SCIENCE BASE AND TOOLS

FOR EVALUATING STREAM RESTORATION AND STABILIZATION

PROPOSALS

- Preview -

Brian CluerNOAA Fisheries

Habitat Conservation DivisionCalifornia

RRNW 2009

Joint Project Between:

NOAA Fisheries –Southwest Region HCD –Northwest Region HCD–NW Fisheries Science Center

US Fish and Wildlife Service –Oregon–California

NWR-Habitat Conservation Division

RRNW 2009

3

Development Team Tim Beechie, Ph.D. NOAA NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science

Center -- Science Coordinator for the Watershed Program

Janine Castro, Ph.D., R.G., US Fish and Wildlife Service --Technical Director of the River Restoration Professional Certificate Program PSU

Brian Cluer, Ph.D., NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service--Geomorphologist, Habitat Division, California.

George Pess, Ph.D., soon, NOAA NMFS NWFSC -- Supervisory research fishery biologist.

Conor Shea, Ph.D., P.E., US Fish and Wildlife Service --Hydrologist in Arcata, CA.

On contract:

Peter Skidmore, P.G., Skidmore Restoration Consulting

Colin Thorne, Ph.D., Professor and Chair of Physical Geography, University of Nottingham, UK.

4

Organization of talk:

Need

Development

Products

Timeline

5

Identified Needs:

Prioritization of projects

Improved project design, implementation and monitoring

Improve review processes

Analysis tools and support document

6

'

'

'

'

''

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Elk

Philo

Ukiah

Albion

Willits

Calpella

Comptche

Boonville

Manchester

Point Arena

Redwood Valley

Eldridge

West B

ran

ch R

us

sian R

iver

Mill Creek

Forsythe Creek

Mariposa

Seward

Big River

Garcia R

iver

Noyo River

Rancheria C

reek

South Branch

Albion

River

Mainstem

Navarro R

iver

Anderson C

reek

Tomki Creek

Elk Creek

Indian Creek

Hare Creek

North Fork

South Fork Noyo

Mill Creek

Greenwood Creek

Willits C

reek

Dau

gherty C

reek

North Fork Big River

Cam

p C

reek

Big Salmon Creek

Davis C

reek

Olds Creek

Fly

nn C

reek

Jam

es C

reek

Inman Creek

Billings Creek

Little North Fork Big

Russel Brook

Cave C

reek

Alder Creek

Haehl Creek

Ramone Creek

North B

ranch

Laguna Creek

Parlin Creek

Nor

th F

ork

Noy

o

Dago C

reek

kass creek

Dot

y C

reek

Marsh C

reek

Berry Creek (lower)

Cook Creek

Sco

tt Cre

ek

Conklin Creek

Mallo Pass Creek

Horse Creek

South Fork Albion R

iver

Robin

son C

reek

Pru

itt

Cre

ek

Aaze

l C

ree

k

Ham

Canyon

Min

nie

Cre

ek

Marten

Cre

ek

Schooner GulchBear Creek

Baile

y Cre

ek

Ric

e C

reek

Botto

m C

reek Johnson Creek

Ray

Gulch

Burbeck Creek

Alder Creek

Mill Creek

/

Legend

Roads

Bank Stabilization

' Cities

County Boundary

Mendocino County

Navarro River, most coho spawning in the North Fork. Several roads projects on other tribs, which are poor habitat.

Garcia River, roads projects are not above spawning habitat.

From RRNW 2008

7

'

''

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

''

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Cotati

Graton

Jenner

Lytton

Windsor

Petaluma

Roseland

Monte Rio

Bodega Bay

Sebastopol

Santa Rosa

Occidental

Healdsburg

Middletown

Forestville

Guerneville

Geyserville

Dillon Beach

Rohnert Park

South Santa Rosa

Franz

Dry

Creek

Gi l

l

Ma rk West C

ree

k

Mi l l Cre

ek

Petaluma R

iver

Felta

Bea

r

L ower Ma instem

Pena

Salmon Cre ek

BriggsG

ird

Walker C

reek

Bidwe ll

M

ainstem

Alexander Valley

Maac

am a

San Antonio Creek

Sau

sal

Wallace

Redwood

Willow Creek

Ata

scadero C

ree

k

Pool Cre ek

Dutch Bill C

reek

Pocket C

anyo

n

Little Sulphur Creek

Willo

w B

rook

Porter Cre

ek

Kel

log

C

reek

Upper Pena Cre

ek

Devil Creek

Win

dso

r C

reek

Ga

rnett

Cre

ek

Mill Stre

am

Bear Pen Creek

Palmer Creek

Lynch

Cre

ek

Ward Creek

Upper Little Sulphur Creek

Bluegum

Sulphur Creek

Lower Gray Creek

Kidd Creek

Wine C

reek

Eba

bia

s C

ree

k

Saint Elm

o Cre

ek

Green Valley Creek

Lovers Gulch

Dutc

her C

ree

k

Danfield Creek

Tombs C

reek

/

Legend

Roads

Bank Stabilization

' Cities

County Boundary

Sonoma County

Austin Creek roads projects are in a tributary that is not accessible to coho.

Green Valley Creek bank stabilization projects are below spawning areas.

From RRNW 2008

8

Category Type of Project Number % Total

Institutional Habitat Acquisition and Cons Easement 9 0.1%

Public Involvement 82 1.2%

Public School Education 356 5.4%

Private Sector Education 115 1.7%

Watershed Assessment and Planning 975 14.8%

Watershed Organization and Assistance 232 3.5%

Water Conservation 12 0.2%

Fish Passage Ladder 29 0.4%

Fish Screens on Diversions 69 1.0%

Passage 118 1.8%

Barrier Modification 475 7.2%

Stabilization Bank Stabilization 618 9.4%

Riparian Replanting 551 8.4%

Instream Habitat Enhancement 860 13.1%

Watershed Improvements, Roads 1378 21.0%

Maintenance and Repair of Projects 59 0.9%

Monitoring Fish Monitoring 520 7.9%

Post Project Monitoring 118 1.8%

TOTAL 6991 6576

>5

0%

Resto

ration e

xpenditure

s in C

A.

$ >2B in past 25 years From RRNW 2008

9

Passive programs, announce funding opportunities:

– review the proposals that come in

–projects are funded based on

– completeness of the proposal

– the merits of the project

– the annual budget available

Funds typically go to:

–organized watershed groups, local government, motivated individuals

–willing landowners, for voluntary projects.

Observations on CA Restoration Programs:

From RRNW 2008

10

NW Region

Anticipating reach scale channel construction projects in parts of the Columbia Basin

–Need tools and training to adequately evaluate proposals

11

Opportunity to guide projects..

Reference: Modified from Wideman, R. 1991Time

De

cre

as

ing

Op

po

rtun

ityIn

cre

as

ing

Co

st

Total Project/Program Life Cycle

PLAN

Initiating PlanningExecuting,

Monitoring, ControllingClosing

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION TERMINATION

Conceive Develop Execute Finish

Constructive Opportunity Destructive Intervention?regulatory

review

12

Intents and Purposes of Project

Support reviewers to:

– Engage in the review process at the concept and design phases.

– Determine if project proposals include sufficient information for complete review in the context of geomorphic processes and watershed-scale management;

– Evaluate project proposals in context of physical processes and sustainability, and recommend alternatives if appropriate;

– Provide rationale and recommendations for post-project monitoring, appraisal and adaptive management.

13

Project Development: Scoped project proposal; Inter Regional $$

Interviews with agency managers in ID, OR, WA, CA

Workshop with recognized restoration experts, December 2007– Academic scientists, practitioners, agency scientists

Input/Review: – Doug Shields - USDA– Matt Kondolf – UC Berkeley– Bill Dietrich – UC Berkeley– Peter Downs – Stillwater Sciences– Greg Koonce - Interfluve

CΩ

14

Vetting:

Team drafted science base document and tools

Vetted at three workshops with senior interagency and industry end-users:– East of the Cascades– West of the Cascades– California

Tested and got feedback on the draft products

LaGrande, Oregon

Portland, Oregon

Santa Rosa, CA

15

Five Products:

Screening Tool

Science Base document

Checklist

Evaluation tool, GUI

Training

MEDIUM RISK STREAM

MEDIUM RISK PROJECT

Full Review

Increasing Stream and Site Response Potential

Scale of the Problem to be addressed Site Reach Multiple reaches Watershed

Landscape setting Confined valley Narrow floodplain Wide Floodplain Incised Channel Alluvial fan

Channel Type/Classification

Geologically controlled Sediment Supply limited Sediment Transport Limited

Bank Characteristics Naturally non-erodible Heavily Vegetated Erosion resistant Highly erodible or artificially revetted

Riparian Corridor and Channel Migration Zone

Continuous/Wide Semi-continuous/Wide Fragmentary/discontinuous Narrow Incised or levee confined

LOW RISK STREAM

HIGH RISK PROJECT

Full Review -- focus on adequacy of

Project Objectives, Design Criteria,

Prior Project Success, &

Implementation

HIGH RISK STREAM

LOW RISK PROJECT

Full Review -- focus on adequacy of

Watershed and Stream Investigations &

Design Criteria

HIGH RISK STREAM

HIGH RISK PROJECT

Deep Review with Technical

Back-up as necessary

LOW RISK STREAM

LOW RISK PROJECT

Light Touch Review

Incre

asin

g P

roje

ct

Imp

act

Po

ten

tia

l

Pla

nn

ing

Co

nte

xt

Co

ord

ina

ted

W

ate

rsh

ed

Pla

n

S

tan

d a

lon

e p

roje

ct

Art

ific

ial C

on

str

ain

ts

Re

mo

ved

Le

ft in

pla

ce

A

dd

ed

Ch

an

ne

l sta

biliz

ati

on

N

on

e

Te

mp

ora

ry/d

efo

rma

ble

P

erm

an

en

t/N

on

-de

form

ab

le

Co

nstr

ucti

on

P

roxim

ity

to S

tre

am

F

loo

dp

lain

Rip

ari

an

zo

ne

I

n-s

tre

am

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pla

n

Ad

ap

tive

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

P

PA

M

on

ito

rin

g o

nly

N

on

e

MEDIUM RISK STREAM

MEDIUM RISK PROJECT

Full Review

Increasing Stream and Site Response Potential

Scale of the Problem to be addressed Site Reach Multiple reaches Watershed

Landscape setting Confined valley Narrow floodplain Wide Floodplain Incised Channel Alluvial fan

Channel Type/Classification

Geologically controlled Sediment Supply limited Sediment Transport Limited

Bank Characteristics Naturally non-erodible Heavily Vegetated Erosion resistant Highly erodible or artificially revetted

Riparian Corridor and Channel Migration Zone

Continuous/Wide Semi-continuous/Wide Fragmentary/discontinuous Narrow Incised or levee confined

LOW RISK STREAM

HIGH RISK PROJECT

Full Review -- focus on adequacy of

Project Objectives, Design Criteria,

Prior Project Success, &

Implementation

HIGH RISK STREAM

LOW RISK PROJECT

Full Review -- focus on adequacy of

Watershed and Stream Investigations &

Design Criteria

HIGH RISK STREAM

HIGH RISK PROJECT

Deep Review with Technical

Back-up as necessary

LOW RISK STREAM

LOW RISK PROJECT

Light Touch Review

Incre

asin

g P

roje

ct

Imp

act

Po

ten

tia

l

Pla

nn

ing

Co

nte

xt

Co

ord

ina

ted

W

ate

rsh

ed

Pla

n

Sta

nd

alo

ne

pro

ject

Art

ific

ial C

on

str

ain

ts

Re

mo

ve

d

Le

ft in

pla

ce

A

dd

ed

Ch

an

ne

l sta

biliz

ati

on

N

on

e

Te

mp

ora

ry/d

efo

rma

ble

Pe

rma

ne

nt/

No

n-d

efo

rma

ble

Co

nstr

ucti

on

P

roxim

ity t

o S

tre

am

F

loo

dp

lain

Rip

ari

an

zo

ne

I

n-s

tre

am

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pla

n

Ad

ap

tive

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

P

PA

M

on

ito

rin

g o

nly

N

on

e

17

The Science Base document:

Synthesizes the large body of watershed and fluvial geomorphic science

Widely vetted

Fosters critical thinking

Not a ‘how to manual‟, but a guide to

thinking about ‘why’ or ‘what are the alternatives’,

Make the science available and accessible to Services staff

Glossary of terms

Hyperlinked references

Hyperlinked with the “checklist” and the “evaluation tool”

•The Science Base supports conserving or restoring watershed inputs and fluvial processes,

•more sustainable and ecologically productive than

•building geomorphic features,

•habitat enhancement structures,

•stabilization measures.

Watershed Inputs, energy, materials, nutrients…

Processes, transport of sediment and water

Geomorphic Attributes,

cross section, slope, bed & banks, etc.

Habitat Structure,

Complexity, and

Connectivity

Biotic

Response

19

Features:

– Thorough listing of information needed

to accommodate simple to complex projects

– Customizable – to project scale

– Reporting function to record and print results

Intentions:

– Consistent project reviews

– Document review process

– Communicate results back to applicants

– Improved proposals

Project evaluation checklist:

20

Eva

lua

tio

n T

oo

l

Questions - yes ~ proceed, no ~ dig deeper

Second tier – explanations

Third tier – links to science base

Alerts – need for caution or more info, and link to science base

Comments, notes and „print report‟CΩ

21

CΩ

Evaluation Tool:

graphic interface to the science base

22

Evaluation Tool:

graphic interface to the science document

23

24

25

Summary – Objective is to provide

information that can: Improve knowledge:

– educate new reviewers

– refresher for skilled reviewers

Improve review process:– appropriate level

– streamline

– promote consistency among/across regions and agencies

– document and reporting transparency

Provide a template for– biological assessments

– programmatic agreements

Help establish restoration priorities

Improve restoration projects

26

Project Timeline: Finalize products – February-March

External peer review – March-April– Academic scientists– Agency scientists

Post on Regional websites - April– Make available for use– Get feedback, and improve tools

Prep for publication ~ NOAA tech memo

Give training workshops – May/June/July– With partner agencies ~ State and Federal– With broader audiences ~ restoration industry

CΩ

27

More information

1. Contact authors

2. Check (soon…)

www.restorationreview.com