanticipated delays during implemen-tation.

As a general rule, topsoil removed fromthe site should be properly stockpiledfor reuse during the final stages of im-plementation. Even if undesirablespecies are present, the topsoil will pro-vide a growth medium suitable for theplant community appropriate to thesite. It will also be a source of nativespecies that can reestablish the desireddiversity most rapidly (Liebrand andSykora 1992). Stockpiled soil also can

be vegetated with species that will beused at the restoration site to protectthe soil from erosion and noxiousweeds.

Contouring

The erosive power of water flowingdown a slope should be recognizedduring earthmoving. The steepest direc-tion down a hillside is also the direc-tion of greatest erosion by overland orchannelized flow. The overall topogra-phy of the graded surface should be de-signed to minimize the uncontrolledflow of runoff in this direction. Chan-nelized flow should be diverted toditches cut into the soil that moreclosely follow the level contours of theland. Dispersed sheet flow should bebroken up by terraces or benches alongthe slope that also follow topographiccontours. On a fine scale, the groundsurface can be roughened by the tracksof a bulldozer driven up and down theslope, or by a rake or harrow pulledperpendicularly to the slope. In eithercase, the result is a set of parallel ridges,spaced only a few inches apart, that fol-low the contours of the land surfaceand greatly reduce on-site erosion.

biotechnical: combination of stabilization structures, soil bioengineering, and geotechnical methods often needed

soil engineer review or supervision advisable

1:5

1:12:1

3:110:1

horizontal

typical face angle for rockeries,gabions, etc.

failure likely inunreinforced fills

failure likelyin unreinforced cuts

plantings/seedings

optimal range forsoil bioengineering

roughen, stairstep, or terrace slope forplanting

Figure 9.10: Treatment of cuts and fills. Slopegradient is an important factor in determiningappropriate restoration measures.

Earthmovingshould resultin a slope thatis stable, mini-mizes surfaceerosion byvirtue oflength andgradient, andprovides a fa-vorable envi-ronment forplant growth.


Final Grading

Earthmoving should result in a slopethat is stable, minimizes surface erosionby virtue of length and gradient, andprovides a favorable environment forplant growth. The first two criteria aregenerally determined by plans and canbe modified only minimally by varia-tions in grading techniques. Whereplans specify a final slope gradientsteeper than about 1:1, however, vegeta-tion reestablishment will be very diffi-cult, and a combination of stabilizationstructures, soil bioengineering, and ge-otechnical methods will probably benecessary. The shape at the top of theslope is also important: if it forms astraight abrupt edge, plant regrowth willbe nearly impossible. A rounded edgethat forms a gradual transition betweenupland and slope will be much moresuitable for growth (Animoto 1978).

Providing a favorable environment forplant growth requires attention to thesmall-scale features of the slope. Rough-textured slopes, resulting from vehicletracks or serrated blades, provide amuch better environment for seedlingsthan do smooth-packed surfaces (Fig-ure 9.11). Small terraces should be cutinto slopes steeper than about 3:1 tocreate sites of moisture accumulation

and enhanced plant growth. Com-paction by excessive reworking fromearthmoving equipment can result in alower rate of rainfall infiltrating the soiland, consequently, a higher rate of ero-sive surface runoff. The result is a lossof the topsoil needed to support plantgrowth and less moisture available forthe plants that remain.

Diversion of Flow

Channelized flow (from stream chan-nels, ditches, ravines, or swales) mightneed to be diverted, impounded, orotherwise controlled during implemen-tation of restoration measures. In somecases, this need might be temporary,until final grading is complete or plant-ings have become established. In othercases, the diversion is a permanent partof the restoration. Permanent facilitiesfrequently replace temporary measuresat the same location but are often con-structed of different materials.

Temporary dikes, lined or grassed water-ways, or pipes can be used to divertchannelized flow. Runoff can also beimpounded in ponds or sedimentbasins to allow sediment to settle out.

Most temporary measures are not engi-neered and are constructed from mate-rials at hand. Dikes (ridges of soil up toa few feet high) are compacted toachieve some stability and are some-times armored to resist erosion. Theyare used to keep water from washingover a newly graded or planted slopewhere erosion is otherwise likely, andto divert runoff into a natural or artifi-cial channel. The loosened soil fromswales can be readily compacted intoan adjacent dike, improving theefficiency and capacity of the runoff di-version. Pipes or rock-lined ditches cancarry channelized water down a slopethat is steep enough to otherwise suffererosion; they can also be used to halterosion that has already occurred from

Figure 9.11: Track-roughened area.Rough-texturedslopes provide amuch better environ-ment for seedlingsthan do smooth-packed surfaces.


uncontrolled discharges. Flexible plasticpipe is most commonly used in thesesituations, although the outlet must becarefully located or well armored withrocks or sandbags to avoid merely shift-ing the point of erosion farther down-slope.

Sediment ponds and traps are basins ei-ther dug into the soil with a rock-ar-mored overflow or impounded by anembankment with an outlet. A fractionof the sediment carried by the siterunoff will settle out in the trap, de-pending on the ratio of surface area orstorage volume to inflow rate. The util-ity of sediment ponds may be limiteddepending on the sediment-trapping ef-ficiency. A sediment pond can also re-lease nearly as much sediment as isultimately trapped if the pond is notbuilt to handle maximum surface waterflows or is not maintained properly.

Several techniques are available wherethe active streamflow must be tem-porarily isolated from installation activ-ities. Most common are temporarydams, constructed of sandbags, geotex-tile fences, water control structures, orsheet piles. All may be suitable in cer-tain situations, but have drawbacks.Sandbags are inexpensive, but sub-merged burlap sacks rot quickly and thesand used to fill them might not be ap-propriate for the stream. Fabric fencescan be used in conjunction with sand-bags, but they will not withstand highflows. Water control structures, such aslong water-filled tubes available com-mercially, can be very effective, but needample lateral space and carry a high ini-tial cost. They also can be swept awayby high flows. Sheet piles are effective ifheavy equipment is already on site, buttheir installation and removal can mo-bilize much fine sediment.

Alternatively, water can be diverted intoa bypass pipe, normally made of large

flexible plastic (unless anticipated dis-charges are very great), and the con-struction area can be kept totally andreliably dry. A dam must be constructedat the pipe inlet to shunt the water, andan adequate apron of nonerosive mater-ial must be provided at the discharge.Both of these structures can themselveslead to instream damage, but with carethe problems are only temporary. Sincefish passage and migration are generallyprecluded with such a diversion, its ap-plicability is limited.

In some situations unexpectedly erosiveconditions will demand better outlet orchannel protection than that originallyspecified in the plans. Erosion controlin these settings might require a thickblanket of angular rocks and geotextiles(cloth, plastic grids, or netting) usedwith plantings. New types of geotextilesare becoming widely available and canserve a wide range of flow conditions.Where possible, channels and spillwaysshould be stabilized using soil bioengi-neering or other appropriate techniques.

Installation of Plant Materials

Plant establishment is an importantpart of most restoration initiatives thatrequire active restoration. Detailed localstandards and specifications that de-scribe planting techniques and estab-lishment procedures should bedeveloped. Native species should beused where possible to achieve therestoration goals. Vegetation can be in-stalled by seeding; planting vegetativecuttings; or using nursery-grown bare-rooted, potted, and burlap-wrappedspecimens. If natural colonization andsuccession is appropriate, techniquesmay include controlling exotic speciesand establishing an initial plant com-munity to hasten succession.

Plant establish-ment is animportantpart of mostrestorationinitiatives thatrequire activerestoration.


Timing

The optimum conditions for successfulplant installations are broad and varyfrom region to region. As a general rule,temperature, moisture, and sunlightmust be adequate for germination andestablishment. In the eastern and mid-western United States, these conditionsare met beginning in late winter orearly spring, after ground thawing, andcontinuing through mid-autumn. In theWest, the typical summertime drynessnormally limits successful seedings tolate summer or early autumn. Wherearid conditions persist through most ofthe year, plants and seedings must takeadvantage of whatever rainfall occurs,typically in late autumn or winter, orsupplemental irrigation must be pro-vided. Because the requirements canvary so much for different species, thelocal supplier or a comprehensive refer-ence text (e.g., Schopmeyer 1974, Ford-ham and Spraker 1977, Hartmann andKester 1983, Dirr and Heuser 1987)should be consulted early in therestoration design phase. If rooted stockis to be propagated from seed before itis planted at the restoration site, 1 to 2years (including seed-collection time)should be allowed.

Plants should be installed when dor-mant for the highest rate of survival.Survival is further influenced by speciesused and how well they are matched tosite conditions, available moisture, andtime of installation. In mild climates,the growth of roots occurs throughoutthe winter, improving survival of fallplantings. Where high wintertime flowsare anticipated, however, first-seasoncuttings might not survive unless givensome physical protection from scour.Alternatively, planting can occur in thespring before dormancy ends, but sup-plemental irrigation might be neededeven in areas of abundant summertimerainfall. Irrigation might be necessary in

some regions of the country to ensuresuccessful establishment of vegetation.

Acquisition

Native plant species are preferred overexotic ones, which might result in un-foreseen problems. Some plant materi-als can be obtained from commercialsources, but many will need to be col-lected. When attempting to restore na-tive plant communities, it is desirableto use appropriate genotypes. This re-quires the collection of seeds and plantsfrom local sources. Early contact withselected sources of rooted stock andseed can ensure that appropriate speciesin adequate quantities will be availablewhen needed.

The site itself might also be a goodsource of salvageable plants. Live cut-tings can be collected from healthy na-tive vegetation at the donor site. Sharp,clean equipment must be used to har-vest the plant material. Vegetation isnormally cut at a 40 to 50 degree angleusing loppers, pruners, or saws. If thewhole plant is being used, the cut ismade about 10 inches above theground, which encourages rapid regen-eration in most species. Cuttings typi-cally range from 0.4 to 2 inches indiameter and 2 to 7 feet long.

After harvesting, the donor site shouldbe left in a clean condition. This willavoid the potential for landowner com-plaints and facilitate potential reuse ofthe site at some time in the future.Large unused material can be cut forfirewood, piled for wildlife cover, orscattered to hasten decomposition. Anydiseased material should be burned, perlocal ordinances.

Transportation and Storage

The requirements for the transport andstorage of plant materials vary, depend-ing on the type of material being used.Depending on species, seeds may requirea minimum period of dormancy of sev-


eral weeks or months, with specific tem-perature requirements during that time.Some seeds may also require scarifyingor other special treatment. Nurseries thatspecialize in native plants are recom-mended because they should be cog-nizant of any special requirements.Although the necessary information forany chosen species should be readilyavailable from local seed sources or agri-cultural extension offices, this intervalmust be recognized and accounted for inthe overall implementation schedule.

Live cuttings present rather severe limi-tations on holding time. In most cases,they should be installed on the day theyare harvested, unless refrigerated storageareas are secured. Thus, donor sites mustbe close to the restoration site, and ac-cess and transportation must be orches-trated to coincide with the correct stageof construction. Live cuttings should betied in manageable bundles, with thecut ends all lying in the same direction.Since drying is the major threat to sur-vival at this stage, cuttings should becovered with damp burlap during trans-port and storage (Figure 9.12). They

should always be shaded from directsun. On days with low humidity andtemperatures above 60 degrees Fahren-heit, the need for care and speed is par-ticularly great. Where temperatures arebelow this level, “day-after” installationis acceptable, although not optimal. Anygreater delay in installation will requirerefrigeration, reliably cold weather onsite, or storage in water.

Rooted stock is also prone to drying,particularly if pots or burlap-wrappedroots are exposed to direct sun. Sub-mergence of the roots in water is notrecommended for long periods, but 1to 2 hours of immersion immediatelyprior to planting is a common practiceto ensure the plant begins its in-placegrowth without a moisture deficit. On-site storage areas should be chosen withample shade for pots. Bare-rooted orburlap-wrapped stock should be heeledinto damp ground or mulch whileawaiting final installation.

Planting Principles

The specific types of plants and plantinstallations are generally specified inthe construction plans and thereforewill have been determined long beforeimplementation. A project manager orsite foreman should also know thebasic installation principles and tech-niques for the area.

The type of soil used should be deter-mined by the types of plants to be sup-ported. Ideally, the plants have beenchosen to match existing site condi-tions, so stockpiled topsoil can be usedto cover the plant material followinglayout. However, part of the rehabilita-tion of a severely disturbed site mightrequire the removal of unsuitable top-soil or the import of new topsoil. Inthese situations, the requirements of thechosen plant species should be deter-mined carefully and the soil procuredfrom suitable commercial or field sites

Figure 9.12: Live cuttings covered with dampburlap to prevent drying during transport.Drying is a major threat to survival of livecuttings during transport and storage.


that have no residual chemicals and un-desirable plant species.

When using seeds, planting should bepreceded by elimination of competingplants and by preparation of theseedbed (McGinnies 1984). The mostcommon methods of seeding in arestoration setting are hand broadcast-ing and hydroseeding. Hydroseedingand other methods of mechanical seed-ing might be limited by vehicular accessto the restoration site.

When using either cuttings or rootedstock, the soil and the roots must makegood contact. This requires compactionof the soil, either by foot or by equip-ment, to avoid air pockets. It also re-quires that the soil be at the rightmoisture content. If it is too dry (a rarecondition), the soil particles cannot“slip” past each other to fill in voids. Ifit is too wet (far more common, espe-cially in wetland or riparian environ-ments), the water cannot squeeze out ofthe soil rapidly enough to allow com-paction to occur.

Another aspect to consider is that quitefrequently after planting, the resultingsoil is too rough and loose to supportvigorous seed growth. The roughnesspromotes rapid drying, and the loose-ness yields poor seed-to-soil contactand also erratic planting depths wheremechanical seed drills are used. As a re-sult, some means of compaction shouldbe employed to return the soil to an ac-ceptable state for planting.

Special problems may be encounteredin arid or semiarid areas (Anderson etal. 1984). The salt content of the soil inthese settings is critical and should betested before planting. Deep tillage isadvisable, with holes augured forsaplings extended to the water table ifat all possible. First-year irrigation ismandatory; ongoing fertilization andweeding will also improve survival.

Competing Plants

Although a well-chosen and establishedplant community should require nohuman assistance to maintain vigor andfunction, competition from other plantsduring establishment might be a prob-lem. Competing plants commonly donot provide the same long-term benefitsfor stability, erosion control, wildlifehabitat, or food supply. The restorationplan therefore must include somemeans to suppress or eliminate themduring the first year or two after con-struction.

Competing plants may be controlledadequately by mechanical means. Cut-ting the top growth of competing plantscan slow their development longenough for the desired plants to be-come established. Hand weeding is alsovery effective, although it is usually fea-sible only for small sites or those withan ongoing source of volunteer labor.

Unfortunately, some species can surviveeven the most extreme mechanicaltreatment. They will continue toreemerge until heavily shaded orcrowded out by dense competingstands. In such cases the alternatives arelimited. The soil containing the roots ofthe undesired vegetation can be exca-vated and screened or removed fromthe site, relatively mature trees can beplanted to achieve near-instantaneousshading, or chemical fertilizers or herbi-cides can be applied.

Use of Chemicals

In situations where mechanical controlsare not enough, the application of fer-tilizers and the use of herbicides to sup-press undesirable competing speciesmay be necessary.

Herbicides can eliminate undesirablespecies more reliably, but they mayeliminate desirable species. Their usenear watercourses may also be severely


curtailed by local, state, and federal per-mit requirements. Several herbicides areapproved for near-stream use and de-grade quickly, but their use should beconsidered a last resort and the effectsof excessive spray or overspray carefullycontrolled.

If herbicide use is both advisable andpermitted, the specific choice is basedfirst on whether the herbicide is ab-sorbed by the leaves or by the roots(e.g., Jacoby 1987). The most commonfoliar-absorbed herbicide is 2,4-D, man-ufactured by numerous companies andparticularly effective on broadleaf weedsand some shrubs. Other foliar herbi-cides have become available more re-cently and are commonly mixed with2,4-D for broad-spectrum control. Root-absorbed herbicides are either sprayed(commonly mixed with dye to showthe area of application) or spread ingranular form. They persist longer thanmost foliar herbicides, and some areformulated to kill newly sproutedweeds for some time after application.

Since herbicides and fertilizers may beproblematic near surface water, theyshould be used only if other alterna-tives are not available.

Mulches

Mulching limits surface erosion, sup-presses weeds, retains soil moisture, andcan add some organic material to the

soil following decomposition. A varietyof mulches are available with differentbenefits and limitations, as shown inTable 9.1.

Organic mulches, particularly thosebased on wood (chips or sawdust),have a high nitrogen demand becauseof the chemical reactions of decomposi-tion. If nitrogen is not supplied by fer-tilizers, it will be extracted from thesoil, which can have detrimental effectson the vegetation that is mulched. Cer-tain species of wood, such as redwoodand cedar, are toxic to certain species ofseedlings and should not be used formulch.

Straw is a common mulch applied onconstruction and revegetation sites be-cause it is inexpensive, available, and ef-fective for erosion control. Appropriateapplication rates range from about3,000 to 8,000 lb/acre. Straw can bespread by hand or broadcast bymachine, although uniform applicationis difficult in windy conditions. Strawmust be anchored for the same reason:it is easily transported by wind. It canbe punched or crimped into the soilmechanically, which is rapid and inex-pensive, but requires high applicationrates. It can be covered with jute or plas-tic netting, or it can be covered with asprayed tackifier (usually asphalt emul-sion at rates of about 400 gal/acre).Straw or hay can also be a source of un-

Mulch Benefits

Chipped wood Readily available; inexpensive; judged attractive by most

High nitrogen demand; may inhibit seedlings; may float offsite in surface runoff

Rock May be locally available and inexpensive

Can inhibit plant growth; adds no nutrients; suppresses diverse plant community; high cost where locally unsuitable or unavailable

Straw or hay Available and inexpensive; may add undesirable seeds

May need anchoring; may include undesirable seeds

Hydraulic mulches

Blankets soil rapidly and inexpensively

Provides only shallow-rooted grasses, but may out compete woody vegetation

Fabric mats Relatively (organic) or very (inorganic) durable; works on steep slopes

High costs; suppresses most plant growth; inorganic materials harmful to wildlife

Commercial compost

Excellent soil amendment at moderate cost

Limited erosion-control effectiveness; expensive over large areas

Limitations Table 9.1: Typesof mulches.

Since herbi-cides and fertilizers maybe problematicnear surface-water, theyshould be usedonly if otheralternatives arenot available.


desirable weed seed and should be in-spected prior to application.

Wood fibers provide the primary me-chanical protection in hydraulicmulches (usually applied during hy-droseeding). Rates of 1 to 1.5 tons/acreare most effective. They can also be ap-plied as the tackifier over straw at aboutone-third the above rate. Hydraulicmulches are adequate, but not as effec-tive as straw, for controlling erosion inmost settings. However, they can be ap-plied on slopes steeper than 2:1, at dis-tances of 100 feet or more, and in thewind. On typical earthmoving and con-struction projects, they are favored be-cause of the speed at which they can beapplied and the appearance of the re-sulting slope—tidy, smooth, and faintlygreen. The potential drawbacks—intro-ducing fertilizers and foreign grassesthat are frequently mixed into hydraulicmulches—should be carefully evalu-ated.

An appropriate mulch in many restora-tion settings is a combination of strawand organic netting, such as jute or co-conut fibers (Figure 9.13). It is themost costly of the commonly used sys-tems, but erosion control and moistureretention are highly effective, and theproblems with undesirable seeds andexcess fertilizers are reduced. The valueof an effective mulch to the final suc-cess of an initiative is generally well inexcess of its cost, even when the mostexpensive treatment is used.

Irrigation

In any restoration that involves replant-ing, the need for irrigation should becarefully evaluated. Irrigation might notbe needed in wetland and near-streamriparian sites or where rainfall is welldistributed throughout the year. Irriga-tion may be essential to ensure successon upland sites, in riparian zones whereseasonal construction periods limit in-

stallation to dry months, or where awet-weather planting may have to en-dure a first-year drought. Initial costsare lowest with a simple overheadspraying system. Spray systems, how-ever, have inefficient water delivery andhave heightened potential for vandal-ism. Drip-irrigation systems are there-fore more suitable at many sites(Goldner 1984). There is also a greaterpotential for undesirable species withspray irrigation since the area betweenindividual plants receives moisture.

Fencing

If the plant species chosen for the siteare suitable, little or no special effortwill be necessary for survival and estab-lishment. During the initial construc-tion and postconstruction phases,however, plants will commonly needsome measure of physical protection.Construction equipment, work crews,onlookers, grazing horses and cattle,and browsing deer and other herbivorescan reduce a new plant installation tobarren or crushed twigs in very shortorder. Vandalism is also a potentialproblem in populated areas. Fencing isan effective, low-cost method to provide

Figure 9.13: A well-mulched site. Mulching isan effective method for improving the finaloutcome of stream corridor restoration.

The value ofan effectivemulch to thefinal successof an initiatives generally

well in excessof its cost,even whenthe most ex-pensive treat-ment is used.


physical protection from these types ofhazards and should be included in vir-tually any restoration.

The type of fencing should be chosenfor the type of hazard anticipated. Inex-pensive, fluorescent orange plastic fenc-ing is very effective for controllingpeople and equipment during construc-tion, but it rarely makes a suitable long-term barrier. Domestic cattle can becontrolled by a variety of wood andwire fences (Figure 9.14). Dependingon the density of grazing animals, thesefences are best assumed to be perma-nent installations and their design cho-sen accordingly. Electric fences can alsobe effective, and the higher cost of theelectrification equipment can be offsetby lower costs for materials and instal-lation. Where deer are a known prob-lem, fencing must be robust, but itprobably will not need to remain inplace permanently after well-chosenplants have matured. Damage fromsmall mammals may be halted withchicken wire alone, surrounding indi-vidual saplings, or below-ground col-lars. Individual wire cages or othercontrol devices might be necessary toprotect trees.

Inspection

Frequent, periodic inspection of work,whether done by a landowner, contrac-tor, volunteer group, or governmentpersonnel, is mandatory. Defects suchas poor planting methods, stressedplant materials, inadequate soil com-paction, or sloppy erosion control, maybecome evident only weeks or monthsafter completion of work unless the ac-tivities on the site are regularly re-viewed. Some of those activities mayrequire specialized testing, such as thedegree of compaction of a fill slope.Most require little more than observa-tions by an inspector familiar with allelements of the design.

In the case of contracted work, it is theresponsibility of the construction in-spector to monitor installation activitiesto ensure that the contractor completeswork according to the contract plansand specifications. At key points duringconstruction, the inspector should con-sult with clients and design team(s) forassistance. The inspector should createcomprehensive documentation of theconstruction history in anticipation ofany future audit or quantity dispute. Allinspections should result in a writtenrecord that includes at least the infor-mation shown in Figure 9.15.

Daily and weekly reports are invaluableto maintain clear communication aboutbillable days, progress, and anticipatedproblems. These written reports estab-lish the authority to release payment tothe contractor and provide the maindocumentation in case of a dispute be-tween the client and contractor. Com-pleteness, timeliness, and clarity ofdocumentation are critical.

Inspection of restoration elements thatinvolve management actions (i.e., land-use controls, grazing restrictions, etc.)require follow-up communication withthe resource manager or landowner. A

Figure 9.14: A perma-nent livestock fence.Fencing is an effec-tive, low-cost methodof providing physicalprotection to restora-tion sites.


review of the action against the planand applicable standards should beconducted. For example, rotationalgrazing may be a critical plan elementto achieve restoration of the stream cor-ridor. Inspection of this plan elementwould involve a review of the rotationscheme, condition of individual pas-tures or ranges, and condition of fenc-ing and related watering devices.

Keep in mind that although plans andspecifications should be specific to theconditions of the site, they might havebeen developed from generic sets orfrom those implemented elsewhere.

On-Site Inspection FollowingInstallation

The final inspection after installationdetermines the conditions under whichthe contractor(s) can be paid and thecontract finalized. It must occur

promptly and should determinewhether all elements of the contracthave been fulfilled satisfactorily. Beforescheduling this final inspection, theproject manager and inspector, togetherwith any other necessary members ofthe restoration team, inspect the workand prepare a list of all items requiringcompletion by the contractor. This “pre-final” inspection is in fact the mostcomprehensive review of the work thatwill occur, so it must be conducted withcare and after nearly all of the work hasbeen completed. The final inspectionshould occur with representatives ofboth the client and the contractor pre-sent after completion of all requiredwork and after site cleanup, but beforeequipment is removed from the site tofacilitate additional work if necessary. Itmust address removal of protectionmeasures no longer needed, such as siltfences. These are an eyesore and mightinhibit restoration. A written reportshould state the complete or provi-sional acceptance of the work, the basison which that judgment has beenmade, and any additional work that isneeded prior to final acceptance andpayment.

Follow-up Inspections

Planning for successful implementationshould always look beyond the periodof installation to the much longer inter-val of plant establishment. Twelve ormore additional site visits are advisableover a period of many months or years.Such inspections will generally requirea separate budget item that must be an-ticipated during restoration planning. Ifthey are included in the specifications,they may be the responsibility of thecontractor. A sample inspection sched-ule is shown in Table 9.2. Although thislevel of activity after installation mightseem beyond the scope of a project, anyrestoration work that depends on the

Figure 9.15:Sample of aninspector’s dailyreport. Frequent,periodic inspectionis a mandatorypart of restorationimplementation.

Inspector’s Daily Report

Date:

Project:

Contractor:

Inspector:

Temperature: H____ L____ Precip:____ Hours: Workable____

Nonworkable____

Work Done

Contractor Equipment On-Site

Personnel On-Site

Materials Used and Location

Remarks

Inspection Time

Inspector’s Signature


growth of vegetation will benefit greatlyfrom periodic review, particularly dur-ing the first two years.

Documentation of follow-up inspec-tions is important, both to justify rec-ommendations and to provide a recordfrom which chronic problems can beidentified. Documentation can includestandard checklists, survey data, crosssections, data sheets, data summaries,and field notes. Sketches, maps, andpermanent photo points can be used todocument vegetation development.Videotape can be particularly useful todocument the performance of structuresduring various flows, to illustratewildlife use and floodplain storage offloodwaters, and otherwise to recordthe performance and functions of thecorridor system.

Inspection reports are primarily in-tended to address maintenance issues.Problems discovered in the inspectionprocess should be documented in a re-port that details deficiencies, recom-mends specific maintenance, andexplains the consequences of not ad-dressing the problems. Postplanting in-spections to ensure survival requiredocumentation and immediate action.Consequently, the reporting and re-sponse loop should be simple and di-rect so that inspections indicating theneed for emergency structural repairscan be reported and resolved withoutdelay.

General Inspection

To the extent feasible, the entire streamcorridor should be inspected annuallyto detect areas of rapid bank erosionor debris accumulation (Figure 9.16).A general inspection can also identifyinappropriate land uses, such as en-croachments of roads near banks oruncontrolled irrigation water returns,that might jeopardize restoration mea-sures, affect water quality, or otherwise

interfere with restoration objectives.The integrity of fences, water access,crossings, and other livestock controlmeasures should be inspected (Figure9.17). Lack of compliance with agreed-upon best management practicesshould be noted as well. Aerial photosare particularly useful in the overviewinspection, but inspections by boat oron foot can be more informative inmany cases.

Bank and Channel Structures

Special inspections should be con-ducted following high flows, particu-larly after the first flood event followinginstallation. Soil bioengineering mea-sures should be assessed during pro-longed drought and immediately afterhigh flows during the first few years fol-

Time Since Installation

2 Months

Inspection Interval

2 weeks (4 total)

6 Months 1 month (5 total)

2 Years 6 months (3 total)

Table 9.2: Sample inspection schedule.

Figure 9.16: Flood debris. The entire corridorshould be inspected annually to detect areas ofdebris accumulation from flood flows.


lowing installation until the system iswell established.

Most routine inspections of bank andchannel measures should be conductedduring low-water conditions to allowviewing of the measure as well as chan-nel bed changes that might threaten itsfuture integrity. This is particularly trueof bank stabilization works where theprincipal mechanism of bank failure isundermining at the toe. A low water in-spection should involve looking for dis-placed rock, settling or tilting,undermining, and similar problems(Johnson and Stypula 1993).

In the past, bank stabilization measureswere routinely cleared of vegetation tofacilitate inspection and prevent dam-age such as displacement of rock bytrees uprooted from a revetment duringa flood. However, evidence that vegeta-tion compromises revetment integrityhas not been documented (Shields1987, 1988). Leaving vegetation inplace or planting vegetation throughrock blankets has been encouraged torealize the environmental benefits ofvegetated streambanks. Consequently,agencies have modified inspection andmaintenance guidelines accordingly insome areas.

Vegetation

Streambanks that have been stabilizedusing plantings alone or soil bioengi-neering techniques require inspections,especially in the first year or two afterplanting (Figure 9.18). It is importantthat the planted material be checkedfrequently to ensure that the material isalive and growing satisfactorily. Anydead material should be replaced andthe cause of mortality determined andcorrected if possible. If the site requireswatering, rodent control, or other reme-dial actions, the problem must be de-tected and resolved immediately or thedamage may become severe enough torequire extensive or complete replant-ing. Competition from weeds should benoted if it is likely to suppress newplantings. If nonnative plants capableof invading and outcompeting nativespecies are known to be present in thearea, both plantings and existing nativevegetation should be inspected. Anynewly established nonnative popula-tions should be eradicated quickly.

After the first growing season, semi-annual to annual evaluations should besufficient in most cases. At the end of a2-year period, 50 percent or more of theoriginally installed plant materialshould be healthy and growing well(Figure 9.19). If not, determining thecause of die-off and subsequent replant-ing will probably be necessary. If the in-stallation itself is determined to havebeen improper, any warranty or dis-pute-resolution clauses in the plant in-stallation contract might need to beinvoked.

The effectiveness of bank protection isbased largely on the development ofthe plants and their ability to bind soilsat moderate flow velocities. The bankprotection measures should be in-spected immediately after high-flowevents in the first few years, particularly

Figure 9.17: Fencing.The integrity offencing should benspected periodi-cally.


if the plantings have not fully estab-lished. Washouts, slumping of geogrids,and similar problems require detectionand correction, since they might be-come the sites of further deteriorationand complete failure if left uncorrected.

Floodplain and other off-channel plant-ings might be important components ofthe corridor restoration plan as well. In-spection requirements are similar tothose on streambank sites but are lesscritical to the integrity of the project interms of preventing additional damage.Nevertheless, several site visits are ap-propriate during the first growing sea-son to detect problems due tobrowsing, insects, too much or too littlewater, and other causes. Inspection ofplantings that require irrigation duringestablishment, as well as of the irriga-tion system, may be needed on aweekly or more frequent basis.

Techniques for inspecting vegetationsurvival are fairly straightforward. Satis-factory survival rates may be deter-mined using stem counts within sampleplots or estimates of cover percentages,depending on the purpose of the plant-ings. For example, Johnson and Stypula(1993) suggest that woody plantings es-tablished for streambank protectionshould not include open spaces morethan 2 feet in dimension. In most cases,such criteria can be established in ad-vance based on common-sense deci-sions regarding the adequacy ofestablishment relative to the objectives.Where more detailed monitoring is ap-propriate to document development ofhabitat quality or similar objectives,more rigorous monitoring techniquescan be used. (See Section 9.B).

Urban Features

Stream corridor objectives may requireperiodic inspections of features otherthan the stream, streambank, and corri-dor vegetation. In urban areas, these

features may be a major focus of the in-spection program. Facilities, nest boxes,trails, roads, storm water systems, andsimilar features must be inspected toensure they are in satisfactory conditionand are not contributing to degradationof the stream corridor. Access points re-quired to accomplish maintenance andemergency repairs should be checkedfor serviceability. Popular public useareas, particularly stream access points,should be evaluated to determine

Figure 9.18: Revege-tation project. It isimportant that theplanted material beinspected frequentlyto ensure that it isalive and growingsatisfactorily.

Figure 9.19: Revegetation project, 1 to 2 yearspostconstruction. At the end of a 2-year peri-od, 50 percent or more of the original plant-ings should be healthy and growing well.Source: King County, Washington.


whether measures are being damaged,erosion is being initiated, or project ob-jectives are otherwise being impeded.Inspection should reveal whether signs,trail closures, and other traffic-controlmeasures are in place and effective.Trash and debris dumping, off-road ve-hicle damage, vandalism, and a widevariety of other detrimental occurrencesmay be noted during routine inspec-tions.

Maintenance

Maintenance encompasses those repairsto restoration measures which are basedon problems noted in annual inspec-tions, are part of regularly scheduledupkeep, or arise on an emergency basis.

■ Remedial maintenance is triggered bythe results of the annual inspection(Figure 9.20). The inspection reportshould identify and prioritize main-tenance needs that are not emergen-cies, but that are unlikely to beaddressed through normal scheduledmaintenance.

■ Scheduled maintenance is performed atintervals that are preestablished dur-

ing the design phase or based onproject-specific needs. Such mainte-nance activities as clearing culverts orregrading roads can be anticipated,scheduled, and funded well inadvance. In many instances, thescheduled maintenance fund can bea tempting source for emergencyfunds, but this can result in neglectof routine maintenance, which mayeventually produce a new, more cost-ly, emergency.

■ Emergency maintenance requiresimmediate mobilization to repair orprevent damage. It may include mea-sures such as replacement of plantsthat fail to establish in a soil bioengi-neered bank stabilization, or repairof a failing revetment. Where there isa reasonable probability that repairor replacement might be required(e.g., anything that depends on vege-tation establishment), sources offunding, labor, and materials shouldbe identified in advance as part ofthe contingency planning process.However, there should be somegeneral strategy for allowing rapidresponse to any emergency.

Figure 9.20:Remedial mainte-nance. Soil bio-engineering usedto repair failingrevetment.

FASTFORWARD

Preview Section9.B, MonitoringTechniquesAppropriatefor EvaluationRestoration.


Many maintenance actions will requirepermits, and such requirements shouldbe identified well in advance to accom-modate permitting delays. Similarly, access to areas likely to require main-tenance (e.g., bank stabilization struc-tures) should be guaranteed at the timeof construction, and the serviceabilityof access roads verified periodically.

Various agencies and utilities may havemaintenance responsibilities that in-volve portions of the stream corridor,such as road and transmission linecrossings. This work should be coordi-nated as necessary to ensure there areno conflicts with corridor objectives.

Channels and Floodplains

Corridor restoration that includes re-configuration of the channel and flood-plain may require remedial action if thesystem does not perform as expected inthe first few years after work has beencompleted. Any repairs or redesign,however, should be based on a carefulanalysis of the failure. Some readjust-ment is to be expected, and a continu-ing dynamic behavior is fundamental to successful restoration. Because estab-lishment of a dynamic equilibrium condition is usually the intent, main-tenance should be limited to actionsthat promote self-sustainability.

Many traditional channel maintenanceactions may be inappropriate in thecontext of stream corridor restoration.In particular, removal of woody debrismay be contrary to restoration objec-tives (Figure 9.21). Appropriate levelsof woody debris loading should be adesign specification of the project, andthe decision to remove or repositionparticular pieces should be based onspecific concerns, such as unacceptablyaccelerated bank erosion due to flowdeflection, creation of ice jams causingan increased chance for flooding, or

concerns about safety in streams withhigh recreational use. In cases wherewoody debris sources have been de-pleted, periodic addition of debris maybe a prescribed maintenance activity.(See next page for story on engineeredlog jams.)

Protection/EnhancementMeasures

Measures intended to enhance fishhabitat, deflect flows, or protect banksare likely to require periodic mainte-nance. If failure occurs soon after instal-lation, the purpose and design of themeasure should be reevaluated before itis repaired, and the mechanism of fail-ure should be identified. Early failure isan inherent risk of soil- bioengineeredsystems that are not fully effective untilthe plants are well rooted and the stemsreach a particular size and density. Al-though a design weakness may be iden-tifiable and should be corrected, moreoften the mechanism of failure will bethat the measure has not yet developed

Figure 9.21: Accumulated woody debris.Removal of woody debris may be contraryto restoration objectives.


full resistance to high-flow velocities orsaturation of bank soils. Replantingshould be an anticipated potentialmaintenance need in this situation.

In many stream corridor restorationareas, the intent of streambank andchannel measures is to provide tempo-rary stabilization until riparian vegeta-tion develops and assumes thosefunctions. In such cases, maintenance ofsome structures might become less im-portant over time, and they might even-tually be allowed to deteriorate. Theycan be wholly or partially removed ifthey represent impediments to naturalpatterns of channel migration and con-figuration, or if some components (ca-bles, stone, geofabrics) become hazards.

Vegetation

Routine maintenance of vegetation in-cludes removal of hazardous trees andbranches that threaten safety, buildings,fences, and other structures, as well asmaintenance of vegetation along roadshoulders, trails, and similar features.

Planted vegetation may require irriga-tion, fertilization, pest control, and sim-ilar measures during the first few yearsof establishment. In large-scale plantingefforts, such as floodplain reforestationefforts, maintenance may be precluded.Occasionally, replanting will be neededbecause of theft.

Maintenance plans should anticipatethe need to replant in case soil- bio-engineered bank protection structuresare subjected to prolonged high wateror drought before the plants are fullyestablished. Techniques using numer-ous cuttings establish successfully, itmight be desirable to thin the densebrush that develops to allow particulartrees to grow more rapidly, especially ifchannel shading is a restoration objec-tive. Often, bank protection measuresbecome popular points for people to

access the stream (for fishing, etc.).Plantings can be physically removed ortrampled. Replanting, fencing, postingsigns, or taking other measures mightbe needed.

Other Features

A wide variety of other restoration fea-tures will require regular maintenanceor repair. Rural restoration efforts mightrequire regular maintenance and peri-odic major repair or replacement offences and access roads for manage-ment and fire control. Public use areasand recreational facilities require up-keep of roads, trails, drainage systems,signs, and so forth (Figure 9.22). Main-tenance of urban corridors may be in-tensive, requiring trash removal,lighting, and other steps. An adminis-trative contact should be readily avail-able to address problems as theydevelop. As the level of public use in-creases, contracting of maintenance ser-vices might become necessary, andadministration of maintenance dutieswill become an increasingly importantcomponent of corridor management.

Restoration measures placed to benefitfish and wildlife (e.g., nest boxes andplatforms, waterers) need annual clean-ing and repair. These maintenance ac-tivities can be as time-consuming as theoriginal installation, and structures thatare in bad condition might draw publicattention and criticism. The mainte-nance commitment should be recog-nized before such structures areinstalled. Special wildlife managementunits, such as moist-soil-managementimpoundments and green-tree reser-voirs, require close attention to be man-aged effectively.

Flooding and drawdown schedulesmust be fine-tuned based on site-specific conditions (Fredrickson andTaylor 1982). Special equipment mightbe needed to maintain levees, to work


on soft ground, to repair drainage struc-tures, and to pump out facilities, all ofwhich might incur substantial fuelcosts. The maintenance needs in thesekinds of situations require that profes-sional resource managers be on site reg-ularly. Not operating the restorationattentively can create nuisance or haz-ardous conditions, have severe detri-mental effects on existing resources, andfail to produce the desired results.

Mosquito control may also be a mainte-nance concern near inhabited areas,particularly if the restoration encour-ages the development of slack-waterareas, such as beaver ponds, backwaters,and floodplain depressions. In somecases, control techniques may directlyinterfere with restoration objectives, butthreats to people and livestock mightmake them necessary.

Figure 9.22: Streamside trail. Public use areasand recreational facilities require upkeep ofroads, trails, and signs.

As discussed in Chapter 6, the comple-tion of implementation does not markthe end of the restoration process.Restoration practitioners must plan forand invest in the monitoring of streamcorridor restoration. The type and ex-tent of monitoring will depend on spe-cific management objectives developedas a result of stream corridor characteri-zation and condition analysis. Monitor-ing may be conducted for a number ofdifferent purposes including:

■ Performance evaluation: Assessed interms of project implementation andecological effectiveness. Ecologicalrelationships used in monitoring andassessment are validated through col-lection of field data.

■ Trend assessment: Includes longer termsampling to evaluate changing eco-

logical conditions at various spatialand temporal scales.

■ Risk assessment: Used to identify caus-es and sources of impairment withinecosystems.

■ Baseline characterization: Used toquantify ecological processes operat-ing in a particular area.

This section examines monitoring fromthe perspective of evaluating the perfor-mance of a restoration initiative. Suchinitiatives seek to restore the structureand functions discussed in earlier chap-ters. Designing a monitoring programthat directly relates to those valuedfunctions requires careful planning toensure that a sufficient amount of infor-mation is collected. Such monitoringuses measurements of physical, biologi-cal, and chemical parameters to evalu-

9.B Monitoring Techniques Appropriate forEvaluating Restoration

REVERSE

Review previ-ous chaptersfor an introduc-tion to therestoration ofstream corridorstructure andfunctions.


Engineered Log Jams for BankProtection and Habitat Restoration

Most riverbank protection measures arenot designed to improve aquatic or

riparian habitat, and many restoration initiativeslack sufficient engineering and geomorphicanalysis to effectively restore natural functionsof riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The ecolog-ical importance of instream woody debris (WD)has been well documented. Woody debris with-in a stream can often influence the instreamchannel structure by increasing the occurrenceof pools and riffles. As a result, streams withWD typically have less erosion, slower routingof organic detritus (the main food source foraquatic invertebrates), and greater habitatdiversity than straight, even-gradient streamswith no debris. Woody debris also provideshabitat cover for aquatic species and character-istics ideally suited for fish spawning.

Reintroduction of WD (or log jams) in manyparts of the United States has been extensive,but limited understanding of WD stability hashampered many of these efforts. Engineered logjams (ELJs) can restore riverine habitat and insome situations can provide effective bank pro-tection (Figure 9.23). Although WD is oftenconsidered a hazard because of its apparentmobility, research in Olympic National Park hasdocumented that stable WD jams can occurthroughout a drainage basin (Abbe et al. 1997).Even in large alluvial channels that migrate atrates of 30 ft./yr, jams can persist for centuries,creating a mosaic of stable sites that in turnhost the large trees necessary to initiate stablejams. Engineered log jams are designed to emu-late natural jams and can meet management orrestoration objectives such as bank protectionand debris retention.

After learning about the uncertainty and poten-tial risks of creating man-made log jams,landowners near Packwood, Washington, decid-

ed the potential environmental, economic, andaesthetic benefits outweighed the risks. Anexperimental project consisting of three ELJswas implemented to control severe erosionalong 1,400 ft. of the upper Cowlitz River. Thechannel at the site was 645 ft. wide and hadan average bank erosion rate of 50 ft./yr from1990 to 1995. Five weeks after constructing thelog jams, the project experienced a 20-yearrecurrence flow (30,000 ft.3/s). Each ELJremained intact and met design objectives bytransforming an eroding shoreline into a localdepositional environment (i.e., accreting shore-line). Approximately 93 tons of WD that wasin transport during the flood was trapped by theELJs, alleviating downstream hazards andenhancing structure stability. Improvements inphysical habitat included creation of complexscour pools at each ELJ (Abbe et al. 1997).

Landowners have been delighted by the experi-ment. The ELJs have remained intact, increasedin size, and reclaimed some of the formerlyeroded property even after being subjected tomajor floods in February 1996 and March1997. When compared to traditional bankstabilization methods, which typically employthe extensive use of exotic materials such asrock rarely found in low-gradient alluvial chan-nels, ELJs can offer an effective and low-costalternative for erosion control, flood control,and habitat enhancement. The cumulativeeffect of most traditional bank stabilizationmethods over time results in progressive chan-nel confinement and detachment of the ripari-an environment from the channel (e.g., loss ofstreamside vegetation). In stark contrast, thecumulative effects of using ELJs include long-term protection of a significant floodplain,improvement of instream and riparian habitat,and bank stabilization (Abbe et al. 1997).

9–31Restoration Implementation

Comprehensive geomorphic and hydraulicengineering analysis is required to deter-mine the type of WD needed and theappropriate size, position, spacing, andtype of ELJ structure for the particularsite(s) and project objectives. Inappropriatedesign and application of ELJs can result innegative impacts such as local acceleratedbank erosion, unstable debris, or channelavulsion. Acknowledging the potential risksand uncertainties of ELJs, their use shouldbe limited to well-documented experimen-tal situations. Continued research anddevelopment of ELJs involving field applica-tion in a variety of physiographic and cli-matic conditions is needed. ELJs can pro-vide a means to meet numerous objectivesin the management and restoration ofrivers and riparian corridors throughout theUnited States.

Figure 9.23:Engineered log jams.Engineered log jams(ELJs) can restoreriverine habitat andin some situationsprovide effectivebank protection.


Adaptivemanagementprovides theopportunityor course cor-ection throughvaluation andction.

ate the effectiveness of the restorationand to facilitate adaptive managementwhere needed. Sampling locations,measurements to be made, techniquesto be used, and how the results will beanalyzed are important considerationsin monitoring.

Adaptive Management

The implementation, effectiveness, andvalidation components of performancemonitoring provide a vehicle to deter-mine the need for adaptive manage-ment. Adaptive management is theprocess of establishing checkpoints todetermine whether proper actions havebeen taken and are effective in provid-ing desired results. Adaptive manage-ment provides the opportunity forcourse correction through evaluationand action.

Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring answers thequestion, “Were restoration measuresdone and done correctly?” Evaluatingthe effectiveness of restoration throughphysical, biological, and/or chemicalmonitoring can be time-consuming,expensive, and technically challenging.Time and partnerships are needed tobuild the capability for evaluating pro-ject effectiveness based on changes inecological condition. Therefore, animportant interim step to this goal isimplementation monitoring. This com-paratively simple process of document-ing what was done and whether or notit was done properly can yield valuableinformation that promotes refinementof restoration practices.

Effectiveness Monitoring

Effective monitoring answers the ques-tion “Did restoration measures achievethe desired results?” or more simply“Did the restoration initiative work?”Effectiveness monitoring evaluates suc-

cess by determining whether therestoration had the desired effect on theecosystem. Monitoring variables focuson indicators that document achieve-ment of desired conditions and areclosely linked with project goals. It isimportant that indicators selected foreffectiveness monitoring are sensitiveenough to show change, are measur-able, are detectable and have statisticalvalidity. This level of monitoring ismore time-consuming than implemen-tation monitoring, making it morecostly. To save time and money, moni-toring at this level is usually performedon a sample population or portion of aproject with results extrapolated to thewhole population.

Validation Monitoring

Validation monitoring answers thequestion “Are the assumptions used inrestoration design and cause-effect rela-tionships correct?” Validation monitor-ing considers assumptions made duringplanning and execution of restorationmeasures. This level of monitoring isperformed in response to nonachieve-ment of desired results once proper implementation is confirmed. A res-toration initiative that fails to achieveintended results could be the result ofimproper assumptions relative to eco-logical conditions or selection of in-valid monitoring indicators. This levelof monitoring is always costly and re-quires scientific expertise.

Evaluation Parameters

Physical Parameters

A variety of channel measurements areappropriate for performance evaluation(Figure 9.24). The parameters pre-sented in Table 9.3 should be consid-ered for measurement of physicalperformance and stability. Stream pat-tern and morphology are a result of the

REVERSE

Review Chapter7D’s section onanalyticalmethods forevaluatingbiologicalattributes.

Monitoring Techniques Appropriate for Evaluating Restoration 9–33

interaction of eight measurable parame-ters—width, depth, channel slope,roughness of channel materials, dis-charge, velocity, sediment loads, andsediment size (Leopold et al. 1964).These parameters and several other di-mensionless ratios (including entrench-ment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, andmeander/width ratio) can be used togroup stream systems with similar formand pattern. They have been used asdelineative criteria in stream classifica-tion (Rosgen 1996). Natural streams arenot random in their variation.

A change in any of the primary streamvariables results in a series of channeladjustments, resulting in alterations ofchannel pattern and form, and atten-dant changes in riparian and aquatichabitat.

Biological Parameters

Biological monitoring can cover a broadrange of organisms, riparian conditions,and sampling techniques. In most cases,budget and staff will limit the diversityand intensity of evaluation methodschosen. Analytical methods for evaluat-ing biological attributes are discussed inSection 7.D of this document.

Table 9.4 provides examples of the bio-logical attributes of stream ecosystemsthat may be related to restoration goals.Biological aspects of the stream corridorthat may be monitored as part of per-formance goals include primary pro-ductivity, invertebrate and fishcommunities, riparian/terrestrialwildlife, and riparian vegetation. Thismay involve monitoring habitat orfauna to determine the degree of suc-cess of revegetation efforts or instreamhabitat improvements.

Biological monitoring programs can in-clude the use of chemical measures. Forexample, if specific stressors within the

stream system, such as high water tem-peratures and low dissolved oxygen,limit biological communities, directmonitoring of these attributes can pro-vide an evaluation of the performanceof more intensive remedial practices, in-cluding point source pollution reduc-tion.

Chemical Parameters

Monitoring is necessary to determine ifa restoration initiative has had the de-sired effect on water chemistry. The typeand extent of chemical monitoring de-pends upon the goal of the monitoringprogram. Major chemical parameters ofwater and their sampling are discussedin Chapters 2 and 7.

A factor in designing a chemical moni-toring approach is the amount ofchange expected in a system. If the

Figure 9.24: Measurement of a stream corridor.Monitoring the physical aspects of the streamcorridor system is important in evaluating thesuccess of any restoration effort.

REVERSE

Review Chap-ters 2 and 7 forinformation onchemical waterparameters andtheir sampling.Also, reviewChapter 8’s sec-tion on refer-ence reaches.


restoration goal, for example, is to re-duce the salinity in a stream by 5 per-cent, it would be much more difficultto detect than a goal of reducing salin-ity by 50 percent.

Chemical monitoring can often be usedin conjunction with biological monitor-ing. There are pros and cons for usingchemical and biological parameterswhen monitoring. Biological parame-ters are often good integrators of severalwater quality parameters. Biological in-

dicators are especially useful when de-termining the bioaccumulation of achemical.

Water chemistry samples are typicallyeasier to replicate, can disclose slowchanges over time, and be used to pre-vent catastrophic events when chemicalcharacteristics are near toxic levels. Forexample, water quality monitoringmight detect a slow decrease in pH overa period of time. Some aquatic organ-isms, such as trout, might not respond

Regional climate/weather

Plan view

Classification of existing streams (all reaches)

Assessment of hydrologic flow regimes through monitoring

Channel evolutionary track determination

Corresponding riparian conditions

Corresponding watershed trends–past 20 years and future 20 years

Longitudinal profile

Sinuosity, width, bars, riffles, pools, boulders, logs

Cross sectional profiles — by reach and features

Sketch of full cross section

Bank response angle

Depth bankfull

Width

Width/depth ratio

Bed particle size distribution

Water surface slope

Bed slope

Pool size/shape/profile

Riffle size/shape/profile

Bar features

2-, 5-, 10-year storm hydrographs

Discharge and velocity of base flow

Decreased or increased runoff, flash flood flows

Incisement/degradation

Overwidening/aggradation

Sinuosity trend—evolutionary state, lateral migration

Increasing or decreasing sinuosity

Bank erosion patterns

Saturated or ponded riparian terraces

Alluvium terraces and fluvial levees

upland/well-drained/sloped or terraced geomorphology

Riparian vegetation composition, community patterns and successional changes

Land use/land cover

Land management

Soil types

Topography

Varies with classification system

Table 9.3: Physical parameters to be considered in establishing evaluation criteria for measure-ment of physical performance and stability.


to this gradual change until the waterbecomes toxic. However, water qualitymonitoring could detect the changeand thereby avoid a catastrophic event.An ideal monitoring program would include both biological and chemicalparameters.

Important chemical and physical para-meters that might have a significant in-fluence on biological systems includethe following:

■ Temperature

■ Turbidity

■ Dissolved oxygen

■ pH

■ Natural toxics (mercury) and manu-factured toxics

■ Flow

■ Nutrients

■ Organic loading (BOD, TOC, etc.)

■ Alkalinity/Acidity

■ Hardness

■ Dissolved and suspended solids

■ Channel characteristics

■ Spawning gravel

■ Instream cover

■ Shade

■ Pool/riffle ratio

■ Springs and ground water seeps

■ Bed material load

■ Amount and size distribution oflarge woody debris (i.e., fallen trees)

These parameters may be studied inde-pendently or in conjunction with bio-logical measurements of the ecologicalcommunity.

Reference Sites

Understanding the process of change re-quires periodic monitoring and mea-

surement and scientific interpretationof the information as it relates to thestream corridor. In turn, an evaluationof the amount of change attributed torestoration must be based on estab-lished reference conditions developedby the monitoring of reference sites.The following are important considera-tions in reference site selection:

■ What do we want to know about thestream corridor?

■ Are identified sites minimally-disturbed?

■ Are the identified sites representativeof a given ecological region, and dothey reflect the range of natural vari-

Primary productivity

Periphyton

Zooplankton/diatoms

Invertebratecommunity

Species

Fishcommunity

Anadromous and resident species

Riparian wildlife/terrestrialcommunity

Amphibians/reptiles

Riparianvegetation

Structure

Composition

Condition

Function

Changes in time (succession,colonization, extirpation, etc.)

Mammals

Birds

Specific populations or life stages

Number of outmigrating smolts

Number of returning adults

Numbers

Diversity

Biomass

Macro/micro

Aquatic/terrestrial

Plankton

Vascular and nonvascularmacrophytes

BiologicalAttribute

Parameter

Table 9.4: Examples of biological attributesand corresponding parameters that may berelated to restoration goals and monitored aspart of performance evaluation.


Fish barrier modifications provide a good exampleof a technically difficult performance evaluation.The goal of the restoration is easily understoodand stated. Barrier modification provides one oftwo options—to increase populations (increaseupstream and downstream movement) or todecrease populations (restrict movement).

In all cases, the specific target species should beidentified. If the goal is to restore historic runs ofcommercial fishes, data for commercial landingsmay be available to provide guidance. Habitatmodels are available for species such as Atlanticsalmon and can provide insight into expectedcarrying capacities of nursery habitat. Existing runsin adjacent or nearby river(s) may be examined forpopulation levels and trends that can provideinsight into realistic goals. Barriers may be plannedfor only short-term protection of some species(e.g., protection against cannibalism) or for longerterm exclusion of problematic or undesirablespecies.

Methodologies to evaluate the success of fish bar-rier modifications can use a variety of field meth-ods to count the number of adult spawners, todetermine the abundance of fry, to estimate thesize of the outmigrating juvenile population, or tomonitor the travel time between specific pointswithin a watershed (Table 9.5). However, consider-ation needs to be given to factors that may influ-ence the success of the population outside thestudy area. Commercial fishing, disease, predation,limited food supply, or carrying capacity of juvenileor adult habitat may be more important control-ling factors than access to spawning and nurseryhabitat.

The performance evaluation must allow ampletime for the species to complete its life cycle. Manyanadromous species have life spans of 4 to 7

years; sturgeon live for decades. Adequate homingto natal areas may require several generations tobuild a significant migrating population and to fillall year classes. Floods or droughts can impact fryand juvenile life stages and do not become appar-ent in adult spawning populations until severalyears have elapsed. Restoration and monitoringgoals need to be formulated to take these non-restoration-limiting factors into account.Examination of year-class structure of returningadults might be useful, or investigations that aver-age the size of spawning runs for multiple yearsmight be appropriate.

Performance evaluation study methodologies mustuse appropriate monitoring techniques. Collectingtechniques need to be relatively nondestructive.Collecting weirs, traps, or nets need to bedesigned to limit injury or predation and shouldfunction over a wide range of flow and debris lev-els. Monitoring techniques should not extensively

ab e

Fishway counts Observation windows

Populationestimates

Mark and recapture

Timing ofmigrationbetweenobservationpoints

Radio tagging

Pit tags

Dyes and other external marks

Computer-coded tags

Snorkel counts

Redd counts

Creel census

Direct counts of spawning adults

Hydroacoustics

Fish traps/weirs

Netting

Modification Method

Table 9.5: Methods to evaluate effectiveness of fish barrier modifications.

Performance Evaluation of Fish Barrier Modifications


limit movement. Weirs and traps should not causeexcessive delays in migration, and fish tags shouldnot encumber movement. Techniques are oftenspecies- and life stage-specific. Fish tags, includingradio tags, may be appropriate for older, largerindividuals, whereas chemical marks, dyes, finclips, or internal microtags may be appropriatefor smaller organisms. Certain fish, such as alosids(American shad and river herring), may be moredifficult to handle than others, such as salmonids

(trout and salmon), and appropriate handlingtechniques need to be used. Avoiding extremeenvironmental conditions (excessively high or lowwater temperature or flow) may be important.Nondestructive techniques, such as hydroacousiticsand radio tags, have several advantages, but careneeds to be taken to differentiate between back-ground noise (mechanical, debris, entrained air,nonlaminar flow), other species, and targetspecies.


ability associated with a given streamclass?

■ What is the least number of sitesrequired to establish reference conditions?

■ What are the impediments to refer-ence site access?

Reference sites provide examples of aproperly functioning ecosystem. It isfrom these reference sites that desiredconditions are determined and levels ofenvironmental indicators identified. En-vironmental indicators become the per-formance criteria to monitor the successof a initiative.

Human Interest Factors

Human activities requiring use of ahealthy environment may often be im-portant factors for evaluating streamcorridor restorations (Figure 9.25). Inthese cases, the ability of the streamcorridor to support the activity indicatesbenefits drawn from the stream corridoras well as adding insight into streamecosystem condition. Many human in-terest-oriented criteria used in perfor-mance evaluations can serve the dualfunction of evaluating elements ofhuman use and ecological condition together:

Many humannterest-orientedriteria used inerformancevaluations canerve the dualunction ofvaluatinglements ofuman use andcological con-ition together.

Figure 9.25: Human interest in the stream corridor. Aesthetics are a highly valued benefit associated with a healthy stream corridor.


■ Human health (disease, toxic/fishconsumption advisories)

■ Aesthetics (odor, views, sound, litter)

■ Non-consumptive recreation (hiking,birding, whitewater rafting, canoeing,outdoor photography)

■ Consumptive recreation (fishing,hunting)

■ Research and educational uses

■ Protection of property (erosion con-trol, floodwater retention)

Use surveys, which determine the suc-cess of the restoration in terms ofhuman use, can provide additional bio-logical data. Angler survey, creel census,birding questionnaires, and sign-in trailboxes that request observations of spe-cific species can also provide biologicaldata. Citizens’ groups can participate ef-fectively, providing valuable assistanceat minimal cost.

Additional References for MonitoringAverett, R.C., and L.J. Schroder. 1993. A guide to the design of surface-water-qualitystudies: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-105, U.S. Geological Survey.

Karr, J.R., and W. Chu. 1997. Biological monitoring and assessment: Using MultimetricIndexes Effectively. USEPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seattle.

Kerchner, J.L. 1997. Setting Riparian/Aquatic Restoration Objectives Within a WatershedContext. In Restoration Ecology Vol. 5, No. 45.

Manley, P.A., et al. 1995. Sustaining Ecosystems: A Conceptual Framework. USDAForest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. 216 pp.

McDonald, L.H., et al. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of ForestryActivities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. USEPA, Region 10, Seattle,WA. 166 pp.

Sanders, T.G., R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftis, T.D. Steele, D.D. Adrian, and V. Yevjevich. 1983,Design of networks for monitoring water quality. Water Resources Publications,Littleton, CO., 328 p.

Stednick, J.D. 1991. Wildland water quality sampling and analysis. Academic Press,San Diego.

Ward, R.C., J.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride. 1990. Design of water quality monitoringsystems. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.


Management is the long-term manipu-lation and protection of restoration re-sources to achieve objectives.Management priorities for the streamcorridor ecosystem are set during theplanning phase and refined during de-sign. These priorities should also besubject to ongoing revision based onregular monitoring and analysis. Man-agement needs can range from rela-tively passive approaches that involveremoval of acute impacts to intensiveefforts designed to restore ecosystemfunctions through active intervention.Whereas a preceding section describedthe need to provide adequate mainte-nance for the restoration elements,restoration management is the collec-tive set of decisions made to guide theentire restoration effort to success.

The restoration setting and the priori-ties of participants can make manage-ment a fairly straightforward process ora complex process that involves numer-ous agencies, landowners, and inter-ested citizens. Development of amanagement plan is less difficult whenthe corridor and watershed are underthe control of a single owner or agencythat can clearly state objectives and pri-orities. Some stream corridor restora-tions have, in fact, involved extensiveland acquisition to achieve sufficientmanagement control to make restora-tion feasible. Even then, competing in-terests can exist. Decisions must bemade regarding which resource uses arecompatible with the defined objectives.

More commonly, stream corridor man-agement decisions will be made in anenvironment of conflicting interests,overlapping mandates and regulatoryjurisdictions, and complex ownershippatterns, both in the corridor and in thesurrounding watershed. For example, in

a Charles River corridor project in Mass-achusetts, the complex ownership pat-tern along the river requires directactive management in some areas andeasements in others. In the remainder,management is largely a matter of en-couraging appropriate use (Barron1989). Many smaller restorations mightbe similarly diversified with manage-ment decisions involving a variety ofparticipants. Participation and adher-ence to restoration best managementpractices (BMPs) may be encouragedthrough various programs, such as theNRCS’s Conservation Reserve Program,multi-agency riparian buffer restorationinitiatives, and cost-sharing opportuni-ties available under the EPA Section 319Program.

Programs intended to reduce nonpointsource pollution of waterways often encourage the use of practices to ad-dress problems such as agriculturalrunoff or sediment generated by timberharvest operations. Because many prac-tices focus on activities within thestream corridor, existing practicesshould be reviewed to determine theirapplicability to the stream corridorrestoration plan (Figure 9.26). Al-though the ecological restoration objec-tives for the corridor might requiremore restrictive management, existingpractices can provide a good startingpoint and establish a rationale for mini-mum management prescriptions. Instream corridor restoration efforts in-volving numerous landowners, it mightbe appropriate to develop a revised setof practices specific to the restorationarea. Participants should have the op-portunity to participate in developingthe practices and should be willing tocommit to compliance before therestoration is implemented.

9.C Restoration Management

Managementeeds canange from rel-tively passivepproaches thatnvolve removalof acute impactso intensivefforts designedo restorecosystem func-ions throughctive inter-ention.

Restoration Management 9–41

Regulatory controls influencing man-agement options are increasingly com-plex and require regular review asmanagement plans evolve and adapt. Insome areas, regulatory oversight of ac-tivities in streamside areas and in thevicinity of wetlands involves fairly rigidrules that may conflict with specificproposed management actions (e.g., se-lective tree removals). Implementationof management actions in such caseswill require coordination and approvalfrom the regulating agencies. Many stateand local jurisdictions vary their restric-tions according to classification systemsreflecting the condition of the stream-side area or wetland in terms of “natu-ralness”; for example, sites with largetrees might receive a higher level of pro-tection than sites that have been heavilydisturbed.

Restoration is intended specifically toimprove the condition of the streamcorridor; however, an activity that is al-lowable initially might be regulated asthe corridor condition improves. Thesechanges should be anticipated to theextent possible in developing long-termmanagement and use plans.

Streams

In effect, stream corridor restorationand ongoing monitoring constitutestream management. Many problemsdetected during monitoring can be re-solved by manipulation of the streamcorridor vegetation (Figure 9.27), landuses, where possible, and only occa-sionally, by direct physical manipula-tion of the channel. If “resetting” of thechannel system is necessary, it essen-tially becomes a redesign problem.Where lateral erosion occurs in unantic-ipated areas and poses an unacceptablethreat to function, property, or infra-structure, another restoration approachmight have to be initiated.

Figure 9.26: Livestock fences used as a BMP. Reviewing existing BMPscan be useful in establishing management prescriptions.

Figure 9.27: Pruning streamside vegetation. Monitoring might detectthe need for manipulation of streamside vegetation.


In cases where streamflow control is anoption, it likely will be a significantcomponent of the management plan tomaintain baseflows, water temperatures,and other attributes. However, appro-priate flow patterns should have beendefined during the design phase, withcomponents of corridor managementprescribed accordingly. If hydrologicpatterns change after the restoration isestablished, significant redesign ormanagement changes might be requiredfor the entire corridor. Ultimately, awell-planned, prepared stream corridorrestoration design predicts and ad-dresses the potential for hydrologicchange.

Forests

In forested environments, the planningand design phases of stream corridorrestoration should set specific objectivesfor forest structure and compositionwithin the corridor. If existing forestsare developing in the desired direction,action may not be needed. In this case,forest management consists of protec-tion rather than intervention. In de-graded stream corridor forests,achieving desired goals requires activeforest management. In many corridorseconomic return to private and publiclandowners is an important objective ofthe restoration plan. Stream corridorrestoration may accommodate eco-nomic returns from forest management,but management within the stream cor-ridor should be driven primarily by eco-logical objectives. If the basic goal is torestore and maintain ecological func-tions, silviculture should imitate naturalprocesses that normally occur in thecorridor.

Numerous forest management activitiescan promote ecological objectives. Forexample, some corridor forest typesmight benefit from prescribed fire orwildfire management programs that

maintain natural patterns of structuraland compositional diversity and regen-eration. In other systems, fire might beinappropriate or might be precluded ifthe stream corridor is in an urban set-ting. In the latter case, silvicultural treat-ments might be needed to emulate theeffects of fire.

Recovery of degraded streamside forestscan be encouraged and acceleratedthrough silvicultural efforts. Active in-tervention and management may be es-sential to maintain the character ofnative plant communities where riverregulation has contributed to hydrologyand sedimentation patterns that resultin isolation from seed sources (Klimas1991, Johnson 1994). Streamsideforests used as buffers to prevent nutri-ents from reaching streams may requireperiodic harvests to remove biomassand maintain net uptake (Lowrance etal. 1984, Welsch 1991). However,buffers intended to intercept and de-grade herbicides might be most effec-tive if they are managed to achieveold-growth conditions (Entry et al.1995).

Management of corridor forests shouldnot proceed in isolation from manage-ment of adjacent upland systems (Fig-ure 9.28). Upland harvests can result inraised water tables and tree mortality inriparian zones. Coordinated silvicul-tural activities can reduce timber lossesas well as minimize the need for roads(Oliver and Hinckley 1987).

Forests managed by government agen-cies are usually subject to establishedrestrictions on activities in riparianareas. Elsewhere, BMPs for forestry prac-tices are designed to minimize non-point source pollution and protectwater quality. BMPs typically include re-strictions on road placement, equip-ment use, timber removal practices, andother similar considerations. Existing


state BMP guidelines may be appropri-ate for application within the restora-tion area but often require somemodification to reflect the objectives ofthe restoration or other pre-identifiedconstraints on activities in the vicinityof streams and wetlands.

Grazed Lands

Livestock grazing is a very importantstream corridor management issue inmost nonforested rangelands and inmany forested areas. Uncontrolled live-stock grazing can have severe detrimen-tal effects on streambanks, riparianvegetation, and water quality, particu-larly in arid and semiarid environ-ments (Behnke and Raleigh 1978,Elmore and Beschta 1987, Chaney etal. 1990) (Figure 9.29). Livestock natu-rally concentrate in the vicinity ofstreams; therefore, special efforts mustbe made to control or prevent access ifstream corridor restoration is to beachieved.

In some cases, livestock may act as anagent in restoration. Management oflivestock access is critical to ensure

their role is a positive one. Existingstate BMPs might be sufficient to pro-mote proper grazing, but might not beinnovative or adaptive enough to meetthe restoration objectives of a corridormanagement program.

Complete exclusion of livestock is aneffective approach to restore and main-tain riparian zones that have beenbadly degraded by grazing. In somecases, exclusion may be sufficient to re-verse the damage without additional in-tervention. In some degraded systems,removal of livestock for a period ofyears followed by a planned manage-ment program may allow recovery with-

Figure 9.28: Streamside forests and adjacentuplands. Management of streamside forestsshould not proceed in isolation from manage-ment of adjacent upland systems.

Figure 9.29: Livestockin stream. Uncontrolledlivestock grazing canhave severe detrimentaleffects on streambanks,riparian vegetation, andwater quality.


Partners Working for the Big SpringCreek Watershed

The Big Spring Creek watershed occupies adiverse, primarily agricultural landscape in cen-

tral Montana, where the nation’s third largestfreshwater spring (Big Springs) provides untreateddrinking water for the 7,000 residents ofLewistown and is the source of one of Montana’sbest trout streams, Big Spring Creek.

Conservation work by federal, state, and localagencies, private organizations, and citizens in the255,000-acre Big Spring Creek watershed is notnew. Actually, various projects and developmentshave occurred over the last several decades. Forexample, the flood control project that protectsthe city of Lewistown has its roots in the 1960swhen, after experiencing a series of floods, the cityof Lewistown and community leaders decided totake action. The Fergus County ConservationDistrict, Fergus County Commissioners, City ofLewistown, U.S. Natural Resources ConservationService, and many community leaders all workedtogether on this project. The Big Spring CreekFlood Control Project now protects the city ofLewistown from recurrent flooding.

Conservation work now, though, goes beyondflood control. It involves working to solve resourceproblems on a watershed basis, recognizing thatwhat happens upstream has an effect on thedownstream resources. We should look beyondproperty boundaries at the whole watershed, con-sidering the “cumulative effects” of all our actions.With that in mind, the Fergus County ConservationDistrict, with assistance from its citizen committee,has been working the last few years to improveand protect the watershed. With funding from theMontana Department of Environmental Quality(Section 319), the Big Spring Creek WatershedPartnership was formed.

This project helps agricultural producers and otherlandowners to plan and install conservation prac-tices to prevent erosion and keep sediment and

other pollutants out of streams and lakes. Arealandowners are implementing conservation prac-tices such as improving the riparian vegetation(Figure 9.30), treating streambank erosion, anddeveloping water sources off the stream for live-stock. Because the project has been well receivedby the agricultural producers, it has been possiblefor cooperating agencies to participate in addition-al watershed improvements. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Partners for Wildlife program hasprovided funding for several stream restorationand riparian improvement projects. In addition, theMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks isactively participating in fisheries habitat projects,including the Brewery Flats Stream Restoration.

Implementation of the Big Spring Creek WatershedPartnership has brought many positive changes tothe predominantly agricultural Big Spring Creekwatershed. Since most of the agricultural opera-tions are livestock or grain, the major emphasis ison riparian/stream improvement and grazing man-agement. Thus far, more than 30 landowners haveparticipated in the project by installing conservationpractices that include over 8 miles of fencing, and13 off-stream water developments, with morethan 10 miles of stream/riparian area protected.

Studies show that stream characteristics and waterquality are the best indicators of watershed vitality.Thus, an active monitoring strategy in the water-shed provides feedback to measure any improve-ments. Preproject and postproject fisheries (trout)surveys are conducted in cooperation with theMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parkson selected streams. On East Fork Spring Creek,fencing and off-stream water development wereimplemented on a riparian/stream reach that wasseverely degraded from livestock use. Fish popula-tions and size structure changed dramatically frompreproject to postproject work. Salmonid numbersincreased from 12 to 32 per 1,000 feet, and aver-age size increased by 50 percent. In addition to

9–45Restoration Management

fisheries surveys, benthic macroinvertebrate com-munities are collected and analyzed on a numberof streams. This analysis relates to the stream’s bio-logical health or integrity. Community structure,function, and sensitivity to impact are compared tobaseline data. Habitat conditions on three of sixmonitoring sites on Big Spring Creek from 1990 to1997 have shown improved conditions from a sub-optimal to an optimal rating. Monitoring will con-tinue on major streams in the watershed, whichwill help to provide important feedback as to theproject’s effectiveness.

Although the major emphasis is on improving andprotecting the riparian areas and streams in thewatershed, other ongoing efforts include partici-pating in the “Managing Community Growth” ini-tiative, preserving agriculture and open space, anddeveloping recreational and environmentalresources. An active committee of the group isinvolved in one of the largest stream restorationinitiatives ever to be undertaken in Montana,planned for 1998. Included in this project is anenvironmental education trial site being developedwith the local schools.

Working with watersheds is a dynamic process,and as a result new activities and partners are con-tinually incorporated into the Big Spring CreekWatershed Partnership. The following agencies andorganizations are currently working together withthe citizens of the watershed to protect this “veryspecial place.”

Fergus County Conservation District

M.S.U.-Extension Service, Fergus County

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Montana Department of Natural Resources andConservation

U.S. Forest Service

City Of Lewistown

Fergus County Commissioners

Snowy Mountain Chapter Trout Unlimited

Central Montana Pheasants Forever

Lewistown School District No.1

Lewistown Visioning Group

Lewistown Area Chamber of Commerce

Figure 9.30: The Big Spring Creek watershed. (a) A heavilyimpacted tributary within the Big Spring Creek watershedand (b) the same tributary after restoration.

(b)

(a)


out permanent livestock exclusion (El-more and Beschta 1987). Systems notbadly damaged might respond to graz-ing management involving seasonaland herd size restrictions, off-channelor restricted-access watering, use of ri-parian pastures, herding, and similartechniques (Chaney et al. 1990). Re-sponse to grazing is specific to channeltypes and season.

In off-channel areas of the stream corri-dor, grazing may require less intensivemanagement. Grazing might have lim-ited potential to be used as a habitatmanipulation tool in certain ecosys-tems, such as the Northern Plains,where native grazing animals formerlycontrolled ecosystem structure (Sever-son 1990). However, where grazing oc-curs within the stream corridor, it mightconflict directly with ecosystem restora-tion objectives if not properly managed.Corridors that include grazing or havelivestock in adjacent areas require vigi-lance to ensure that fences are main-tained and herd management BMPs arefollowed.

Fish and Wildlife

Stream and vegetation care are the focusof many fish and wildlife managementactivities in the stream corridor. Hunt-ing and fishing activities (Figure 9.31),nuisance animal control, and protec-tion of particular species may be ad-dressed in some restoration plans.Special management units, such as sea-sonally flooded impoundments specifi-cally designed to benefit particulargroups of species (Fredrickson and Tay-lor 1982), might be appropriate com-ponents of the stream corridor,requiring special maintenance andmanagement. Numerous fish andwildlife management tools and tech-niques that address temporary deficien-cies in habitat availability are available

(e.g., Martin 1986). Inappropriate orhaphazard use of some techniques canhave unintended detrimental effects(for example, placing wood duck nestboxes in areas that lack brood habitat).Programs intended to manipulate fishand wildlife populations or habitatsshould be undertaken in consultationwith the responsible state or federal re-source agencies.

Restoration of a functional stream corri-dor can be expected to attract beaver inmany areas. Where beaver control iswarranted because of possible damageto private timberlands or roads, in-creased mosquito problems, and otherconcerns, controls should be placed assoon as possible and not after the dam-age is done. Techniques are available toprevent beaver from blocking culvertsor drain pipes and destroying trees. Insome cases, effective beaver control re-quires removal of problem animals(Olson and Hubert 1994).

Human Use

Stream corridors in urban areas are usu-ally used heavily by people and requiremuch attention to minimize, control, orrepair human impacts. In some cases,human disturbance prevents somestream corridor functions from beingrestored. For example, depending onthe amount of degradation that has oc-curred, urban streams might supportrelatively few, if any, native wildlifespecies. Other concerns, such as im-proved water quality, might be ad-dressed effectively through properrestoration efforts. Addressing impactsfrom surrounding developed areas(such as uncontrolled storm waterrunoff and predation by pets) requirescoordination with community agenciesand citizen groups to minimize, pre-vent, or reverse damage. Managementof urban corridors might tend to em-

Corridors thatnclude grazing

or have live-stock in adja-cent areasrequire vigi-ance to ensure

that fences aremaintainedand herd man-agement BMPsare followed.

9–47Restoration Management

A Creek Ran Through It

Portland, Oregon, sprang up along the Willa-mette River. As time went on and the city

grew, it came to occupy a sequestered spotbetween the Willamette and Columbia Rivers andthe higher reaches of the Sylvan Hills. But beforethe city expanded to this point, a creek ranthrough it—Tanner Creek.

The Tanner Creek watershed, comprising approxi-mately 1,600 acres, extended from the forestedhills through a canyon and across the valley floorto the Willamette River. During summer months,the creek was placid if not dry. But during theheavy winter rains, the creek became a ragingtorrent.

As the city of Portland expanded, the creekwas diverted into the sewer system and the creekfloodway was filled in to make way for develop-ment. These combined sewers drained directly tothe Willamette River and the Columbia Sloughuntil a series of interceptor pipes and a municipalsewage treatment plant were constructed in the1940s and 1950s.

However, this new system did not have sufficientcapacity to handle the combined sewage andstorm water flows during periods of heavy rain,which frequently occur during the winter months.As a result, rather than flowing to the treatmentplant for processing and disinfection, the com-bined sewage and storm water overflowed to

outfalls along the Willamette River and theColumbia Slough. Tanner Creek became a part ofthe cause of combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

In the early 1990s, the city of Portland began todevelop a plan to eliminate CSOs. The TannerCreek Stream Diversion Project was identifiedearly in the CSO planning process as a corner-stone project, a relatively inexpensive methodof removing clean storm water from the com-bined system, thereby reducing CSOs. Nearly10 miles of pipe ranging from 84 inches to 60inches in diameter will be constructed to onceagain carry storm water directly to the river. Inaddition, best management practices for stormwater management will be included. Finally,opportunities for water feature enhancementsand educational and cultural opportunities will beexplored in partnership with the community andother agencies.

Principal among these opportunities is daylightinga portion of the stream in the city’s River District.In partnership with community leaders, specialinterest groups, a private developer, and otheragencies, the city’s Bureau of EnvironmentalServices is leading a study of possible designalternatives. For more information contact: NeaLynn Robinson, Project Manager, Tanner CreekStream Diversion Project, City of Portland,Oregon.


phasize recreation, educational oppor-tunities, and community activities morethan ecosystem functions. Administra-tive concerns may focus heavily onlocal ordinances, zoning, and construc-tion permit standards and limitations.

Community involvement can be an im-portant aspect of urban stream corridorrestoration and management. Commu-nity groups often initiate restorationand maintain a feeling of ownershipthat translates into monitoring input,management oversight, and volunteerlabor to conduct maintenance andmanagement activities. It is essentialthat community groups be providedwith professional technical guidance in-cluding assistance in translating regula-tory requirements. It is also importantthat proposed management actions inurban corridors be discussed in advancewith interested groups affected by treecutting or trail closures.

In nonurban areas, recreation can usu-ally be accommodated without impair-ing ecological functions if all concernedparties consider ecosystem integrity tobe the priority objective (Johnson andCarothers 1982). Strategies can be de-vised and techniques are available tominimize impacts from activities suchas camping, hiking (trail erosion),and even the use of off-road vehicles(Cole and Marion 1988) (Figure 9.32).Recreationists should be educated onmethods to minimize impacts on theecosystem and on restoration structuresand vegetation. Location of areas desig-nated for low-impact use and areas off-limits to certain high-impact activities(such as off-road vehicles, biking, horse-back riding, etc.) should be clearlymarked. Access should be restricted toareas where new vegetation has not yetbeen fully established or where vegeta-tion could be damaged beyond thepoint of survival.

Figure 9.31: Local fisherman. Fishing and otherrecreational activities must be considered inrestoration management.

Figure 9.32: Off-roadvehicle. Low- andhigh-impact use areashould be clearly

marked within publictream corridors.


All the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today.—Chinese proverb

There will come a time when you believe everything is finished.That will be the beginning.

—Louis L’Amour

Documents

9.A Restoration Implementation - USDAphy, and preexisting roads make access to every site unique, several principles should guide design, placement, and construction of site access: