vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
                     ;.; : ;Qffipe pf VVfiter ,(4503?)
                      Vtfashington, DC 20460
November 1995

EPA841-F-95-007
               Ecological Restoration:
                     A Tool To Manage
                        Stream Quality

-------

-------
                                                             CONTENTS
List of Figures	•	•	vii




List of Tables	•	vii




List of Case Study Summaries	•	viii




Acronyms	•	;	*x




Foreword	•	x



Executive Summary	,	xi




Chapter 1: Restoration Defined	•	'1-1




          Perspectives on Restoration	1-1




          Scope of Restoration	1-2




          Restoration Techniques	.	1-2




Chapter 2: Restoration and the Clean Water Act	2-1



Chapter 3: Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters	3-1




           Altered Stream Geomorphology	...»	•	3-1




           Fine Sediment Loads	•	3-4



           Abnormally High Stream Flows	-..	3-5




           Low Flows	3-5




           Biological Integrity	•	3-7




           Toxicity	,	3-8



           Algal Growth	•	3-8



           Low Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations	 3-10




           Altered Temperature	•	3-11




           Extreme pH	..'	-3-11




           Ammonia Toxicity	3-13

-------

-------
Ill

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
           Toxic Concentrations of Bioavailable Metals	 3-15

Chapter 4: A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration „	4-1

           Step 1:   Inventory the Watershed	4-1

                     Step 1.1: Do Basic Site Characterization	4-4

                     Step 1.2: Identify Nature of Impairment	 4-4

                     Step 1.3: Map Opportunities for Restoration	4-5

                     Step 1.4: Evaluate Feasibility of Meeting Goals via Restoration	4-5

           Step 2:   Identify Goals for Restoration	4-5

                     Step 2.1: Identify Specific Water Quality Standards (i.e.,
                              Chemical, Physical, and Biological Components)
                              Potentially Addressed by Restoration	4-6

                     Step 2.2: Begin Stakeholder Involvement
                              and Develop Consensus Objectives	4-6

                     Step 2.3: Conduct Ecoregional or Landscape-Level Analysis	4-6

                     Step 2.4: Determine Ecological Functions and Values
                              to be Restored	4-10

                     Step 2.5: Identify Ecological Restoration Techniques That May
                              Aid in Attaining Water Quality Standards	4-10

                     Step 2.6: Select Restoration Goals	4-11
                                                 v
                     Step 3:   Identify and Select Candidate Restoration Techniques	4-11

                     Step 3.1: Identify Candidate Restoration Techniques	4-11

                     Step 3.2: Balance and Integrate Instream and Watershed Techniques  .4-13

                     Step 3.3: Evaluate Costs and Benefits	4-13
   *
                     Step 3.4: Select Best Combination of Restoration Options	4-13

                     Step 3.5: Assign Priorities to Restoration Efforts	4-14

                     Step 3.6: Plan for Monitoring.....	4-14

            Step 4:   Implement Selected Restoration Techniques	4-14
                                     IV

-------
                                       .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                    Step 4.1: Identify Incentives and Mandates for Action	4-16     *



                    Step 4.2: Continue Stakeholder Involvement	4-16



                    Step 4.3: Establish Schedule and Implement	4-18



           Step 5:   Monitor for Success	4-19



                    Step 5.1: Identify Assessment and Measurement Endpoints	4-19



                    Step 5.2: Design Data Collection Program	4-21



                    Step 5.3: Collect and Evaluate Data	4-22



                    Step 5.4: Set Schedule for Continued Monitoring	4-22



Chapter 5:  Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration	5-1



           Defining Cost Effectiveness:  Cost Minimization and Benefit Maximization	5-1



               Cost Minimization	5-1



               Benefit Maximization	•.	5-1



           Current Limitations of Cost Effectiveness Analysis	5-2



           Why is Restoration Cost Effective?	5-2



           Evaluating Cost Effectiveness	5-3



               Estimating Costs:  Considering Cost Categories, Distribution, and Timing ... 5-3
                                                                         *


               Estimating Benefits	5-5



                Integrating Cost and Benefits	5-6



Chapter 6:  Case Studies	6-1



           Anacostia River Watershed, District of Columbia	6-4



           Bear Creek, Iowa	6-11



           Boulder Creek, Colorado	6-15



           South Fork of the Salmon River, Iowa....	6-19



           Upper Grande Ronde River, Oregon	6-27



           Wildcat Creek, California..;	 6-30

-------
      Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
%      Chapter?: References.........	7-1




       Chapters: Glossary	8-1




       Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography	A-l
                                           VI

-------
                                                       LIST  OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Cross section of instream, riparian corridor, and upland zones	 1-4

Figure 2-1. Integration of water quality management through the watershed
           protection approach and Clean Water Act activities	,	 2-1

Figure 4-1. Major components of the ecological restoration decision framework	4-2

Figure 4-2. Step 1: Determine if restoration can be used to address waterbody impairment.... 4-3

Figure 4-3. Step 2: Identify goals for restoration	4-7

Figure 4-4. Matrix of watershed management goals, objectives, and stakeholders .,..>.	 4-8

Figure 4-5. Step 3: Identify and select candidate restoration techniques;...^./.......	4-12

Figure 4-6. Step 4: Implement selected restoration techniques	,	4-15

Figure 4-7. Step 5: Monitor for success	,....,...4-20

Figure 5-1. Cost effectiveness decision-making process	„	„	5-4

Figure 5-2. Benefits over time	,....,....;;....	 5-6

Figure 6-1. Watershed Management Goals, Objectives, and Stakeholder Matrix	6-6
                                                           LIST OF  TABLES
Table 1-1.  Examples of Instream, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Techniques..,	 1^6

Table 1-2.  References to Additional Information on Restoration Techniques	 1-7

Table 2-1.  Restoration Activities within Clean Water Act Programs.	,	2-2

Table 2-2.  Components of Water Quality Standards	*	 2-3

Table 2-3.  Recent Publications Endorsing Ecological Restoration within a
           Watershed Context	2-5

Table 3-1.  Relative Effect of Selected Stream Restoration Practices...'.	 3-2
                                                  VII

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
Table 4-1.  Example Assessment and Measurement Enclpoints Applicable to
          Ecological Restoration of Streams	•.	4-22

Table 5-1.  Comparison of the Ecological Benefits of Additional Point Source
          Controls and Ecological Restoration for Improving Water Quality	5-2

Table 6-1.  Case Study Summary Table.-.	:	6-2

Table 6-2.  Summary of Anacostia Restoration Blueprint	6-9

Table 6-3.  Estimated Sediment Loading in the South Fork of the Salmon River
          Due to Various Sources in the Basin	i	6-22

Table 6-4.  Projects that Together May Provide an Estimated 25 Percent Reduction in
          Sediment Yield	6-24

Table 6-5.  Additional Sediment Reduction Projects	6-26

Table 6-6.  Riparian Characterization Project Methods and Products	6-28

Table 6-7.  List of Contributors to the Consensus Plan „	6-34
                       LIST OF CASE  STUDY SUMMARIES


South Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho	3-3

Wildcat Creek, California	3-6

Bear Creek, Iowa	3-9

Upper Grande Ronde River, Oregon	3-12

Boulder Creek, Colorado	3-14

Anacostia Watershed, District of Columbia	4-17
                                viu

-------
                                                         ACRONYMS
BMP         best management practice




BOD         biochemical oxygen demand




CBO         Congressional Budget Office




CFR         Code of Federal Regulations




CSO         combined sewer overflow




CWA        Clean Water Act




DO          dissolved oxygen




DQO        data quality objective




EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency




GAO        General Accounting Office




NPDES      National Pollution Discharge Elimination System




NRC        National Research Council




OMB        Office of Management and Budget




PCB         polychlorinated biphenyl




QAPP       Quality Assurance Project Plan




TMDL       total maximum daily load




WPA        watershed protection approach




WQ         water quality




WQS        water quality standard
                                             IX

-------
                                                                 FOREWARD
Water resource management under the Clean Water Act (C WA) has concentrated on limiting
negative environmental impacts rather than creating positive ones.  The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, along with other federal agencies, is now moving toward the creation of
positive impacts by encouraging the use of ecological restoration.

Rather than being a "how-to" document, this document is an initial attempt to provide informa-
tion on the structure and function of natural elements of aquatic resources and the CWA.

The audience for this document is state water quality agency personnel and other water resource
managers who have been implementing the CWA over the past twenty years.  This document
explains and clarifies CWA authorities for restoration arid examines linkages between selected
restoration techniques and parameters that are often addressed in state water quality standards.
The document also presents a decision-making guide for water resource managers to determine
when to pursue restoration as a management option and provides information on the cost effec-
tiveness of restoration.                                         '

Aquatic ecosystems consist of the interacting streams, v/etlands, lakes, uplands, and groundwater
systems commonly thought of as watersheds. Although this document focuses on the restoration
of streams, we believe that many of the document's underlying principles can be useful for
restoring and maintaining a wide variety of water resource types.
                                       Robert H. Wayland, III
                                       Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

-------
                                              EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
Over the last 23 years, the Clean Water Act has produced large improvements in the water
quality of the nation's surface waters, most of which were achieved through reductions in
pollutants from point sources. Despite these achievements, however, many surface waters still
have not attained CWA goals. Further reductions in pollutants from point sources likely will not
achieve those goals, because factors that now limit attainment of those goals primarily are
derived from land uses within a watershed which result in ecological degradation. To achieve
significant additional improvements in the nation's waters will often require some type of
ecological restoration.

Ecological restoration is a tool that can produce improvements in the quality of our water re-
sources to support diverse, productive communities of plants and animals that provide significant
ecological and social benefits.  This document focuses on restoration as it applies to stream
quality. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality asserts that stream quality
can often be managed by using restoration techniques in conjunction with more traditional
management approaches, such as point source permitting. Many restoration techniques can serve
as more natural options for meeting CWA goals when they are appropriately applied to restore
the natural dynamics of a stream system.
              •                                •         %
Ecological Restoration: A Tool To Manage Stream Quality has four related objectives: (1)
explaining and clarifying CWA authorities for restoration of streams, (2) examining and illustrat-
ing linkages between selected restoration techniques and parameters often addressed in state
water quality standards, (3) providing water program managers with a. helpful guide to determine
when to pursue restoration, and (4) investigating the cost-effectiveness of restoration in compari-
son to traditional water quality management tools.


RESTORATION DEFINED  (CHAPTER 1)

Academic and philosophical distinctions could be made  between habitat restoration and ecologi-
cal restoration. However, for the practical purposes of this document, the reader may find both
terms used interchangeably.

In this report, ecological restoration is the restoration of chemical, physical, and/or biological
components of a degraded system to a pre-disturbance condition and is also an important tool for
preventing environmental degradation. Strengthening structural or functional elements through
restoration can help increase a stream system's tolerance to stressors which lead to environmental
degradation. By so doing, water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be improved,
which, in turn, will lead to improvements in the aquatic  and terrestrial communities that depend
on that water.

For streams, then, restoration is an integral part of a broad, watershed-based approach for achiev-
ing federal, state, and local water resource goals. Specifically, restoration is the re-establishment
of chemical, physical, and biological components of an aquatic ecosystem that have been com-
promised by stressors such as point or nonpoint sources  of pollution, habitat degradation,
hydromodification, and others.
                                                 XI

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
This document emphasizes and endorses the use of natural restoration techniques. Natural
techniques to restore ecosystem components are distinct from treatment technologies or artificial
structures that are inserted into the system.  Natural restoration techniques use materials indig-
enous to the ecosystem and are linked or incorporated into the dynamics of a river system in an
attempt to create conditions in which ecosystem processes can withstand and diminish the impact
of stressors.

Three categories of restoration techniques have been identified for stream management activities:

            1.  Instream techniques are applied directty in the stream channel (e.g., channel
               reconfiguration and realignment to restore geometry, meander, sinuosity, sub-
               strate composition, structural complexity, re-aeration, or stream bank stability).

           2.  Riparian techniques are applied out of the stream channel in the riparian corri-
               dor (e.g., re-establishment of vegetative canopy, increasing width of riparian
               corridor, or restrictive fencing).

           3.  Upland, or surrounding watershed, techniques are generally related to the
               control of nonpoint source inputs from the watershed, including hydrologic
               runoff characteristics from increased imperviousness of the watershed [e.g.,
               urban, agricultural, and forestry best management practices (BMPs)].

Stream restoration can be a mosaic of instream, riparian, and upland techniques, including
BMPs, to be used in combination to eliminate or reduce the impact of stressors (both chemical
and nonchemical) on aquatic ecosystems and reverse the degradation and loss of ecosystem
functions. Instream restoration practices often need to be accompanied by techniques in the
riparian area and/or the surrounding watershed.  For example, restoration may involve rebuilding
the infrastructure of a stream system (e.g., reconfiguration of channel morphology, re-establish-
ment of riffle substrates, re-establishment of riparian vegetation, and stabilization of stream
banks, accompanied by control of excess sediment and chemical loadings within the watershed)
to achieve and maintain stream integrity.


RESTORATION  AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CHAPTER 2)

Restoration is a natural tool for meeting some CWA requirements. Water quality standards
define specific objectives for restoring aquatic ecosystem integrity and are comprised of
designated uses, numeric or narrative water quality standards to protect these uses, and an
antidegradation provision.

Ecological restoration techniques can be effective in addressing water quality impairments that
are typically characterized by state water quality standards. Water quality impairment is often
indicated by excursions of numeric standards, which provide quantitative targets for particular
parameters. Water quality impairment may also be identified based on narrative standards and
designated uses, such as the ability to support a designated type of fishery.

The Watershed Protection Approach and its key technical component, the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) process, provide an impetus for restoration activities. Restoration techniques can
be applied as a management action within the context of the TMDL process in conjunction with
traditional regulatory actions (such as point source permits) and voluntary programs (such as
                                   xu

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
implementation of nonpoint source BMPs) to address any component of a water quality stan-
dard—a numeric or narrative criterion or a designated use. In the context of a TMDL, restora-
tion can also address nonattainment of a designated use (e.g., a coldwater fishery) or a narrative
criterion that refers explicitly to habitat quality or biological diversity.  An optimal management
strategy may combine some or all options involving point source load reductions, BMPs, and
instream ecological restoration techniques.


LINKING RESTORATION  PRACTICES TO WATER QUALITY  PARAMETERS
(CHAPTERS)

Adequate understanding of the relationships among physical, chemical, and biological processes
is critical for determining when habitat restoration can be used to improve stream quality and
implement the CWA. The following discussion illustrates the relationship between several
restoration techniques and specific water quality parameters.

     •  Altered Stream Geomorphology: In cases where habitat degradation is significant,
        restoring or improving the physical habitat can help attain the aquatic life designated use,
        while simultaneously improving water quality.

     •  Sedimentation:  Upland, riparian, and instream restoration techniques that can restore
        equilibrium to sediment loads to streams include changes in land-use practices that
        reduce sediment loading (e.g., conservation tillage, contour farming,  sodding or wild-
        flower cover during construction activities), restoring off-stream wetlands to intercept
        nonpoint sources of sediments during wet-weather conditions, and modifying operations
        of dams and water diversion structures.

     •  High  Stream Flows: Instream techniques that can reduce the effects of high stream
        flows include restoring natural stream meander and channel complexity, increasing
        substrate roughness, promoting growth of riparian vegetation (which provides refuge for
        fish during high flows), restoring wetlands to restore natural hydrologic regimes, and
        modifying operations of dams.  Upland techniques include reducing the percent impervi-
        ous surface in the watershed, which reduces "flash" runoff, through development of
        guidelines.

     •  Low Stream Flows: Impacts from low stream flows can be reduced by several instream
        restoration techniques, including restoring the stream channel in a channelized stream,
        controlling evaporation through restoration of the riparian canopy, replacing exotic
        riparian plant species that have high evapotranspiration rates with native species that
        have lower transpiration rates, creating pools through the use of drop structures provid-
        ing protection of aquatic life during low flow periods, and increasing channel depth and
        re-establishing undercut banks to provide areas for protection offish and other species
        during periods of low flow.  Minimum flows can also be addressed by applying tech-
        niques in the surrounding watershed, such as managing watershed land and water use to
        prevent excessive dewatering.

      •  Biological Integrity: Improvements in water quality and habitat quality generally lead
        to increases in biodiversity and improvements in ecological functions such as nutrient
        cycling, trophic relationships, and predator-prey relationships.

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality,
     •  Toxicity: Practices that reduce ammonia toxicity would, through similar mechanisms,
       reduce the toxicity of other substances, including hydrogen sulfide. In addition, wet-
       lands can help reduce the toxicity of some metals by reducing metal concentrations and
       bioavailability. Together, these practices would help reduce the total toxicity of the
       water and help attain narrative water quality standards.

     •  Nuisance Algal Growths: Restoration practices that can reduce nuisance algal growth
       include drop structures and riffles to create turbulence to reduce attached algal growth,
       constructing wetlands to reduce nutrient input and subsequent algal growths, planting
       trees and bushes to reduce the amount of sunlight available for algal growth, increasing
       channel depth, and re-establishing undercut banks to reduce the area available for algal
       growth.

     •  Dissolved Oxygen: Restoration practices that can increase dissolved oxygen (DO)
       concentrations include constructing small hydrologic drop structures that increase re-
       aeration rates, restoring wetlands to reduce nutrient inputs and plant growth,
       re-establishing trees and bushes along stream banks to reduce incident sunlight and water
       temperature, restoring stream depth and undercut banks to reduce aquatic plant growth
       and water temperatures, and restoring riffles to increase turbulence.

     •  Water Temperature: High water temperatures can be reduced by restoring trees and
       bushes along stream banks to reduce incident sunlight, restoring stream depth,
       re-establishing undercut banks, and narrowing stream width to reduce excessive solar
       warming.

     r  pH:  pH levels can be increased by restoring wetlands to intercept acid mine drainage
       and neutralize acidity by converting sulfates associated with sulfuric acid to insoluble
       non-acidic metal sulfides that remain trapped in wetland sediments. In addition, all
       techniques discussed above for increasing DO concentrations can be used to decrease
       high pH levels caused by high  rates of photosynthesis.

     •  Ammonia:  Restoration practices that decrease high pH or temperature will also decrease
       the potential toxicity of ammonia to aquatic life.

     •  Metals: Restoration practices can decrease inputs of metals to streams or reduce the
       ionic, dissolved phases of metals, which are considered to be toxic. Particulate phases
       have much lower toxicities. Techniques include those mentioned above for increasing
       pH; decreasing metal bioavailability by increasing paniculate metals; restoring existing
       wetlands to  treat acid minedrainage; and re-establishing vegetation in riparian areas.


A DECISION-MAKING GUIDE FOR RESTORATION (CHAPTER 4)

Chapter 4 presents a decision-making guide that includes decision points integrating a broad
range of program responsibilities and activities. The process  assumes that impaired or threatened
water resources have already been identified in accordance with relevant sections of the CWA, as
well as requirements of any other relevant water programs. The decision-making guide begins
with a selected site where water quality standards, which may include numeric  or narrative
criteria or designated uses, are not being met or are threatened. In Step 1, an inventory of the
watershed is conducted to assess the potential value of ecological restoration techniques for
                                   xiv

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
addressing water quality impairment. Steps 2 and 3 provide an analysis of the availability,
applicability, and relative costs of ecological restoration techniques to assist regional and state
personnel in making informed decisions.  In Step 4, an ecological restoration approach is imple-
mented, where appropriate.  In Step 5, post-implementation monitoring, an essential part of the
decision-making guide, is conducted to determine whether impairment has been mitigated.
Additionally, several steps in the decision-making guide call for stakeholder involvement.


EVALUATING THE COST  EFFECTIVENESS OF  RESTORATION  (CHAPTER 5)

Selecting the most cost-effective techniques is critical to the success of any restoration project.
Two possible approaches for evaluating the cost effectiveness of water quality measures are cost
minimization and benefit maximization. The most cost-effective restoration technique either
achieves the water quality objective at the lowest cost (cost minimization) or produces the
greatest benefits for the same cost (benefit maximization). The two primary economic reasons
why restoration may be more cost effective than point source controls alone are that (1) restora-
tion often has lower marginal costs (i.e., the incremental costs of removing an additional unit of
a pollutant) and (2) restoration provides a wider range of ecological benefits. Cost calculations
are relatively straightforward and are the same for cost minimization and benefit maximization
analyses.

Determining the benefits of each project to be evaluated is critical prior to comparing costs and
benefits. Benefits fall into three general categories: (1) prioritized benefits (i.e., those that are
ranked by preference or priority, such as best, next best, and worst), (2) quantifiable benefits
(i.e., those that can be quantified but not priced), and (3) monetary benefits (i.e., those that can
be described in monetary terms).

If all benefits can be quantified monetarily, total costs can be compared to benefits in two ways.
The first comparison is expressed as a cost-to-benefits ratio, from which the alternative with the
lowest cost-to-benefits ratio is selected. The second comparison is expressed in terms of net
value (i.e., subtracting costs fronx benefits), from which the alternative with the highest net value
is selected. Neither approach is the most appropriate in all cases.  In many cases, considering as
many measures as practicable—cost perunit, cost-to-benefits ratios, and net present value—is
advisable. A clear understanding of objectives is essential for the analysis.

Finally, cost effectiveness is relative and may change with location and circumstances.  For
example, a certain combination of restoration practices in one location may produce great
benefits at a low cost, whereas others may produce few benefits at a large cost. Some water
quality problems (e.g., loss of habitat) are not amenable to a point source treatment approach at
any cost; and some water quality problems cannot be reduced through any reasonable degree of
restoration.


CASE STUDIES (CHAPTER 6)

Chapter 6 presents seven case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of using restoration
techniques to achieve water quality goals. Common elements among the case studies that
resulted in improvements to stream integrity are the reduction of stressors and the restoration of
stream components (e.g., stream channel and riparian corridor). Each project does, however,
offer unique lessons that may be beneficial in planning future projects.  Presentation of case
studies is therefore structured in accordance with the framework presented in this document to
                                                  xv

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
 provide a common basis for evaluating individual examples and comparing different approaches.
 The following case studies are included in Chapter 6: Anacostia River, Metropolitan Washing-
 ton, District of Columbia; Bear Creek, Iowa; Boulder Creek, Colorado; South Fork of the
 Salmon River, Idaho; Upper Grande Ronde River, Oregon; and Wildcat Creek, California.
                                    xvi

-------
 CHAPTER   1.
                                          RESTORATION  DEFINED
       document proposes restoration as an everyday management tool for streams whose
 JL chemical, physical, and biological habitats have been impaired, a focus that fills the concep-
tual gap between preservation and remediation. Chapter 1 defines restoration for use by water
program managers within the context of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and takes into consideration
current understanding of aquatic ecosystems. It is not intended to replace different, and equally
valid, definitions that have been offered elsewhere. The restoration of streams fits within a
continuum of activities that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other environ-
mental organizations have conducted for many years. Activities range from preservation and
protection (e.g., the designation and protection of biologically diverse areas as Outstanding
National Resource Waters under 40 CFR 131.12[a][3]) to intense repair/recovery efforts (e.g.,
highly disturbed areas such as Superfund sites and waters or sediments contaminated with
PCBs).
PERSPECTIVES ON RESTORATION
          V
Restoration is not solely applicable to severely degraded streams. Although it can be used as an
effective tool to return a degraded system to a pre-disturbance condition, restoration is also an
important tool for preventing environmental degradation. Strengthening structural and func-
tional element! through restoration can help improve a stream system's tolerance to stressors
which lead to environmental degradation.

Restoration has been defined in a number of different ways. On the most basic level, restoration
is the process of returning a damaged ecosystem to its condition prior to disturbance
(Cairns 1991, Berger 1991, and Caldwell 1991). The long-term goal of restoration is to imitate
an earlier natural, self-sustaining ecosystem that is in equilibrium with the surrounding landscape
(Berger 1991). A National Research Council report (1992) defines restoration as a holistic
process:

        Restoration is ...  the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its
        condition prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to the
        resource is repaired. Both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem
        are recreated ....  The goal is to emulate a natural, functioning, self-regulat-
        ing system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in which it occurs.

What does it mean to restore an ecosystem to & prior or pre-disturbance condition? What
condition should water resource scientists and managers use as  a baseline goal (Westman 1991)?
In many cases, restoring an ecosystem to an early pristine or pre-settiement condition would be
impossible, because (1) data are insufficient to determine the original condition, (2) species
representative of the original condition are extinct, or (3) human activities have changed the soil
structure or hydrological characteristics of the ecosystem so extensively that the original condi-
tion would no longer be compatible with surrounding ecosystems and landscapes.
                                                                 Restoration Defined 1-1

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality,
 Restoration is not yet a perfected approach with accurate and precise predictive capabilities and,
 in fact, is still "... an exercise in approximation" (Cairns 1991).  The practicality and attainability
 of restoration depend on many factors, including adequate tools (i.e., the state of science and
 technology), site-specific ecological conditions, social consent, legal authority, and availability
 of resources {i.e., personnel and funding) (Caldwell 1991).  As with other water resource man-
 agement alternatives, restoration must address questions concerning practicality, predictability of
 outcomes, and overall effectiveness of specific techniques.  Additionally, because ecological
 systems are complex and may take years to reach equilibrium or fully demonstrate the effects of
 restoration and other management activities, seeing or measuring results of restoration efforts
 may take a long time.


 SCOPE OF RESTORATION

 Restoration must consider all sources of stress on a stream and is therefore not restricted to
 instream mitigation of impacts. The health and protection of a waterbody cannot be separated
 from the watershed ecosystem, and restoration must address all watershed processes that degrade
 an ecological system, e.g., sediment loading from road cuts or development or increased polluted
 runoff from impervious areas. The intimate connection of rivers and watersheds is succinctly
 expressed by Doppelt et al. (1993):

         Most people think of rivers simply as water flowing through a channel.  This
         narrow view fails to capture the actual complexity and diversity of riverine
         systems, and is one of the reasons for failed policies. In the past 15 years *
         many scientific studies and reports have documented that riverine systems are
         intimately coupled with and created by the characteristics of their catchment
         basins, or watersheds. The concept of the watershed includes four-dimen-
         sional processes that connect the longitudinal (upstream-downstream), lateral
         (floodplains-upland), and vertical (hyporheic or groundwater zone-stream
         channel) dimensions, each differing temporally.
                                                            i
 Restoration is an integral part of a broad, watershed-based approach for achieving federal, state
 and local water resource goals. Specifically, restoration is the re-establishment of chemical,
 physical, and biological components of an aquatic ecosystem that have been compromised by
 stressors such as point or nonpoint sources of pollution,, habitat degradation, hydromodification,
 and others.


 RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

 This document emphasizes and endorses me use of natural restoration techniques. Natural
 techniques that restore a system's ability to approach a pre-disturbance condition are distinct
 from treatment technologies or structures that are inserted into the system to approximate
 equilibrium.  Natural restoration techniques use materials indigenous to the ecosystem and are
 linked or incorporated into the dynamics of a river system in an attempt to create conditions in
 which ecosystem processes can withstand and diminish the impact of stressors.

While this document focuses on the use of natural restoration techniques to achieve water
resource objectives, it also recognizes that restoration techniques must in part be  selected based
on existing landscape conditions. The mitigation of some conditions may necessitate the intro-
duction of structures composed of material not indigenous to the ecosystem to mimic natural
1-2 Restoration Defined

-------
                                    . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 CHAPTER J.
                      LINKING  RESTORATION  PRACTICES
                      TO  WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
    Because water resource quality is defined by all its components—the chemical, physical, and
    biological— adequate understanding of the relationships among physical, chemical, and
biological processes is critical for determining when restoration can be used to improve stream
quality. This chapter illustrates the relationship between several restoration techniques and a
number of water quality parameters. Discussion in this chapter is based on two key concepts:

     •  Ecological restoration techniques can be effective in meeting water quality standards,
       including numeric and narrative criteria and designated uses, and
                         *
     •  Ecological restoration techniques can be evaluated and implemented within the frame-
       work of the TMDL process.

Chapter 3 describes how certain ecological restoration techniques affect numerous water quality
parameters, thus illustrating how restoration can be used to address non-compliance with desig-
nated uses and numeric and narrative water quality criteria.  Relative effects of selected stream
habitat restoration techniques on several water quality parameters are summarized in Table 3-1.


ALTERED STREAM  GEOMORPHOLOGY

Geomorphological characteristics such as pool-riffle ratios, width/meander length ratios, width/
depth ratios, and substrate composition may impact stream ecology. Long-term trends in stream
geomorphology may also exacerbate impairment caused by other sources. A stream can be
characterized and classified based on its geomorphology, e.g., form and pattern, and channel
behavior. In addition, classification "also can indicate how restoration might be approached if a
reach of river becomes aberrant or different from its normal conditions" (Leopold 1994).  For
instance, in a stream where land-use changes have resulted in downcutting of the channel,
increased suspended sediment loads may occur, as well as destruction of fish and wildlife habitat
by erosion.  In some cases, upland restoration techniques in the surrounding watershed (such as
restoration of natural hydrologic regime and the re-establishment of wooded riparian buffers)
may sufficiently allow a system's geomorphology to restore itself. Restoration techniques based
on interpretation and control of stream geomorphology generally must take into account dynam-
ics of flow and sediment transport throughout an entire watershed.

It is important to note that the restoration techniques listed below for altered stream geomorphol-
ogy and the other parameters discussed in Chapter 3 cannot be developed or applied in isolation.
As described in Chapter 4, a mosaic of restoration techniques must comprise  a watershed ap-
proach mitigation plan.  The following techniques could be considered for altered stream mor-
phology:

     • Reworking the stream channel to restore structural complexity (e.g., thai wag) and  natural
       flow patterns (e.g., sinuosity and meander). For some of the mo'st severely degraded
       channels, heavy equipment may be necessary to reconstruct the channel.
                                                              Restoration Defined  1-3

-------
Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
€
c
«•
•c
c
Ł





i
1
Bank (labilization (e.g., cool-wads or
V
rate, reitonlion of
•a
.0
3
0
e
o
•a
&

j
branch picking with live fascines).
•
d
15 3
1 ^
3 o '
.P
la

ri
Urban, grazing, mining, lilvicullural,
and agricultural BMP'«.
1-
o
t=
o
I
8
J?
•s
1
I
S en


ration, re-establishment
o
9

1
4




, control of divenioni
S
•"1
e
•1
•5




introl of dam opcralionl
o
3
,§
1




S
.2
J
j
I
1
3


                                                          :'  <>
                                                                                   O)
                                                                                   -o
                                                                                      -o

                                                                                   5 §


                                                                                   It
                                                                                   «S O
                                                                                       08
                                                                                    E  S

                                                                                    a  ft
                                                                                    Ed  _c

                                                                                   ' J  2
                                                                                     a"
                                                                                       a.
                                                                                       a.
     Restoration Defined

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Stream restoration can be a mosaic of instream, riparian, and upland techniques, including
BMPs, to be used in combination to eliminate or reduce the impact of stressors (both chemical
and nonchemical) on aquatic ecosystems and reverse the degradation and loss of ecosystem
functions. Instream restoration practices often need to be accompanied by techniques in the
riparian area and/or the surrounding watershed. For example, restoration may involve rebuilding
the infrastructure of a stream system (e.g., reconfiguration of channel morphology, re-establish-
ment of riffle substrates, re-establishment of riparian vegetation, and stabilization of stream
banks, accompanied by control of excess sediment and chemical loadings within the watershed)
to achieve and maintain stream integrity.                                      ,   .

Balancing and integrating instream, riparian, and surrounding watershed approaches is essential.
Any restoration plan could involve a combination of techniques, depending on environmental
conditions and stressors to be addressed. Instream and riparian techniques directly restore the
integrity of stream habitat, whereas surrounding watershed techniques focus on the elimination
or mitigation of sources of stressors that cause the habitat degradation. Because surrounding
watershed techniques tend to facilitate a system's  ability to restore itself, instream techniques
may not always be necessary.  In addition, if instream and/or riparian techniques are selected to
restore the integrity of the physical habitat, measures that eliminate or mitigate sources of
stressors that caused the degradation should also be included; otherwise, the restoration effort
may fail. Therefore, surrounding watershed techniques should, as a general rule, be considered
prior to or in conjunction  with the use of instream and riparian techniques. Because many
projects need to address both causes and symptoms  of stream degradation, combining instream,
riparian, and surrounding  watershed approaches is often appropriate.

These techniques and specific conditions for their application have been well described in the
literature. Table 1-1 provides examples of restoration techniques that fall into these categories
and their objectives. Table 1-2 lists selected references containing additional information on
these and other techniques.
                                                                     Restoration Defined  1-5

-------
Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
       Table 1-1.  Examples of Instream, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Techniques
Restoration
Category
Instream
Instream
Instream
Instream
Instream
Instream
Instream
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Upland
Description
Reconfiguration of stream bed: Dig a new dhannel for stream beds that have become
braided or overly shallow. The new channel should increase depth and structural complex-
ity (thalweg cross section).
Restoration of channel course natural meander pattern: Remove any manmade structure
or stop dredging practices that maintain channelization; actively redirect stream into
meander pattern appropriate to hydrologic conditions.
Root wad/tree revetment: A stump with roots still attached is placed horizontally into the
stream bank with the root end extending into the stream.
Live stakes, live fascines, brush mattresses, branch packings, brush layering, vegetated
geogrids, and live cribwall: These are all stream bank stabilization techniques that use
vegetation bundles (e.g., willows) placed in stream banks in various patterns and means of
attachment. A particular method is selected based on soil type, bank slope, and hydrolog-
ic conditions.
Channel deflector and channel constrictor: Deflectors and constrictors are triangular-
shaped structures, constructed from rock, gabion, or logs that extend into the stream to
narrow and deepen streams in selected locations. These techniques encourage meander,
form pools, increase cover, and protect eroding banks.
Boulder cluster: Large boulders are placed strategically in the stream channel to increase
structural complexity, including eddies and small pools.
Log drop structure: This example is one of many structures that alter flow conditions to
create small drops and pools. The log drop consists of a log placed across the stream,
with a V notch cut into the middle to direct flow. Characteristics of these structures {e.g.,
height of the drop and width of the log) are carefully designed to prevent the obstruction
of fish migration.
Wetland restoration
Re-establishing vegetation in the riparian corridor with native species best suited to
current hydrologic and soil conditions (e.g., forested riparian buffers).
Controlling the timing, location, and extent of water diversions from and irrigation return
flows to stream channel.
Constructing fences and gates in riparian corridor to control access of grazing livestock
and other agricultural activities to selected locations along the stream.
Urban BMPs: Retention devices (e.g., infiltration basins, trenches, dry wells, and porous
pavement); vegetative controls (e.g., basin landscaping, filter strips, grassed swales, and
wetlands); source controls (e.g., education regarding inappropriate discharges to storm
drains and proper disposal of potential contaminants); erosion control (e.g., construction
site management and controls); land-use planning (e.g., limiting direct connection of
impervious area to waterbody); sewage overflow controls; urban stormwater retrofits.
                                                                       Continued
1-6 Restoration Defined

-------
                                         . Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                                       Table 1-1. Continued
Restoration
Category
Upland
Upland
Upland
Description
Agricultural and grazing BMPs: Erosion and sediment control (e.g.,
filter strips, grassed waterways, and conservation tillage); confined
animal facility management (e.g., sediment basins); grazing manage-
ment (e.g., livestock exclusion, alternative drinking locations, and
stream crossings).
Forestry BMPs: Streamside management areas that contain canopy species to
control temperature and increase bank stability; road decommissionings; erosion
control (e.g., grass-seeding, hydromulch, installation of road drainage structures
such as water bars, dips, or ditches).
Point source effluent controls
      Table 1-2. References to Additional Information on Restoration Techniques
Anacostia Restoration Team. 1992.  Watershed Restoration Source Book. Collected papers presented at
Restoring Our Home River: Water Quality and Habitat in the Anacostia, held November 6-7,1991,
in College Park, MD.  Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, DC.	
Gore, James A. (editor).  1985. The Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and Experience.
Butterworth, Stoneham, MA.  280 pp.
Hunter, Christopher J.  1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Management.
Island Press, Washington, DC. 320 pp.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants.  1990. Urban Targeting and BMP Selection: An Information and Guid-
ance Manual for State Nonpoint Source Program Staff Engineers and Managers. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Water Division and Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.
 Kusler, Jon A., and Mary E. Kentula (editors).  1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of
 the Science.  Island Press, Washington, DC.
 Brooks, R.P., S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, J.C. Sifneos. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic
 Ecosystems.  N AS Report.  An Approach to Improving Decision-making in Wetland Restoration and
 Creation.  Kentula, ME. A.J. Hairston, ed. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
 Rosgen, David L. 1994.  A Classification of Natural Rivers.  Catena. 22:169-199.
 EPA. 1993a.  Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
 Waters.  EPA Report No. 840-B-92-002.
                                                                         Restoration Defined  1-7

-------

-------
CHAPTER 2.
                                        RESTORATION  AND  THE
                                                CLEAN WATER ACT
rphe objective of the Clean Water Act, as stated in Section 101, is to "restore and maintain the
 JL chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."  Restoration is a tool for
meeting some CWA requirements. The CWA provides the broad and flexible authority needed
to realize jjhe nation's water resource goals. Most importantly, the CWA recognizes that water
resource quality is defined by all its components—the chemical, physical, and biological, and
that water resource integrity depends on complex interactions among all three components.
       »
Numerous CWA programs encompass the concept of restoration. Because widespread loss of
ecological function and biological diversity jeopardizes the health of many water resources;
CWA programs must address all elements of water resource integrity in a more integrated
manner and cannot work in isolation if the goals of the Act are to be met.  Figure 2-1 illustrates
EPA's emerging approach to harmonizing CWA programs and achieving the overall goal of
aquatic ecosystem integrity.  In addition, Table 2-1 on the following page provides some ex-
amples of restoration-related activities that have taken place within the framework of CWA
programs.                                                      '
                                      Level 1
                                           Levd 2: CWA §101
                      Narrative & Numeric Criteria
                           Designated Uses
                           Arttidegradation
                                                 Lovol 3: Walor Quality
                                                 Standards
Chemical
Physical
Biological
                      Watershed Protection Approach

                    Total Maximum Daily Loads [§303(d)])


                             Restoration
                          Level 4: Watershed
                          Coordination Framework
                                  Lovol 5: Rostoratior
                                  and other CWA
                                  Activities
/ Monitoring
/ and
/ Assessment


Point
Source
Controls
Scientific Research
Grants, Incentives
Nonpoint Nflf
Source >p
Controls ^J


                                                                  Funding
             Figure 2-1. Integration of water quality management through the
             watershed protection approach and Clean Water Act activities.
                                                  Restoration and the Clean Water Act 2-1

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                            Restoration Activities within Clean Water Act Programs
   CWA Section Number
   (Program Title)
             Description of Program Activities
   CWA Section 303{d)
   (TMDL Program)
Application of restoration techniques within the framework of the TMDL
process.  TMDL Case Study #8, Boulder Creek, CO, June 1993, EPA 841-F-93-
006.
   CWA Section 314 (Clean
   Lakes Program)
Guidance for lake and reservoir protection, management and restoration,
including: The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, August 1990,
EPA 440/4-90-006; Monitoring Lake and Reservoir Restoration, August 1990,
EPA 440/4-90-007; Fish and Fisheries Managements Lakes and Reservoirs.
Technical Supplement to the Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual,
May 1993, EPA 841-R-93-002.
Funding of Clean Lakes Program Phase II cooperative agreements to support
lake and reservoir restoration projects. The Clean Lakes Program Management
System maintains a database of Clean Lakes projects and provides capability
for analysis of lake restoration and management techniques.
   CWA Section 319
   (Nonpoint Source
   Program)
Guidance recommending that ten percent of each State's overall work program
go to support Watershed Resource Restoration.  Final Guidance on the Award of
Nonpoint Source Grants Under Section 319(h) of the CWA for FY 94 and Future
Years, memorandum signed June 24,1993.
   CWA Section 320
   (National Estuary
   Program)
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans to protect and improve
water quality and enhance living resources of nationally significant estuaries.
   CWA Section 402
   (Stormwater Program)
Managing stormwater to restore degraded wetlands and urban wetlands that
currently are not being maintained.  Wetlands and Stormwater Workshop:
Summary of Topics. Held January U-10,1992. Sponsored by EPA; State of
Florida; Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., and Association of State
Wetland Managers. May 6,1992.
   CWA Section 404
   (Wetlands Program)
Wetlands mitigation banking, which allows for the restoration, creation, or
enhancement of wetlands to compensate for future development activities.
Wetlands Fact Sheet Number 16, Wetlands Mitigation Banking, EPA 843-F-95-
001 p.

State Wetlands Grants Program [provided under CWA Section 104(b)(3)] to
enhance existing and develop  new wetlands protection programs, including
State Wetland Conservation Plans and wetland monitoring programs.  Wetlands
Fact Sheet Number 22, State Wetlands Grants Program, February 1995,
EPA843-F-95-001v.
Level 1 of the water quality pyramid represents a primary goal of water quality programs estab-
lished to support the CWA.  Watershed planning is a multi-objective process with many stake-
holder goals that must share equal status with the water quality goals.  However, functional
aquatic ecosystems are not exclusive of other goals, and liie water quality planning process can
often support other goals as well.  Level 2 represents the components of aquatic ecosystems,
identified in Section 101 of the Clean Water Act, whose integrity must be maintained to support
2-2  ~Reslora.tictnfand.the Clean Water Act

-------
                                         . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
a functioning aquatic ecosystem. It is important to note that Section 101 of the CWA places
equal emphasis on each of these components (i.e., chemical, physical, and biological). Water
quality standards (level three of the pyramid) define specific objectives for restoring aquatic
ecosystem integrity and are comprised of designated uses, numeric or narrative water quality
criteria to protect these uses, and an antidegradation provision (Table 2-2). Ecological restora-
tion techniques can be effective in addressing water resource quality impairments that are
characterized by state water quality standards.
                     Table 2-2.  Components of Water Quality Standards
           Water Quality
           Standards Component
Definition
           Designated Uses
Those uses specified in water quality standards for each
water body or segment whether or not they are being
attained (40 CFR §131.3). Typical uses include public
water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation,
agriculture, industry, or navigation.
          Water Quality Criteria
Elements of State water quality standards, expressed as
constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements,
representing a quality of water that supports a particular
use.  When criteria are met, water quality will generally
protect the designated use (40 CFR §131.3)
           Antidegradation
Antidegradation is a policy required in State water quality
standards to protect their waters from degradation. At a
minimum. States must maintain and protect the quality of
waters to support existing uses. Antidegradation was
originally based on the spirit, intent, and goals of the Clean
Water Act, especially the clause "...restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters".
         a Adapted from: Water Duality Standards Handbook: Second Edition. 1994. EPA 823-B-94:005a. Off ice of
         Water.

The relationship between impairment and restoration techniques is often direct and obvious; the
connection between restoration techniques and particular stressors contributing to stream impair-
ment, however, is not always apparent.  Therefore, distinguishing between impairments and
specific stressors and sources that cause impairments will help to identify the stressors that are
amenable to control using various restoration techniques. Water quality impairment is often
indicated by excursions of numeric criteria, which provide quantitative targets for particular
stressors. However, water quality impairment may also be identified based on narrative criteria
and designated uses, such as the ability to support a designated type of fishery. For example, if a
river does not meet water quality standards because it fails to support adequate salmonid spawn-
ing, it is first necessary to identify the stressors that reduce spawning (such as loading of fine
sediment; which reduces available spawning habitat) before selecting a control or restoration
technique. Chapter 3 presents the linkages between certain ecological restoration techniques and
a number of water quality parameters, thus illustrating how restoration can be used to address
excursions of both numeric and narrative water quality criteria.
                                                         Restoration and the Clean Water Act  2-3

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
 Depicted at the fourth level of the pyramid are the Watershed Protection Approach and the Total
 Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process, in which several CWA programs cooperate to meet the
 primary goal of functional aquatic ecosystems. The Watershed Protection Approach encourages
 water program managers to solve water quality problems by following a watershed-based
 approach.  The approach encompasses all or most of the landscape in a well defined watershed
 (or other ecological, physiographic, or hydrologic unit) and addresses dynamic relationships that
 .sustain aquatic resources and their beneficial uses. Significant threats to  water resource integrity
 are prioritized based on a comparative analysis of ecological, economic, and human health risks;
 managers can then direct resources to high-risk problems.  Watershed approaches also prioritize
 stressors within watersheds using water quality data, biological monitoring and habitat suitability
 data, and information on land use and location of critical resources.

 A key technical component of the Watershed Protection Approach is the TMDL process required
 under CWA Section 303(3),' which determines the maximum allowable load of a pollutant or
 stressor that a water resource can assimilate without violating a water quality standard. Planning
 restoration activities within the context of a TMDL is helpful, because the TMDL process links
 stressors and their sources to the condition of the watershed and water resource.  The process
 quantifies relationships among stressors, stressor sources, recommended  controls, and ecological
 conditions. For example, a TMDL may mathematically show how a specified percent reduction
 of a stressor (such as elevated temperature that prevents the maintenance of a coldwater fishery)
 is necessary to meet a state water quality standard.

 Restoration is located at Level 5 of the pyramid, and is grouped with other key CWA activities
 that are implemented within the TMDL process. Restoration techniques  can be applied in
 conjunction with traditional regulatory actions (such as point source permits) and voluntary
 programs (such as implementation of nonpoint source BMPs) in addressing any component of a
 water quality standard—a numeric or narrative criterion or a designated use.  For example, if a
 stream does not meet the numeric criterion for unionized ammonia, the restoration of riparian
 vegetation can lower stream temperature,  thereby indirectly reducing instream concentrations of
 the pollutant  Restoration can also address nonattainment of a designated use (e.g., a coldwater
 fishery) or a narrative criterion that refers explicitly to habitat quality or biological diversity.  For
 example, in a water resource where elevated sediment loadings impair spawning habitat, a
 TMDL might establish a  specific percent fines by weight for substrate as a measurable endpoint.
 The success of instream, riparian, or surrounding watershed restoration efforts could then be
 evaluated by the measurement of percent fine sediment. An optimal management strategy may
 combine some or all options involving point source load reductions, BMPs, and instream eco-
 logical restoration techniques.

 Table 2-3 lists several recent publications on ecological restoration that emphasize the impor-
 tance of comprehensive watershed-scale projects that  address both specific instream conditions
 and stressors in the watershed that caused the impairment. These publications consistently warn
 that the application of instream or channel-related techniques (e.g., re-aeration structures and
 channel reconfiguration)  should be limited until stressors that created the impaired condition are
 understood and can be controlled. This approach is entirely consistent with and supportive of the
 watershed protection approach and TMDL process.
 'Under Section 303(d), states are required to identify waters not meeting water quality standards, even after the
 implementation of existing required control, such as traditional technology-based controls.  States then prioritize the
 list and develop TMDLs for high-priority waters.
  2-4  Restoration and the Clean Water Act

-------
                                . Ecological Restoration;  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
  Table 2-3.  Recent Publications Endorsing Ecological Restoration
  within  a Watershed Context
Doppelt, B., M. Scurjp.ck, CJrissell, and J. Karr. 1993.  Entering the Watershed: A
New Approach to Save America's River Ecosystems.  The Pacific Rivers Council.
Island Press, Washington, DC, and Covelo, CA.
Weaver, W.E., et al. 1987.  An Evaluation of Experimental Rehabilitation Work:
Redwood National Park. Redwood National Park Technical Report 19. National Park
Service, Arcata, CA.
National Research Council.  1992.  Restoration of Aquatic Systems: Science,
Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Hunter, Christopher J. 1991.  Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration
and Management.  Montana Land Reliance. Island Press, Washington, DC, and
Covelo, CA.
                                                Restoration and the Clean Water Act  2-5

-------

-------
processes. For example, the urban landscape surrounding the South Platte River in Denver,
Colorado, precluded more natural options for channel reconfiguration and alignment to restore
the river's re-aeration potential. Instead, a large concrete drop structure was constructed to
ameliorate low dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions. Although this structure uses natural forces
associated with the flow of the river, the structure itself would not have developed as a result of
natural hydrological processes.

This document recommends a comprehensive watershed perspective for restoration that consid-
ers interactions among stressors in developing effective long-term solutions. To facilitate
assessment and the development of management strategies, three zones have been identified for
categorizing stressors and restoration strategies.  In actuality, however, the zones below are
broadly connected ecologically.

           1.  The instream zone is generally  the area that contains the stream's non-peak
               flows (i.e., the stream or river channel itself).
           2.
           3.
The riparian corridor includes the stream channel and also extends some
distance out from the water's edge. Odum (1971) provides the following techni-
cal definition: Riparian habitats constitute an area of vegetation that exerts a
direct biological, physical, and chemical influence on (and are influenced by) an
adjacent stream, river, or lake ecosystem, through both above- and below-ground
interactions. This area of association extends from the rooting systems and
overhanging canopies of streamside flora outward to include all vegetation
reliant on the capillary fringe characteristic of soils surrounding aquatic environ-
ments.  Riparian ecosystems can vary to differences in local topography, stream
bottom, soil type, water quality, elevation, climate, and surrounding vegetation.

The upland zone consists of those areas beyond the riparian corridor within a
stream's watershed that generate nonpoint source runoff into the stream and
whose infiltration and topographic characteristics control stream hydrology.
Figure 1-1 provides an example cross section of the three zones: instream, riparian corridor, and
upland. Only a fraction of the upland zone is represented in this illustration, because this zone
can extend far beyond the stream itself.

Three categories of restoration techniques have been identified for stream management activities
that are consistent with the stream zones described above:
           1.
           2.
           3.
Instream techniques are applied directly in the stream channel (e.g., channel
reconfiguration and realignment to restore geometry, meander, sinuosity, sub-
strate composition, structural complexity, re-aeration, or stream bank stability).

Riparian techniques are applied out of the stream channel in the riparian corridor
(e.g., re-establishment of vegetative canopy, increasing width of riparian corri-
dor, or restrictive fencing).

Upland, or surrounding -watershed, techniques are generally related to the
control of nonpoint source inputs from the watershed, including hydrologic
runoff characteristics from increased imperviousness of the watershed [e.g.,
urban, agricultural, and forestry best management practices (BMPs)].
                                  Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters  3-1

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                        3-1.  Relative Effect of Selected Stream Restoration Practices

RESTORATION PRACTICE*
Create drop
structures
Restore
wetlands1
Plant tretis and
hushes along the
stream hank
Increase channel
depth; re-establish
undercut banks;
narrow stream
width
I t Aquatic Life Designated Uses ,
Altered Stream
Geomorphology
Rne Sediment Loads
High Velocity/High
Volume Flows
Low Flows
4>
o
4/
4/
O
4^
4'
4/
4/
4>
4^
*
vP
O
*
.'*...
Re-establish
riffle
substrate
••
4/
o
o
4^
Narrative Water Quality Parameters 1 1
Biological Integrity
Toxicity
Nuisance Growths
of Algae
Settleable Solids
+
vP
vP
^
*
4/
4/
*
t
4/
4,
4"
^
4x
^
O
*
^
4^
4/
• Numeric Water Quality Parameters I
DO
Temperature
PH
NH3
Suspended Solids
3ioavailable Metals
+
0
t
4^
/fs
Ł
1*
o
t
si'
*
4"
t
4-
4<
4'
4'
Łb:
^
4/
4/
4/
o
o
*
o
$
4/
o
' 1>
     *  ^ means that the restoration technique increases water quality parameter; 4> means that the restoration technique
       decreases water quality parameter; t means that site-specific conditions can dictate increase or decrease in parameter;
       means that the restoration technique has a negligible effect on water quality parameter.

     b  Anoxic conditions could lead to the release of bioavailable metals from sediments.

     1  Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Indian Tribes. (EPA 1993b) states that
       "wetlands are to be treated as waters in and of themselves for purposes of compliance with water quality standards, and
       not just as they relate to other surface waters."
 3-2  Unking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                    .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                     CASE  STUDY SUMMARY
     SOUTH FORK OF THE SALMON  RIVER, IDAHO
     :»  —-^v^N1   ^T:,;^,--  ,    ,~,      \^-^-   ,;  '
    -,                                n
 w*~'  '^   * '* *'   ''  °^ ^--^  "      ^'^ '          '   ' ^" r  "-•'      f
 ,» Restemifon T0cfyftiqmsfatt4 Parameters #f Concern: - See table i?elow,-
          -*^' -v*"*   '' -  "''*'•    --"          "
f
Restoration Technique/Functional Attribute
Parameter of Concern"
Fish
Populations
Sediment
Loadings
Cobble
Emheddedness
J Reduction in Ground-Disturbing Activities •
Road closures and land reclamation
Road reconstruction and relocation
BMPs for road building and forestry
f>
*
*
si/
4>
. ^
^
si'
si/
• ; Stream Stabilization Activities
Removal of sand from pools
Instream gravel cleaning
Stream bank stabilization
*
'+
^
m^i^^mmm
> .
O
^
______
^
^
^
^^^^•M
     Assessment of sediment reduction progress
              is restocaSoa te&$wqa& itjereasss vMef quality paraiiteierf ^maass Ifcafthe >ii&t»n Jeelmi^ue - -'"'"' *w
                   '   -"-'	*•	^^tfeatsie-spjcilc.fsiidBtoascsn fetate*iaerease,gF«^erfafS in paramgtgr;--.» -s,
                             ^aaegligibWiflieCQiJwaisrfSualiypafafiietef.^™,  '1,1 , ->"^' ,»s  '^
                                                        ,\ •     ' %"^~-  i»-~  - - '
                     * ~"^Z'*%}  *"\ **,•'"*''     " '     " ?'>' ' " ^'+"-.'            ^'*^v
                 kttlqiu&t&AMt4i$''S&$iiu&tt L6adittg$$tm a Phased rM&L^Mcte^ed;.
                     ,           ^ r$$t<>3re, those' |olaiion$ re<}we< jtfijeaig 'sediment
«' '  JoaHliags. -lie faimary caii^of sedlHtsatMon is road ,q5Bstfocficaiiassociated wi^ for^
  Jl   !                               '               '         a nc&efic
 ,                      _
C" *' establi^S.- Mtlal ptpjecb are togeiier;expected to'|»ovlde a 25-perceHt iedactfoa in^  J^ '
 ~)V ^sdimept jietd^i&'goals fdr'sp^c^c taunieiic sedimeai d^ffii^Spk^L' 'Additiionai '  '  •
                   |H»j'eds'Jlia'vfe beea ideatifie^'fciriaiijleaieHfaiipa if &$ first roatid of : -
             ,                          '$e$t^                       ^;! "',-'*-
'  ' -  - s""-v^- \-,';,s/.fto address a^itionat parameters, fff concern, refer m Chapter &;, ;--, -  ^;; ,
,   ',.,,,^ ,,,„ V- - /7'\  ^^W-^,.,..^-*'^**.      ' ,  . /  '  - -  -,,^-^t'--   -'   x
       •> •>,>«.•••  "'                '.^ 'J '  -.          ., .,. f '.    t    ^^. . .s * \ ' "   v >x, ' -
                                Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters 3-3

-------
  Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
     • Strategically insert structures (e.g., log and gabion drop structures, large boulders) into
       the channel.

     •* Mitigate upland land use practices that result in damaging hydrological regimes.

     • Evaluate operation of dams and other flow diversion structures to more closely simulate
       natural flow conditions.


FINE SEDIMENT LOADS

Excessive loads of fine sediments are detrimental to most stream systems because they can alter
both substrate and water column conditions.  Alterations in substrate conditions may contribute
to a decline in fish spawning success, particularly salmonids.  Fine sediment can trap fry that are
attempting to emerge; deplete intergravel oxygen levels, smothering eggs that have been laid;
limit the aquatic invertebrate populations used as a food source by predatory fish in rearing
areas; and fill the pools and pockets between rocks and boulders on which young fish depend to
protect themselves.  Suspended fine sediments may also influence the survival of aquatic organ-
isms by clogging and damaging respiratory organs. Increased turbidity increases water tempera-
ture (because turbid water absorbs heat more efficiently) and suppresses algal photosynthesis.
Some aquatic ecosystems, however, where suspended solid concentrations were naturally high,
such as the lower Colorado River system, have been adversely impacted by dams that reduced
natural sediment transport.

For many streams, reduction in natural sediment loads can adversely affect channel stability and
ecological conditions. When flowing waters have very low sediment concentrations or are
devoid of sediments, they scour sediments from the stream banks and beds until an equilibrium
load is suspended in the water.  This scouring can degrade the morphology of the affected
channel.  Also, fine sediment is a natural, if not essential, part of most aquatic systems, except
when present in excess. Beschta and Platts (1986), for example, note that the optimal spawning
substrate appears to consist of gravel with a small amount of fine sediment and rubble to support
egg pockets and stabilize the beds during high flows.

Reservoir construction, in particular, can cause unnaturally low downstream sediment loads and
high flow energies.  Both factors produce channel degradation downstream, characterized by
increased stream depth and increased channel straightening; in contrast, upstream channels are
affected by sediment aggradation, characterized by decreased stream depth and increased mean-
der patterns. Erosion is always greater downstream of reservoirs than in  natural streams having
otherwise similar characteristics.  Typically, this erosion begins in the stream reaches nearest the
dam and continues until limited by natural factors within the channel (e.g., the accumulation of
materials resistant to erosion, including large particulates and/or cohesive silts and clays that clog
the streambed). Strongly established riparian plant communities also can be important deterrents
of bank degradation.

Restoration techniques that can restore equilibrium to sediment loads to streams include:

     • Changes in land-use practices that reduce sediment loading, such as conservation tillage,
       contour farming, sodding or wildflower cover during construction activities;

     • Restoring wetlands to intercept sediments;                   .
                                                       •

 3-4  Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                      .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
     • For some systems, manipulating discharge depths from the reservoir to increase fine
       sediment discharges;

     • Augmenting reservoir discharges with "silt runs" of added fine sediment (very limited
       application); and

     • Removing the reservoir (a rarely used management option).

Natural tributary inflows to regulated streams downstream of reservoirs can contribute the
necessary suspended materials to help the stream to achieve an equilibrium sediment load, hence
reducing the erosive nature reservoir discharges.

Upland techniques may be applied in combination with mstream techniques to mitigate instream
sediment impacts, such as degraded substrate condition. Instream restoration, however, is
unlikely to succeed unless sources and causes of excess suspended solid loading are addressed
simultaneously.


ABNORMALLY  HIGH STREAM  FLOWS

High-energy flows can erode substrate and bank materials, destabilize the physical structure of
aquatic habitats, kill resident aquatic organisms, and destroy eggs incubating in the benthic
environment. Seasonal cycles of high-energy flow events (e.g., spring floods) are typical in most
aquatic systems; habitat alteration and degradation, however, may exacerbate impacts of high-
energy flows and contribute to impairment of designated uses.  For instance, in a channelized
stream with minimal riparian vegetation, flow velocity and volume will likely be much greater
than would be expected in a "natural stream", thereby increasing its erosive potential.

Instream and riparian techniques that can mitigate such impacts include

     •  Restoring natural stream meander and channel complexity;

     •  Increasing substrate roughness;

     •  Promoting growth of riparian vegetation, which serves as a drag on flows;

     •  Land use modification along buffers and other source areas; and

     •  Plunge pools and flow baffles to decrease the high energy of discharged waters.

These instream practices may need to be accompanied by techniques applied in the surrounding
watershed, such as upland revegetation or the establishment of nonpoint source BMPs.
                                                «

Low FLOWS

Maintaining flow is often essential to habitat protection.  In many regions of the United States,
stream segments are periodically dewatered from irrigation,  industrial, and municipal withdraw-
als; diversion for hydroelectric power; evaporation; and groundwater infiltration. Additionally,
during low-flow conditions, impacts from point source discharges of chemical stressors are
typically greatest, because effluent constitutes a larger percentage of (sometimes all) stream
                                  Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters  3-5

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
                        CASE  STUDY  SUMMARY
                   WILDCAT  CREEK,  CALIFORNIA
  Overall Project Goal: To implement an urban renewal p]an to provi
  opportunities, environmental quality, and enhanced economic development, "^^i,
  Restoration Techniques and Parameters of Concern:r S . 1 ii
Carry mean flaws
Transport and scour suspended sediment
Spread high flows onto flood plain
•^
4-
4>
4- '
*
4-
O
O
O
4> •
4- \l
* N
I Plant trees along low-flow channels 1
Provide shade
Reduce erosion
Provide food for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
and organisms
Create pools/riffles
O
4- .
O
O
O
4-
4>
O
4-
O
O
0
4- ; I
4> -I
* ll
0 ! 1
                               Fence and rotate grazing areas
Promote plant growth
Reduce erosion
O
4>
4/
4-
4-
O
^
^
   * 'Mneans that the restoration technique Increases water Quality parameJ|H^
   water quality parameter; $ means that s'rte«specific conditfon? can dictatS ineretse'Qf clei^sasefla parasie|«;'c5'
   restoration technique has a negligible effect on water tjualiiy parameter,  ,        •.//•,••-
   Highlight on Techniques fa Address Fine pediment Loads/High yej^tetty |Jfe$s» ''Restoratiojjj'
   techniques took into account dynamics of sediment transport and flow &oxi^
   A key component of the project plan was transporting sediment past ?ulnerabfe"kjarsh
   diminish the impact of deposition, A meaadering low-flow c^a3mSf(t&-Wt5-&et wide) was
   designed to (1) carry mean flows; (2) scour and ttanspo4 suspended %ed3a<
   and (3) allow high flows to spread onto the flood .plains, lose velocity, and deposit
   detention basin was also placed upstream to trap sediments. Trees were planted along banks to"
   provide resistance to erosive forces of flowing water. Additionally, 312 acre's'of'Sra^Jng lands '"^'
   were fenced and divided into four pastures.  Livestock grazing is rotated through pastures to allow
   time for regrowfli of vegetation, thereby protecting the watershed from soil erosiofei.''
                   For a more complete project description, including techniques ' -
                  to address additional parameters of.concern, refer fa*Chapter-6.-*- ~'
3-6  Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
water at low flow, with increased pollutant concentration. NPDES permits based oh low flow
conditions (e.g., 7Q10) often cannot anticipate various combinations of climatic conditions and
water demand that lead to exceedingly low flows.

Impacts attributable to minimum flows can be mitigated by several instream restoration tech-
niques, including

     • Reducing channelization,

     • Restoring wetlands to store water and thereby restore natural hydrologic regimes,

     • Controlling evaporation through restoration of the riparian canopy,

     • Replacing exotic riparian plant species that have high evapotranspiration rates with
       native species that have lower transpiration rates,

      •  Constructing drop structures to create pools that provide protection for aquatic life
        during low-flow periods,

      •  Increasing channel depth and undercut banks to provide areas for protection of fish and
        other species during periods of low flow, and

      •  Increasing groundwater recharge to streams through increased infiltration (e.g., reduced
        imperviousness in recharge areas).

 Minimum flows can also be addressed by applying techniques in the surrounding watershed,
 such as managing watershed land use to prevent excessive dewatering.

 Resource management agencies, for example, can encourage or allow beavers to colonize stream
 segments; beaver dams create wetlands and retain water that supplements low flow during dry
 periods. Restored wetlands can have the same effect as a beaver dam. Local zoning authorities
 have begun to encourage the reduction of impervious area in watersheds through land-use
 ordinances.  Increased infiltration and reduced peak flows from rapid runoff contributes to a
 more sustained base flow to the stream from groundwater discharge.

 Restoration practices to mitigate low velocity/low-flow conditions often require close collabora-
 tion with other resource management  agencies (e.g., USDA Forest Service), zoning authorities
 (e.g., county governments), and agricultural extension agencies. Several agricultural activities
 contribute to low velocity/low flow conditions.  Agricultural extension agencies have developed
 specific techniques to modify the practices that impact streams and rivers in this manner. For
 example, irrigation plans can be optimized to reduce the demand for water that is diverted
 directly from the stream or dewatering by overdrafting an adjacent aquifer. Changing crop
 rotations and using less water-intensive crop alternatives are other tools that have been used
 effectively to address low velocity/low-flow situations.


 BIOLOGICAL  INTEGRITY

 Practices that improve chemical and physical habitat quality will positively affect biological
 integrity, because improvements in water and habitat quality generally increase biodiversity and
                                   Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters  3-7

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
 improve ecological functions such as nutrient and eneirgy cycling, trophic relationships, and
 predator-prey relationships.


 TOXICITY

 As discussed in the previous section, all of the restoration practices described in Table 3-1
 potentially reduce ammonia toxicity. These same practices would, through similar mechanisms,
 reduce the toxicity of other substances (e.g., hydrogen sulfide). Wetlands can also help reduce
 the toxicity of some metals, by reducing metal concentrations and metal bioavailability. To-
 gether, all these practices would help reduce the total toxicity of the water and help attain this
 narrative water quality standard.


 ALGAL GROWTH

 Streams having slow flow waters, warm temperatures, and highly elevated nutrient concentra-
 tions can develop nuisance growth of algae (in general, concentrations of total inorganic nitrogen
 greater than about 0.25 mg/1 and dissolved phosphate of about 0.02 mg/1 are viewed as poten-
 tially leading to nuisance algal growth). Beyond the appearance, odor, and taste problems
 normally associated with nuisance algal growth, various instream problems can also result.  For
 example, dense growths of filamentous algae in streams can block access to microhabitat features
 important for the growth and survival of many small or young aquatic species. Further, few
 aquatic species can use filamentous algae for food. The rapid and abundant growth of filamen-
 tous algae tend to competitively reduce the abundance of other algal forms that potentially
 provide favorable food sources for various aquatic species. Thus, nuisance algal growth tend to
 reduce available food supplies and, therefore, growth potential for many aquatic species.

 Most importantly, both the high metabolic demands by the dense algal growths and the decay of
 the many dead algal filaments can drive down oxygen concentrations (especially at night-time)
 in the affected surface water.  Often these demands can lead to depletion of dissolved oxygen
 concentrations. In turn, this can lead to severe stress or death of many species, loss of aquatic
 populations, and substantial shifts and simplification of aquatic communities. Generally, these
 changes also reduce the potential remaining assimilative capacities of receiving waters for other
 pollutants and reduce the resistance of the remaining stream community to other potential
 pollutant stressors.  Additional concerns related to low dissolved oxygen concentrations are
 discussed in the next subsection.                           I

 In many streams, conditions promoting nuisance growth of algae can lead to stimulated growths
 of higher aquatic plants (macrophytes). Excessive growths of macrophytes can lead to many of
 the same problems caused by nuisance algal growths.  In addition, dense macrophyte growths
 also can lead to additional slowing of flows and warming of waters, in some cases further
 intensifying the magnitude of these problems.

 The following instream, riparian, and upland restoration practices can help to reduce excessive
 growth of algae and macrophyte.

      •  Drop structures and riffles would create turbulence that would reduce attached algal
        growth;
3-8 Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                          . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
  OveraM Project Got^z
                                                 'diecreek,
   Restoration Technique/Functional Attribute
                                                     Parameter of Concern*
                                          Atrazine
                                          Loading
Sediment
 Loading
Nutrient
Loading
                                 Creation of Riparian Buffer Strip
Stream Bank
  Loading
Increase uptake of nutrients
Trap sediments from croplands
Increase infiltration of water
Plant trees, shrubs, and grasses
4>
>
*
*
O
*
4>
4>
*
4>
4>
4/
O
*
O
^
                                  Monitoring and Data Collection
   Provide design specifications for other projects
                r;''^ mfsausi that sie-sppciffe^JwSi^s cas dictate In
-restBraliontscbaitpe Has a aepgiBIs affect ort water paly pa'
**<•<•*<•*  J     \'<^  VA*-'  ^ -..    j  jjv^^v' ^v,~-    ,
                                                                  e In parat?^; p ffi^ss thai the%
                                                                                       '
f^hysicai habi^aBear (2rs^i|adv^e}y a^^l?y|i^
" ''^^aclveixel^affecEed by iigS'aHicelittaaons of SHSj^^'^iasV^trieBJ^^^^^taral''?, st.'«J
;>%ebeinieals, pattlcutoiy fiie'IierMcide, ateazina I^itrogedlevelS'.la^e,creelc'^c^dEMilj«ils^i^    ;
  _. ••    '_   ^  _ ' '  % ^    _   _   	       __   _     	   '        __^^'   %% w.  s •SV^^.v-J" ^ "    "   '
,JN
«JS
, ;;fr|fiG;p^^imm^^                                                                 ;^
"•" zsHje^wililalso provide"wMife iraMtat/food &9fli^                                    " *""
- ,j-S#ip""  •;",,>-'     -*-v«  ;>  •" -"^^W^V^'^V,,;               «~ 1   y        * f&fSffr^
             s
 ^wlflow, pqplat,'siiver'Sfipie?'^B||gf^ri'2sli 'iave bibto'diosen for'ibaitpfcr^ser^ljhey'a^ b^iesfel
  ein S^tola-ye^TOlaSdns to remqve'^^stoed-nutri^
 ^^^oerate from s|i»n^spK)uts,"flie-«)o| systems s^y tii^ctaad.' gf^ve-gtoq^J^^sS'^ |ai«Wy^. ***
^growa:' ^^/:;,^-,  ,  j>-=-^,-^;,, <1,,,,^,  ^ ;^  ;^,,;'j,;j;-^;w^^*<;J^ ^>"

                                            t dzscripitefy^ludittfrtecfaitpug ->^«-  ^ftw" v^.^/****
                                            ":••-"•""'  "'   i^'to&tegtyiti. -vv« n>*"   •' '^
                                     Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters 3-9

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
     •  During some periods of the year, wetlands will reduce nutrient input into the stream,
        thereby reducing algal growths;

     •  Planting trees and bushes will reduce the amount of sunlight available for algal growth,
        thus leading to reductions in algal growth;

     •  Increased channel depth and undercut banks will reduce the area available for algal
        growth; and

     •  Nonpoint control of nutrient loading.


 Low DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS

 Low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations can be detrimental to aquatic life. DO concentra-
 tions in surface waters are determined by many factors, including water temperature,  salinity,
 biological respiration, chemical oxygen demand, sediment oxygen demand, photosynthesis, and
 transfer of oxygen into the water from the atmosphere (i.e., re-aeration). While DO concentra-
 tions are known to fluctuate throughout the day, minimum DO concentrations in streams typi-
 cally occur at night when aquatic plants do not photosynthesize but aquatic organisms, including
 plants, respire. The lowest daily DO concentrations generally occur immediately before dawn.

 In most streams that do not receive significant input of materials with high chemical and biologi-
 cal oxygen demand and nutrients that stimulate plant growth and respiration, natural re-aeration
 will maintain adequate DO concentrations to support a healthy aquatic community. Natural re-
 aeration rates in a stream are influenced by stream properties such as depth, turbulence, fre-
 quency of riffle areas, and natural drops (e.g., waterfalls and natural obstructions that create
 turbulence).  Disturbances such as channelization and excessive erosion reduce channel com-
 plexity and thus re-aeration potential. Types of restoration practices that can increase DO
 concentrations include the following:                ;

      • Reintroducing or constructing small hydrologic drop structure or other  structures (e.g.,
        boulders, logs) that increase hydrological turbulence and mixing that increase re-aeration
        rates;

      • Restoring existing degraded wetlands or re-establishing natural streamside vegetation to
        intercept nonpoint sources of nutrients to reduce aquatic plant growth and respiration
        demand within the stream;

    * • Re-establishing trees and bushes along stream banks to reduce incident sunlight and
        water temperature, and to trap nutrients and sediments, thereby reducing aquatic plant
        growth and respiration demands;

      • Restoring stream depth and undercut banks and re-narrowing stream width to reduce
        aquatic plant growth and water temperatures, thereby reducing respiration demands; and

      • Re-establishing or creating, shallow riffle substrates to increase turbulence, mixing, and
        the area of stream surface exposed to the atmosphere, which will increase re-aeration
        rates.
 3-10  Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
ALTERED TEMPERATURE

Abnormally high water temperatures may adversely impact aquatic life. Increased water tem-
perature also increases toxicity of many chemicals such as un-ionized ammonia. High water
temperatures reduce DO concentrations by increasing plant growth and respiration rates and
decreasing the solubility of oxygen in water.  Solar heating is the primary cause of abnormally
high water temperatures.  In some streams (e.g., warm water rivers downstream of dams with
hypolimnetic discharges), abnormally low water temperatures may adversely affect warmwater
aquatic life. Types of instream, riparian, and upland habitat restoration practices that can be used
to manage water temperatures include:

     •  Re-establishing trees and bushes along stream banks to reduce incident sunlight;

     •  Restoring stream depth, re-establishing undercut banks, and narrowing stream width to
        reduce excessive solar warming; and

     •  Retrofit dams with multilevel intake to control temperatures.


 EXTREME pH

 Rapid fluctuations or sustained changes in pH outside the pH range that an organism has become
 accustomed to can create conditions that are stressful, or even toxic. In particular, aquatic
 organisms may suffer an osmotic imbalance under sustained exposures to low pH waters.

 The concentration of hydrogen ions in aqueous solution is expressed as pH.  The pH scale is a
 relative measure of the acidity of a solution, ranging from very acidic (pH of 1) to very alkaline
 (pH of 14). Neutrality occurs at a pH of 7.  Most natural waters are circumneutral (i.e., near pH
 of 7), with pH values ranging from 6 to 8 (Stumm and Morgan 1981).

 The carbonate buffering system controls the acidity of most streams. Carbonate buffering is an
 equilibrium between calcium, carbonate, bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen ions in the
 water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of buffering, also  called alkalinity, is
 primarily determined by carbonate and bicarbonate concentration, which are introduced into the
 water from dissolved calcium carbonate (i.e., limestone) and similar minerals present in the
 watershed. In general, higher alkalinity makes water more resistant to acidification.

 Acidification occurs when all alkalinity in the water is consumed by acids, a process often
 attributable to the input of strong mineral acids (e.g., sulfuric acid) from acid mine drainage and
 acidic precipitation or weak organic acids (e.g., humic and fulvic acids), which are naturally
 produced in large quantities in some types of soils, such as those associated with coniferous
 forests, bogs, and wetlands.  In watersheds with relatively large amounts of limestone (or similar
 alkaline, rapidly weathered minerals), surface waters are well buffered and therefore resistant to
 acidification. Waters most susceptible to acidification are found in watersheds with minerals that
 weather slowly (e.g., granite) and have little or no limestone or other alkaline minerals.
                                                                             I
 Another characteristic of pH in some poorly buffered surface waters is high daily variability in
 pH levels attributable to biological processes that affect the carbonate buffering system.  Extreme
 increases in pH may create conditions as detrimental to aquatic organisms as low-pH conditions
                                   Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters 3-11

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                        CASE  STUDY SUMMARY
          UPPER  GRANDE  RONDE  RIVER,  OREGON
  Overall Project Goal: Conduct an analysis for selecting tl*
  lower instream temperatures K> sustain a healthy colciwafer
                                         * ,,     .  fV---   —'-,-.r^^^v/^f-'^^^\y/<>,,C,J7^-7-
  Restoration Techniques and Parameters of Concern; See tate;^eJpw>        '  ;x ••"   ,7;  " *;
                                    /         (.•'       ff/''sj'-;'  *v   ^ *   '   '/-''      ' -. ••
    Restoration Technique/Functional Attribute
                                                  Parameter of Concern*
  Stream
Temperature
  Salmon
Populations
 Stability of
Stream Banks
 DO
Levels
                            Riparian Zone Characterization Project
   Classify riparian zone vegetation patterns
   Classify stream channel morphology
   Provide input for basin temperature model
   «"t»  means that the restoration technique inereases watir'ijaiity paratss
   water qualfyf parameter; $ means fftat sls-spepift; cnndaiofts,cp1
                                                     ;"„ , .yi f " --i !<-!•?,,-  „
                                                     *'<- •  , ;v,',J',,, ,,;//>^>:%w
  Highlight on Techniques ta

  Grande Ronde River, resulting in impaired abl|ty of ine wer to mi^ti^&tj&iQiy coidwat
  tern, including annual salmon runs and residettt'sakaonid^;popHlations^^"_L__ f—^-^-
  rcstoratioa project has two components.'Jitx the first/data o»'riparian vegefetidn;p%ffij(»sT
  channel morphology are gathered for input into the"bas%l^fperatM|e1i^{ieI; a ^JS^atal
  created. In the second phase, the temperatoreBTK^el is-used]t»ideaffl^]pp.6fity l^|Sfeii$^
  restoration by predicting stream temperatures under Carious scenarios- TJ^S&e'Ji"' **''"'  '"
  restoration projects Jbave been \i
                                  ,.^.,      ,          ,,        ,
                  For a. more complete project aescnpttojt, mcJjttdjjjgJechnigttes
                                                   cefn;referi^h
                                                   ' A~*e/-    ' ^<:'
3-12 Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
and contribute to the buildup of toxic concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (NH3), a toxic form
of nitrogen. In waters with large standing crops of aquatic plants, uptake of carbon dioxide by
plants during photosynthesis removes carbonic acid from the water, which can increase pH by
several units. Conversely, pH levels may fall by several units during the night when photosyn-
thesis does not occur and plants respire carbon dioxide, which is converted to carbonic acid in
the water.

The following instream, riparian, and upland restoration practices can be used to reduce acidity
or stabilize extreme fluctuations in pH levels:

     • pH levels can be increased by restoring existing degraded wetlands that intercept acid
       inputs such as acid mine drainage and help neutralize acidity by converting sulfates
       associated with sulfuric acid to insoluble non-acidic metal sulfides that remain trapped in
       wetland sediments.

     • Techniques discussed above for .increasing DO concentrations also tend to stabilize
       highly variable pH levels attributable to high rates of photosynthesis.


AMMONIA TOXICITY

Ammonia can be toxic to aquatic life and has been found to be a source of toxic effects to aquatic
life in some streams. Ammonia, an inorganic form of nitrogen, is a product of the metabolism of
organic nitrogen and the biological conversion by bacteria of nitrate to ammonia in anaerobic
waters and sediments.  Inadequately treated municipal wastewater, agricultural runoff, ground-
water contamination by fertilizer, stormwaters, and feedlots are potential sources of ammonia
and nitrate to streams.

The un-ionized form of ammonia exists in equilibrium with the ammonia and hydroxide ions.
The reaction occurs rapidly and is controlled by pH and temperature. Monitoring and water
quality models usually report total ammonia, and the un-ionized fraction must be estimated.  As
weight per volume of N, un-ionized ammonia concentrations are determined from total ammonia
(NH3+NH4+) as (Bowse et al. 1985):
                                   = 0.09018 +
 2729.92
T + 273.2
where A is the measured total ammonia concentration and pKn is the hydrolysis constant, which
depends on temperature:
where Tis temperature in degrees Celsius.

Ammonia is present in water in two forms, un-ionized (NH3) and ionized (NH4+) ammonia. Of
these two forms of ammonia, NH3 has relatively high toxicity and NH4+ has relatively negli-
gible toxicity. The proportion of NH3 is determined by the pH and temperature of the water:  As
                                 Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters  3-13

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                          CASE  STUDY  S UMMARY

                     BOULDER  CREEK,  COLORADA
                                         ' V*       . ••. •*<•*' ' '    ^cAA~t&,, t,Ss' ' Si?'S'%-
   Overall Project Goal: Restore the fall use of the cm
   recreational opportunities, and ensure the effectiveness pf capital imprQpsinents to A. &'' ' '
    Restoration Technique/Functional Attribute
                                                     Parameter of Concern"
 DO
Levels
Sediment
Loadings
Temperature
PH
NH3
                             Riparian Zone and Habitat Restoration
    Restore reaeration potential
    Stabilize stream banks
    Construct wetlands
    Reroute irrigation flow
    Increase channel depth, undercut banks,
    and narrow stream width
                             Capital Improvements at Boulder WWTP
Solid and liquid waste treatment
Nitrification trickling filter
^
*
O
O
O
O
O
O
si/
4/
  * ^ means that the restoration technique Increases water quafrty parameter; 4- .meatKfhatth's restoration tectioitioe, 'tlecreasas ^,'
  water quality parajneter; t means that site-specific conditions can dilate iwa-ease or decrease in, gjnpjater,  O  means that''
  the restoration technique has a negligible effect on water quality parameter,      - -/"-'>*"•'""•"   '  :?/-?^< •' ",, ,„  "'-';
  Highlight on Techniques to Address Degradation
  state standards in the creek. The restoration plan had ajuimljer o
  reinforced one another. For example, the riparian zone ia,a
  allow revegetaUon efforts to take hold. A nambfer of other stfeamrbaik, stailization effort§,
  undertaken, such as construction of rock/willojv jetties to|sreak up erosive curfenk,, Tae-pto
  featured the construction of new wetlands and the,proteetion.pf existuig welEdlaCrea'" *"'
  the impact of irrigation return flows and lower sediment loadi        '
                                      •  , S  •-                 ,             ' ' -  WiKi-:, :~  '"   ,, /:'
                  For a more complete project description, including techniques   ,  Vijf,v, '''""^^
                  to address additional parameters of concern, refer to Chapter 6.    ''         '>
                                                      ' 'ti'S**     *,_//Jw»i.sJ'i }bAjiff/g$$$$'*/'>
3-14  Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
pH or temperature increase, the proportion of un-ionized ammonia and the toxicity increases.
For example, at pH 7 and 68 oF, only about 0.4% of the total ammonia is in the form of NH3,
while at pH 8.5 and 78 oF,  15% of the total ammonia is in the form of NH3.  Consequently,
ammonia is over 35 times more toxic at pH 8.5 and 78 oF than at pH 7 and 68 oF.

Any instream, riparian, or upland restoration practice that decreases pH or temperature will
decrease the potential toxicity of ammonia to aquatic life in streams:

     • Restoring or enhancing the re-aeration potential of the stream can reduce ammonia
       concentrations by providing more DO for biological oxidation of ammonia to nitrate and
       by increasing the volatilization of ammonia into the atmosphere. The re-aeration poten-
       tial can be increased by constructing small drop structures, riffles, and other structures
       that increase turbulence and mixing.

     • Restoring wetlands that will intercept nutrients, thus reducing plant growth and
       photosynthesis in the stream, thereby decreasing pH levels, and also reducing ammonia
       concentrations, both of which will reduce ammonia toxicity.

     • Re-establishing trees and bushes along stream banks to reduce incident sunlight and
       water temperature  and trap nutrients, thereby reducing aquatic plant growth and photo-
       synthesis; and

     • Restoring stream depth and re-establishing undercut banks and narrowing stream width
       to reduce aquatic plant growth and decrease water temperatures.

     • Reducing nonpoint source inputs of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) to streams.

The decline of pH in response to these restoration measures is adequate to mitigate the accumula-
tion of high concentrations of ammonia.  However, the pH shift is generally not large enough to
present a problem for increased mobilization of metals (e.g., aluminum, selenium, arsenic,
mercury) from sediments.  Generally, these metals are mobilized at a pH much lower than those
associated with ammonia toxicity.


Toxic CONCENTRATIONS OF  BIOAVAILABLE METALS

The uptake of metals by aquatic life is an active, rather than a passive, biological process.
Because the primary pathway for most metal uptake by aquatic life is through respiratory organs
of fish and aquatic invertebrates, and only ionic forms of metals can pass through cell mem-
branes, the toxicity of most metals to aquatic life is a function of the concentration of dissolved
ionic forms of metals in the stream.  Consequently, particulate metals are not directly toxic to
most forms  of aquatic life.

Many toxic substances, including metals, have a tendency to leave the dissolved phase and attach
to suspended particulate matter. The fractions of total metal concentration present in the particu-
late and dissolved phases depend on the partitioning behavior of the metal ion and the concentra-
tion of suspended particulate matter. The dissolved fraction may also be affected by complexing
of metals with organic binding agents.

The primary mechanism for water column toxicity of most metals is adsorption at the gill sur-
face. While some studies indicate that particulate metals may contribute to toxicity, perhaps

                                 Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters  3-15

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
because of factors such as desorption at the gill surface, the dissolved metal concentration more
closely approximates the fraction of metal in the water column which is bioavailable.1 Accord-
ingly, the EPA's policy is that the use of dissolved metals to set and measure compliance with
water quality standards is the recommended approach (EPA 1993c).

Conditions that partition metals into particulate forms (presence of suspended sediments, dis-
solved and particulate organic carbon, carbonates, bicarbonates, and other ions that complex
metals) reduce potential bioavailability of metals.  Also, calcium reduces metal uptake, appar-
ently by competing with metals for active uptake sites on gill membranes.  pH is also an impor-
tant water quality factor in metal bio-availability. Metal solubilities, and therefore the proportion
of ionic forms of most metals, are lower at circumneutral pH than in acidic or highly alkaline
waters. In general, as concentrations of all these water quality factors increase, the proportion of
less toxic particulate metal increases.  Therefore, any restoration technique that increases the
concentration of these water quality factors potentially reduces metal toxicities.

A number of instream, riparian, or upland restoration techniques can decrease the toxicity of
metals to aquatic life by either reducing input of metals to streams or by altering appropriate
chemical parameters in order to increase the proportion of less toxic particulate metals:

      •  Techniques mentioned above for stabilizing pH. These techniques decrease metal
        bioavailability by increasing particulate metals.

      •  Restoring existing wetlands to treat acid mine drainage is a good example of such a
        restoration practice.  Wetlands can reduce metal inputs and increase inputs of dissolved
        organic carbon and alkalinity concentrations to streams, all of which reduce metal
        toxicities.

      •  Re-establishing trees in riparian areas and encouraging the growth of other riparian
        vegetation can also help reduce concentrations of bioavailable metals by trapping within
        or filtering metals from nonpoint sources and by contributing particulate and dissolved
        organic matter to the stream.
'Certain metals, most notably mercury, also cause toxicity through other routes of exposure. Under anaerobic
conditions, methanogenic bacteria in the sediment can produce methyl mercury, which is soluble and highly toxic and
can accumulate through the food chain.
3-16 Linking Restoration Practices to Water Quality Parameters

-------
CHAPTER  4.
                              A DECISION-MAKING GUIDE
                                                 FOR  RESTORATION
This chapter provides a conceptual framework for ecological restoration activities in water
programs. Discussion focuses on important components and issues of decision-making for
restoration, rather than a detailed step-by-step protocol for conducting ecological restoration.
The decision-making guide is summarized in a series of nested flow charts. The first flow chart
shows major components of the decision-making guide, without any complicating details (Fig-
ure 4-1); subsequent flow charts and text describe major components in greater detail.

This decision-making guide emphasizes the applicability of restoration techniques for water
programs and includes decision points that integrate a broad range of program responsibilities
and activities. The process assumes that impaired water resources have already been identified
in accordance with the CWA and other requirements. The decision-making guide begins with a
selected site where water quality standards, which may include numeric or narrative criteria or
designated uses, are not being met or are threatened.  In Step 1,  an inventory of watershed
conditions is used to scope promising opportunities for restoration. In some cases, ecological
restoration will be the most effective response to impairment; in other cases, restoration may be
one among many candidate tools for achieving water quality standards.  Steps 2 and 3 provide an
analysis of the availability, applicability, and relative costs of ecological restoration techniques to
assist regional and state personnel in making an informed decision. In Step 4, an ecological
restoration approach is implemented, where appropriate.  Finally, post-implementation monitor-
ing, an essential part of the decision-making guide, is conducted in Step 5 to determine whether
impairment has been mitigated.

Several steps in the decision-making guide call for stakeholder involvement. Identification and
recruitment of stakeholders may have been done as part of a Watershed Protection Approach or
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process prior to the ecological restoration decision steps
described below. If stakeholders have not already been identified and recruited, however, this
important element of public participation should be addressed explicitly. Figure 4-1 illustrates
recognition of the larger context of the restoration decision-making process by including an input
arrow prior to Step 1. Each user should therefore view these steps as an example model and
determine whether the public participation and other components need to be* adapted to meet
additional requirements.
                                                    Step 1:
STEP 1:  INVENTORY THE WATERSHED
The decision-making process begins with a review or
inventory of existing information, designed to yield a
preliminary evaluation of the types of restoration
activities which may be feasible and appropriate to
address impairment The accompanying Step 1 flow
chart, which contains four numbered substeps and
three decision points, lays out an example framework
for determining when ecological restoration is of potential use (Figure 4-2).
                                                    Bslernwie feasibility 0f.$5iag,v,,X;
                                                            to^raeet waterbddy'gaals
                                                              '  '            '''
                                             A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration 4-1

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
                                    Identification of
                                Impaired or Threatened
                                     Waterbcidies
                       Inventory the Watershed
                       Identify Goals for Restoration
                       Select Candidate Restoration Techniques
                       Implement Selected Restoration Techniques
                        Monitor for Success
                                   Are Goals Met?
           Ecological Restoration
              Was Successful
      Figure 4-1. Major components of the ecological restoration decision framework.
  4-2 A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                        .Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                         1. Inventory
                        the Watershed
                                                      1.1 Do Basic Site
                                                      Characterization
                                                     1.2 Identify Nature
                                                       of Impairment
                                                   1.3 Map Opportunities
                                                       for Restoration
                                                   Is restoration objective a
                                                     watershed priority?
                            1.4 Evaluate Feasibility
                               of Meeting Goals
                                via Restoration
                                Are restoration
                              techniques feasible?
      Ecological restoration
          is appropriate
Restoration techniques
   are not feasible?
          2. Identify Goals
           for Restoration
                                                                      Develop Other
                                                                  Management Strategies
Figure 4-2. Step 1: Determine if restoration can be used to address waterbody impairment.

                                                   A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-3

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
 STEP  1.1:  Do  BASIC SITE CHARACTERIZATION

 Basic site characterization and data collection are the first steps in inventorying a watershed.
 Characterization may include information on water quality; geochemistry; hydrology; fluvial
 geomorphology; substrate condition; flora; and fauna; and, to the greatest extent possible,
 identification of stressor sources in the watershed. In addition to traditional point source loading
 of pollutants, stressors may include nonpoint source pollutant loading and land-use effects,
 hydrological alterations, point source impacts causing physical habitat alterations, and mining,
 among others.

 In addition to physical and chemical characteristics of the watershed, land ownership and regula-
 tory jurisdictions play an important role in determining opportunities for restoration. Much of
 this information is geographically based, and amenable to storage and manipulation in a Geo-
 graphic Information System (GIS). As part of the basic site characterization for potential resto-
 ration, managers may wish to consider (1) mapping other opportunities for related ecological
 improvement projects, such as parks, refuges, Nature Conservancy sites, heritage trust projects,
 etc.; (2) mapping other public lands, such as active and abandoned military bases, controlled
 flood protection areas, etc.; and (3) mapping regulatory jurisdictions.  Such resource maps are
 valuable tools to foster public involvement, improve the coordination of restoration activities,
 and develop cooperative solutions  to regulatory conflicts.

 Also included in the basic site characterization is the acquisition of historical and current data on
 regional or landscape-scale habitat characteristics. This type of information is invaluable to
 planning and evaluating site characterization. It is also useful in later steps of the decision-
 making process for (1) setting realistic restoration goals and (2) identifying regional issues that
 must be addressed before undertaking a watershed or site-specific restoration project.

 Data collected during site characterization, including both site and landscape-scale data, also
 provide a baseline for evaluating the performance of restoration projects. These data can be used
 to establish the environmental benchmarks to be used later (Step 5) to monitor for success of the
 restoration practices.


 STEP  1.2:  IDENTIFY NATURE OF IMPAIRMENT

 In some watersheds, point and nonpoint sources of pollutant loads have direct and predictable
 relationships to  waterbody impairment. In many cases, however, the connection between load
 sources and impairment is less obvious, and physical habitat variation may play an important
 role in the nature and occurrence of impairment.  A spatial analysis of the specific nature and
 causes of impairments throughout the watershed is usually not feasible during the watershed
 inventory. Initial identification can, however, make use of available information, including
 databases and extant studies on physical habitat degradation and associated impairment of
 beneficial uses,  such as §303(d) lists, §305(b) Reports, §319 Assessment Reports, Use Attain-
 ability Analyses, and other sources. Many studies provide detailed summaries of habitat suitabil-
 ity measures,  water quality parameters related to habitat degradation, and associated excursions
 of water quality standards.

 Identified impairments must be addressed within the appropriate regulatory context. In some
 cases, a narrative criterion or designated use component of the water quality standard may
 explicitly refer to a habitat use, such as the necessity of maintaining spawning habitat.  In other
 cases, the water quality standard in question may not refer explicitly to a habitat goal or function,
4-4 A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
but rather to some numeric criterion. In these cases, ecological restoration techniques still have
the potential to bring a water resource into compliance with the water quality criterion or stan-
dard.  For example, a stream may not meet the criterion for un-ionized ammonia. Although in
this case the water quality standard does not refer explicitly to a habitat use, restoration of
riparian vegetation can lower stream temperature, which can reduce the instream concentration
of un-ionized ammonia.  Restoration may thus address numeric or narrative criteria. These two
branches of the guide are separated at the decision point following Step 1 .2.

Combining information on watershed physical characteristics, water quality, habitat, land owner-
ship, and regulatory jurisdictions with the preliminary analysis of the nature of impairment
allows selection of the best strategies to develop sustainable restoration sites, increase regional
biodiversity, and, along the way, suggest the places appropriate for economic development.


STEP  1.3:  MAP  OPPORTUNITIES  FOR  RESTORATION

In mapping opportunities for restoration, it should be kept in mind that restoration approaches
can have beneficial effects beyond the direct restoration of habitat. For instance, a stream
segment might possess adequate functioning wetland habitat to support designated uses, but
restoring degraded wetlands upstream might mitigate downstream excursions of numeric water
quality criteria for metals.  A cause-and-effect linkage is often difficult to prove; at this stage,
however, only a preliminary, tentative assessment is needed for identifying the problem.  Often,
this will be based on assumptions and experience with similar sites.
STEP  1 .4:  EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF
MEETING GOALS VIA RESTORATION

Even where good opportunities exist for ecological restoration, establishing whether such
techniques are appropriate for further consideration as management options must take into
account the technical feasibility of restoration.  That is, there will be cases in which ecological
restoration opportunities are obvious, yet are not technically feasible with the current state of the
science.  When direct, instream ecological restoration does not appear feasible, however, riparian
or upland restoration options (generally based on source control in the surrounding watershed)
may improve habitat.  When restoration by either instream, riparian, or upland techniques
appears feasible, the decision process continues to Step 2, the identification of goals for restora-
tion.  Consideration of economic viability of candidate restoration techniques is addressed both
in Step 3 and in Chapter 5.
 STEP  2:  IDENTIFY GOALS FOR
 RESTORATION

 The screening analysis laid out in Step 1 is
 designed to indicate that ecological restora-
 tion should be considered as a management
 option whenever it has the potential to
 mitigate water resource impairment. Subse-
 quent steps in the decision-making guide
 attempt to refine this analysis and provide a clear determination of which ecological restoration
 options, if any, should be pursued.  Clarifying exactly what goals are appropriate for ecological
 restoration at a given site is critical to examining the worth of specific restoration techniques and
rwDe^itp'specific reparation jaafrantfptdidate ^


' *Begirtnir5g stakeholder in«olverrt|nt at this sjfage is
                                                A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-5

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
 is the emphasis of Step 2. A detailed flow chart for Step 2 containing six substeps is shown in
 Figure 4-3. As indicated on the right-hand side of the flow chart, public participation is an
 important element in identifying goals for any restoration project. Public participation not only
 improves the validity of restoration goals, but can be instrumental in finding necessary funding.


 STEP 2.1:  IDENTIFY SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY
 STANDARDS (I.E., CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL
 COMPONENTS) POTENTIALLY ADDRESSED BY RESTORATION

 Problem identification and analysis in Step 1 focuses on the linkage between waterbody impair-
 ment and options for ecological restoration.  As impairment is defined in terms of non-attainment
 of water quality standards, planning for restoration should be firmly based on specific water
 quality standards to be addressed; including criteria and designated uses. As in Step 1, standards
 may involve a specific reference to habitat use or other numeric or narrative criteria that are
 potentially addressed through ecological restoration.


 STEP 2.2:  BEGIN  STAKEHOLDER
 INVOLVEMENT AND DEVELOP CONSENSUS OBJECTIVES

 Participating programs, agencies, and stakeholders will develop consensus goals and objectives
 for the ecological restoration project, consistent with the Watershed Protection Approach and
 TMDL process.  Figure 4-4, adapted from the Anacostia Restoration Team (1991), illustrates a
 matrix of watershed restoration goals and project objectives identified by participants. Goals and
 objectives should be directly related  to meeting water quality standards in question. The matrix
 also shows which participants will contribute to individual project objectives. A key to stake-
 holder acronyms use in Figure 4-4 is included on page 4-10 following the table.

 Following Step 2.2, the decision sequence varies depending on whether the waterbody impair-
 ment is defined directly in terms of ecological or habitat conditions or in terms of other types of
 water quality standards, such as non-attainment of numeric standards for chemical concentration,
 which may be mitigated through use of ecological restoration as a management tool.


 STEP 2.3:  CONDUCT ECOREGIONAL OR LANDSCAPE-LEVEL  ANALYSIS

 An ecoregional or landscape-level analysis can be used to determine the status of particular
 resource components of the aquatic ecosystem', describe existing reference sit§s, and identify any
 large-scale landscape condition that might inhibit achieving ecological restoration goals. Items
 addressed in a regional or landscape  perspective include:

      •  Endangered species

      •  Critical resource type (e.g.,  wetland category)

      •  Reference conditions

      •  Large-scale problems

 When using restoration to meet a numeric water quality criterion, this step could provide valu-
 able information, but may not be necessary.         ',
                                              i '
 4-6  A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                   . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
    2. Identify Goals
    for Restoration
                   2.1 Identify Specific WQ Standards
                (chemical, physical, biological components)
                   Potentially Addressed by Restoration
                    2.2  Begin Stakeholer Involvement
                    and Develop Consensus Objectives
              yes
  Is ecological/habitat
impairment specifically
addressed in the WQS?
                                                       no
2.3 Conduct Ecoregional or
 Landscape-Level Analysis
2.4 Determined Ecological
   Functions and Values
      to Be Restored
                  2.5 Identify Ecological Restoration
                        Techniques Which May
                        Aid in Attaining WQS
                       2.6 Select Restoration Goals
                3. Select Candidate Restoration Techniques
                 Figure 4-3. Step 2: Identify goals for restoration.
                                              A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-7

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality—
300
SdN
vasn
Vd3
audoi
900
3SSM
MdQ-OQ
vaoa-oa
UNO
3QW
9d-OddONlrtl
H3Q-9d
OW-OddONW
d3Q-OW
8
v»
a>
!5*
o
f*
•a
o
CJD
O)

c
09
E
T3
O)

CA
Js
^J
gure4-4. Matrix of wa
d stakeholders"
•f" tS
ta ox
















i
,g
0
Ł•
(D
3
ta
CD
O
CD

na
•a
ra
s >•
•a 3
S. g


nal 1-Stormwater: Dramatically ret
ater quality conditions by the turn of t
u S

S

S

s
s
s
s



•



H I
= 2
S S
S 3
da '3
* =
f"
f combined SB
ystem and the
0 V*
g m
I 3
o f
5 .1
s i
-o °
Ł to
>• -S
Sewage Overflow Controls: Sharp
Anacostia from the District of Colum
sewer network in the tributaries


S

s
s
s

s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
-a

E 1
1 »
M— ~n
= g.
=3 ,ti
ra <%
Ł 2
II
s-I
S 5
15
E o
S =
^» 'ji-
s =
m .2
-1 t
^ „

•§; ~
Urban Stormwater Retrofits: Shar
development in the watershed throug
filter systems




s

s




s
s
s
s
s
1
:5 ^
— Łr
~ ~
2 g.


s =
ra E
1 "
% s,
s •=
z 5
,= 0
S" ™
s =

= J= M
•— nj *-
S H g
s *•* §•
ol "S "S
i! "§ S
tVrAs/7 BMPs for New Developmen
new development in the upland water
sediment control regulations at new i

S
s


s
s

s




s

s
E=
s
"CD
.bi
01
Ł
o
B
O}
|
w >-
^ §
^ ts
03 M

jS •*-•
-2 ^
' OJ

S I s
M & -5
•= I g

= s ^

If g
1 lj I
S 2 f
1 -f |
It 1

€ I ~

2- s. ™
s= s-
" 1 S.7?
2 *•* '"" o
•- S c5 °
K '-S ,S O3
Ł .Ł g "S
tV/ifau; 5f/-ea/n Restoration: Comprc
restoration techniques to improve the
stabilization methods include bioengin
check dams, boulder placement, and c


S
S

s
s


s
s
s
s
s
s
s

.Ł
" "°

ra ra
to Ł
li
I i
r= *t~
ra S
1 s
1 «
CO 1=0
."= .^

CO 03
"J5 o3
ro ^
"= n.
S 0
g w

•= 'to1
Urban Stream Protection: Apply la
control practices at new development
urbanization



















co
H
1=
ra
CJ

nous fish to h
5
•n

CO
CD
GO
CD
CO

g
ro
ex
Ql
I
I
cc
CD
i
s.
JS
i^
U
S


S
s




s

s

s


CD
*(D
ra
CD
*-
E=
(D
X
CD
:ish barriers t

j& *^
o m
E 'is
cu *"*

S 3


Removal of Fish Barriers: Strategic
spawning range for both anadromous

S



S




s

s

s

J=
1
CO
tŁ
CJ
t=
s
s
.2
habitat in the




= H
.3" 5
CD fc
ex >
CD S.
Improve Habitat Quality: Improve t
the installation of instream habitat im

                                                                                              •s
                                                                                               §
                                                                                              ON

                                                                                              O\
                                                                                              ff
                                                                                              I'


                                                                                              I
4-8  A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
. Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
303
SdN
vasn
Vd3
aad3i
903
3SSM
Mdd-3Q
VH3Q-30
UNO
3QI/\1
9d-3dd3NI/\l
H3Q-9d
3IAI-3dd3NV\l
d3Q-3l/\l



















gure 4-4. Continued
E
















O3
•5

S

tr
"s-
ca

9-

"g
S
ca
3

^f=

capacity o
5
° 11
•c ca
S a
«= 3
oaM -Wetlands: Increase the natur
:reage and quality of tidal and non-tidi
ta  CD
O3 U
Urban Wetland Creation: Creates
partially replace the natural filtering







w









0
•=

< U
01
en


CJ
CD

«j
E


^

s
ra
03
1 1
II
oal 5-Forests: Expand forest cover
rest along the margins of its streams


S



S


-
s

s
s
s
s

1


CO
•Ł
E


S Ł=
-n o

g . g
,t± e
3 c3
^ ^5
ta S

s •=
m Ł
1 &
S S
Is s
= 2
•s s
Forest Protection: Reduce the loss
activities by local implementation of

S
s
s
s
s
s

s

s
s
s
s
s
s
$
0
s
s

.*
ta.
•ca
ca


-s

s
s
15
0


ge of exist
t the basin
11
•S g
= Ł
Watershed Reforestation: Take f
to extensively reforest suitable sites

S
s
s
s
s
s

s

s
s
s
s
s
s
X to
Jl
t! &
g =

CO «-•
w °

•dj k"



E= ^=
to Ł
s t:

ra 'fc
i S
:= s
= 0
S =
1 5
11
s I
Riparian Reforestation: Reforest
three years as a first step in creatin
headwater streams

















ca
CD



CO
s
m

~

§"
JB
CD
*-*
S
CD
e
!,!
~:1
0 «
i|
S ro
10 0
0 *-
oal G-Stewardship: Make the publi
ilunteer participation in watershed res
ta >
S


S
S
S

S


S

s



III
•« i s.

_cr co ^
.1! cj* -S
ill
-2 CD '"

^. ffl Ł

_t-- ej
+J S3 "
lit
10 S JŁ
"* tl *~*
§0] ^
CD
0
3 " ^
™ s J
i -S ^
-tl 5
.S .1 i
-11
S3 " S
r
Watershed Outreach andEducath
River and restoration efforts; ask fo
children, about the ecology of the riv


S


N,
S

S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s

!.="-§
>.." s
= u rf
CD CO 42
5 o. c=
ts .. H
C CA 03
g >* Q)
E 3 c

i: ° 2

•s -1 S,
i » '1.


CD CU >. CJ

— .2-22
s " Ł a-
1 C °>~
& S..2 I
1 e -S |
•S 12 S 1
. en cz: — to.
111-5
Restoration Stewardship: Encour
grass-roots network of watershed r
good citizenship, joining environn
participating in small-scale habit

          A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-9

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality—
                        Key to Stakeholders Listed in Figure 4-4
         COE            Corps of Engineers (Baltimore District)   [

         COG            Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

         DC-DCRA         District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

         DC-DPW         District of Columbia Department of Public Works

         DNR            Maryland Department of Natural Resources

         EPA            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

         ICPRB           Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

         MC-DEP         Montgomery County Department of Environmental Programs

         MDE            Maryland Department of the Environment

         MNCPPC-MC      Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission - Montgomery County

         MNCPPC-PG      Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission • Prince George's County

         NPS            National Park Service

         PG-DER          Prince George's County Department of Environmental Regulation

         USDA           U.S. Department of Agriculture

         WASUA          Water and Sewer Utility Administration

         WSSC           Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
STEP  2.4:  DETERMINE ECOLOGICAL
FUNCTIONS AND VA'LUES TO BE  RESTORED

When standards specifically mention ecological impairment, determining to what extent (and to
what point in time) affected ecosystem functions and values can be restored is important. For
some water resources, such as certain wild rivers impaired by recent disturbances, restoration to
a pristine, pre-disturbance condition may be realistic. For water resources in areas that are long-
settled or surrounded by development, specification of a. pre-disturbance baseline may be unclear
or irrelevant. In such cases, goals for restoration should be evaluated with respect to the water
resource's designated uses in order to determine whether functions and values to be restored are
reasonably attainable in the context of the existing surrounding landscape.  This step is a refine-
ment of the scoping analysis in Step 1.4, conducted at a more rigorous and detailed level.


STEP  2.5:  IDENTIFY ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
THAT MAY AID IN ATTAINING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Restoration techniques are often useful to attain numeric criteria for chemical concentrations,
which may indirectly relate to habitat conditions, or may be specified for protection of human
health.  Restoration techniques can also be applicable to attaining non-ecological narrative
 4-10  A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration; A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
criteria, such as suitability for recreational use. Similar to Step 2.4, this step provides a more
rigorous identification of exactly which restoration techniques (and associated ecosystem func-
tions and values) are potentially available to reduce impairment.


STEP 2.6:  SELECT RESTORATION GOALS

The previous steps yield a list of ecological functions and values, and stakeholder consensus
objectives, for consideration for restoration. To complete Step 2, these results are summarized
by selecting a set of potential ecological restoration goals for further consideration. Typical
goals for restoration include meeting applicable water quality standards (consisting of the
beneficial designated use or uses of a water resource, the numeric and narrative water quality
criteria that are necessary to protect the use or uses of a particular water resource, and an
antidegradation statement), maintaining a fishery, preserving specific habitat types, and so on.
Such goals are closely related to ecological assessment endpoints, which are developed more
formally  in Step 5 (Monitor for Results) to determine the effectiveness of selected management
options (EPA 1992a). (Table 4-1, page 4-22, summarizes information on assessment and
measurement endpoints for ecological restoration.)
                                                         „        ,  °-
                                                       ^SNw 3:, tDEsii* ~tss Sa
                                                        CANOfBATE RESTOBATIDN TECHNIOUES
STEP  3:  IDENTIFY
AND SELECT CANDIDATE
RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

A key to identifying and selecting restoration
techniques is to know how much is enough.  That
is, avoid unnecessary expenditure of resources
trying to fix a problem that the system can fix on
its own. The general decision framework for
Step 3 is shown in Figure 4—5.

While addressing water column issues is critical to the chemical, physical, and biological restora-
tion of a stream, the focus of management options should include stressors that originate outside
the stream channel and riparian zone as well. Management options considered in this step
include instream techniques and techniques applied in the surrounding watershed (such as
BMPs) that reduce loadings and allow the stream to reach a state of equilibrium with the land-
scape. State nonpoint source, point source, and wetlands programs can collaborate in the restora-
tion effort to address stressors in the basin impacting the integrity of physical habitat.


STEP  3.1:  IDENTIFY CANDIDATE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

Building on the assessment conducted in Step 1, this step provides a more comprehensive list of
feasible ecological restoration techniques. Instream, riparian, and upland techniques should be
considered, individually and in combination. One form this step could take is listing categories
of stressors or goals that must be addressed and associated restoration techniques that address the
stressor to meet the goal.  Table 3-1 provides example categories and candidate restoration
techniques. There is a growing body of literature and professional expertise in designing restora-
tion techniques to address a broad range of objectives and types of ecological settings.
                                                A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration 4-11

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
                  3. Select Candidate
                 Restoration Techniques
                                                          1

                                                    for each restoration
                                                          goal....

                                                  3.1 Identify Candidate
                                                  Restoration Techniques
                                                 3.2 Balance and Integrate
                                                 Instream and Watershed
                                                       Techniques
                                                       33 Evaluate
                                                    Costs and Benefits
                                                3.4 Select Best Combination
                                                  of Restoration Options
                                                   3.5 Assign Priorities
                                                   to Restoration Efforts
                                                       3.6 Plan for
                                                       Monitoring
                                                  4. Implement Selected
                                                  Restoration Techniques
          Figure 4-5.  Step 3: Identify and select candidate restoration techniques.
4-12  A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
STEP  3.2:  BALANCE AND  INTEGRATE
INSTREAM AND WATERSHED TECHNIQUES

Restoration efforts can involve instream and riparian restoration of habitat and upland (watershed
or source control) techniques. Achieving a balance among these components is important for
many restoration projects. Addressing both symptoms (instream) and causes (in the watershed)
is often desirable, but addressing only symptoms may be ineffective. For instance, a project
involving channel modification to improve fish habitat in a river degraded by excessive sediment
may be wasted effort if the watershed sources of sediment load are not also addressed.  Also,
once watershed sources of sediment load are addressed, instream techniques to restore habitat
may 'not be needed. Often, a series of complementary management actions at different locations
in the watershed will result in greater success.


STEP  3.3:  EVALUATE COSTS AND BENEFITS

Selecting and prioritizing restoration efforts must take cost into account. A selected restoration
technique should be cost-effective, in addition to resulting in major environmental benefits.
Thus, economic criteria are part of the technical process to determine whether restoration tech-
niques are reasonable. A growing number of ecological restoration examples in virtually every
environmental setting provide baseline data for estimating economic impacts and costs; particu-
larly detailed studies of relative cost effectiveness of BMPs and point source control technologies
have been developed for  the Chesapeake Bay basin study (Camacho 1992).  Economic viability
of nonpoint source BMPs has been demonstrated on many occasions. Restoration can be an
extension of BMPs to include riparian physical habitat problems.  Often, restoration leads to
benefits that cannot be attained by more traditional water quality controls.

When management options that do not involve direct habitat restoration (e.g., point source
controls alone) are also appropriate to  address impairment, a relative evaluation of cost should be
made. For instance, when a habitat restoration option is one among many options available to
address an excursion of a water quality standard, the most cost-effective approach may be
preferable. The economic assessment should include secondary economic impacts, such as any
employment or recreational benefits of restoration activities. Finally, the economic evaluation
will also aid in assigning priorities to restoration efforts where implementation must proceed in
stages. Chapter 5 provides additional detail on cost evaluation of restoration activities.


STEP  3.4:  SELECT BEST COMBINATION OF RESTORATION  OPTIONS

Most restoration strategies will involve a combination of specific techniques. If more than one
ecological restoration strategy is available for a restoration goal, the best restoration option or
options should be selected based on technical arid economic feasibility. The process is repeated
for additional goals.

Selecting an optimal strategy generally requires some sort of quantitative prediction of the
effectiveness for candidate restoration techniques. Evaluating technical ability and fine-tuning
restoration options may involve the application of simulation models to predict results.  Simple
physical models of the water resource will be useful for some instream ecological restoration
techniques.  For instance, when evaluating the use of hydraulic drop structures to address DO
problems, it may be necessary only to  estimate the re-aeration associated with proposed struc-
tures for incorporation into a simple DO model.  Similarly, relatively simple models of nonpoint
                                              A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-13

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
loading can estimate the response to upland (watershed/source control) restoration techniques.
On the other hand, quantitative prediction of the ability to attain narrative criteria and designated
uses that reflect general ecological health of the water resource often present more challenging
problems for analysis.

Simulation models of ecosystem responses to changes in physical and chemical conditions are
research tools, which are difficult to implement and produce results of limited reliability (Fausch
et al. 1988; Marcus et al. 1990). For this reason, it is generally necessary to work in terms of
surrogate or indicator variables or combine a simulation and empirical approach to assess which
restoration options are best. In a case where a designated use of salmonid habitat is impaired by
the reduction of spawning substrate caused by fine sediment loads, building a model of salmonid
population dynamics that incorporates sediment loading as a forcing variable is unlikely to be
practical.  A more sensible and cost-effective approach to the evaluation is the use of an empiri-
cal relationship between substrate embeddedness (which is governed by the loading of fines) and
spawning success. This approach can be combined with simulations of sediment loading and
transport, perhaps incorporating the potential effect of an instream restoration technique such as
enhancing wetlands for sediment trapping and upland technique of watershed erosion control.

A phased approach to TMDL development that includes a schedule for implementation of
controls and a monitoring plan that provides useful information for refining TMDLs is often
appropriate when addressing nontraditional problems such as nonpoint sources or degraded
habitat. The exact effects on water quality of many ecological restoration techniques are difficult
to predict a priori.  The phased approach provides for continuing efforts based on the success of
previous efforts.


STEP  3.5: ASSIGN PRIORITIES TO RESTORATION EFFORTS

Restoration efforts can often address multiple ecological endpoints. Given limitations of funding
and human resources, assigning priorities to restoration efforts is important so that efforts
providing the greatest return, or addressing the most time-sensitive impairments, can be imple-
mented first                    ,
                •                                  i
STEP  3.6:  PLAN FOR MONITORING

In any restoration effort, monitoring is needed to evaluate progress in achieving goals. Planning
for this monitoring must begin before the project is implemented and  the waterbodies' character-
istics are modified.  Further details on monitoring are provided in Step 5.
 STEP  4:  IMPLEMENT SELECTED
 RESTORATION  TECHNIQUES
 Implementation of selected restoration
 techniques (Figure 4-6) may present many
 challenges, including the following:

      •  Collaboration Among Organizations:
        Restoration projects may require
        information and resource contributions from several agencies that are often unaccus-
        tomed to working together.  This can be remedied through early recruitment of stake-
 4-14 A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                               . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
4. Implement Selected
Restoration Techniques
                              4.1  Identify Incentives and
                                 Mandates for Action
                              4.2 Continue Stakeholder
                                     Involvement
        Implement via
     enforceable controls
                           Does restoration technique require
                          voluntary stakeholder participation?
                       yes  /     Is restoration feasible     \ no
                              with voluntary participation?
     4.3 Establish Schedule
        and Implement
Re-evaluate
 Approach
     5. Monitor for Success
                                                        2. Identify Goals
                                                         for Restoration
              1
    T
        Figure 4-6. Step 4: Implement selected restoration techniques.
                                       A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-15

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
       holders and the establishment of meaningful partnerships in the early phases of the
       project  Several states that are developing Watershed Protection Approaches are estab-
       lishing formal relationships with other resource agencies to facilitate collaboration on
       projects.

     •  Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches: Flexibility is needed in the development of
       management strategies. In many cases, management strategies will combine enforceable
       point source controls with voluntary controls for nonpoint source dischargers. Managers
       will have to assess carefully the balance between voluntary and enforceable management
       options designed to meet water quality objectives.  Methods for ensuring compliance, a
       key issue for both options,  will vary from situation to situation.

     •  Cost Effectiveness: Cost incentives encourage the application of restoration techniques.
       In spite of indirect benefits associated with most restoration projects, the cost of restora-'
       tion will need to be competitive with traditional control strategies. Accurate cost com-  ,,
       parisons and justifications  contribute greatly to effective implementation of restoration
       strategies.

     •  Local Planning:  Many restoration projects will require consideration of BMPs and land-
       use restrictions, and water  quality agencies will be required to collaborate with local
       land-use planning authorities. Involvement in local planning affairs will be a resource-
       intensive component that will require great sensitivity and is best accomplished through
       early and effective stakeholder participation.


STEP  4.1:  IDENTIFY INCENTIVES AND MANDATES FOR ACTION
                                                   i
Ecological Restoration requires cooperation among prognims and agencies that have not tradi-
tionally worked together.  Identifying incentives and mandates to form the basis of joint action
plans will focus on scheduling activities, securing the commitment of resources, and eliminating
barriers.  Identifying incentives for a discharger may yield a more cost-effective approach to
reducing the stressor.  For a land owner (public or private), the incentive may involve, for
example, sharing costs of the restoration project.  The framework for both regulatory and volun-
tary control programs  must be clearly delineated for all participants. In addition to supporting
statutes and programs  that are derived from the CWA, there are additional federal, state, and
local mandates and agencies that can contribute to restoration efforts. For instance, timber
permits could provide an important regulatory component of a restoration plan to reduce sedi-
ment loads. The Montana Streams Preservation and Protection Act is an excellent example of a
state mandate that can be used to bolster ecological restoration efforts.


STEP  4.2:  CONTINUE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Stakeholder involvement and buy-in is crucial to the success of most restoration efforts. Stake-
holder involvement should begin at least as early as Step 2.2 in the decision process, and should
continue throughout.  The matrix illustrated in Figure 4-4 can be used as a planning tool for
identifying roles and responsibilities of participants.  A project plan that describes the contribu-
tion expected from each stakeholder can reinforce collaboration and cooperation. Ecological
restoration projects have been excellent examples of coordination among agencies lending their
own unique expertise. Many restoration projects are driven by local initiative with resource
agencies playing a support role; state agencies should therefore look for opportunities for con-
 4-16 A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                   . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                     CASE  STUEY SUMMARY
  ANACOSTIA
BSTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                                       8e M |be Anacostia cieariap

                                                                 "•       '
Restoration Technique/Functional Attribute
Control of CSOs and urban storm water
Land-use controls *
Stream channel stabilization
Removal of key fish barriers
Creation and protection
Riparian and upland
Public outreach program
Parameter of Concern"
Pollutant
Loading
^r
^y
O
O
*
si/
+
Sediment
Loading
sj/
4,
^
o
\M
^w
4>
DO
Levels
• +
+
+
o
^N
^N
^S
Fish
Populations
^K
^K
^
^K
^N
^N
^
  ^ sieans 8«4-8» restorAs technique'fuc'feasss water flual^ parameter* >k fl}eani;tM,16s,reBtoaKa.,te<^jiiue dteereases -,---
  hMfrA* ML+i^jI*J^Wt.»AA*w. H*^l», ^ MW^M^bJ.^b.M*k J.tt^. ^\^^«"'Ut^ ^^u^^lti^l^^ .^^ Jt^L^L^ t j. ^.. t^iiyi ^- J . - .\\?~. H^'"*..' 	*-i?^XfJ^f ' ... _ ? .. . .» ..-1.^.^  ^
                                               !aS@
 Highlight eta Stakeholder Involvement:- T0bg 
-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
tributing to ongoing projects to achieve their own water quality objectives.  The state is in a good
position to encourage the collaboration among regulatoiy and voluntary programs and to inte-
grate federal and local efforts. Many restoration projects have also been made the centerpiece of
community revitalization programs, and state water quality agencies could play a leading stew-
ardship role in recruiting and promoting local understanding and involvement in the process.

Most restoration projects will involve both regulatory and voluntary control programs. Regula-
tory controls are enforceable (e.g., NPDES permits), but voluntary controls require stakeholder
participation. Success in obtaining sufficient stakeholder participation cannot be assumed a
priori.  In some cases, a restoration technique may  not be feasible due to insufficient stakeholder
buy-in.

The state can play a key role in promoting restoration projects and ensuring that participants
commit the necessary resources to achieve restoration goals and objectives by clearly communi-
cating the need and rationale for the project and by using grant resources, regulatory require-
ments, permit fees, and information management resources skillfully.


STEP  4.3:  ESTABLISH  SCHEDULE AND IMPLEMENT

A schedule should establish clear milestones to be completed in a realistic time frame. The
schedule should be keyed to project objectives and endpoints. A growing number of restoration
projects currently use a broad range of techniques from which to derive an estimate of project
duration and time required for the project to yield results.

The project team should give careful consideration to an implementation schedule and associated
recovery milestones. Project milestones and measures of success can be grouped into three
general categories: near-term, mid-term, and long-term, in a phased project implementation
schedule. The following is an example of such a schedule:

     •  Near-Term Recovery—Improve Physical Habitat Quality:  Stream habitat quality some-
        times can be improved quickly through the use of physical habitat restoration techniques,
        such as the placement of log drop structures, channel deepening and restoration, place-
        ment of boulders in the stream bed, and placement of boulders, logs, and/or brush along
        stream banks to restore bank stability, etc.  BMPs, such as grazing enclosures and grass
        buffer strips placed along riparian areas and areas with high erosion potential, will
        enhance infiltration of surface runoff and reduce inputs of sediments, nutrients, and other
        chemicals to the stream. Restoration of riparian areas with woody vegetation is a longer-
        term goal. All of these measure can lead to significant, short-term improvements in
        habitat and water quality.

     •  Mid-Term Recovery—Restore Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community.  The establish-
        ment of a diverse, productive benthic macroinvertebrate community indicates the resto-
        ration of a major component of a healthy functioning stream ecosystem. It is a mid-term
        measure of success that can be accomplished within a few years. The longer time
        required for establishment of a diverse, productive macroinvertebrate community,
        compared to the short-term restoration of physical habitat, is primarily a function of the
        time required to establish the more substantial, vegetative components of the restoration
        management plan, such as woody vegetation in riparian areas and buffer zones, and
        wetlands. These components, along with those established in the short-term, can greatly
  4-18 A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
enhance water quality. If these short-term and mid-term milestones have been attained,
then the ecosystem should be providing 'quality food resources, should be efficiently and
effectively processing potentially toxic chemicals, nutrients, and sediments, and should
be preventing temperature and pH extremes.

Long-Term Recovery—Restore Fish Community: The restoration of a diverse, produc-
tive native fish community is, in most cases, a long-term measure of success.  Because of
their longer life cycles, fish populations require a longer time for recovery from adverse
environmental effects than benthic macroinvertebrates, algae and macrophytes; therefore,
for restoration of a fish community, the types of short-term and mid-term habitat restora-
tion practices discussed above must have been accomplished on a watershed scale that
will prevent or at least significantly reduce even fairly infrequent episodes of stress that
may adversely affect the fish community, especially the more sensitive and vulnerable
species. For example, an episode of high concentrations of sediment or a toxic chemical
occurring just once a year or even once every several years may prevent the successful
reproduction and recruitment of sensitive fish species.
                                         *-Betenrtioewhether pals1 'of restoratrwuiflf ';
                                                 »>•*'"  --«            '
                                          .effort -
STEP  5:  MONITOR FOR SUCCESS

Determining whether the goals of a restoration
project are being achieved can only be accom-
plished by a well-designed monitoring program
that evaluates, with an acceptable degree of
certainty, whether habitat restoration has caused
a significant improvement in water resource
quality and the biological community of the
water resource. Although the potential benefits
of restoration are many, some are not quantifiable, and the efficacy of an ecological restoration
technique in achieving water quality standards at a given site is difficult to predict a priori.
Further, many restoration projects will depend in part on voluntary (nonenforceable) stakeholder
participation.  It is therefore essential to monitor for results and, if desired results are not obtain-
ed, re-evaluate and adjust the restoration effort, as needed.

As first steps, monitoring for a restoration project should specify (1) assessment endpoints for
the restoration project, (2) measurement endpoints, and (3) methods used to extrapolate from
measurement endpoints to assessment endpoints. Then, the data collection program can be
designed. Finally, data are collected and evaluated to determine the success of the project.
General suggestions for structuring this step are shown in Figure 4-7.


STEP  5.1:  IDENTIFY ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT  ENDPOINTS

Assessment endpoints are ecological values to be restored such as quantity and quality of habitat
and water quality standards (consisting of the beneficial designated use or uses of a water
resource, numeric.and narrative water quality criteria that are necessary to protect the use or uses
of a particular water resource, and an antidegradation statement). They represent the final form
of the restoration goals selected in Step 2. In many cases, these assessment endpoints are not
readily quantifiable, so measurement endpoints, which are measurable responses that are related
to the valued characteristics chosen as the assessment endpoints, should be selected (EPA
1992a).  Measurement endpoints can be used to determine whether ecological values selected as
                                         A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration  4-19

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
        S. Monitor for Success
                               yes
             5.4  Set Schedule for
            Continued Monitoring
                                     5.1 Identify Assessment and
                                       Measurement Endpoints
                                          5.2 Design Data
                                           Collection Plan
                                           5.3 Colllectand
                                            Evaluate Data
                                           Is data collection     \  no
                                          program adequate?
Are restoration goals
  being achieved?
                                                                  Re-evaluate
                                                                   Approach
i
r
2. Identify Goals
for Restoration
                       Figure 4-7. Step 5: Monitor for success.
 4-20 A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
assessment endpoints have been attained. In many cases, numeric water quality data will be
emphasized as measurable indicators of the attainment of restoration goals. Table 4-1 summa-
rizes information on assessment and measurement endpoints fonecological restoration.
Table 4-1.  Example Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Applicable to Ecological
Restoration of Streams
Stream Ecosystem
Component
Physical Habitat
Hydrology
Population
Ammonia
Ambient Toxicity
Assessment Endpoint
Increase habitat suitability for
rainbow trout by 50%
Increase minimum stream flow to 10 cfs
Establish trout population of 50 kg/ha
Eliminate exceedances of the water quality
standard for ammonia
Eliminate acute and chronic ambient toxicity
Measurement Endpoint
Habitat Suitability Index for
rainbow trout
Stream Flow
Kg trout/ha
Concentration of ammonia
96-h LCSOs and 7-day IC25s of
ambient stream water to fathead
minnows and the benthic
invertebrate, Hyallela azteca.
A clear relationship between assessment and measurement endpoints is essential. Avoid assess-
ment endpoints that are vague or cannot be quantified.  The best assessment endpoints, such as
those listed in Table 4-1, are those for which there are well developed test methods, field mea-
surements^ and predictive models.  Not all assessment endpoints meet these criteria, however.
For example, if the assessment endpoint for an ecological restoration project is elimination of
ambient toxicity to resident species, and the measurement endpoint is attainment of numeric
water quality .criteria, it is possible to attain all relevant numerical water quality criteria and still
have ambient toxicity; conversely, it is possible to have exceedances of water quality criteria for
toxic chemicals without ambient toxicity being present. As another example, if the assessment
endpoint is restoration of biological integrity, it may be difficult to have both a reference condi-
tion and an index that can serve as an unambiguous, measurement endpoint.


STEP  5.2:  DESIGN  DATA COLLECTION  PLAN

Evaluation goals and standards for data accuracy should be specified a priori in data quality
objectives (DQOs). High variability or uncertainty in results, however, often reduces the useful-
ness of field data, especially for ecological measurements. In designing data collection plans,  the
water quality manager is frequently forced to evaluate tradeoffs between an increase in uncer-
tainty and the cost associated with reducing the uncertainty in the measured variables (Reckhow
and Chapra 1983).  Major components of uncertainty that can sometimes be controlled by a well
specified survey design include variability, error, and bias:
                                                A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration 4-21

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
       •  Variability can be caused by natural fluctuations in chemical and biological indicators
         over time and space;

       •  Error may be associated with inaccurate data acquisition, measurement errors, or errors
         in data reduction; and

       •  Bias occurs when samples are not representative of the population under review and
         frequently when samples are not randomly collected.

  Sources of uncertainty should be evaluated prior to selecting a sampling design to minimize the
  effect of these factors on the decision-making process (Reckhow 1992). Good discussions of
  sampling  designs applicable to ecological restoration projects are presented in Reckhow (1992)
  and Warren-Hicks et al. (1989).


  STEP  5.3:  COLLECT AND EVALUATE DATA

  After the  data collection plan is designed, data are collected and evaluated to determine whether
  desired benefits are being achieved. Data evaluation techniques depend on the design of the
  monitoring program and hypotheses to be evaluated (Step 5.2).

  Evaluating data proceeds on two basic levels. First, evaluate whether the data collection plan is
  adequate to meet project DQOs and make necessary revisions (Step 5.2). When the data collec-
  tion plan is judged to be adequate, analysis can proceed to the next level and inquire whether
  restoration goals are being achieved. If goals have not been achieved, the entire approach may
  need to be re-evaluated (indicated in the flow chart by a branch leading back to Step 2).


  STEP  5.4:  SET SCHEDULE FOR  CONTINUED MONITORING

  If restoration appears to be proceeding successfully and is meeting specified goals and mile-
  stones, the project will often enter a phase of assessing of water quality standards attainment, for
  which a program for continued monitoring should be established. This program will typically
  differ from the initial monitoring program, which has the burden of proving that the restoration
  technique can work in a given setting. Continued monitoring is designed to ensure  that progress
  is ongoing and backsliding does not occur. The continued monitoring of a restoration site can
  often be incorporated into a state's Watershed Protection Approach.
 4-22  A Decision-Making Guide for Restoration

-------
CHAPTER  5,
                                        EVALUATING  THE COST

                                                 EFFECTIVENESS  OF

                                                        RESTORATION

    Eological restoration techniques expand the water quality manager's range of treatment
    ptions. Selecting the most cost-effective techniques is critical to the success of any restora-
tion project. The two primary economic approaches for evaluating projects are cost-benefit
analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost-benefit analysis is used to evaluate whether a
project should be undertaken, by ensuring that its benefits are commensurate with its costs.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare two or more alternatives that achieve the same
objective and can also be used to evaluate whether benefits are commensurate with costs.  This
chapter focuses on cost-effectiveness analysis, which is the most appropriate analytical technique
for projects in which project objectives have already been defined.


DEFINING COST EFFECTIVENESS:  COST MINIMIZATION AND  BENEFIT
MAXIMIZATION

Two possible approaches for evaluating the cost effectiveness of restoration approaches are cost
minimization and benefit maximization. The most cost-effective restoration technique either
(a) achieves the water resource objective at the lowest  cost (cost minimization) or (b) produces
the greatest benefits for the same cost (benefit maximization).
                       »                              •
 Cost Minimization
Cost minimization evaluates the relative cost effectiveness of alternatives based solely on cost.
This approach is appropriate for comparing point source controls  alone with various alternative
restoration techniques, if they all have the same objectives and benefits.

 Benefit Maximization
 Benefit maximization encompasses evaluations of benefits.  Because ecological restoration has
 the potential to produce many additional ecological and social benefits compared to traditional
 point source controls alone (Table 5-1), benefit maximization analysis is often preferable for
 evaluating the cost effectiveness of restoration projects.

 Current Limitations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
 Cost-effectiveness analysis has only recently been applied to ecological restoration efforts, and
 several challenges must be surmounted, especially a general lack of information. Measures  of
 stream restoration costs and benefits are not widely available, partly because the science of
 stream restoration is in its early stages. Although considerable restoration work has been done,
 much of the success  of restoration either has not yet been realized or has not been properly
 documented. Additionally, restoration objectives and benefits are often not easily quantifiable,
 and alternative projects may vary widely in both the types of techniques used and benefits they
 may provide. Moreover, because restoration techniques often may complement rather than
 replace point source controls, assessing relative cost effectiveness can be a complex process.
                                         Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration
5-1

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality,
           Table 5-1. Comparison of the Ecological Benefits of Additional Point
           Source Controls and Ecological Restoration for Improving Water Quality
              Point Source Controls
 Restoration
              •  Higher DO

              •  Lower water temperature

              •  Lower levels of toxic chemicals

              •  Lower nutrient levels

              •  Lower turbidity

              •  Increased recreational use

              •  Increased faunal and floral diversity
              **
              •«» Increased faunal and floral abundance

              •  Higher property values
•  Higher DO

•  Lower water temperature
•  Lower levels of toxic chemicals

•  Lower nutrient levels

•  Lower turbidity

•  Increased recreational use

•  Increased faunal and floral diversity

•  Increased faunal and floral abundance

•  Higtier property values

•  Increased shading

•  Increased fish habitat

•  Increased wildlife habitat

•  Improved flood management

•  Increased social acceptance
 CURRENT LIMITATIONS OF  COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

 Cost-effectiveness analysis has only recently been applied to ecological restoration efforts, and
 several challenges must be surmounted, especially a general lack of information.  Measures of
 stream restoration costs and benefits are not widely available, partly because the science of
 stream restoration is in its early stages. Although considerable restoration work has been done,
 much of the success of restoration either has not yet been realized or has not been properly
 documented.  Additionally, restoration objectives and benefits are often not easily quantifiable,
 and alternative projects may vary widely in both the tyjics of techniques used and benefits they
 may provide.  Moreover, because restoration techniques often may complement rather than
 replace point source controls, assessing relative cost effectiveness can be a complex process.

 Existing restoration studies provide some information that can be used to approximate costs and
 benefits, and more information will become available as restoration techniques are applied more
 widely.


WHY is RESTORATION COST EFFECTIVE?

The two primary economic reasons why restoration may be more cost effective than point source
controls are that (1) restoration often has lower marginal costs,  and (2) restoration provides a
wider range of ecological benefits. Marginal costs refer to the incremental costs of removing an
additional unit (e.g., kilogram) of pollutant.
5-2  Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream. Quality
Because stringent controls of point source dischargers have been required for many years, the
most cost-effective point source pollution reduction often has already been achieved. The
incremental cost of removing remaining pollution with additional point source control will be
greater than the average costs of existing point source controls on a per unit basis (e.g., per
kilogram of BOD removed).  For example, 80 percent of BOD may have been removed by
secondary treatment at an average of $260 per metric ton removed. Removing an additional
10 percent by combining secondary treatment and nutrient removal may cost $560 per metric ton
removed, or more than twice the cost per ton of secondary treatment. Using advanced secondary
or tertiary treatment to remove an additional 5-8 percent, for a total reduction of 95-98 percent,
may cost approximately $2,600 per metric ton removed, or ten times the cost per ton of second-
ary treatment (EPA 1978). By comparison, using ecological restoration techniques, such as
wetlands, to remove BOD, will likely be far more economical per unit of pollutant removed.
This comparison indicates that restoration has the potential to achieve water quality improve-
ments for some parameters equivalent to new point source controls at a lower cost.  Finally,
because ecological restoration has not been extensively used to manage stream quality, many
cost-effective restoration opportunities still  exist.

Additionally, restoration generally achieves a broader range of benefits with additional value
compared to additional point source controls (Table 5-1).  Because the range of benefits is so
broad, assessing the benefits of restoration will often rely on best professional judgment.


EVALUATING COST EFFECTIVENESS

Because procedures for cost minimization and benefit maximization analyses differ, the type of
evaluation to be used must be selected early in the cost effectiveness assessment process (Fig-
ure 5-1).  Benefit maximization includes a benefit estimate component that the cost minimization
approach does not. However, the first step for each is identical. Estimating benefits for Step 2 of
the benefit maximization approach can be complex and contains significant uncertainties.

Cost Categories:   Costs are divided into two primary categories, capital costs and operating
costs. Capital costs are all costs incurred to get a project underway, including planning, purchas-
ing, land acquisition, construction, and financing.  Operating costs are all costs incurred to
continue operation of an ongoing project, including maintenance, monitoring, and equipment
repair and replacement.

Cost Distribution:   All potentially affected institutions should be identified to determine how
costs might be apportioned fairly. The availability of financing is clearly a matter of practical
concern for most projects, particularly projects with joint funding or cost-sharing arrangements.
Adequate funds must be obtained from all potential sources to finance restoration projects, and
public funding sources are frequently so constrained that only limited projects can be funded.
Project managers should understand these limitations when planning how to obtain sufficient
financing.

Timing:   Different alternatives may incur costs and generate benefits in different years. These
differences can be  accounted for using a standard technique called net present value analysis,
which converts future costs and benefits into present ones based on society's preference for the
timing of cash flows. The key parameter in net present value analysis is the discount rate, a
numeric expression of the preference for benefits in the present over benefits in the future.
Selecting an appropriate discount rate is an important consideration, because the selected dis-


                                            Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration 5-3

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                         Select Framework
                          for Cost Analysis
    Cost Minimization
               Benefit Maximization
      Estimate Costs   *
    Estimate Costs
      Consider Cost
  Categories, Distribution,
       and Timing
   Estimate Benefits
     Consider Cost
Categories, Distribution,
      and Timing
Specify Type of Benefit:
Priortized, Quantifiable,
     or Monetary
                                                                    Consider Timing, Scale,
                                                                     and Value of Benefits
                                                        Integrate Costs
                                                         and Benefits
                                Select Most Cost-
                               Effective Option(s)
                Figure 5-1. Cost effectiveness decision-making process.
count rate can dramatically affect the analysis. Individuals generally prefer to have benefits of
value sooner rather than later and are less concerned about future costs than immediate costs.
The discount rate used in project analysis attempts to quantify these preferences.  Higher dis-
count rates favor projects with more immediate benefits or costs incurred further into the future
by effectively reducing future values.  Lower discount rates increase the value of future benefits
or costs. Federal agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congressional
 5-4  Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration

-------
                                       .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Budget Office (CBO), and General Accounting Office (GAO) have developed policies for
selecting appropriate discount rates for evaluating government investments that are useful guides
for restoration projects (OMB 1983 and 1986; Hartman 1990; and GAO 1983). In general,
project managers use discount rates to reflect a project's cost of capital, or the interest rate on
loans used to fund the project.

Estimating Benefits
Determining the benefits of each project to be evaluated is critical to comparing costs and
benefits.

Types of Benefits:  Benefits fall into three general categories:

            1.  Prioritized benefits are ranked by preference or priority, such as best, next best,
               and worst. In many  cases, available information may be limited to qualitative
               descriptions  of benefits and some indication of their magnitude; such informa-
               tion may be  sufficient, however, to rank the benefits of the alternatives. Estab-
               lishing priorities using this method requires only that results of comparing costs
               and benefits can be ranked.

            2.  Quantifiable benefits can be counted but not priced.  If benefits are quantifiable
               on some common scale (e.g., percent removal of fine sediment as an index of
               spawning substrate improvement), a cost per unit of benefits can be devised that
               identifies the most efficient producer of benefits.  If all options being considered
               can be applied at any one scale, then the best option is the most efficient one.

            3.  Monetary benefits can be described in monetary terms. Knowing the economic
               value of ecological benefits is desirable for evaluations of alternatives.  For
               example, when restoration provides better fish habitat than point source controls,
               the monetary value of improved fish habitat (e.g., economic benefits of better
               fishing) needs to be described.  Assigning a monetary value to game or commer-
               cial species  may be  relatively easy; other benefits of improved habitat quality
               (e.g., improved aesthetics) are not as easily determined; and some (e.g., im-
               proved biodiversity) cannot be quantified monetarily. Each benefit must,
               therefore, be analyzed differently.

 Considerations in Identifying Benefits—Timing, Scale, and Value:  Key considerations in
 evaluating benefits include timing, scale, and value. The timing of benefits is an important
 consideration in both the cost minimization and benefit maximization analyses. For example, if
 a stream restoration project  and a point source treatment approach produce comparable levels of
 reduction in BOD and suspended solids at comparable costs, then whichever project accom-
 plishes the task sooner may  be preferable. However, if associated social and ecological benefits
 are taken into account, then the restoration project, while not producing the quickest result, may
 be preferable. Although restoration may require more time before goals for BOD/suspended
 solids are realized, restoration may also bring long-term benefits (e.g., improved habitat or
 increased aquatic populations) that would not be realized through the point source treatment
 approach.  Finally, restoration's benefits (improvements in habitat) may continue to increase over
 time relative to the benefits of point source controls (Figure 5-2). The restoration line extends
 below the point source control line because restoration can address conditions that have under-
 mined the integrity of a stream that point source controls cannot. For example, discharging
                                              Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration
5-5

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
 uncontaminated water into a channel with severely degraded physical habitat does not address
 the physical and biological integrity of the stream. However, restoration can mitigate and correct
 the degraded habitat allowing the stream to recover lost biological integrity.
         I
         pa.
         M-l
         O

         I
                            Restoration
                           Implemented
                                                    Restoration  ^.--
     Point Source
    Controls Alone
           0
10
                                                                  15
                                     Time
                       Figure 5-2.  Benefits over time.

 The scale of benefits and costs is an important consideration. Restoration projects may some-
 times be small components of larger watershed restoration programs. Results of a project may be
 realized quickly only at the local level with relatively small results at the watershed level.
 Summing all potential benefits and costs across all projects within a watershed over a number of
 years provides a cumulative perspective through which the cost effectiveness of ecological"
 restoration can be more realistically determined.

 Value is also an important consideration in the identification of benefits.  There are several ways
 to value the environment based on human use and appreciation. Commercial fish values can be
 calculated, recreational or sportfishing values can be estimated by evaluating the costs of travel
 and expenditures, some aesthetic and improved flood control values can be estimated through
 changes in local land or housing markets, and social values (such as wildlife, aesthetics, and
 biodiversity) can be estimated by surveying people to determine their willingness to pay for the
 achievement or maintenance of these values.

 Integrating Costs and Benefits
 If all benefits can be quantified monetarily, total costs can be compared to benefits in two ways.
 The first comparison is expressed as a cost-to-benefits ratio, from which the alternative with the
 lowest cost-to-benefits ratio is selected. The  second comparison is expressed in terms of net
 value (i.e., subtracting costs from benefits), from which the alternative  with the highest net value
 is selected. Neither approach is the most appropriate in aill cases. In many cases, considering as
 many measures as practicable—cost per unit, cost-to-benefits ratios, and net present value—is
 advisable. A clear understanding of objectives is essential for the analysis. Moreover, cost
 effectiveness is relative and may change under different circumstances. For example,
5-6 Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
     • A specific combination of restoration practices in one location may produce great
       benefits at a low cost, whereas others may produce few benefits at a large cost (Schueler
       1992);

     • Some water quality problems (e.g., loss of habitat) are not amenable to point source
       treatment at any cost; and

     • Some water quality problems cannot be reduced through any reasonable degree of
       restoration.

In summary, evaluating the cost effectiveness of restoration techniques requires considerable
preparation, including the following:

     • Identifying water quality objectives;

     • Understanding how well each alternative achieves objectives and creates benefits;

     • Understanding costs of alternatives for achieving objectives;

     • Estimating prioritized, quantifiable, or monetary benefits obtained from each alternative;

     • Estimating the value of the range of benefits created by each alternative;

     • Understanding the appropriate scale of the analysis; and

     • Selecting the method for comparing costs and benefits of alternatives.

Also, information on costs and benefits or outcomes should be carefully collected and organized
by project managers. Sharing information on restoration efforts with other practitioners will help
to establish a cost-effectiveness track record for restoration that will allow easier and more
accurate evaluations in the future.
                                             Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration 5-7

-------

-------
 CHAPTER  6.
                                                           CASE  STUDIES
    Rr many years, ecological restoration has been a valuable tool for fisheries biologists and
    ther resource managers. Hundreds of restoration projects have resulted in improved fisher-
ies, reduced flood potential, and increased recreational amenities. Ecological restoration has
only recently been considered for use by water quality managers, and few projects are adequately
documented. Although improving water quality is not always the primary objective for stream
and river restoration projects described in this chapter, these case studies do demonstrate the
effectiveness of using restoration techniques to achieve water quality goals.

Common elements among the case studies that resulted in improvements to stream integrity are
the reduction of stressors and the restoration of stream components (e.g., stream channel and
riparian corridor). None of the case studies demonstrate a framework entirely consistent with
recommendations provided in this document; each project does, however, offer unique lessons
that may be beneficial in planning future projects. Presentation of case studies is therefore
structured in accordance with the framework presented in this document. This consistent format
for all case studies provides a common basis for evaluating individual examples and comparing
different approaches. The following categories are used to describe the case studies:

      •  Considerations for Using Ecological Restoration:  The purpose of this section is to
        provide background information oh the physical environment and location of the river or
        stream. This section also describes the administrative structure of the project team and
        the decision-making process for the restoration project.

      •  Stressors of Concern:  This section describes the stressors acting on the river or stream
        and impacts of these stressors  on water quality parameters of concern.

      •  Project Goals: Explicit and  implicit goals of the restoration project are summarized
        and linked to specific stressors and measurements endpoints.

      •  Restoration Techniques:  A description of techniques used for restoration pro-
        vides evidence to establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the stressor and
        improvement offered by the restoration technique. That is, how does the restoration
        technique address project goals (e.g., measurement endpoints) and the water quality
        parameters of concern.

      •  Issues of Cost:  To the extent possible, this section summarizes the cost of the
        restoration project and provides comparisons with alternative solutions.

 Because the range of available information varies with each case study, presentation and content
 vary  somewhat.  Table 6-1 summarizes all seven case studies included in this chapter.
                                                                        Case Studies 6-1

-------
Ecological Restoration: 'A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
  ca
  t
  •*•»
  C/D
  \o

   ^^ CD O
— cu w _§• fe «
2* *° *° s ^n s
-H g g o- ° S

CC 0= CC J= UJ Ł


e:
ra
"5
E
eu
f i
CC t=

CD 42
€/> c
0 ~
i Ł
5 s






CO
en
CO
1
S2 " i
|


!

i


•i

•S !
to ra
•E- a
v>
•n g
a i
in cj
It!
s »- 2
ail
o ja E

~~ ^3


* JC


1H " -g

U *"* »S '
"st 1
o* .ti *^3
si 1 .i

=3 u ca.
U "*
nj '-P* =
^ ta co
ra a w
5 g" -S
g 01 cu 42

|-g I 'E
.5 ro cu a. ,






"cS"
^z.

cu

O
ra
cu
CO








CO
en
Q_
LU



o to o
ra *" "S ° ^> (/j
c "^T E "*^ m .32
II 1 1 1_I f 1

01 ^ M -o eu t= •*-• .^ S
BS ^ = *S *c 1= cn^
|gE§ ^g.g .= S
HH I ill 5!
S.?"-S -SE^"*-g«
^UI=C=0 .S-'^cEcij™
1 5 S i 1 J fl 1 1 =
ItSssiiilia*
I i -1 1 1 s .s i. 1 "f 1 1
Ł S * E S Ł S J « cS Ł e

— ce — . oc =9 i—


i g
O) *•+— '

'o "° l§
23 m °
-a ro u
2 w >•
>^ ca ™
_E3 •+-* TO
^CU 2 g.

'•B § i
S- " =
CD ra =
*s 'if «
•Ji o>
2-0-1
o eu o
J 1 .1"
•
cf
f i
^ 0
a. ^
"w ^^
to °
ra DC
eu "Ł —
cu u O
c3 ° CJ

cu cu
-a J2 "^
3 •— "S
o JQ o
CO a. CO
                                                                                                     9

                                                                                                    .-a


                                                                                                    ,1
•s
1
J
 II
H
'O
                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                    H
                                                                                                    D
                                                                                                    t

                                                                                                    .11

                                                                                                    M
                                                                                                    S
                                                                                                    w
                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                    H
                                                                                                   i
tf-2  Caye^ Studies

-------
. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality


01
u
u
k.
cu
"S
ec
Restoration Techniques
cu „
• = S"
.c cu
1^0





00
 01 =-
QJ .~ W
= is S
-^ to v>
01 ^ IV)
CC CO 
• Restoration of natural stream channel geometry arid
contour
• Planting of native species .
• Construction of regional trail system and educational
facilities
• Grazing management plan
— CC =3 =1

=
•^~ ': — .^ cu
eu .ca. _a -ca
^ "S o ™

.§ t= ~s ^
•f 1 = s
S « "43 cu
-a JS § -J
c: -^ Ł5 ^
J°. ^ Ł g
1 •! "= s '1
Ł3 KJ o 5 ^
° Ł -s s i. ~s i
u_ D_ _e: Q. a CC S
ro
ca
o
u
.52
c: ^Ł
iii *.

CO | * '
-^ "u
S E.
CJ
^ Ł-
S ^S
•a ^

g s
                                             I
                                             1

                                             1
                                             6
                                             I
                                          Studies  6-3

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality—
                                               ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED,
                                                        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION: A DEGRADED URBAN WATERSHED
    The Anacostia River watershed is located in the metropolitan Washington, DC area. It is
    heavily urbanized with over 600,000 residents. The Anacostia River Watershed currently
includes stakeholders of every socio-economic background, and every form of urban and subur-
ban land use. The watershed is included in an area that represents the economic core of the
region. These circumstances provided both significant incentives and barriers to the restoration
initiative.  For example, stream restoration can be an effective catalyst for revitalization of an
economically depressed community.                ,

Over the past three centuries, the landscape of the Anacostia watershed has been greatly  trans-
formed by successive waves of cultivation and urbanization. As a result of urban and suburban
development in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the watershed underwent extensive change.
Sediment deposition from agricultural fields was augmented by runoff from construction zones
and impervious surfaces. Urbanization also brought increased flooding, further forest clearing
and an influx of pollutants and toxins into the waters of the Anacostia.  The sewage inputs to the
tidal river added organic wastes, bacteria and debris to fhe deteriorating waters of the Anacostia.

To address the rapid deterioration of the river, an intergovernmental partnership was created by
the landmark 1987 Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement, signed by the District of
Columbia, Montgomery County, Prince  George's County, and the State of Maryland. The
Agreement formalized a cooperative partnership to restore the Anacostia River and its tributaries.
To guide the restoration process, the Agreement called for the formation of an Anacostia Water-
shed Restoration Committee to develop  a restoration plan. Membership on the committee is
broadly based and an aggressive outreach program has extended participation in the development
and implementation of the restoration plan to over 60 public and private organizations. Public
and membership input has been substantial throughout, including the development of the restora-
tion goals for the Anacostia River listed in the Restoration Tools section below. The Metropoli-
tan Washington Council of Governments is responsible for providing administrative and techni-
cal support to facilitate the restoration activities of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration  Commit-
tee. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River is charged with coordinating and imple-
 6-4  Cases Studies

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
menting public education and participation in the restoration effort, and developing a living
resource program for the watershed.

STRESSORS OF CONCERN

The Anacostia estuary has some of the poorest water quality recorded in the Chesapeake Bay
system. It has a number of serious problems which have contributed to its degraded ecology and
poor water quality:                   >

     •  it is rapidly filling with sediment and debris from upstream;

     •  dissolved oxygen levels frequently violate water-quality standards;

     • sediments are enriched with toxicants, hydrocarbons, trace metals and nutrients;

     • many miles of stream habitats have been severely degraded by urbanization, which has
       profoundly altered the flow, shape, water quality, and ecology of these streams; ,

     • anadromous fish migration has been blocked by numerous man-made fish barriers;

     0 over 98 percent of the tidal wetlands and nearly 75 percent of the freshwater wetlands
       within the watershed have been destroyed;

     • nearly 50 percent of the forest cover in the basin has been lost to urbanization, including
       much of the riparian vegetation; and

     • the approximately 600,000 residents are generally unaware that they live in the
       Anacostia watershed, and do not perceive the connection to the river and its unique
       natural features.
 PROJECT GOALS AND RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

 The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Program is a six-point action plan intended to preserve and
 restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the river. The six goals, and the means
 of attaining them, are described below. Figure 6-1 presents a matrix that includes goals and
 general project objectives for the Anacostia River restoration program, and the agencies and
 organizations that are contributing to each objective.

 Goal 1:  Dramatically reduce pollutant loads in the tidal estuary to measurably improve
          water quality conditions by the turn of the century.

 The most significant sources of pollutant loadings are combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and
 urban stormwater discharges. Therefore, to meet the goal of dramatically reducing pollutant
 loadings, a sharp reduction in the number of CSO events and stormwater pollutant loadings was
 necessary. This was accomplished by the installation of innovative swirl concentrators to treat
 CSOs, rehabilitation of aging sanitary sewer networks, construction of facilities to treat
 stormwater runoff from older developed areas, and requirements that new developments conform
 to stringent sediment and stormwater controls. Trash and floatable debris were removed from
 the estuary and its tributaries, and a widespread storm drain "Don't Dump" posting program was
 implemented to prevent the introduction of additional trash and debris.

                                                                         Case Studies  6-5

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                               Participating Programs, Agencies, and Other Stakeholders'








[GOAL 1 - Control of Pollutant Inputs
,'.•' '|
— 9=iF~~~^ • *
(fflsSSeiPlf''^ • '•

Stormwater - Sewage
Overflow Control
NPDES Permits
Point/NPS Trading Program
NPS BMPs






1





















GOAL 2 - Ecological Restoration . . -.-. ''.'••••'• '" ^^^^•'•^'•^'^-^::?y-
•&•
Channel Reconstruction
Water Flows
Redesign Diversion Structures



1










•






GOAL 3 - Habitat Preservation . / ' tf ; '&;

^ef^^^^M
Wetlands/Forests
Conservation Easement
Program
Wetlands Watershed Scale
Advanced Identification'





















GOAL 4 -Public Health/Drinking Water , ',,„ < /
_^^* J
f"O*'lS9Lrf
fconlinino t>tn:-^f-
&!
HdMuitet:
LConlinino B«dr-- fr
Comprehensive Groundwater
Protection Policy







GOAL 5 - Blodiveristy/Biological integrity
>-Aj^O^>V>V
Improve Timing for Diversions
Contiguous Habitat Corridors
Species Landscape Needs
Analysis





















GOAL 6 - Sustainable Economic Development *' ''i ' « * *"" ' '' ?
Regioiwl
P»V«>II Summtry-
^
Twne
Plan for Growth
Eliminate Excessive Soil Loss














GOAL 7 - Stewardship "• '••,•"•• •••••••••:;>:.• '..:•--.- •;-.. ". ; ":.-'':.v^:':iw-!'t-y •,-•••" ^-- w-*- 	 -r--Kr":--v.
" • * • • * *

Public Outreach and
Education








   Figure 6-1. Watershed Management Goals, Objectives, and Stakeholder Matrix
                        [Adapted from Anacostia Restoration Team (1991)]
6-6 Cases Studies

-------
                                       .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 Goal 2:  Restore and protect the ecological integrity of degraded urban Anacostia streams
         to enhance aquatic diversity and encourage a quality urban fishery.

Stream restoration techniques were applied to improve habitat in the most degraded streams.
Eight major urban stream restoration projects were implemented to significantly improve almost
10 miles of river habitat. To prevent future degradation, land use controls and stringent
stormwater and sediment practices were applied at new development sites in sensitive water-
sheds, to minimize impact on stream systems.

 Goal 3:  Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to historical limits.

Annual migration of anadromous fish species had been stopped by as many as 25 unintentional
man-made fish barriers along the lower portion of the Anacostia. Removal of key fish barriers is
important to expanding the available spawning range for anadromous fish; improvement of the
quality of the watershed's spawning habitat is also important.  In the spring of 1991 a "bucket
brigade" was begun that manually transports fish over barriers so that they can imprint the
unique chemistry of the newly opened spawning range, and return to the same spots year after
year.

 Goal 4:  Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by sharply increasing the
         acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.

Local agencies have been empowered with new authority to protect all non-tidal wetlands, with a
goal of no further net loss of wetlands within the watershed. Numerous projects have been
initiated for restoring degraded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and marshes, and for creating
hundreds of acres of new wetlands.

 Goal 5:  Expand the forest cover throughout the watershed and create a contiguous
         corridor of forest along the margins of its streams and rivers.

Riparian vegetation plays a critical role in maintaining stream water quality, preventing
streambank erosion, and providing aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Extensive reforestation efforts
have been implemented, both for upland areas and riparian zones, often with local agencies being
provided with both trees and volunteers for tree planting.  A new 1991 Maryland state law
provides local authorities with the power to require reductions in the amount of forest cover lost
during development, with specific mitigation requirements detailed in tree ordinances, buffer
criteria, and Critical Area programs. The ultimate goal in the riparian reforestation efforts is to
provide an unbroken forest corridor from the tidal river to the uppermost headwater streams.

 Goal 6:  Make the public aware of their role in the Anacostia cleanup, and increase their
         participation  in restoration activities.

Many o*f the approximately 600,000 residents of the Anacostia watershed are unaware that they
live in the watershed, and do not perceive a connection to the river.  A strong public outreach
program was therefore developed to raise public awareness about the problems of the Anacostia
River and the ongoing restoration efforts.  The program includes a quarterly newsletter, sub-
basin coordinators, and educational publications and activities. Several environmental groups
have responded to public outreach initiatives with cleanups, plantings, and stream walks. A
                                                                         Case Studies 6-7

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                                       Summary of Anacostia Restoration Blueprint
                    NOTE: This list is preliminary and is subject to change based on AWRC review.
   Stormwater Retrofits Projects: Includes the creation of new nest management practices or modifications of existing ponds or
   BMP's to improve the quality of urban runoff.
             total number of projects
             total area controlled
             projects in-progress or completed to date
             estimated capital cost1
159
approximately 35 square miles
45 (28%)
$27.6 million
   Stream Restoration Projects: Includes bioengineering and other measures that stabilize eroding stream banks and create better
   fish habitat.
             total number of projects2
             total project length
             projects in-progress or completed to date
             projected capital cost1
60
approximately 20 stream miles
8(13%)
$8.0 million
   Fish Passage Projects: Includes projects to eliminate barriers to anadromous and resident fish migration.

             total number of projects                                       31
             projects in-progress or completed to date
             projected capital cost1
6 (20%)
$1.1 million
   Riparian Reforestation: Includes the reestablishment of forest habitats within 300 feet of the Anacostia and its tributaries.
             total number of projects2
             total project length
             projects in-progress or completed to date
             projected capital cost1
68
approximately 15 stream miles
25 (37%)
$800,000
   Wetland Creation: Includes the creation of emergent wetlands in both tidal and non-tidal areas.3

             total number of projects2                                      34
              area
              projects in-progress or completed to date
              projected capital cost1
one square mile
10(30%)
$7.3 million
   Small Habitat Improvement Program (SHIP): Includes small scale restoration projects (excluding reforestation) suitable for
   implementation by citizens.  These projects include storm drain stenciling, stream cleanups, wildflower plantings, etc.
             total number of projects
             projects in planning
             projects completed
             projected  capital cost1
400
72(18%)
12
$800,000
   Other Restoration Projects: Includes CSO abatement, river dredging, sewer rehabilitation, reclamation and other activities that
   contribute to the restoration of the river.
             total number of projects
             projects in-progress or completed to date
             projected  capital cost1
17
3 (25%)
$70 million
 NOTES:    1.    Cost projections do not include costs for project planning, design, permitting, maintenance, and land acquisition (if any).
                 Projections are based on 1990 dollars.                   t
            2.    The total number of restoration projects in this category may increase as further field surveys are performed.
            3.    Does not include wetland acreage created by Stormwater retrofits projects, which is significant.
6-8   Cases Studies

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Srtiall Habitat Improvement Program was developed for implementation of small-scale restora-
tion projects by citizen volunteers, and a number of tree-planting, wetland creation, storm drain
stenciling, and stream cleanup projects have been completed.

ISSUES OF COST

The Anacostia Watershed Restoration program provided coordination for spending by a large
number of public and private organizations. Table 6-2 public and private organizations.
Table 6-2, Summary of the Anacostia Restoration Blueprint, is taken from the Draft 1992
Anacostia Restoration Team "Blueprint for the Restoration of the Anacostia Watershed" (Metro-
politan Washington Council of Governments 1992 draft). The figures in the table are estimates
for capital and operating costs to be incurred over life of the program, and they provide an
example of the scale of projects required to restore a severely degraded urban watershed.

The cost estimates are organized according to the watershed goals established for the Anacostia
River watershed. The table allows a rough comparison of the relative costs for technology and
construction intensive projects (e.g., sewage treatment, combined sewer overflow construction,
other point source controls) versus habitat restoration measures (e.g., bioengineering, best
management practices, reforestation).  While a precise comparison is not possible it is clear that
technology and construction objectives are responsible for the largest percentage of the estimated
costs.

The estimated total cost for the entire project (including $70 million dollars for river dredging,
sewer rehabilitation, reclamation, and other activities  not assigned to a distinct goal) is
$115,600,000 in 1990 dollars. Assuming a ten-year life span to  for the project, the annual cost
per household would be $68, given a population of 600,000 people, an  average household size of
3.5 people, and no outside financial assistance. A potential measure of success for the Steward-
ship Goal (Goal 6) would be the willingness  of Anacostia residents to pay this amount as an
annual contribution towards restoration of the watershed.
                                                                           Case Studies  6-9

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                                                              BEAR CREEK,  IOWA
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION:  SEDIMENT AND POLLUTANT
LOADINGS  FROM AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
     e Bear Creek watershed is located in north-central Iowa within the Des Moines Lobe, the
    depositional remnant of the late Wisconsin glaciation in Iowa. Bear Creek runs 21,6 miles
and empties into the Skunk River.  The watershed drains 17,180 acres of farmland, most of
which has been subjected to tile-drainage over the past 40 years;  approximately 85 percent of
the watershed is devoted to corn and soybean agriculture. Prairie vegetation originally domi-
nated most of the watershed, except along the lower end of the creek where forests occurred.
Roland, a town of 1,100 people, is the only community in the watershed, and no major recre-
ational areas exist (IStART 1993).

The riparian zone along the creek has been severely degraded by past land use practices. This
degradation has aggravated the effects of intensive agriculture on physical habitat and water
quality in the creek, which have adversely affected aquatic life. Restoration and better manage-
ment of the riparian zone should reduce the effects of non-point source pollution on the creek
and improve stream habitat for aquatic life, as well as benefitting wildlife.

STRESSORS OF CONCERN

Physical habitat in Bear Creek is adversely affected by high sediment loads, while water quality
has been degraded by high concentrations of suspended solids, nutrients, and agricultural chemi-
cals, particularly the herbicide atrazine.

THE GOALS FOR RESTORATION

The long-term goal of the project is to restore functioning riparian zones along the creek, which
will, in turn, improve aquatic habitat, water quality and the  aquatic community in the creek.

RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

Restoration of the riparian zone will be done by helping farmers who own land along the creek
develop functioning riparian zones. These riparian zones will intercept surface runoff and
6-10  Cases Studies

-------
                                      _ Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
subsurface flow and will remove or immobilize sediment and agricultural chemicals before they
enter the creek, and the restored riparian zone will also provide wildlife habitat, food for wildlife,
and high quality timber.

Two different levels of restoration research activity are taking place in the Bear Creek watershed.
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Agroecology Issue Team is using the watershed
to study the condition of the riparian zone at the watershed level. The team is identifying critical
riparian reaches along Bear Creek that would benefit from modified restoration and management
to reduce the impact of non-point source pollution on the creek.

The Iowa State Agroforestry Research Team is working on one farm in the watershed to develop
a model for restoring a multi-species riparian buffer strip that could be used along the critical
reaches of Bear Creek and other waterways in Iowa and the Midwest.  The model Constructed
Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip site lies  along a one kilometer reach of Bear Creek on a
working farm approximately 1.5  miles north of Roland. The Constructed Multi-species Riparian
Buffer Strip model will be used to help demonstrate the concept of the strip to farmers and to
provide design specifications for similar buffer strips on their farms.

Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip Design

Riparian buffer strips, such as Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip, can be effective
best management practices when designed to function similarly to natural riparian communities.
Certain combinations of trees, shrubs, and grasses can function effectively as nutrient and
sediment sinks for non-point source pollutants. Innovative designs use specially-selected, fast-
growing tree species.  If harvested for timber, their large root systems allow very  rapid regrowth
that provides continuity in water and nutrient uptake and physical stability of the  soil throughout
the life of the stand.

The Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip design employs a three zone system that
corresponds well to the new riparian forest buffer strip guidelines published by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. In the Natural Resources Conservation Service design, Zone 1
consists of a 4.5 meter-wide strip of undisturbed, existing or planted, forest whose major func-
tion is to maintain bank stability. Zone 2 consists of an 18 meter-wide strip of managed forest
where nutrient sequestering is the major function and, therefore, requires vigorous growth and
periodic removal of trees.  Zone 3 contains a 6 meter-wide strip of grass that intercepts surface
runoff and converts it to sheet flow or enhances infiltration so that runoff becomes shallow
groundwater flow.

The Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip consists of a 20 meter wide multi-species
filter strip.  Starting at the stream, five rows of trees, two rows of shrubs, and a 7  meter-wide
band of switchgrass are used. In the strip design, the tree and shrub species act as a combined
Natural Resources Conservation Service zone 1 and 2.  The selection of rapidly growing species,
such as willow, poplar, silver maple, and green ash, ensure rapid uptake of nutrients.  The
frequent removal of the stems of these species on 8 to 12 year rotations removes the sequestered
nutrients from the site. Because these species regenerate from stump sprouts, the root systems
stay intact and above-ground biomass is rapidly regrown.  As a result,  soil stability is maintained
and the surface remains intact because neither site preparation or planting has to be done, for a
number of rotations.  The grass strip in the Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip
functions as zone 3.
                                                                       .  Case Studies  6-11

-------
*   Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
    Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip Effectiveness

    Iowa State Agroforestry Research Team evaluated the liydrogeological, environmental, and
    economic effectiveness of various configurations of the Constructed Multi-species Riparian
    Buffer Strip along a one kilometer stretch of Bear Creek. The Iowa State Agroforestry Research
    Team is monitoring the site to test the ability of the strip system to trap sediment eroding from
    the cropped uplands, increase infiltration of water into the buffer strip soil, clean up contami-
    nated water carrying chemicals that are moving through the buffer strip, stabilize streambanks to
    reduce streambank erosion, increase biodiversity for improved wildlife habitat, and provide
    diversification of farm products.

    The researchers are also monitoring various water quality parameters. Nitrate and atrazine
    changes in the groundwater, surface water,  soil, and plants are being observed to determine the
    fate of chemicals moving through the buffer strip. Alkalinity, conductivity, hardness, and pH
    data are collected in the tile and stream water.  The researchers are also monitoring above- and
    below-ground growth of plants, physical and biological soil changes, and the presence of wildlife
    species.

    The effectiveness of the Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip appears to vary by
    aquifer system. The highest nitrate concentrations exist in the field tiles that drain cultivated
    fields. These tiles pass under the strip without plant-soil system interaction.  Researchers are
    developing a small constructed wetland that will intercept this water before it enters the stream
    channel and reduce nitrate levels by means of denitrification.  Nitrate concentrations are also
    elevated in the alluvial and shallow till groundwater systems during parts of the spring  and
    summer. No measurable nitrate has been found in the limestone bedrock groundwater system.!
    Creek water nitrate exceeds U.S. EPA limits during the late spring and summer after fertilizer
    application. At the confluence of Bear Creek and Skunk River, the Bear Creek watershed can
    deliver as much as 3.5 MT of nitrate-nitrogen per day during high discharge events in the sum-
    mer. Although the exact impact of the Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip on this
    loading has not been established, the strip does have a strong impact on the nitrate content of
    surface runoff.

    Atrazine occurs in the alluvial and shallow till groundwater systems and in the field tiles, but
    does not exceed EPA limits.  Atrazine concentrations are highest in the creek water, but only
    exceeded EPA limits during the heavy rains of June and July 1993. Metabolites of atrazine are
    found in each of the water systems just mentioned.

    Nitrate and atrazine concentrations in the soils above the water table of the Constructed Multi-
    species Riparian Buffer Strip are very low and provide a buffer zone of low chemical concentra-
    tions along the creek. It is not yet known whether the low concentrations of nitrate and atrazine
    are completely attributable to plant-soil processes working through the agrichemicals moving
    through the strip or because no chemicals have been applied directly to the strip.  A mini-
    piezometer system is being installed to clarify the cause of these low concentrations.

    Over the three years of the project, the infiltration rates in Constructed Multi-species Riparian
    Buffer Strip soils have increased as much as eight times over rates of neighboring cultivated land
    on the same soil. Visual evidence shows that the strip is effective at trapping sediment from
    upslope surface runoff, but additional research is needed to quantify this  observation.  The
    researchers concluded that willow post bioengineering techniques placed along the entire length
    of Bear Creek could reduce the sediment load by as much as 50 percent.
   6-12  Cases Studies

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
'Although many of the results of the project are preliminary, they successfully demonstrate that
streamside buffer strips are an effective best management practice that will help make the agri-
cultural landscape sustainable, and reduce non-point source inputs into surface waters, which in
turn should produce improvements in surface water quality, aquatic habitat, and aquatic commu-
nities.  The researchers concluded that similar buffer strips should be established along both sides
of any perennial or intermittent stream, as well as around lakes and ponds in and near farming
activities, to reduce the adverse effects of nonpoint source pollution on surface water quality and
aquatic life. The design using trees, shrubs, and native, non-bunch warm-season grasses is
superior to cool-season grass buffer strips at reducing non-point source pollution. The 20 meter
width is effective and also provides wildlife habitat and the potential for tangible economic
benefits from biomass and fiber products. Although fast-growing tree species provide the most
rapid control of the site, high quality hardwood species can be grown as part of the design and
provide additional product options.

To date, most riparian zone research has been conducted either in existing naturally vegetated
riparian zones or using cool-season grass buffer strips.  The Iowa State Agroforestry Research
Team project is the only one in the country that is conducting research on a constructed multi-
species buffer strip that consists of both woody plants and native grass. The preliminary results
have shown that this design is superior to the all-grass buffer strip.

 ISSUES OF COST
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
provided funding to the Iowa State Agroforestry Research Team  to lead this project.  Grants from
these two agencies of $73,166 each covered the project from 1990 to 1993.  Extensive coopera-
 tion was also received from several academic departments of Iowa State University.

 Because the Constructed Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip consists of a plant community that
 has to be established, all of the project objectives could not be completed within the allotted time
 frame of the project.  However, the initial grant allowed enough time for this establishment of the
 Strip to take place and provided leverage for obtaining additional funding from USDA's Coopera-
 tive State Research Service Special Grants - Water Quality Program and the USDA/EPA Agricul-
 ture in Concert with the Environment (ACE) program. These additional funds of $134,415 and
 $90,000 respectively allowed project research to continue through 1995.
                                                                          Case Studies  6-13

-------
  Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
                                                   BOULDER CREEK, COLORADO
  CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING
  ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION: ELEVATED
  CONCENTRATIONS OF UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
  TTjVom its headwaters in the Southern Rockies, Boulder Creek flows rapidly through narrow,
  A relatively deep channels where its clear, cool waters provide ideal habitat for aquatic commu-
  nities.  As the creek flows west toward Boulder, Colorado, it enters the western high plains.  On
  these plains, Boulder Creek assumes a shallow, meandering character and is relied on as a
  domestic and agricultural water supply, for swimming and other water-based recreation, and as
  habitat for warmwater aquatic life.
       •

  The City of Boulder's 75th Street wastewater treatment plant serves 95,000 inhabitants. On
  average, the plant discharges 17 million gallons per day into Boulder Creek. While base flow in
  the creek at the point of discharge ranges from 10 to 30 cubic feet per second over 9 months of
  the year (Rudkin and Wheeler 1989), during periods of Wgh withdrawals (i.e., the summer
  months) the creek is wastewater-dominated.  This has greatly influenced water quality.

  In 1985, the city of Boulder Department of Public Works needed to renew the wastewater
  treatment plant's discharge permit. A total maximum daily load developed to determine a
  wasteload allocation for un-ionized ammonia indicated the need to tighten the plant's ammonia
  discharge limits, because monitoring downstream from the plant indicated that un-ionized
  ammonia concentrations increased as the creek flowed downstream and, at times, exceeded the
  state's standard of 0.06 mg/L for warm-water streams.  The critical zone, in which the un-ionized
  ammonia concentration reached a maximum, occurred approximately 8.5 miles downstream from
  the plant (Rudkin and Wheeler 1989). In addition, a biological inventory of the 15.5-mile river
  segment below the wastewater treatment plant found that few of the 33 species of fish expected
  to inhabit this segment, including the greenback cutthroat trout, were present. The river segment
  was not fully supporting its aquatic life uses.

  STRESSORS OF CONCERN

  Wastewater treatment plant effluent data, collected montlily from January 1982 through March
  1985, showed no violations of the total ammonia permit limit from November through May of
, 6-14  Cases Studies

-------
                                       .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
each year and only three violations from June through October. Effluent data also showed no  ,
exceedance of pH effluent limits that would contribute to the ammonia problem.  This indicated
either that the wastewater treatment plant's permit limits were not stringent enough or that the
wastewater treatment plant was not the only problem within the watershed (EPA 1993d).

Additional monitoring and analysis indicated that potential aquatic life uses could not be
achieved, even if discharges at the wastewater treatment plant were improved, because of the
already-degraded physical condition of the creek habitat. Runoff, erosion, agricultural return
flows, channelization, destruction of the riparian zone, and mining discharge each contributed to
the problem. For example, at the time, over 70 percent of the 15.5-mile stretch below the
wastewater treatment plant was channelized. Ideally, a stream should contain about 50 percent
riffle and 50 percent pool to support aquatic life uses, but channelization in Boulder Creek
shifted this ratio to 97 percent riffle and  3 percent pool.  The long riffle zones were smooth and
shallow.  With little or no canopy, the water temperature rose to extreme levels.  The transition
from riffle to pool also often involves a small drop that increases  water turbulence. These drops
had also been largely eliminated. This combination of conditions greatly reduced the ability of
the stream to reaerate naturally.  Channelization shortened the length of Boulder Creek below the
wastewater treatment plant from 30 miles to 22 miles, changing the creek's hydrology and
increasing erosion and sediment loading (Channel 28,1990).  In addition, the shallow water
depth and lack of riparian shading encouraged a lush growth of photosynthesizing aquatic
vegetation. This vegetation, in turn, caused higher water temperatures and increased pH, condi-
tions that favor conversion of ammonia to its toxic un-ionized form.  Low alkalinity permitted
the relatively large pH fluctuations to occur.
                                 %
These stressors had to be addressed in order to lower the creek's temperature and pH signifi-
cantly, thereby reducing concentrations of un-ionized ammonia. A study to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of best management practices and restoration measures concluded that best management
practices would enhance the effects of advanced wastewater treatment (Windell and Rink 1987c).
The study also indicated that aquatic life uses could be attained if the aquatic and riparian
habitats were restored, nonpoint source pollution was controlled, and poors land use practices
were corrected. As a result, resource managers decided to restore Boulder Creek first, then
develop a total maximum daily load for un-ionized ammonia, basing the wastewater treatment
plant's wasteload allocation on a properly functioning ecosystem rather than the existing de-
graded ecosystem.

Improving instream water quality by using restorative techniques in the riparian zone in conjunc-
tion with traditional treatment methods was appealing for several reasons. The estimated cost
was far less than the cost of relying on wastewater treatment plant upgrades alone, and improv-
ing the physical condition of the stream  and its riparian zone would enhance the aesthetics of the
creek, making it more appealing and useful to property owners. Also, if part of the enhanced
area could be acquired by the city for use as a public park or greenway,  it would add a valuable
asset to the community.

THE GOALS FOR RESTORATION

The goals of the Boulder Creek Enhancement Project are alleviating of the un-ionized ammonia
problem, restoring of full use of the river reach as a warm water fishery,  and maximizing the
impact of expensive modifications at the treatment facility.
                                                                        Case Studies  6-15

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

Controlling Point Sources to Restore Chemical Integrity

The first step of the project was to improve the quality of effluent at the wastewater treatment
plant. This played an important role in restoring the chemical component of stream integrity.  In
1991, the City of Boulder upgraded and expanded its 7.5 th Street wastewater treatment plant to
meet the stricter discharge limits required in its 1986 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit. Solid and liquid waste treatment were improved to provide high-quality second-
ary effluent to the nitrification trickling filter, which was added to increase removal of ammonia
from the liquid waste stream. The improvements also reduced total suspended solids and bio-
logical oxygen demand to levels significantly below permit requirements.

Riparian Zone and In-stream Habitat Restoration

The second and third steps of the Boulder Creek Enhancement Project improved the riparian
zone along the river and restored instream habitats. These steps were completed in phases.

Phase I, which was completed in the spring of 1990, involved designing and implementing six
best management practices over a 1.3-mile reach that passed through the center of a heavily
grazed cattle ranch. These best management practices included constructing high-tensile,
wildlife-compatible fencing to exclude cattle from the riparian habitat; stabilizing streambanks
using log revetments; planting crack willow and cottonwood trees in the riparian zone; replacing
channelized berms with sculpted or terraced streambanks; excavating one-half mile of the
thalweg (i.e.,  the deepest part of the channel) on concave meander bends; and creating three
boulder aeration structures (EPA 1992).

A monitoring program was established to evaluate the combined effect of the best management
practices and the individual impact of each. Baseline data were collected prior to best manage-
ment practice construction, during construction, and after implementation. Instream monitoring
included monthly sampling for water quality, flow, and temperature, as well as fish inventories
and evaluation of canopy density, ground water levels, and physical habitat.
                            •
Fencing off the riparian zone was critical.  If cattle had not been excluded, the impact of all other
best management practices would have been minimal. Under a protective easement from the
landowner, 40 acres was fenced using stretched steel wire on hammered posts to provide a 120-
foot-wide buffer between grazing land and the stream.  Cattle crossings, designed as rigid,
hinged double gates, excluded cattle entirely and could be opened to provide a temporary corri-
dor across the creek. Sections of fencing, specifically the permanent cattle crossings, had to be
redesigned since they were subject to water-borne debris and runoff. PVC mesh suspended from
cables now allows  debris and boaters to pass under the fence while acting as a visible barrier to
cattle.

Phase II, which was completed in 1991, restored 1.1 miles of Boulder Creek. Phase II reduced
the impact of return flow from an irrigation ditch by rerouting it through existing and constructed
wetlands (EPA 1992). Although cattle grazing along the Phase II reach did not pose a serious
problem, streambank revegetation was badly needed.  Because the individual plantings used to
revegetate Phase I were only moderately successful, Phase II tested "wattles" and "brush layer-
ing." Wattles are horizontal bundles of willow cuttings buried at or near the creek bank. Brush
layering is the backfilling of willows into the streambank parallel to the water surface, with the
 6-16  Cases Studies

-------
                                       .EcologicalRestoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
growing tips projecting into the stream (Rudkin 1992). Construction of rock/willow jetties to
break up erosive currents was also tested.  This method was less expensive and time consuming
than using riprap or other traditional construction methods.

Phase III added an additional one-half mile to the project. No cattle were trampling the creek
and its banks in this section, and the channel was not as severely eroded, but the adverse effects
of surface gravel mining posed a new challenge. The plan called for biotechnical streambank
stabilization, revegetation, and creation of wetlands. A chief aspect of this phase was to reduce
channel abrasion by creating low-flow channel over approximately 0.25 miles of the project area.
In addition, the plant species and planting methods used in Phases I and II were reevaluated.

Phase IV of the demonstration project was under design in 1993. It involved a 1.7-mile reach
that would bring the total length of restored creek to 4.6 miles.  Phase IV plans included aspects
of the first three phases and incorporated the design changes made after evaluating the effective-
ness of previous methods.  Results from the first three phases supported expanded use of riparian
plantings combined with the use of rock buttresses placed to protect vegetation in the earlier
stages of their development. A unique aspect of the Phase IV plan was the use of abandoned
gravel mines to remove solids from runoff (EPA 1992). The basins would discharge to wetlands
to polish the runoff water before it enters the stream.

ISSUES OF COST

Overall project cost has included the costs of gathering data for planning and evaluating results,
construction, materials, labor, and time. Funding for these activities has come from federal,
state, city, local, and private organizations. The value of the project has also been augmented by
donations of labor, time, and materials.

Monitoring is  being conducted by a variety of agencies.  U.S. EPA Region 8 is assisting the cities
of Boulder and Longmont with instream monitoring costs. City officials authorized funding for
two long-range planning studies, a use attainability study, two water quality studies, and a
feasibility study. Two monitoring studies were funded by the University of Colorado Under-
graduate Research Opportunities Participation Program (Windell and Rink  1992). The first was
a $700 study on the interaction of riparian vegetation and water temperature.  The second study,
costing $2,500, covered follow-up monitoring of nonpoint source pollution controls after imple-
mentation. One study on the interaction of riparian vegetation, temperature, and fish population
in Boulder Creek was funded for $2,500 by the W.L. Sussman Foundation (Windell and Rink
1992).  Monitoring data are also provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Colorado Water
Quality Control Division.  The wastewater treatment plant monitors and reports effluent flows
and concentrations as part of the permitting process. A portion of the funding for modeling was
provided by U.S. EPA.

The 1991 upgrade of Boulder's 75th Street wastewater treatment plant was the largest capital
project in the city's history, costing $23 million. 76 percent of the total improvement cost ($17.5
million) was expended to remove  additional ammonia; the remainder was spent on sludge
processing and disposal. Costs of the treatment plant upgrade were covered by the City of
Boulder, with some assistance from the U.S. EPA Construction Grants program.

The total funding for Phase I of the demonstration project was $125,000. Colorado provided
60 percent of this amount under the state's nonpoint source control program; the remaining
40 percent was provided by the city of Boulder. With donated time, labor, and materials, the
                                                                         Case Studies  6-17

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
total worth of Phase I is estimated at $426,000 (Windell et al. 1991).  Phase H funding, at
$125,000, was similar to that of Phase I (Windell and Rink 1992). Phase HI of the project was
funded for $75,000 (Windell and Rink  1992), and Phase IV is estimated as having an on-the-
ground budget of $225,000. The total cost of the completed enhancement project is currently
estimated at $1.3 to $1.4 million (R.E. Williams, Assistant Director of Public Works for Utilities,
City of Boulder, personal communication, March 28,1991).
6-18  Cases Studies

-------
                                       - Ecological Restoration; A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                                                            SOUTH FORK OF THE
                                                          SALMON RIVER, IDAHO
 CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING ECOLOGICAL
 RESTORATION:  FINE SEDIMENT LOADINGS
 rphe South Fork of the Salmon River (South Fork) is located in the forested, mountainous area
  JL of central Idaho. At lower elevations, the watershed is primarily forested witii ponderosa
 pine and Douglas-fir.  Lodgepole pine, grand fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir dominate
 as elevation increases. Meadows are found along the river, especially in its upper reaches.

 The river and its tributaries flow on a granitic bedrock formation known as the Idaho Batholith,
 which is characterized by heavily dissected topography and highly erodible soils.  Elevations
 range from 3,600 to 9,179 feet. Basin slopes are steep, with many over 70 percent. The South
 Fork, between its headwaters and the Secesh River confluence, drains 370 square miles.
     f
. Average annual precipitation varies with elevation from 20 to 60 inches per year.  Summers are
 typically warm and dry, with warm-season precipitation occurring primarily during high-inten-
 sity thunderstorms.  Winters are characterized by heavy snows and cold temperatures; most of
 the annual precipitation falls as snow. Long-duration, low-intensity storms are common in fall,
 winter, and spring; and winter and spring rain-on-snow events occur occasionally above 5,000
 feet.  The annual hydrograph reflects the winter precipitation pattern with snowpack accumula-
 tion and late spring snowmelt. The hydrograph, therefore, rises to a peak in  mid to late May and
 gradually declines to base flows by early September. Base flows occur during the fall and
 winter.                     ,

 The South Fork system supports populations of resident fish.species, such as trout and char, and
 anadromous species, including salmon and steelhead. It is highly valued as a source of Chinook
 salmon and steelhead trout spawning and rearing'habitat  The river once supported Idaho's
 largest run of summer Chinook salmon, estimated at approximately 10,000 returning adults; and
 runs of returning steelhead were estimated at 3,000 adults before logging began. These popula-
 tions rely on just a few locations to spawn, however, since even under ideal conditions, spawning
 sites along the river are limited to the upper 35 miles and gradients along most of this channel
 length are too high to support required spawning conditions.
                                                                      .CaseStudies 6-19

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
During its most recent statewide water quality assessment, the Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality determined that three segments of the upper South Fork are water quality limited due to
fine sediment, which has adversely affected salmonid spawning and the river's ability to support
cold water biota. Nonpoint sources are responsible for most of this fine sediment.  Reductions of
sediment loadings from these sources should improve salmonid spawning habitat.

STRESSORS OF  CONCERN

Using a computer model and professional judgment, the Forest Service has estimated that
sources in the South Fork basin above Glory Hole deliver 18,550 tons of sediment to the river
each year (Table 6-3). Glory Hole is approximately 3 miles above the Secesh River confluence.
Over 85 percent of the sediment delivered has been attributed to natural background sources
(EPA 1992b). This is not surprising given the erodible soils that exist in the basin.

Above the Secesh River confluence, the South Fork basin is primarily within the Boise and
Payette National Forests.  Timber harvesting has been the primary land use activity. Activities in
the South Fork drainage prior to 1940 included intensive mining and grazing. Mining activities
were responsible for significant deposits of sediment and chemicals to the stream system, while
uncontrolled grazing contributed to increased sediment, loads and degradation of riparian areas.
From 1945 to 1965, intensive logging activities resulted in dense road networks and other
sources of accelerated sedimentation.

Grazing activities ceased because of the Forest Service's moratorium on ground-disturbing
activities in the basin took effect in the mid-1960s. Because they are no longer profitable,
mining activities have also ceased, but sediment from tailings piles continues to be delivered to
the river.  These loadings are considered minor compared to the amount of sediment originating
from current forestry activities.

Forestry roads appear to have been the major source of sediment from human activities. Early
roads penetrated the South Fork basin during the 19th century; the South Fork Road was pio-
neered by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the 1930s; and road building associated with
timber harvesting increased in the 1950s and early 1960s.  Then, in the early 1960s, a large area
of the canyon and adjacent slopes was burned by wildfire.  As mitigation, the Forest Service
benched (terraced) large areas of the burn, but during the winter of 1964-65 a series of rain-on-
snow events in the basin caused road fills on unstable slopes and benched areas in the Poverty
Burn to saturate and fail. This resulted in massive sedimentation of the river and inundated five
primary critical salmonid spawning areas (Glory Hole, Krassel, Poverty Flats, Upper Stolle, and
Lower Stolle Meadows) with coarse to fine sediments.
                                                 i          *
In recent years, the numbers of Chinook salmon and steelhead trout that are spawning on the
South Fork have declined. This is partially because fine sediment has covered and infiltrated the
larger bottom materials at spawning sites, which also function as areas of deposition because of
their low gradient. The sediment may trap fry that are attempting to emerge; deplete intergravel
oxygen levels, smothering eggs that have been laid; limit the aquatic invertebrate populations
used as a food source by predatory fish in rearing areas;  and fill the pools and pockets between
rocks and boulders on which young fish depend to protect them from predators and to rest from
swimming in fast currents.

In addition, some of the decline in salmonid population is due to the downstream influences of
commercial and sport fishing, and the construction of eight mainstream hydroelectric dams on


  6-20  Cases Studies

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Dams can prevent salmonid smolts from safely leaving the river
and can prevent adults from returning to spawn.

THE GOALS FOR RESTORATION

For salmonid spawning and cold water biota, no specific state numerical sediment criteria have
been established.  However, because of the problems associated with excess sediment in the
South Fork, interim water quality criteria were set for the river and its tributaries by a consensus
team composed of two hydrologists and one fisheries research scientist from the Intermountam
Research Station, one forest hydrologist and one district fisheries biologist from Boise National
Forest, one hydrologist and one district fisheries biologist from Payette National Forest, one
representative from the Environmental Protection Agency (Region X), and two from the Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality—one being from the Forest Service on a Interagency Person-
nel Agreement. The consensus team recognized that sediment input from human activities has to
be reduced if full recovery of salmonid spawning potential and cold water biota uses of the South
Fork can be expected.

The interim numeric sediment standards are as follows: the goal for cobble embeddedness, as
measured by the Burns technique (Burns 1984), was^set at a 5-year mean below 32 percent with
no individual year above 37 percent. The goal for percent depth of fines, as measured with a
McNeil core and percent of fines by weight analysis, was set at a 5-year  mean of less than
27 percent with no individual year over 29 percent.

An interim objective is to provide habitat sufficient to support fishable populations of naturally
spawning and rearing salmon and trout by  1997. This determination will be based on evaluation
offish populations, harvest of wild fish, cobble embeddedness, core sampling, photographs, and
other pertinent data. Data must indicate that habitat is sufficient to sustain naturally producing
populations of Chinook and steelhead tolerant of sustained recreational harvest. For now, the
interim objective, which does t define fully restored habitat, is interpreted as follows:

           1.  A photographic record compiled during the recovery period will be used to
               document improvements along the river.  Evidence  of improvement can be
Table 6-3. Estimated Sediment Loading in the South Fork of the Salmon River Due to
Various Sources in the Basin
Source
SFSR Road (Warm Lake Road to EF SFSR)
SFSR Road (Warm Lake Road to Cupp Cor)
Other (open roads, closed roads, logging)
Grazing
Poverty Burn Benches
Natural Sources
Sediment Delivered
(tort/yr)
500
50
2,000
0
100
12,900
Percent Total
2.7
0.3
10.8
0.0
0.5
85.7
                                                                        Case Studies 6-21

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                      by such characteristics as duning and stringing sand, and changes from
                the existing conditions toward conditions more similar to those found in Cham-
                berlain Creek, central reaches of the Secesh River, and other appropriate streams.

            2.   A 5-year mean of less than percent and no individual year greater tihan percent
                must be observed in locations where cobble embeddedness now exceeds 32 per-
                cent. Other locations must exhibit no increased sediment deposition beyond
                natural variation.

            3.   A 5-year mean of less than percent and no individual year greater than percent
                must be observed in locations where the percentage of fine sediment now
                exceeds 27 percent. Other locations must exhibit no increased sediment deposi-
                tion beyond natural variation.

 Annual project accomplishments and monitoring results are to be reported in the monitoring
 results documents prepared by the two National Forests. All sediment reduction projects will be
 completed by 1996.  The interim goals for depth fines and cobble embeddedness are to be met by
 January 200i, or acceptable improving trends in other appropriate water quality parameters
 should be observed by then.
                                         «.

 Targeting and Prioritizing: As a result of public interest in restoring the salmonid fishery, the
 State identified the South Fork as a priority for development of a total maximum daily load for
 sediment.

 Monitoring and Data:  The South Fork and its tributaries have been monitored extensively since
 1965. The South Fork Monitoring Committee, composed of soil, water, and aquatic specialists
 from the Boise and Payette National Forests and the Intermountain Research Station, collected
 data on sediment load, depth fines, and cobble embeddedness over several years. These monitor-
 ing tasks were assumed by the two forests as part of their monitoring plans after their forest plans
 were implemented (Boise National Forest 1990; Payette National Forest 1990).

 Data indicate that sediment yield peaked above 20,000 m3/yr in the late 1960s (162 percent of
 natural), with approximately 2x106 m3 being delivered to the river channel. By 1989 sediment
 yield had declined to 3,000-4,000 m3/yr.

 After its gravel bottom was completely inundated with fine sand, the river began to carry excess
 sediment downstream as bedload. Core samples and embeddedness measurements indicate that
 surface and depth fines decreased from the late 1960s until 1977, remaining constant since then
 except for a slight increase in the early 1980s. There has been some fluctuation in later years,
 but they represent neither an improving nor declining trend. Graphical analysis showed that the
 amount of fine sediment at the sampling stations decreased sharply between 1966 and 1970.
 This improvement was attributed to the moratorium on ground-disturbing activity that began at
 that time. The amount of fine sediment leveled off after the mid-1970s, indicating that it is
 necessary to reduce sediment loading below current levels if the spawning areas are to improve
 any further.

 Surface fines currently are between 10 percent and 15  percent, while depth fines are between
 20 percent and 36 percent. Cobble embeddedness data have been collected in separate locations
 and with varied techniques for a much shorter period.  These values vary from 14 percent to
 56 percent (Platts et al. 1989; Ries and Burn 1989; Boise National Forest 1990).
                                                  I              .                     '
6-22  Cases Studies

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Table 6-4. Projects that Together May Provide an Estimated 25 Percent Reduction in
Sediment Yield
Project
Forest Highway 22 Fill Stabilization
Close Miner's Peak Road
SF Road Reconstruction
Road Closures Upper SF
Basin Road Stabilization
Upper SF Road (Kline Mt Section)
Obliteration/Spot Stabilization
NF Dollar Creek Road
Obliteration/Stabilization
Curtis Creek Drainage
Spot Stabilization
Temp Closure of Buckhorn Road
Two-Bit, Six-Bit Loop Road Stabilization
Est. Yield Reduction
(ton/yr)
12
83
150
25
9

54

28

40
200
55
Scheduled
Implementation
1991
1991
1992
* 1992
1992

1992

. 1993

1994
1995
1995
Long-term stream flow data have been monitored in the South Fork drainage near the Krassel
Ranger station. Information from this site has been collected in conjunction with the U.S.
Geological Survey (gage 133-10700).

Modeling:  Sediment loading estimates for the South Fork road, presented in Table 6-3, were
calculated using analysis procedures that were developed during detailed research on erosion and
sediment delivery from roads in the Silver Creek watershed, a tributary of the Middle Fork of the
Payette River, in Boise National Forest (Payette National Forest 1990). All other sediment
loading estimates were generated using the less rigorous BOISED model. The professional
judgment of individuals having years of experience observing sedimentation processes in the
river basin was invaluable in both cases (Megahan, personal communication).

BOISED is the operational sediment yield model that is used by the Boise and Payette National
Forests to evaluate alternative land management scenarios.  It is a local adaptation of the sedi-
ment yield model developed by the Northern and Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service
for application on forested watersheds of approximately 1 to 50 square miles that are associated
with the  Idaho Batholith. To estimate cumulative average annual sediment yield using BOISED,
the South Fork watershed was broken into land types, which are units of land with similar
landform, geologic, soil, and vegetative characteristics. Dominant erosion processes, including
surface and mass erosion, were then evaluated for each land type to estimate the sediment yield.
When erosion and sediment yield data were missing, available research data were extrapolated to
areas with similar characteristics to predict the effects of alternative watershed disturbances,
including general road construction, timber harvest, and forest fire.
The model produced quantified estimates  of average annual sediment yield for undisturbed
conditions, past activities, and proposed future activities.  While it was inappropriate to use the
model as a highly reliable predictor of absolute quantities of sediment delivered to the river at a
                                                                        Case Studies  6-23

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
specific time, it was appropriate to use model results for comparison of alternative management
scenarios within the watershed.

Determining the Load Allocation Scheme:  The consensus team devised a strategy to accomplish
project goals based on information from the models, fisheries research, and the best professional
judgement of members of the team.

The first step was to establish the interim numeric sediment criteria. While sediment transport
into and out of water quality-limited segments of the South Fork is believed to be at equilibrium
(Platts, et al. 1989; Platls and Megahan 1975), this does not mean that Chinook and steelhead
spawning habitat has attained its pre-1964 spawning capabilities. Cobble embeddedness may, in
fact, be higher than pre-1964 levels, making it reasonable to expect spawning/rearing habitat
improvement only if sediment influx is reduced so that excess stream power can remove the
stored sediment. The consensus team considered a 25 percent reduction in cobble embeddedness
to be attainable within a reasonable time period through sediment yield reduction projects
associated with the South Fork road reconstruction project (Payette National Forest 1990) and
specific projects from the South Fork recovery plan (USDA 1989).  It was also considered to be
a starting point for a phased total maximum daily load based on load reduction, monitoring of
effectiveness, and feedback of results for further load reduction decisions.

The sediment reduction projects have been planned and scheduled for implementation by the
Forest Service. They are presented in Table 6-4.

Programmatic Issues:  Because there is uncertainty that the numeric goals are stringent enough
to restore salmonid spawning in the river and that the scheduled projects will reduce sediment
loads sufficiently to achieve the numeric goals, the South Fork total maximum daily load is being
developed in phases. Under this phased approach, sediment allocations are based on estimates
which use available data and information, a schedule to implement various sediment reduction
projects is developed, and additional data collection and analysis is scheduled to  determine if
load reductions lead to attainment of the narrative standard and interim numeric goals.

The lack of numeric State water quality standards was a challenge in developing  the total maxi-
mum daily load. The standards and guidelines for the South Fork drainage that were established
in the absence of specific State criteria have been specifically identified in both the Boise and
Payette National Forest Plans.

RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

Implementing Nonpoint Source Controls: When ground-disturbing activity (timber harvesting
and road building) resumes, best management practices will be required to guard against addi-
tional sedimentation. Since the South Fork is a concern in the State's antidegradation program
because of forestry activities in its watershed, a local working committee prescribes site-specific
best management practices for any forestry practice. The goal of these best management prac-
tices is to minimize additional sedimentation of the South Fork system.

Follow-up Monitoring: Monitoring is an important component of the phased total maximum
daily load. It is necessary to determine whether the sediment load reduction required in the total
maximum daily load effectively reestablishes spawning success.
  6-24  Cases Studies

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
The plan included in the South Fork total maximum daily load specifies monitoring of pollution
sources, pollutant delivery to the river, and the status of beneficial use attainment. This requires
(1) tributary sediment monitoring near the restoration and sediment reduction projects and photo-
points to assess stabilization (Megahan and Nowlin 1976; Megahan 1982); and (2) monitoring of
the status of the beneficial use (salmon and steelhead spawning habitat capability) at the five
important spawning sites.

Each watershed improvement project developed by the Forest Service has been closely linked to
coordinated research and monitoring activities. These activities are essential to document the
relative effectiveness of the individual projects and to evaluate system-wide effects on erosion,
sediment transport, and fish production.

Depth fines and cobble embeddedness data will be collected by the Boise and Payette National
Forests. The Division of Environmental Quality or its contractors will be responsible for linking
the depth fines and embeddedness data to determine whether the South Fork is supporting
beneficial uses. Rearing habitat capability will be monitored using cobble embeddedness proto-
cols (Burns 1984; Payette National Forest 1991).

If monitoring indicates that Chinook and steelhead spawning capability has increased to accept-
able limits  by 2001, the level of effort expended to achieve the 25 percent reduction will be
maintained.  If spawning capability does not increase, additional recovery projects and/or an
analysis of the level of beneficial use attainability will be required. Additional projects would be
aimed at further sediment source reduction.

RESULTS
Several sediment control measures have been undertaken, and additional sediment control
measures continue to be attempted in the South Fork basin.  The moratorium on ground-disturb-
ing activity has been the most comprehensive effort to limit sedimentation of the river. The
Payette and Boise National Forest Plans currently prohibit all but minor ground-disturbing
activities, while permitting is designed to reduce the amount of sediment in and transport to the
river.  According to the plans, ground-disturbing activities can resume if a 5-year trend of
improving sediment conditions is  established.  Such a trend would indicate that the river was
successfully scouring the fines embedded in the substrate and could safely transport a specific
amount of additional sediment through the system without adverse impacts.

A number  of rehabilitation projects, covering over 350 acres, have been completed.  Dragline
removal of sand from some pools and in-stream gravel cleaning have been attempted. Retaining
walls, mulching, and grass seeding have been used to stabilize cuts and fills on the South Fork
road.  Logging roads have been closed and reclaimed by ripping and grass seeding. Rehabilita-
tion of areas where there have been recent fires has included water-barring fire lines, grass
 seeding, and contour felling of trees. The most recent mitigation actions proposed are to pave
the South Fork road between the Warm Lake road and East Fork SFSR road, intensify cut and fill
 slope stabilization, and relocate a 4-mile segment of the road.

 ISSUES OF  COST

 Funding levels and additional management factors will affect the ability of the Forest Service to
 implement these specific projects. Table 6-5 is a list of additional sediment reduction projects.
 Estimates  of sediment reduction are not available for these projects.  If monitoring results


                                                                         Case Studies 6-25

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
 indicate that the 25 percent sediment reduction provided by the projects listed in Table 6-4 is
 insufficient to recover the beneficial uses, some or all of these projects could be implemented to
 attain further reductions. These projects may also be used to replace projects on the Table 6-4
 list. Replacement may be allowed if accepted sediment reduction estimates indicate a reduction
 comparable to that of the replaced project.

 The Forest Service, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection
 Agency are jointly working to secure the federal water pollution abatement funds necessary to
 complete the South Fork recovery projects required to meet the load reduction goal by 1996.
                    Table 6-5. Additional Sediment Reduction Projects
Project
Jakie Creek Face
Martin Creek Face
Poverty Burn
Indian Creek Trail
Fitsum Creek
Cougar Creek
Backmere Creek Trail
Whit's Gully
Fitsum Creek Road
Cougar Creek Trail
Camp Creek *
Jakie Creek Road Closure
Oxbow Breach
Sediment Removal (reaches with no spawning)
Spot Slide/Gully Stabilization
Bank Failure below Jakie Creek Bridge
Salmon Point Slide
Acreage to Treat
100
60
72
6
10
10
10
5
2
25
3
30
12
50
200
1
5
Scheduled
Implementation
91-92
91-92
91-96
91
95
91
91
91
91
91
92
91
unknown
91-96
91-97
91-93
91-95
6-26  Cases Studies

-------
                                     . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
                          t
                                               UPPER GRANDE RONDE RIVER,
                                                                        OREGON
BACKGROUND: ELEVATED
SUMMER WATER TEMPERATURES
"[3 iparian areas play a critical role in regulating the temperature of rivers and streams. Wide
J\Łpread alteration and/or removal of riparian vegetation elevates summer water temperatures.
This, in turn, affects the ability of many northwestern rivers to sustain a healthy coldwater
ecosystem that includes annual salmon runs and resident salmonid populations.  A maximum
water temperature of 77 F is considered lethal to salmon, and adverse effects on spawning and
juvenile growth can occur at lower temperatures.

RESTORATION GOALS

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is currently developing a temperature total
maximum daily load for the Upper Grande Ronde River because elevated water temperatures
have impaired the river's ecosystem.  Objectives set by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality are as follows:

           (1) set temperature target values for specific reaches,

           (2) define riparian resource conditions to meet the temperature targets,

           (3) develop watershed assessment methods, and

           (4) ensure the transferability of the methods developed.

RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

Several activities are underway to meet these objectives. The Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality has established a temperature monitoring network in the Upper Grande Ronde
River, which has been collecting summer data since 1992.  In addition to the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality temperature monitoring network, the Forest Service has funded a
temperature monitoring project in the Upper Grande Ronde River through Oregon State Univer-
sity. Between the two monitoring projects, excellent coverage of the watershed has been ob-
                                                                     Case Studies 6-27

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality,
 tained. In addition to the temperature monitoring efforts, meteorological and flow data have
 been collected. The data will be used, in conjunction with the data from the riparian character-
 ization project, in temperature model simulation, calibration, and verification.  The temperature
 model will help the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality establish target temperatures
 for specific reaches and define the resource conditions necessary to meet the targets.

 Riparian Zone Characterization Project                      %

 Many of the environmental changes that lead to temperature impairment are visible and measur-
 able from the structure of the stream and its riparian zone. Riparian characterization involves
 documenting stream channel morphology and streamside vegetation patterns, including alteration
 by various land use practices.  A variety of methods are involved, including aerial
 photointerpretation, mapping, field reconnaissance, and geographic information systems analy-
 sis. The first goal of the Riparian Zone Characterization Project was to gather and analyze data
 for use as input values to a temperature model. Temperature modeling is intended to quantify the
 relationship between stressor (removal of shade) and response (elevated water temperature) in
 the Upper Grande Ronde River watershed. The second goal was the creation of a riparian
 characterization geographic information systems database to support watershed management,
 risk assessment, and restoration planning. The geograpihic information systems database will be
 widely shared with the other state, federal, tribal, and private geographic information systems
 users working on the Upper Grande Ronde River.  The data, measurements, and geographic
 information systems database are essential to both the temperature model and the temperature
 total maximum daily load.

 Elevated temperatures in the Upper Grande Ronde River were monitored using a series of
 temperature recorders situated along the mainstem and several tributaries. These and other data
 were used to determine temperature loading along different stream segments. Other available •
 data on factors influencing water temperature include soils, groundwater, and meteorology.  The
 Riparian Characterization Project provided several of the modeling parameters necessary to run
 the basin-scale temperature model.  Project objectives, methods, and products are summarized in
 Table 6-6.

 Temperature Modeling Project

 The Nonpoint Source Control Branch of EPA's Office of Water and the Office of Research and
 Development at the Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia developed a tem-
 perature model for the Upper Grande Ronde River basin in cooperation with the state. The
 model associated several watershed parameters, including different riparian zone characteristics,
 with effects on water temperature. This watershed-scale continuous stream temperature model-
 ing investigation can be used to predict the spatial and temporal stream temperature regimes
 under different riparian forest management scenarios and to identify priority locations for stream
 restoration.                                                                 v

 Stream Bank Stabilization and Riparian Vegetation Projects

 The first two activities allowed Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to identify a list of
 projects which would stabilize the stream banks and provide the shade necessary for lowering
 instream temperatures to acceptable levels. The following list of restoration and education
 projects are proposed for funding by the Oregon Watershed Health Program from 1994 to 1996:
6-28  Cases Studies

-------
                                      .EcologicalRestoration; A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Table 6-6.  Riparian Characterization Project Methods and Products
Objective Method Product(s)
Use airphotos and GIS to
characterize riparian zone
vegetation patterns and land
uses
Provide input param-
eters to UGR basin
temperature model
Classify stream channel
morphology using field,
mapped, and photographic
information
Demonstrate uses of riparian
characterization data for
other protection and
management projects
Photointerpretation by National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Transfer of GIS data sets to
modeling project for extraction of
different modeling parameters
Rosgen classification of stream
morphology of selected
tributaries and the mainstem by
Umatilla Tribe scientists
Evaluation of project's success
in using GIS data on riparian
zone land cover and stream
morphology in the model and
TMDL
ARC/INFO GIS data set; GIS
file copies; and map plot
copies
Riparian land cover; average
tree height; average canopy
density; buffer width; offset;
and average crown diameter
Digitized maps (1:24,000) of
stream morphology classes
Discussion paper and pre-
sentation with future oppor-
tunities identified
Date
Spring
1994
Spring
1994
Spring
1994
Summer
1994
     •  Riparian fencing (2.5 miles) on Beaver Creek;

     •  Riparian fencing and vegetation recovery on Burnt Coral Creek. Cost-share sought for
        1994 implementation;

     •  Rehabilitation of Camp Carson mine;

     «  Water monitoring workshop;

     •  Seminar series on Watersheds: The Critical Link, sponsored by the Blue Mountain
        Natural Resource Institute. This series was televised via EDNET to over 22 locations
        throughout the northwest.

 ISSUES OF COST
 The Watershed Health program funds restoration projects on both private and federal lands. The
 funding comes from a state lottery whose proceeds are to be spent on economic development
 projects.  To date, efforts have been primarily directed to.ward private landowners. The private
 landowners that apply for grants are not required to share costs, although they are required to
 show that the project is being maintained. Funding of projects on federal land requires a 50 per-
 cent cost-share. Currently, the Watershed Health Program staff in the Grande Ronde basin are
 working with the GR Model Watershed Program and the Northwest Power Planning Council to
 identify areas in which to do projects and to rank projects for funding.
                                                                         Case Studies 6-29

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
                                                  WILDCAT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
 CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING
 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION:  COMBINING
 FLOOD CONTROL AND  ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
     North Richmond is in Contra Costa County about 14 miles northeast of San Francisco on San
     Pablo Bay. This unincorporated community was first established during World War II,
 when laborers who came to work in the growing shipbuilding industry settled on'the flood plains
 of Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks.  The location exposed North Richmond to routine flooding
 during the wet winter months.
                                                 |   .                               i
 Flooding in the 1940s and 1950s prompted the Contra Costa County Flood Control District to
 seek assistance for- flood control, beginning a decades-long search for flood control alternatives
 which eventually resulted in the choice of ecological restoration.  A 1960 U.S. Army Corps of
 Engineers (COE) flood control feasibility study suggested several alternatives, but none were
 considered economically feasible.  In 1971, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
 opment developed an urban renewal plan for North Richmond under its Model Cities Program.
 The plan emphasized recreational opportunities along Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks and the San
 Pablo Bay shoreline, proposed the creeks as focal points for redevelopment, and spurred COE to
 conduct another flood control study. This COE study focused on the multiple objectives of the
 Model Cities Plan, incorporating social well-being, environmental quality, and economic rede-
 velopment as project benefits. It recommended traditional flood control measures, such as
 concrete box culverts and channels, but also proposed fresh water ponds and an earthen trapezoi-
 dal channel and landscaping on lower Wildcat Creek. Congress authorized the project in 1976,
 but the community was unable to raise its required share of the costs and the project was not
 carried out.

 In 1980, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors proposed a bare-bones structural flood
 control project with no environmental amenities. Presented to North Richmond as the only
 affordable alternative, the "Selected Plan" was not well received. In response, members of
 several community groups formed  a coalition to develop an alternative flood control plan that
recognized the value of Wildcat and San Pablo creeks. The coalition wanted to
6-30  Cases Studies

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
   ,  • preserve and enhance Wildcat Creek's riparian habitat, one of the last remaining streams
       in the San Francisco Bay area with continuous riparian habitat along its length;

     • reduce sediment loads, since sedimentation could damage wetlands, reduce channel
       capacity (and thus flood protection), creating costly maintenance requirements; and

     • provide for recreation and open space.

The "Modified Plan" that was developed for Wildcat Creek by the coalition proposed modifying
existing creek channels to simulate the natural hydraulic shape and processes of undisturbed
streams, including features to deposit sediment in the upstream flood plain and to restore riparian
vegetation. Regional trails and park facilities were also included.

In 198'5, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Selected Plan, but left open the option to
construct a multi-objective project if funding were to become available. Shortly thereafter, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the San Francisco Bay Conservation arid Development
Commission denied the permit applications for the Selected Plan because of concerns about
possible impacts to wetlands and endangered species. Both agencies supported the Modified
Plan as an alternative. A project design team was established to develop a consensus plan that
would be environmentally sensitive but capable of conveying flows for the 100-year flood. Such
a plan would address the concerns of both the general public and government agencies with
regulatory authority over the project. The team met regularly for three years.

STRESSORS OF CONCERN

Many of the stressors of concern in Wildcat Creek share a common point of origin. Develop-
ment in the watershed has dramatically impacted the hydrolpgical runoff characteristics.  Intense
storm flows had scoured the channel and caused extensive streambank destabilization and
erosion. The flooding that resulted from the more rapid pattern had led to a management pro-
gram of channelization and mowing of the riparian vegetation. Therefore, any restoration plan
would need to address the amended hydrological regime which exists in the Wildcat Creek
drainage area.

THE GOALS FOR RESTORATION

Wildcat Creek should safely convey 100-year flood flows past North Richmond using as much  of
the creek's natural character as possible.  Restoration efforts should ensure such stressors as
excessive sediment, high flows, elevated temperatures, and a damaged riparian zone be properly
managed so they do not impair ecosystem functioning.

 RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

Restoring Stream Geomorphology: Choosing a Natural Channel Design

 The Consensus Plan  modeled the channels according to natural channel geometry, rather than as
 hydraulic flumes.  This allowed the project to remain within the narrow 180-foot right-of-way
 width specified by the Selected Plan, even with riparian vegetation along the channels, and
 provide the same level of flood protection as the Selected Plan.
                                                                         Case Studies 6-31

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
A meandering or sinuous channel pattern more realistically reflects the stream channels in
natural, undisturbed streams, and also reflects the original channel configuration that most likely
existed prior to development. In natural systems, the degree of stream meandering depends
largely on the channel gradient, with sinuous channels generally being associated with high
gradient (greater than one percent) and meandering channels associated with lower gradients
(less than one percent).  The lower reaches of Wildcat Creek are lower gradient, and therefore
naturally a meandering system. The natural channel design includes pools, riffles, and glides,
which provide very different aquatic habitats.

Restoration techniques based on interpretation and control of stream geomorphology take into
account dynamics of sediment transport, as well as flow, throughout the entire watershed.  A key
component of the plan was to transport sediment past vulnerable marsh areas, where its deposi-
tion would be harmful, and deposit it along the flood plain and in the Bay, where the impact of;
its deposition would be minimal. The Consensus Plan featured a 10- to  15-foot wide meandering
low-flow channel designed to carry the creek's mean flows; to scour and transport sediment in
suspension at higher flow velocities; and to allow higher flows to spread onto the flood plains,
lose velocity, and deposit sediment.  In addition, a detention basin was placed upstream to trap
sediments.

Riparian Tree Restoration

A well-developed riparian corridor more closely reflects; the natural habitat values of undisturbed
streams.  The Consensus Plan proposed planting trees along the low flow channels to guide
channel formation and to shade the streams to prevent mem from clogging with rushes, weeds,
and sediment. Cuttings from nearby plants, seeds from native species, and some container stock
were used as plantings along the stream.

Besides shading stream channels to prevent the growth of unwanted vegetation, a restored
riparian zone can benefit aquatic habitats in many ways,, including:

     • roots of trees, grasses, and shrubs stabilize the stream bank by binding soil particles and
       providing resistance to the erosive forces of flowing water;

     • stems and leaves of riparian vegetation provide shade that lowers water temperatures;

     • leaves, stems, cones, fruit, and other plant parts that fall into the stream provide food for
       microbes, insects, and fish; and

     • large woody debris that falls into a stream provides for the formation of pools and other
       habitat types.                                                   *

The riparian sites were prepared by mowing and clearing the area where plantings would occur.
Holes were dug for the plants, backfilled with existing soil with slow release fertilizer tablets,
and covered with a layer of mulch.  An automatic bubbler irrigation system was installed to
allow vegetation to become established.

Initially, the use of chemical herbicides was prohibited, but competition from uncontrolled weed
growth led to a low survival rate of the plantings.  In addition, the weeds provided food for an
enlarged pocket gopher population, which stressed the installed plants further.  The project
6-32  Cases Studies

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 sponsors therefore recommended the initial use of chemical herbicides to reduce competition
 from opportunistic weeds.

 An innovative vegetation maintenance plan was designed to keep the low flow channels free of
 vegetation until a riparian canopy could develop and shade out the unwanted, clogging reed
 growth expected in exposed, low-flow channels. Because the natural channel was designed to
 allow for a certain amount of sediment deposition, maintenance requirements were based on
 actual needs rather than annual schedules, reducing costs and environmental impacts.

' Protecting Vegetative Cover throughout the Watershed

 Implementation of this multi-objective flood control project aroused interest in the relationship
 between land uses, habitat, and water quality throughout the entire watershed. In contrast to the
 lower Wildcat Creek watershed, much of the upper watershed is undeveloped, consisting of the
 Wildcat Canyon Regional  Park which owned and operated by the EBRPD. This park is used  for
 grazing, recreation, open space, and vegetation and wildlife habitat.

 While grazing can have positive effects such as preservation of open grassland habitat, fire
 protection, and food production, there can also be adverse impacts from over-grazing such as the
 loss of vegetation and erosion of disturbed areas and subsequent damage to wetlands and creeks
 from sedimentation.  Therefore, the Wildcat Creek Grazing  Management Demonstration Project
 was jointly designed and implemented by the EBRPD, the Contra Costa Resource Conservation
 District, a private rancher, and the University of California-Berkeley.  The project was made
 possible by funding from the U.S. EPA through the San Francisco Estuary Project.

 This project is intended to manage grazing activities over a portion  of the 2,000 acre park. The
 specific objectives are to:

       •  rotate grazing to promote the growth of native perennial grasses and improve forage
         production;

       •  monitor plant species diversity  and growth;

       •  protect riparian and wetland habitats;

       •  reduce soil erosion; and

       •  provide information about grazing management to ranchers, public land managers,
         environmental groups, and the  general public.

  Fencing will be constructed to divide 312 acres of grazed land within the watershed into four
  pastures. Appropriate "rest" periods will be scheduled to allow the vegetation to regrow without
  grazing pressure. This will improve forage production while protecting the watershed from soil
  erosion.  Grazing will be scheduled to protect native perennial grasses during seed development,
  to reduce competition from annual grasses, and to ensure that adequate leaf area remains follow-
  ing livestock grazing to allow vigorous regrowth during the growing season. Additional fencing
  will be constructed around springs and wetlands to ensure the protection of this vegetation, and
  alternative water sources will  be provided for the cattle.
                                                                          Case Studies 6-33

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
 ISSUES OF COST

 By adding the objectives of public access and education, restoration of riparian habitat, and
 enhancement of aesthetic values to the original mission of flood control, a number of alternative
 sources of funding were available to implement the Consensus Plan that would not otherwise be
 available for single-purpose flood control projects. Table 6-7 lists contributors to the Consensus
 Plan.
                   Table 6-7. List of Contributors to the Consensus Plan
Contributor Amount Rationale for Funding
East Bay Regional Park District
US Army Corps of Engineers
CA State Lands Commission
CA Coastal Conservancy
CA Department of Water Resources
$793,000
$19,000
$793,000
$240,000a
$578,000 ,
$100,000
Regional Trail System
Educational activities at a creekside school
Regional Trail System
Wetland transition zone
Marsh restoration and riparian enhancement
Because the project involved design innova
tions, citizen participation, and educational
opportunities
•value of land purchase
6-34  Cases Studies

-------
 CHAPTER 7.
                                                              REFERENCES
Anacostia Restoration Team.  1991. A Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six Point
   Action Plan to Restore the Anacostia River. Department of Environmental Programs,
   Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Anacostia Restoration Team.  1992. Watershed Restoration Source Book. Collected papers
   presented at Restoring Our Home River: Water Quality and Habitat in the Anacostia, held
   November 6-7,1991, in College Park, MD. Department of Environmental Programs,
   Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Association of State Wetland Managers. 1991. A Casebook in Managing Rivers for Multiple
   Uses.

Berger, John  J.  1991. The federal mandate to restore: laws and policies on environmental
   restoration. The Environmental Professional, Volume 13, pp. 195-206.

Bowie, G.L. et al. (Tetra Tech, Inc., Lafayette, CA) and C.E. Chamberlin (Humboldt State
   University, Arcata, CA).  1985. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface
   Water Quality Modeling (Second Edition). Prepared for Environmental Research Labora-
   tory. June.  EPA/600/3-85/040.

Burns, D.C.  1984. An inventory of cobble embeddedness ofsalmonid habitat in the South Fork
   Salmon River drainage.  Payette and Boise National Forests.

Cairns, John, Jr.  1991.  The status of the theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology.
   The Environmental Professional, Volume 13, pp.  186-194.

Caldwell, Lynton Keith.  1991.  Restoration ecology as public policy. The Environmental
   Professional, Volume 13, pp. 275-284.

Camacho, R. 1992. Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reduc-
   tion Technologies and the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Report No. 8.  ICPRB Report 92-4.
   Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Rockville, MD.

Channel 28.  1990. Boulder creek enhancement.  Prepared by Channel 28, the City of Boulder
   Municipal Channel. August 1990. Running time 18:30.  Boulder, CO.

Colorado Department of Health. 1986.  Rationale, City of Boulder 75th Street plant, Permit
   Number CO-0024147, Boulder County. Water Quality Control Division, Boulder, CO.

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr.  1993.  Entering the Watershed: A New
   Approach to Save America's River Ecosystems. The Pacific Rivers Council. Island Press,
   Washington, DC, and Covelo, CA.
                                                                     References 7-1

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
EPA.  1978. Analysis of Operations and Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treat-
    ment System. EPA Report No. 430/9-77-015.

EPA.  1992. Boulder Creek, CO: Nonpoint source meets point source. NPS News-Notes No. 18
    (Jan.-Feb.):5-9. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washing-
    ton, DC.

EPA.  1992a.  Risk Assessment Forum. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 6307
    R-92/001. February.

EPA.  1992b.  TMDL Case Study: South Fork of the Salmon River. OWOW Watershed Manage-
    ment Section.

EPA.  1993a.  Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
    Coastal Waters.  EPA Report No. 840-B-92-002.

EPA.  1993b.  Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and  ,
    Indian Tribes.

EPA.  1993c.  Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementa-
    tion of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, Memorandum from Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assis-
    tant Administrator for Water.

EPA.  1993d.  TMDL Case Study: Boulder Creek, Colorado. EPA841-F-93-006. United States
    Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

EPA.  1994.  Upper Grande Ronde River Riparian Characterization and Temperature Modeling
    Projects:  Project Summary. EPA Report No. 841-S-94-001.

Fausch, K.D., C.L. Hawks,  and M.G. Parsons. 1988. Models that Predict Standing Crop of
    Stream Fish from Habitat Variables (1950-1985). General Technical Report
    PNW-GTR-213. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Re-
    search Station, Portland, OR.

GAO.  1983.  Project Manual.  Washington, DC.
          4                    •                                                   !
Gore, James A. (editor). 1985. The Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and Experi-
    ence. Butterworth, Stoneham, MA. 280 pp.

Hartman, R.W.  1990.  One thousand points of light seeking a number: A case study of CBO's
    search for a discount rate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
    18(2):S-3 through S-7.
                                                                       '
Hunter, Christopher J.  1991. Better Trout Habitat:  A Guide to Stream Restoration and Man-
    agement.  Montana Land Reliance. Island Press, Washington, DC, and Covelo, CA.  320 pp.

Iowa State Agroforestry Research Team. 1993. Demonstration and Evaluation of a Sustainable
    Multi-Species  Riparian Buffer Strip as a Non-Point Source Best Management Practice.
    Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 156pp.
 7-2  References

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration; A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Kusler, Jon A., and Mary E. Kentula (editors).  1990.  Wetland Creation and Restoration: The
    Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Leopold, Luna.  1994. A View of the River.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Marcus, M.D. et al.  1990. Salmbnid-Habitat Relationships in the Western United States: A
    Review and Indexed Bibliography. General Technical Report No. RM-188.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. February.                       .     -

Megahan, W.F.  1982. Channel sediment storage behind obstructions in forested drainage basins
    draining the granitic bedrock of the Idaho batholith. ed. FJ. Swanston, R.J. Janda, T. Dunne,
    and D.N. Swanston, pp. 114-121.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Gen.
    TechRpt.PNW-141.

Megahan, W.F., and R.A. Nowlin.  1976. Sediment storage in channels draining small forested
    watersheds in the mountains of central Idaho.  Third Federal Inter-agency Sedimentation
    Conference, Denver, Colorado.
               i
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1992 draft (July 12). A Blueprint for the
    Restoration of the Anacostia Watershed.  Department of Environmental Programs, Anacostia
    Restoration Team. Washington, DC.

NRC.  1992. Restoration of Aquatic Systems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Washing-
    ton, DC.

Odum, E.P.  1971.  Fundamentals of Ecology, third ed. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania.  574 p.

OMB. 1983. Circular No. A-76 (revised).  August 4.

OMB. 1986. Circular No. A-104 (revised). June 1.

Payette National Forest. 1991.  FY 1991 Payette National Forest Soil, Water, Air and Fisheries
    Monitoring Results. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho.

Payette National Forest.  1990. Appendix H of the South Fork Salmon Road project final envi-
    ronmental impact statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho.

Platts, W.S., R.J. Torquemada, M. McHenry, and C.K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon
    spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork
    Salmon River, Idaho. Trans. Am.  Fish. Soc. 118:274-283.

Platts, W.S. and W.F. Megahan.  1975. Time trends in riverbed sediment composition in salmon
    and steelhead spawning areas:  South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Trans. North Am. Wild, and
    Nat. Res. Conf. 40:229-239.

Reckhow, K.H.  1992.  Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Survey Design and Statisti-
    cal Evaluation ofBiosurvey Data. -Draft prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, March. 43 pp. + appendices.
                                                                           References 7-3

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
Reckhow, K.H., and S.C. Chapra.  1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake Management.
    Volume 1: Data Analysis and Empirical Modeling. Butterworth, Boston. 340 pp.

Reignig, L., R.L. Beveridge, J.P. Potyondy, and EM. Hernandez.  1991.  BOISED user's guide
    and program documentation. Boise National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
    Service, Idaho.

Risk Assessment Forum.  1992.  Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/630/R-92/001.  February.

Rosgen, David L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers.  Catena. 22:169-199.

Rudkin, C.  1992. Combining point and nonpoint source controls, a case study of Boulder
    Creek, Colorado. Paper presented at the Symposium on Nonpoint Source Pollution:  Causes,
    Consequences, and Cures, National Center for Agricultural Law, Research, and Information,
    October 30-31,1992, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Rudkin, C., and R.L. Wheeler. 1989. Stream restoration as a water quality management tool.
    Paper presented at the National Conference of Water Pollution Control Federation, October  •
    1989, San Francisco, CA.

Schueler, Thomas. 1992. Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Urbanization on Streams: Water
    Restoration Sourcebook. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Stumm, Werner, and James J. Morgan.  1981. Aquatic Chemistry: An Introduction Emphasizing
    Chemical Equilibria in Natural Waters. John Wiley & Sons.

Suter, G.W., II. 1993.  Ecological Risk Assessment.  Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 538pp.

USD A. 1989. South Fork Salmon River restoration strategy. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    Forest Service, Idaho.

Warren-Hicks, W, B.R. Parkhurst, and S.S. Baker, Jr.  1989.  Ecological Assessment of Hazard-
    ous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-89-013. U.S. Environmen-
    tal Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Weaver, W.E., et al.  1987.  An Evaluation of Experimental Rehabilitation Work: Redwood
    National Park. Redwood National Park Technical Report No. 19. National Park Service,
    Arcata, CA.                                                                      \
                                              •*
Westman, Walter E.  1991.  Ecological restoration projects: measuring their performance. The
    Environmental Professional,  Volume 13, pp. 207-215.

Windell, J.T., and L.P. Rink. 1987c. The feasibility of reducing unionized ammonia excursions
    by riparian and aquatic habitat enhancement. Prepared for the City of Boulder Department
    of Public Works, Boulder, CO.

Windell, J.T., L.P.  Rink, and C. Rudkin. 1991. Compatibility of stream habitat reclamation with
    point and nonpoint source controls. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
7-4 References

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Windell, J.T., and L.P. Rink.  1992.  A bibliography of reports, proposals, publications, videos,
   presentations, preliminary data/draft monitoring reports, and abstracts.  Aquatic and Wet-
   land Consultants, Inc, Boulder, CO.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants.  1990. Urban Targeting and BMP Selection: An Information and
   Guidance Manual for State Nonpoint Source Program Staff Engineers and Managers.
   Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Water Division and
   Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.
                                                                        References  7-5

-------

-------
 CHAPTER 8.
                                                                  GLOSSARY
Acid neutralizing capacity (ANC): The equivalent capacity of a solution to neutralize strong
acids.

Anaerobic: Without oxygen; water and sediment environments without oxygen produce, for
example, chemical conditions that precipitate and permanently store many metals from water and
that release dissolved phosphorus to the water,
                                              a
Benefit maximization:  The process of increasing benefits to the greatest extent possible within
constraints such as limitation on financial resources.

Benefits: A good, service, or attribute of a good or service that promotes or enhances the well-
being of an individual, an organization, or a natural system.

Bioavailable: The state of a toxicant such that there is increased physicochemical access to the
toxicant by an organism. The less the bioavailability of a toxicant, the less its toxic effect on an
organism.

Best management practice (BMP): A practice used to reduce impacts from a particular land
use.

Channel: A conduit formed by the flow of water and debris. The time and volume characteris-
tics of water or debris can  be altered by man, by climate change, or by alterations in protective
vegetal cover on the land of the watershed.  The stream channel adjusts to the new set of condi-
tions.

Channelization: The practice of straightening a waterway to remove meanders and make water
flow faster. Sometimes  concrete is used to line the sides and bottom of the channel.
   f                     • -          •
Cost minimization: The process of reducing costs to the lowest possible amount given con-
straints such as requirements that a  specified level of benefits or other resources be attained or
provided.

CWA §101: The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.

CWA §303d: Requires States to identify waters that do not or are not expected to meet appli-
cable water quality standards with technology-based controls alone. Waters impacted by thermal
discharges are also to be identified. After the identification and priority ranking of water quality-
limited waters are completed, States are to develop TMDLs at a level necessary to achieve the
applicable State water quality standards.
                                                                      Glossary
8-1

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
CWA §314: Establishes the Clean Lakes Program, which supports activities from initial identifi-
cation of potential water quality problems through post-restoration monitoring. Cooperative
grants provide funding for these activities.

CWA §319: Requires States to develop nonpoint source control programs. EPA awards grants
to implement approved programs that include, as appropriate, nonregulatory, and regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technol-
ogy transfer, and demonstration projects.

CWA §320: Establishes that National Estuary Program (NEP), a demonstration program de-
signed to show how estuaries and their living resources can be protected through comprehensive,
action-oriented management Participation in the NEP is limited to estuaries determined by the
EPA Administrator to b of "national significant" after nomination by the Governors of the States
in which the estuaries are located.

CWA §402: Establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which
provides for the issuance of point source permits to discharge any pollutant or combination  of
pollutants, after opportunity for public hearing.

CWA §404: The discharges of dredged or fill material into wetlands is regulated under this
section of the CWA.  Permits may be issued after notice and opportunity for public hearings.

Drop structure:  A natural or man-placed structure that disrupts the continuous surface flow
pattern in a river or stream by producing a pooling of water behind the structure and a rapid drpp
in the surface gradient for water flowing over the structure; used to improve habitat conditions
for aquatic life and to increase the air (especially oxygen) content of water.u

Ecoregion: Ecological region that has broad similarities with respect to soil, relief, and domi-
nant vegetation.

Energy cycling:  The movement, or flow, and storage of energy among production and use
components of ecological and physiological systems.

Evapotranspiration: The combined conversion of water to water vapor and loss resulting  from
both evaporation and transpiration.                                            »

Geomorphology: The geologic study of the evolution and configuration of land forms.

Marginal costs: The incremental cost of increasing output of a good  or service by a small
amount.

Pool: In streams, a relatively deep area with low velocity; in ecological systems, the supply of
an element or compound,  such as exchangeable or weatherable cations or adsorbed sulfate, in a
defined component of the ecosystem.

Pool-riffle ratio: The ratio  of stream surface area covering pools to stream surface area cover-
ing riffles in a given segment of stream.

Re-aeration: The rate at which oxygen is absorbed back into water.  This  is dependent, among
other things, upon turbulence intensity and the water depth.
  8-2     Glossary

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Respiration: The biological oxidation of organic carbon with concomitant reduction of external
oxidant and the production of energy. In aerobic respiration, O2 is reduced to CO2. Anaerobic
respiration processes utilize NO3- (denitrification), SO42- (sulfate reduction), or CO2
(methanogenesis).

Riffle:  A shallow section in a stream where water is breaking over rocks or other partially
submerged organic debris and producing surface agitation.

Site characterization: A location-specific or area-specific survey conducted to characterize
physical, chemical, and/or biological attributes of an area; such surveys may be conducted at
different times to provide information on how these attributes may change over time.

Solubility: The ability of a chemical (e.g., pollutant) to be dissolved into a solvent (e.g., water
column).

Stream meander: The length of a stream channel from an upstream point to a downstream
point divided by the straight line distance between the same two points.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL):  An estimate of the pollutant concentrations resulting
from fhe pollutant loadings from all sources to a waterbody. The TMDL is used to determine the
allowable loads and provides the basis for establishing or modifying controls on pollutant
sources.

TMDL process:  The approach normally used to develop a TMDL for a particular waterbody or
watershed. This process consists of five activities, including  selection of the pollutant to con-
sider, estimation of the waterbody's assimilative capacity, estimation of the pollution from all
sources to the waterbody, predictive analysis of pollution in the waterbody and determination of
total allowable.pollution load, and allocation of the allowable pollution among the different
pollution sources in a manner that water quality standards are achieved.

Trophic state:  The state of nutrition (e.g.,  amount of nutrients) in a body of water.

Watershed:  A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain or flow toward a
central collector such as a stream, river or lake at a lower elevation.

Watershed Protection Approach (WPA): The U.S. EPA's comprehensive approach to manag-
ing water resource areas, such as river basins, watersheds and aquifers. WPA contains four
major features — targeting priority problems, stakeholder involvement, integrated solutions, and
measuring success.
*
Width/depth ratio:  The width to depth ratio describes a dimension of bankfull channel width to
bankfull mean depth. Bankfull discharge is defined as the momentary maximum peak flow
which occjurs several days a year and is related to the concept of channel forming flow.

Width/meander length ratio:  The ratio of the average width of a stream or river over a reach
divided by the average length over successive cycles of left and right bends of the stream or
river.
                                                                       Glossary      8-3

-------

-------
APPENDIX A
                                 ANNOTATED  BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, G.R., and E.A. Hansen. 1986.  Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:9-23.

     An experimental introduction of sand sediment into Hunt Creek in the northern Lower
     Peninsula of Michigan that increased the bed load 4-5 times resulted in a significant
     reduction of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) numbers and habitat. The brook trout
     population declined to less than half its normal abundance.  The growth rate of individual
     fish was not affected. Population adjustment to the poorer habitat was via a decrease in
     brook trout survival rates, particularly in the egg to fry to fall fingerling stages of their life
     cycle. Habitat for brook trout and their food organisms became much poorer, as judged by
     the drastic reductions of both. Stream morphometry changed considerably, the channel
     becoming wider and shallower and, sand deposition aggraded the streambed and elimi-
     nated most pools. The channel became a continuous run rather than a series of pools and
     riffles. Water velocities increased as well as did summer water temperatures.  Relatively
     small sand bed-load concentrations of only 80 ppm had a profound effect on brook trout
     and their habitat.
American Fisheries Society.  1980. Position Paper on Management and Protection of West-
ern Riparian Stream Ecosystems.  American Fisheries Society, Western Division, Tualatin,
OR. 24pp.

     The Western Division AFS presents this position statement to address the issue of manage-
     ment, maintenance, and protection of riparian stream ecosystems in the western United
     States. This paper was developed by the Riparian Habitat Committee of the WDAPS. It is
     the WDAFS intent that this paper be used not only by fisheries scientists, but also by those
     in other disciplines to develop an understanding of the relationships that exist between land
     uses, fish and wildlife habitat requirements, and stream ecology within riparian habitat
     zones. The WDAFS and the AFS urge objective consideration of the information pre-
     sented herein.  Includes information in grazing, mining, water development and irrigation,
     road construction, agriculture and urbanization, timber harvest, and recreational uses. Also
     includes a review of riparian stream ecosystem knowledge.
American Fisheries Society.  1982. The Best Management Practices for the Management and
Protection of Western Riparian Stream Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Western
Division, Tualatin, OR.  45 j»p.

      In 1976 streamside nutrient-enrichment experiments were conducted using wooden
      troughs.  Triling of the PO4- concentration, with or without a similar increase of NO3-,
      increased algal biomass on the troughs by 8 times after 35 days. Increasing NO3- alone
      had no appreciable effect on algal growth. A sloughing of algal biomass in August 1976 is
                                                  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-l

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
                have been due to the instability of the heavy algal mat on the troughs and to the
      very poor light conditions that prevailed throughout August. Visual observation indicated
      that the relatively  heavy algal population in Carnation Creek rapidly declined concurrent
      with the decline in the troughs, and Frangilaria vaucheriae replaced Achnmanthes
      minutissima as dominant on the phosphorus enriched trough. No shift to green or
      blue-green algal dominated assemblages occurred despite alteration of the N:P ratio. The
      dynamics of species succession, distribution, and growth, with and without nutrient
      addition, are discussed.
Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Inc.  1991. A Conceptual Habitat Restoration Design
Plan for Boulder Creek - 55th Street to 61st Street. Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Inc.,
Boulder, CO, 7 pp. + appendices.

      This report was prepared at the request of Mr. John Barnett, Tributary Greenway Coordi-
      nator, City of Boulder. It addresses Boulder Creed Reach 3-A extending between 55th
      Street and 61st Street.  The intent of this project was to provide a design plan for a con-
      tinuation of the Boulder Creek corridor project which was previously ended at 55th Street.
      The overall goal of this project was to produce a creative stream, riparian, and wetland
      conceptual design plan that could be implemented in the future when funds become
      available. Specific objectives included utilization of selected best management practices
      (BMPs) and techniques that would increase: 1) streambank stabilization, and thereby
      decrease bank erosion, channel downcutting, and sediment transport; 2) holding water
      carrying capacity and standing stock (numbers and biomass); 3)  high quality pool habitat
      and provide over-winter and low flow aquatic life survival; 4) riffle substrate structure
      (roughness) that would favor increased invertebrate productivity (fish food); and 5)
      potential for establishment of a healthy and functional stream, riparian and wetland ecosys-
      tem. It was intended to meet these objectives by preparing:  1) a conceptual design plan
      identifying types and specific locations of recommended enhancements; 2) plan and cross
      section typical drawings; 3) preliminary cost estimates; and 4) details on nonstandard
      construction techniques.
Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on ripar-
ian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16(1):7-11.

      An American Fisheries Society position statement on livestock grazing and its effects on
      riparian and streamside ecosystems, particularly on federally owned lands.  Big game,
      small game, non-game habitats and 19,000 miles of sport fishery streams have declined in
      quality due to poor management practices, including overgrazing.  This poor management
      can lead to actual elimination of riparian areas by channel widening, channel aggradation
      or lowering of the water table. Actions needed to alleviate this problem could include
      complete and accurate stream and riparian area inventories, an increase in grazing fees, and
      promotion of awareness of the ecology of aquatic-riparian ecosystems and the processes
      that regulate these ecosystems.
A-2  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1973. Report on Channel Modifications, Volume I & II. Prepared for
the Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.

     These volumes are a final report to assess environmental, economic, financial and engi-
     neering aspects of channel modifications, and the availability and use of alternatives, as
     planned and carried out by the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Tennessee
     Valley Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation. This assessment has drawn upon the
     public record and literature, observations in the field of 42 projects in 18 States, and
     discussions with at least 558 people in 30 public meetings throughout the Nation. The
     report is in three separate bindings. Volume I describes the procedures used in carrying
     out the assignment, summarized findings and presents nine chapters on the contractual
     elements of the work. Volume II, Part One, and Volume II, Part Two, each contain 21  field
     evaluation reports.
Avery, E.L. 1978. The Influence of Chemical Reclamation on a Small Brown Trout Stream
in Southwestern Wisconsin. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, Technical
Bulletin No. 110.

      The present study was initiated to more thoroughly quantify effects of chemical treatment
      and total fish removal on a domesticated brown trout population, the sport fisher, and the
      aquatic invertebrate community in a small southwestern Wisconsin trout stream. A
      culvert-type fish barrier was installed in the middle of the study zone prior to chemical
      treatment to determine its effectiveness in preventing reinvasion of forage fishes and to
      quantitatively document added benefits this practice might have over and above those
      derived from chemical treatment alone.
Babcock, W.H.  1982. Tenmile Creek - A Study of Stream Relocation.  Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Fisheries Research Section, Special Report No. 52,22 pp.

      After input from various interested agencies, three miles of creek were relocated to facili-
      tate" the construction of Interstate 70 through Tenmile Canyon west of Denver. The 0.5
      million dollar project was designed to provide fish habitat of equal value to that present
      before construction or, if possible, to improve this habitat. Construction techniques were ,
      designed to minimize damage to flora and fauna. After the channels were excavated, rock
      and log fish habitat structures were constructed. Two years after construction, a 4 percent
      chance flood occurred  at the project area which made almost 75 percent of the habitat
      structures ineffective.  Pool- riffle ratios and quantity and quality of spawning areas
      remained essentially unchanged throughout the period.  Population estimates indicated an
      increase in the number of fish in the postconstruction period compared to preconstruction
      numbers. Fish biomass estimates for the project area were comparable for the two periods.
      Aquatic invertebrate populations were unchanged as indicated by comparison of three pre-
      and postconstruction indices.
Baker, D.B.  1989. Environmental extension: a key to nonpoint-source pollution abate-
ment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44(1) :8.

      The importance on soil, water, and air resources to our future quality of life and prosperity
      cannot be overestimated. Continuing stewardship of these resources will involve ongoing
                                                     Appendix. A—Annotated Bibliography A-3

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
      development of ever better best management practices and continuing assessment of the
      environmental impacts of ever more intensive land use activities. Environmental exten-
      sion, by conveying to all of us state~of~the~art-and-science methods and current assess-
      ments of environmental conditions, will play increasingly important roles in environmental
      protection for the future. Article stresses cooperative education to abate nonpoint source
      pollution problems.
Beamish, F.W.H. and A. Tandler. 1990. Ambient ammonia, diet and growth in lake trout.
Aquatic Toxicology 17:155-166.

      Juvenile lake trout were exposed to ambient free: (un-ionized) concentrations of 0, 99,198
      and 297 \ig NH3N 1-1 for 60 days and fed one of two diets which were similar in energy
      concentration. Diet did not influence food intake at ammonia concentrations of 0, 99, and
      198 jag NH3N 1-1.  Food intake was unaffected by ammonia concentrations of 0 and 99 jag
      NH3N 1-1 and was only temporarily reduced when ammonia was 198 \ig NH3N 101.
      Trout exposed to 297 ng NH3N 1-1 consumed significantly less food than fish exposed to
      the lower concentrations of ammonia. Food intake did not differ with diet during the first
      30 days of exposure to 297 NH3N 1-1 but during the final 30 days, it was higher for trout
      fed the low protein diet. Growth, measured as a change in live body weight was not
      influenced by ammonia concentrations of 0, 99, and 198 |ag NH3N 1-1 but declined
      significantly at 297 ng NH3N 10-1. Weight gain tended to be larger for trout fed the high
      protein diet. Efficiency of protein-N gain was greater for trout fed the low protein diet,
      presumably as a consequence of a sparing effect afforded by high dietary lipid. Efficiency
      of protein-N gain was significantly reduced among lake trout exposed to the highest
      concentration of ammonia. Mortalities were observed only among trout exposed to the
      highest concentration of ammonia.                ,             .       •
Beaumont, P. 1978. Man's impact on river systems: a world-wide view. Area 10:38-41.

      An analysis of dain building activity throughout the world since 1840 revealing the
      pre-eminent position of North America. Three periods of increasing activity are identified
      culminating in a remarkable spate of dam construction between 1950 and 1970.
Binns, N.A. 1986. Stabilizing Eroding Stream Banks in Wyoming: A Guide to Controlling
Bank Erosion in Streams. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY.  42 pp.

      A non-technical booklet summarizing stream bank stabilization methods in a format
      useable by the average landowner. Topics include erosion, erosion mechanics, rock and
      rock devices, tree revetments, trout habitat, gabions, log cribs, unacceptable methods,
      alteration consequences, and sources of advice.
Bissonnette, P. 1985. Bellevue experiences with urban runoff quality control strategies.
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution: Proceedings of a Conference. Kansas City, MO,
May 19-22,1985.  pp. 279-280.

     The Bellevue Storm and Surface Water (SSW) Utility was formed out of the city's and
     citizen's commitment to preserve it's network of streams and lakes. Established in 1974,
 A-4 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
      the SSW Utility's mission is to manage the storm and surface water system in Bellevue to
      maintain a hydrologic balance, prevent property damage, and protect water quality for the
      health, safety, and enjoyment of citizens and for the preservation and enhancement of
      wildlife habitat. This mission has been impaired by urban runoff.  It is essential that the
      state-of-the-art for runoff quality and treatment programs progress to the point that runoff
      pollution abatement strategies can be followed with confidence.
Bormann, F.H., G.E. Likens, and J.S. Eaton. 1969. Biotic regulation of particulate and
solution losses from a forest ecosystem.  BioScience 19(7):600-610.

      Major losses of nutrients from terrestrial ecosystems result from two processes: particulate
      matter removal accomplished by erosion and transportation in surface drainage water, and
      solution removal accomplished by dissolution and transportation of solutes by surface and
      subsurface drainage water.  Knowledge of these two processes is important to our under-
      standing of the relationships between interconnected terrestrial and lotic ecosystems. In a
      larger sense, this information contributes to a more detailed understanding of fluvial
      denudation of the landscape and the relative importance of removal of solutes and particu-
      late matter in this basic geologic phenomenon.
Boulder, City of - Department of Public Works/Utilities. 1990. Boulder Creek Basin Plan-
ning to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution by Using Best Management Practices.  Depart-
ment of Public Works/Utilities, City of Boulder, CO, 27 pp + appendices.

      The City of Boulder proposed to control nonpoint source (NFS) pollution within the
      Boulder Creek Basin extending form the Indian Peaks Wilderness headwaters to the
      confluence with Coal Creek, a creek mainstem length of 40.8 miles.  The objectives of the
      project include: 1) controlling NFS pollution using Best Management Practices (BMP's), ,
      2) providing cost-effective water quality improvement singly and in combination with the
      75th Street Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), and 3) achieving the state use classifi-
      cation. The proposal follows initiation of a Phase INPS Pollution Demonstration Project
      located downstream from the WWTP. Funding of $125,000 was split on a 60/40 basis by
      the State NPS Pollution Control Program and the City of Boulder. The project has gener-
      ated high community interest, high NPS pollution visibility, and nearly a quarter million
      dollars of donated time, labor, and materials suggesting an approximate total project worth
      of $426,000. A Phase II Demonstration Project has been initiated as of 1 January 1990
      and is funded similarly to Phase I. The Boulder Creek basin, for planning purposes, has
      been divided at the Boulder Canyon mouth into an upper (mountain) basin and a lower
      (plains) basin.  Upper basin (upstream of City limits) NPS pollution includes: .1) 16 miles
      of State Highway sanding operations (3,000 tons/year including 7.5% salt), 2) mineral and
      gravel mining, and 3) sediment from a 1989 forest fire on Sugar Loaf Mountain. Lower
      basin NPS pollution includes: 1) highway street and road sanding operations (15,000 tons/
      year including 15% salt), 2) NPS drainage (18 sources) such as irrigation ditch return
      flows  and 30 to 40 storm sewers, 3) channelization (70% requiring 7.8 miles of berm
      removal), 4) streambank erosion (72 locations totalling 2.1 miles), 5) overgrazing and
      gravel mining resulting in loss of the riparian canopy. The project has been divided into
      five one-year phases that include management, final  design, construction, supervision and
      monitoring at an average yearly cost of $489,000 split on a 60/40 basis (state = 60% =
      @293,000; city = 40% = $195,600).  Reported observations and documentation indicate
      that a  final water quality management plan for the basin should include point source and
                           /
                                                      Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-5

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality,
      NPS pollution controls.  Neither control type alome can result in a stream that consistently
      meets its intended uses or water quality standards. Recommended BMPs will permit NFS
      pollution control, result in physical, biological and chemical habitat reclamation, and
      facilitate attaining the aquatic life use in the lower basin.
Boulder, City of - Department of Public Works/Utilities. 1990a. The Boulder Creek Water-
shed (Basin) Project for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control - Project Implementation Plan.
Department of Public Works/Utilities, City of Boulder, CO, 55 pp. + appendices.

      The Boulder Creek Watershed Project Implementation Plan (PIP) is a proposal to reduce
      and control nonpoint source (NPS) pollution within the Boulder Creek Basin extending
      from the Indian Peaks Wilderness headwaters to the confluence with Coal Creek.  Specific
      state-approved best management practices (BMPs) that have the capability of providing
      cost-effective water quality improvement individually and in combination have been
      selected for implementation.  The Boulder Creek Watershed PIP calls for a dendritic
      (branching) approach to the identification and resolution of water quality issues.  Because
      degraded quality conditions within Boulder Creek are due to both deficiencies of the main
      channel and to deficiencies within the drainage network entering the creek,  Boulder Creek
      itself is the first order concern. Riparian enhancement efforts such as the City's Phase I
      and Phase II lower Boulder Creek restoration projects, have restored lost functions to the
      main channel of the creek and have reduced the impact of degraded riparian zones. When
      first-order impacts are reduced in this manner, the: relative effect of second-order impacts
      can be assessed and quantified.  In addition, tributary channels can be assessed in terms of
      riparian function loss and in relation to inputs from third-order systems (i.e., surface
      drainage and subsurface flows).  Third order systems are more likely to involve
      non-riparian agricultural or urban use areas. Best: Management Practices (BMPs) devel-
      oped for these areas will differ from those required to address first-order impacts and will
      draw more heavily on the resources and knowledge of traditional land use management
      agencies within those areas.
Boulder, City of - Department of Public Works/Utilities. 1991. Final Revised Project
Implementation Plan (PIP) for Phase III Reach 5(a): The Boulder Creek Watershed Nonpoint
Source Pollution  Control Project. Department of Public Works/Utilities, City of Boulder,
CO, 26 pp.

      The overall  goal of the Boulder Creek Project Implementation Plan (PIP) is to improve the
      physical, chemical and biological integrity arid beneficial uses of Boulder Creek in a cost
      effective manner. Specific objectives include: 1) controlling NPS pollution in the Boulder
      Creek basin using state-of-the-art BMPs, 2) providing cost effective water quality im-
      provement singly and in combination with the WWTP, and 3) achieving the state use
      classification. Specific NPS pollution for Subreach 5(a) include: 1) sediment, nutrient,
      debris and other inputs caused by loss of riparian zone function (i.e., entrapment), 2)
      sediment, nutrient, debris and other inputs caused by destabilization and eroded
      streambanks following loss of riparian vegetation by long-term overgrazing, 3) unstable
      erodible streambank berms cause by channelization which support noxious weeds and
      preclude growth of functional riparian vegetation, 4) an overly wide, shallow channel
      following channelization, and 5) degradation of water quality by overheating and excessive
      aquatic plant growth within the overly wide, shallow channel.
A-6 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 Boulder, City of - Department of Public Works/Utilities. 1991a. Project Implementation
 Plan (PIP) for Phase IV an V Reach 6 (a/b): The Boulder Creek Watershed Nonpoint Pollu-
 tion Control Project. Department of Public Works/Utilities, City of Boulder, CO, 29 pp.

      The overall goal of the Boulder Creek Project Implementation Plan (PIP) is to improve the
      physical, chemical and biological integrity and beneficial uses of Boulder Creek in a cost
      effective manner. Specific objectives include: 1) controlling NPS pollution in the Boulder
      Creek basin using state-of-the-art BMPs, 2) providing cost effective water quality im-
      provement singly and in combination with the WWTP, and 3) achieving the state use
      classification.  Specific NPS pollution for Subreach 5(a) include: 1) sediment, nutrient,
      debris and other inputs caused by loss of riparian zone function (i.e., entrapment), 2)
      sediment, nutrient, debris and other inputs caused by destabilization and eroded
      streambanks following loss of riparian vegetation by long-term overgrazing, 3) unstable
      credible streambank berms cause by channelization which support noxious weeds and
      preclude growth of functional riparian vegetation, 4) an overly wide, shallow channel
      following channelization, and 5) degradation of water quality by overheating and excessive
      aquatic plant growth within the overly wide, shallow channel.


 Bradt, P.T., and G.E. Wieland, III.  1978. The Impact of Stream Reconstruction and a
 Gabion Installation on the Biology and Chemistry of a Trout Stream. Completion Report for
 Grant No. 14-34-0001-6225, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and
 Technology.

   -.   The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a gabion installation and stream
      reconstruction in a 2 km section of rechanneled stream. The Bushkill Creek, supporting a
      naturally reproducing brown trout population in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, was
      sampled bi-weekly biologically, chemically and physically for sixteen months. Prior to the
      sampling, stream reconstruction efforts included both a gabion (rock current deflectors)
      installation to narrow an deepen the streambed and tree and shrub planting to cover bare
      banks and provide eventual shade. The stream bed was open to sunlight and primary
      productivity, as evidenced by larger  algae populations, increased in the rechanneled area.
      The following benthic macroinvertebrate parameters significantly increased also through
      the rechanneled area: diversity index, biomass, total numbers, and number of taxa. The
      following chemical parameters increased significantly throughout the rechanneled area:
      conductivity, dissolved oxygen, percent oxygen saturation and alkalinity.  Orthophosphate
      decreased significantly and flow velocity increased significantly. Limestone springs
      contributed to the increase in conductivity and alkalinity. Increased photosynthesis and
      turbulence contributed to the increase in dissolved oxygen and oxygen saturation. The
      gabions deepened and narrowed the stream channel resulting in a cooler stream in summer.


Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.  326 pp.

      An introduction to and case studies of human impact on rivers. These impacts include
      channelization,  engineering methods and designs, environmental legislation, the physical
      and biological effects of channelization, consequences to downstream reaches, new con-
      struction procedures, and mitigation, enhancement and restoration techniques (rehabilita-
      tion) of rivers.
                                                    Appendix, A—Annotated Bibliography A-7

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
Brouha, P. and R. Barnhart. 1982. Progress of the Brown's Creek Fish habitat develop-
ment project. In: R. Wiley (ed.) Proc. of Rocky Mt. Stream Habitat Management Workshop.
Sept. 7-10,1982, Jackson, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY.

     A- direct and rapid restoration method is stream habitat improvement in major spawning
     and rearing tributaries.  Various projects show that fish populations respond to an increase
     in shelter and food.  This paper is a case study of the improvement of The Upper Browns
     Creek watershed in northwestern California 35 miles southwest of Redding in the
     Shasta-Trinity National Forest.


Brown, G.W. 1989. Forestry and Water Quality. O.S.U. Book Stores, Inc., Second Edition,
Corvallis, OR.

     A textbook for forestry management classes. -The objective of this text is to illustrate the
     interaction between man and his management of the forest, the hydrologic cycle, and the
     quality of water in forest streams.  It is intended as a text for use by students at the senior
     or graduate level in professional courses dealing with forestry, environmental sciences, or
     natural resources policy. Professional natural resource managers may also find it useful,
     especially the literature citations, in development of policy and operational guidelines or in
     preparation of environmental impact statements. Understanding how water quality is
     affected by  natural factors and man's manipulation of the forest requires an understanding
     of hydrologic processes on forest land. Contains information on problems and solutions
     for the subjects of erosion and sedimentation, water temperature, dissolved nutrients,
     chemicals and water quality, dissolved oxygen, and pathogenic organisms.


 Brown, G.W. and J.T. Krygier. 1967. Changing water temperature in small mountain
 streams. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 22:242-244.

      Land use effects on the water temperature of small mountain streams have been considered
      remote and inconsequential. Few investigations have been made to establish seasonal
      temperature patterns on forested streams and almost none of the effects of logging on water
      temperature.  Results of such studies are important in the Pacific Northwest, where most of
      the land supplying the region's water is forested and subject to periodic harvest.  Most
      municipal watersheds in the Northwest are forested. Anadromous and resident fish utilize
      forest streams extensively. Modification of vegetal cover along small streams may cause
      temperature changes as ecologically and economically significant as changes caused by
      reservoirs and thermal plants on large river systems.  It is difficult, however, to economi-
      cally control water temperature with reservoirs o:ti small streams.  If control is important, it
      must be accomplished by watershed management.


 Burgess, S A. 1985.  Some effects of stream habitat improvement on the aquatic and
 riparian community of a small mountain stream. Pp. 223-246 in: J.A. Gore, ed., The
 Restoration of Rivers and Streams. Theories and Experience. Butterworth, Stoneham,  MA.
 280pp.

      A study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a relatively simple habitat im-
      provement program in increasing trout biomass in an experimental section of a small
      mountain stream. The intention of the study was; to use relatively simple techniques with
  A-8 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
     low cost and labor requirements. In addition to monitoring the effects of the habitat
     improvements on the trout population, the responses of other members of the aquatic and
     riparian community, notably crayfish and mink, were also investigated.
Cairns, J. Jr.  1991.  The status of the theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology.
The Environmental Professional 13:186-194.

      Restoration ecology is evolving rapidly, but the field is still experimental activity. At this
      stage, every restoration project should be used to improve the status of both theoretical and
      applied science^ The course of a restoration project should be sufficiently flexible to
      incorporate changes as a result of the feedback of scientific and societal information.
      Unfortunately, experiments on large systems such as the Kissimmee River are not ame-
      nable to replication, Nevertheless, simultaneous measurements in a nonmanipulated
      reference system provide information about large-scale trends that otherwise may con-
      found evaluation. Finally, the resilience of natural systems is so impressive that even a
      beginning field can make major contributions to the condition of the planet's ecosystems.
Cairns, J. Jr., B.R. Niederlehner, and J.R. Pratt. 1990. Evaluation of joint toxicity of
chlorine and ammonia to aquatic communities. Aquatic Toxicology 16:87-100.

      Periphytic communities on artificial substrates were exposed to chlorine and ammonia,
      alone and in combinations. The species richness of protozoans decreased with increasing
      toxicant concentrations. Species richness was reduced by 20% in 2.7 ug/L chlorine,
      15.4 ug/L un-ionized ammonia, and a combination of 1.2 ug/L chlorine and 16.9 ug/L
      ammonia. Interaction between toxicants was significant and effects of mixtures were
      less-than-additive, especially at higher concentrations. Multiple regression was used to
      derive a response surface model accounting for 73.4% of the variation in species richness.
      Algal biomass and community metabolism measures were less sensitive to stress and
      showed different patterns of joint action.
Canada, Government of - Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1980. Stream Enhance-
ment Guide.  Government of Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, BC.
82 pp. + appendices.

     This guide provides an introduction to the various approaches and methods suitable for
     salmonid production stream enhancement in British Columbia.  It has been prepared to
     assist both the interested public and government agency staff, having limited technical
     background in this field, to plan and implement projects. Contains information on project
     planning, streamside and watershed improvements, stream channel improvements, side
     channel development, stream flow control, nutrient enrichment, and project assessment.
Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster.  1990. Riparian grazing guidelines for the intermountain
region. Rangelands 12(4):209-212.

      Excessive livestock impacts, through heavy grazing and trampling, affect riparian-stream
      habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, changing streambank and channel
      morphology, and increasing stream sediment transport. Often there is a lowering of the
                                                     Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-9

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
     surrounding water tables. Thus livestock are perceived as a major cause of habitat distur-
     bance in many Western riparian areas.  This perception has resulted in accelerated concerns
     from various resource users because riparian areas generally represent the epitome of
     multiple use.  In addition to the livestock forage, riparian areas and the associated streams
     often have high to very high values for fisheries habitat, wildlife habitat, recreation,
     production of wood fiber, transportation routes, precious metals, water quality, and timing
     of water flows. Includes information on recommended grazing management practices.
Coffin, P.D. 1982. Northeastern Nevada stream and riparian habitat improvement
projects. In: R. Wiley (ed.) Proc. of Rocky Mt. Stream Habitat Management Workshop.
Sept. 7-10,1982, Jackson, WY.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY.

     A synopsis of various stream and riparian habitat improvement projects in Nevada.  Costs,
     techniques, and results are included for eight projects dating from 1963 through 1981.
Columbia Basin System Planning. 1990. Salmon and Steelhead Production Plans. Colum-
bia Basin System Planning, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.

     Fish production plans dated 9/1/90, lead-written by either the Oregon Department of Fish
     and Wildlife or the Washington State Department of Fisheries in conjunction with other
     State Agencies and Indian Tribal Governments. The documents include information on
     habitat improvement projects, constraints and opportunities for habitat protection, and
     habitat protection objectives and strategies. Our library contains this information for the
     following areas: Willamette River subbasin (Coast Range, Molalla & Pudding Rivers,
     Tualatin River, Clackamas River, Willamette Mainstem, Coast Fork & Long Tom Rivers,
     Middle Fork of the Willamette River, McKenzie River, and Santiam & Calapooia Rivers),
     Yakima River subbasin, Upper Columbia River subbasin (Priest Rapids Dam to Chief
     Joseph Dam), Lower Columbia River subbasin (Mouth to Bonneville Dam), Mid Columbia
     River subbasin (Bonneville Dam to Priest Rapids Dam), Deschutes River subbasin, Snake
     River subbasin (Mainstem from mouth to Hells' Canyon Dam), Sandy River subbasin,'
     Wenatchee River subbasin, Walla Walla River subbasin, Umatilla River subbasin,
     Tucannon River subbasin, Wind River subbasin, Imnaha River subbasin, Hood River
     subbasin, Klickitat River subbasin, John Day River subbasin, White Salmon River
     subbasin, Little White Salmon River subbasin, Salmon River subbasin, Methow and
     Okanogan River subbasin, Grays River subbasin, Kalama River subbasin, Elochoman
     River subbasin, Cowlitz River subbasin, Washougal River subbasin, Entiat River subbasin,
     Fifteenmile Creek subbasin, and Grande Ronde River subbasin.
Contor, C.R. and W.S. Platts.  1991. Assessment of COWFISH for Predicting Trout Popula-
tions in Grazed Watersheds of the Intermountain West. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station, Ogden, UT,  Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-2,78,28 pp.
  A-10 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
 and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Department
 of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS/79/31,103 pp.

      This classification, to be used in a new inventory of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
      United States, is intended to describe ecological taxa, arrange them in a system useful to
      resource managers, furnish units for mapping, and provide uniformity of concepts and
      terms.  Wetlands are defined by plants (hydrophytes), soils (hydric soils), and frequency of
      flooding. Ecologically related areas of deep water, traditionally not considered wetlands,
      are included in the classification as deepwater habitats. Systems form the highest level of
      ,the classification hierarchy (Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine),
      followed by Subsystem, Class, and Dominance Type, plus modifying terms. Regional
      differences important to wetland ecology are described through a regionalization that
      combines a system developed for inland areas by G.R. Bailey in 1976 with our Marine and
      Estuarine provinces. The structure of the classification allows it to be used at any of
      several hierarchical levels.  Special data required for detailed application of the system are
      frequently unavailable, and thus data gathering may be prerequisite to classification.
      Development of rules ,by the user will be required for specific map scales. Dominance
      Types and relationships of plant and animal communities to environmental characteristics
      must also be developed by users of the classification. Keys to the Systems and Classes are
      furnished as a guide, and numerous wetlands and deepwater habitats are illustrated and
      classified.  The classification system is also compared with several other systems currently
      in use in the United States.
DeBano, L.F. and B.H. Heede. 1987. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems with channel
structures.  Water Resources Bulletin 23(3) :463-470.

      Naturally occurring and man-made structures can be used for enhancing the development
      of riparian zones. Naturally occurring structures are cienagas, beaver dams, and log steps.
      Man-made structures include large and small channel structures and bank protection
      devices. All these structures affect streamflow hydraulics and sedimentation and can
      create a more favorable environment for riparian zone establishment. However, when they
      are used improperly, they can be destructive to existing riparian zones.  Since stream
      processes are generally slow, long-time spans may pass before the effects of management
      action, good or bad, become visible.  Also, the effects of large dam installations may
      appear a long distance down-stream from the dam.  Therefore, investigations must be of a
      wide scope. Interactions between riparian site, channel, and streamflow may be so com-
      plex that an interdisciplinary approach is required.
DeBano, L.F. and L. J. Schmidt. 1989. Improving Southwestern Riparian Areas through
Watershed Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, General Technical Report
No. RM-182.

      This paper reviews opportunities and watershed restoration techniques available for
      rehabilitating and enhancing riparian ecosystems in southwest environments. As such it is
      intended to serve as a state-of-the- art report on riparian hydrology and improvement in
      both naturally occurring and man-made riparian areas throughout the Southwest.
                                                   Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography  A-ll

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
Belong, M.D. and M.A. Brusven. 1991. Classification and spatial mapping of riparian
habitat with applications toward management of streams impacted by nonpoint source
pollution. Environmental Management 15(4):565-571.

      Management of riparian habitats has been recognized for its importance in reducing
      instream effects of agricultural nonpoint source pollution. By serving as a buffer, well
      structured riparian habitats can reduce nonpoint source impacts by filtering surface runoff
      from field to stream. A system has been developed where key characteristics of riparian
      habitat, vegetation type, height, width, riparian and shoreline bank slope, and land use are
      classified as discrete categorical units. This classification system recognizes seven riparian
      vegetation types, which are determined by dominant plant type. Riparian and shoreline
      bank slope, in addition to riparian width and height, each consist of five categories. Clas-
      sification by discrete units allows for ready digifeing of information for production of
      spatial maps using a geographic information system (GIS).  The classification system was
      tested for field efficiency on Tom Beall Creek watershed, an agriculturally impacted
      third-order stream in the Clearwater River drainage, Nez Perce County, Idaho, USA. The
      classification system wa simple to sue during field applications and provided a good
      inventory of riparian habitat. After successful field tests, spatial maps were produced for
      each component using the Professional Map Analysis Package (pMAP), a GIS program.
      With pMAP, a map describing general riparian habitat condition was produced by combin-
      ing the maps of components of riparian habitat, arid the condition map was integrated with
      a map of soil erosion potential in order to determine  areas along the stream that are suscep-
      tible to nonpoint source pollution inputs. Integration of spatial maps of riparian classifica-
      tion and watershed characteristics has a great potential as a tool for aiding in making
      management decisions for mitigating off-site impacts of agricultural nonpoint source
      pollution.


 Duff, DA. and N. Banks.  1988. Indexed Bibliography on Stream Habitat Improvement.
 USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region, Wildlife Management Staff, Ogden, UT.

      Not available.


 Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in management. Range-
 lands 9(6):260-265.

      Riparian areas can be the most important part of a watershed for a wide range of values
      and resources. They provide forage for domestic animals and important habitat for ap-
      proximately four-fifths of the wildlife species in eastern Oregon. Where streams are
      perennial, they provide essential habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. When
      overbank flows occur, riparian areas can attenuate flood peaks and increase  groundwater
      recharge. This paper presents information-on issues and problems like, flooding, vegeta-
      tion, streamflow, and grazing.


 Ferguson, B.K.  1991. Urban stream reclamation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
 46(5):324-328.

      In urban areas, streams represent potential wildlife corridors, wetland multipliers of
      ecosystem integrity, scenic resources, recreational facilities close to home, and greenway
 A.-12  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration.' A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
     links among neighborhoods and parks. The materials, vegetation, shape, stability, and
     spatial composition of the stream channel and riparian landscape govern the corridor's
     effectiveness as a resource. Such characteristics can be managed through landscape
     design. Projects to implement such values have been undertaken in several areas; some
     examples are California's Urban Stream Restoration Program, The Boulder Creek Corridor
     Project in Colorado, and San Antonio's Riverwalk.
Froelich, P.N. 1988. Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and estuaries:
a primer on the phosphate buffer mechanism. Limnology and Oceanography 33(4, part
2):649-668.

     The primary mode of interaction of dissolved phosphate with fluvial inorganic suspended
     particles is via a reversible two-step sorption process.  The first step is adsorption/desorp-
     tion on surfaces has fast kinetics (minutes-hours). The second step, solid-state diffusion of
     adsorbed phosphate from the surface into the interior of particles, has slower kinetics
     (days-months) and is dependent on the time history of the previous surface sorption and
     the chemistry of the solid diffusional layer.  Natural clay particles with a surface of iron
     and aluminum hydroxyoxides resulting from chemical weathering of rocks and soils, have
     a high capacity for absorbing phosphate and for maintaining low "equilibrium phosphate
     concentrations" in solution.  Extrapolation of laboratory experiments suggest that phos-
     phate concentrations of unperturbed turbid rivers are controlled near the dynamic equilib-
     rium  phosphate concentration and that fluvial suspended particles "at equilibrium" contain
     phosphate that is desorbable. Release of this phosphate from particles entering the sea
     produces the characteristic shape and magnitude of input profiles of dissolved phosphate
     observed in unperturbed estuaries. On a global scale, fluvial particulates could transport
     some 2.5 times more than that in the dissolved load alone.
Gammon, J.R. 19??. Biological Monitoring in the Wabashi River and Its Tributaries. De-
partment of Bio. Sci., DePauw University, Greencastle, IN.

     The aquatic communities of the middle Wabash River and its tributaries have been studied
     annually since 1967. Initial assessments of thermal effects at two power plants were
     expanded in 1973 to include 160 miles of mainstem.  D.C. electrofishing proved to be most
     effective for the greatest number of large species in the Wabash River. Fish are collected 3
     times each summer from 63 stations, each of which is 0.5 km long.  Most stations are sited
     in relatively fast-water with good cover and depths of 1.5 m. or less. Several important
     tributaries have also been investigated.  Some macrobenthic, periphyton, and phytoplank-
     ton work has been undertaken, but the fish community has been studied most intensively.
     In recent years improvements have been documented along the Wabash River itself, but it
     has been simultaneously observed that marked negative changes from agricultural activi-
     ties in tributaries have occurred.
Gore, J.A. 1985. Mechanisms of colonization and habitat enhancement for benthic
macroinvertebrates in restored river channels.  Pp. 81-101 in: J.A. Gore, ed., The Restora-
tion of Rivers and Streams.  Theories and Experience. Butterworth, Stoneham, MA. 280 pp.

     Benthic macroinvertebrates comprise a large and diverse faunal community in most
     undisturbed running water ecosystems. These invertebrates represent a critical pathway


                                                     Appendix, A—Annotated Bibliography A-13

-------
Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
      for the transport and utilization of energy within that ecosystem. Alterations habitat, such
      as diversions, channel restructuring, or dredging of substrate material, have the potential of
      changing the energy dynamics of downstream faunal communities as well.  Restoration of
      the benthic macroinvertebrate community to duplicate adjacent unstressed communities is
      essential to the maintenance of a stable restored system. This article provides the manager
      with information on the dispersal mechanisms of aquatic invertebrates, measurements of
      optimum habitat for invertebrates, and a synopsis of some typical reclamation efforts
      designed for macroinvertebrate habitat.
Gore, JA. (Ed.). 1985. The Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and Experience.
Butterworth, Stoneham, MA, 288 pp.

     The restoration or rivers and streams differs from land reclamation projects in that it
     involves the process of recovery enhancement, that is, restoration of the ecosystem at a
     faster rate than through natural development. This effort requires the knowledge and
     involvement of a number of professionals, including biologists, hydrologists, engineers
     and others working as stream managers.  This book is for these professionals any anyone
     else concerned about the reclamation and restoration of damaged streams and ecosystems.
     It is a unique interdisciplinary survey of theories land techniques used in river and stream
     restoration, from maintenance of the hydrologic balance to assessment of the successful
     restoration project.                       .                 '
Gunderson, D.R.  1968. Floodplain use related to stream morphology and fish populations.
Journal of Wildlife Management 32(3):507-514.

      For two contiguous sections of a Montana stream) the agricultural use of the floodplain
      was related to cover, stream morphology, and fish populations. In one section the vegeta-
      tion of the floodplain had been reduced by clearing and intensive livestock grazing; in the
      other section, which had received light use by livestock, vegetation was relatively un-
      changed.  This ungrazed section had 76% more cover (undercut banks, debris, overhanging
      brush, and miscellaneous) per acre of stream than the grazed section.  Brown trout (+6
      inches) were estimated to be 27% more numerous and to weigh 44% more per acre in the
      ungrazed section of the stream, although their rate of growth was similar in the two stream
      sections.
Gurtz, M.E. and T.W. La Point (eds.). 1989. North American Benthological Society Techni-
cal Information Workshop "Stream Rehabilitation and Restoration". May 18,1989, Univer-
sity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

      Papers presented at a workshop in Guelph, Ontario. Include information on river ecosys-
      tem rehabilitation, water quality restoration, riparian revegetation, invertebrate response to
      restoration, and evaluation of salmonid habitat for stream restoration. The water quality
      restoration paper is very general, showing overall concepts only, not specifics.
A-14  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Hasfurther, V.R. 1985. The use of meander parameters in restoring hydrologic balance to
reclaimed stream beds. Pp. 21-40 in: J.A. Gore, ed., The Restoration of Rivers and Streams.
Theories and Experience. Butterworth, Stoneham, MA.  280pp.

      A river or stream is dynamic through time. Change is one of the most common features
      associated with river and stream channels.  In general, this change is very slow, however,
      and only over long periods of time is it actually noticeable to most individuals. As a result,
      engineers, ecologists, and others involved with the hydrologic balance of a stream often
      treat the stream system as static. Humans often induce change upon the system without
      taking the necessary steps to restore the quasi-steady situation and thus set in motion a
      response by the stream system to adjust to this change, which results in the propagated
      response along great distances from the human- induced action.  This paper discusses
      methods and techniques for restoring a stream channel to its natural inclinations after a
      human-induced change. The main emphasis will be on meander parameters and their
      importance in stream channel stability.
Haugen, G.N. 1983.  Riparian best management practices. Fisheries 8(1):2 and 9.

      The Western Division of the American Fisheries Society has been active in increasing an
      awareness of riparian habitat management on State, Federal, and Provincial land through-
      out the west. We should recognize existing situations, describe the fishery potential under
      optimum management conditions, and then develop alternatives that have specific objec-
      tives as well as monitoring to insure that these objectives are met. In developing a plan for
      a riparian area, it is important that not only fisheries and wildlife expertise be involved but
      also those who manage the range, the watershed, and the soil.  A multidisciplinary team
      approach is essential if riparian areas are to abe managed to the benefit of all dependent
      resources.                                                         -
Heede, B.H. and J.N. Rinne. 1990. Hydrodynamic and fluvial morphologic processes:
implications for fisheries management and research. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 10(3):249-268.

      Past work has not sufficiently integrated the sciences of hydrology and fisheries. There-
      fore, streamflow, sediment transport, and channel morphology were used to describe the
      present state of our knowledge of interactions between physical and biological (fishery)
      processes. These three physical factory (and others) dictate both habitat quantity and
      quality for different life states of fishes, and their inclusion in habitat assessments will
      enhance the quality of investigations. Interaction of hydraulic and morphologic factors
      creates either dynamic equilibrium or disequilibrium, and indicators are given for determi-
      nation of the type of equilibrium condition.  Thus, stream reaches in disequilibrium can be
      avoided for enhancement or channel stabilization projects, while neglect of the equilibrium
      condition increases the probability of failure of enhancement projects.  Investigators are
      also urged to use additional hydrodynamic parameters, such as the Froude or Reynolds
      number, go quantify objectively the type of flow for improved mathematical-statistical
      analysis of fish-flow relationships. Land managers and researchers are encouraged to
      design future projects to improve the understanding of the very complex interactions
      between fish and their hydraulic and morphologic environment.  Characteristics of fish
      habitat must be modified with great care, and then only if (1) the causes for an undesirable
                                                    Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-15

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
      condition are known and (2) the measures will be compatible with future stream develop-
      ment.  In such an evaluation of fish habitat, the inclusion of hydrodynamic and fluvial
      morphologic variables should provide more precise quantification of habitat characteris-
      tics.
Henderson, J.E.  1986.  Environmental designs for streambank protection projects. Water
Resources Bulletin 22(4):549-558.

      Streambank protection projects are intended to prevent streambank erosion, thereby
      preventing streambank failure and maintaining a desirable channel alignment.  Streambank
      erosion is a natural process of unaltered, dynamic river systems, and protection projects
      seek to impose stability on this natural system. The environmental impacts of such
      projects are primarily changes to terrestrial and aquatic habitats and to aesthetics.  Adverse
      environmental impacts have been minimized and enhancement of existing habitat an d
      aesthetics have been achieved through the development of new, innovative designs or
      modifications to existing designs and through use of construction and maintenance prac-
      tices that promote habitat and aesthetics.  Designs based on channel flow characteristics,
      e.g., revetments using a variety of structural materials, can result in preservation of wildlife
      habitat by reducing the use of structural protection by matching the erosion potential of
      flow at the bank with the protection capability of the materials used.  Designs based on
      streambed stabilization prevent bank failure caused y bank undermining, result in preserva-
      tion or establishment of streamside vegetation, and enhance aesthetics. Protection schemes
      that manage and preserve floodplains, berms, and riparian areas preserve the natural
      condition of the fldodplain area. Designs based on deflection of erosive flows, e.g., dikes,
      minimize disturbance to the bank vegetation and create low-velocity aquatic habitats.  Use
      of vegetation for bank protection is most effective when used in combination with struc-
      tural components.  Construction and maintenance practices can be scheduled and modified
      to minimize impacts to floodplain areas and to enhance wildlife habitat while preserving
      the integrity of the protection structure.
Henszey, R.J., T.A. Wesche, and Q.D. Skinner. 1989. Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art
Streambank Stabilization. Prepared for Water Quality Division, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, WY, 224 pp.

      An evaluation of structural, non-structural, and vegetative streambank stabilization meth-
      ods, with comments on description, application (how and where), advantages, limitations,
      and relative cost of approximately 50 techniques.  Also includes a large bibliography of
      references for individual projects, and streambank stabilization overall.
Herricks, E.E. and L.L. Osborne. 1985. Water quality restoration and protection in
streams and rivers. Pp. 1-20 in: JA. Gore, ed., The Restoration of Rivers and Streams.
Theories and Experience. Butterworth, Stoneham, Ma. 280 pp.

      The following discussion of restoration and protection of water quality in streams and
      rivers recognizes the role water plays in the ecosystem process. Water quality cannot
      easily be discussed from a single disciplinary perspective because issifes span a number of
      disciplines and relate to physical, chemical, and biological components of the ecosystem.
  A.-16  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
      In addition, the separation of purely technical issues from economic, political, and social
     /factors is impossible when constraints on restoration or protection efforts are considered.
      In this discussion of the restoration and protection of water quality in streams, the authors
      felt it important to first review the context in which restoration and protection of water
      quality is viewed, identify uses and impacts, and then discuss the general approaches to
      restoration and protection which are available to water quality managers.
Hughes, R.M.  1985. Use of watershed characteristics to select control streams for estimat-
ing effects of metal mining wastes on extensively disturbed streams. Environmental Man-
agement 9(3):253-262.

      Impacts of sediments and heavy metals on the biota of streams in the copper-mining
      district of southwestern Montana were examined by comparing aquatic communities of
      impacted streams with those of control  streams. Control streams were chosen through the
      use of a technique that identifies similar streams based on similarities in their watershed
      characteristics. Significant differences  between impacted and control sites existed for
      surface substrate, riparian vegetation, and the number of macroinvertebrates taxa.  These
      results revealed that (a) chemical and physical habitats at the impacted sites were dis-
      rupted, (b) the presence of trout was an inadequate measure of ecological integrity for
      these sites, and (c) watershed classification based on a combination of mapped terrestrial
      characteristics provided a reasonable method to select control sites where potential control
      sites upstream and downstream were unsuitable.
Hughes, R.M., T.R. Whittier, and C.M. Rohm. 1990. A regional framework for establish-
ing recovery criteria. Environmental Management 14(5) :673-683.

      Effective assessments of aquatic ecosystem recovery require ecologically sound endpoints
      against which progress can be measured. Site-by-site assessments of end points and
      potential recovery trajectories are impractical for water resource agencies. Because of the
      natural variation among ecosystems, applying a single set of criteria nation-wide is not
      appropriate either.  This article demonstrates the use of a regional framework for stratify-
      ing natural variation and for determining realistic biological criteria.  A map of ecoregions,
      drawn from landscape characteristics, forms the framework for three statewide case studies
      and three separate studies at the river basin scale.  Statewide studies of Arkansas, Ohio,
      and Oregon, USA, streams demonstrated patterns in fish assemblages corresponding to
      ecoregions.  The river basin study in Oregon revealed a distinct change at the ecoregion
      boundary; those in Ohio and Montana demonstrated the value of regional reference sites
      for assessing recovery. Ecoregions can be-used to facilitate the application of ecological
      theory and to set recovery criteria for various regions of states or of the country. Such a
      framework provides an important alternative between site- specific and national ap-
      proaches for assessing recovery rates and conditions.
Hunt, R.L. 1976. A long-term evaluation of trout habitat development and its relation to
improving management-related research. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
105(3):361-364.

      Responses of a wild brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) population to instream habitat
      development in a 0.7 km reach of Lawrence Creek were monitored for 7 years and com-
                                                    . Appendix. A—Annotated Bibliography A-17

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
      pared, to population data for the 3-year period prior to development.  Mean annual biomass
      of trout, mean annual number of trout over 15 cm (legal size), and annual production
      increased significantly during the 3 years following development, abut more impressive
      response were observed during the second 3 years.  Maximum number and biomass and
      number of legal trout did not occur until 5 years after completion of development. The
      peak number of brook trout over 20 cm was reached the sixth year after development.
      Where long-term studies of aquatic systems are needed to evaluate effects of environmen-
      tal perturbations, it may be desirable to deliberately delay collection of posttreatment data.
      Such a start-pause-finish sequence of research would provide more valid and less costly
      evaluations and utilize the time of researchers more efficiently.
Hunt, R.L. 1988. A Compendium of 45 Trout Stream Habitat Development Evaluations in
Wisconsin During 1953-1985. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI,
Technical Bulletin No. 162.
                         *
      A standard case history format was devised to summarize 45 trout stream habitat evalua-
      tions carried out by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fishery manage-
      ment and research biologists on 41 streams distributed among 29 counties during 1953-85.
      Thirty-three of these case histories are based on unpublished documents supplied from
      files offish managers.  Data were gathered from 55 treatment zones (TZs) averaging 0.84
      mile long and 20 reference zones (RZs) averaging 0.74 mile long.  Wild trout were domi-
      nant or solely present in 59 of the 55 TZs. "Success" of each project was judged on the
      basis of percentage changes within TZs for each of 6 possible variables standardized to
      "per mile" quantities. These 6 variables were: total number of trout, number 6 inches or
      larger (legal size), number 10 inches or larger (quality size), total biomass, angler hours,
      and angler harvest.  The habitat development techniques employed were grouped into six
      categories based on the predominant techniques.  Of these 6 categories, the
      "Wisconsin-style" bank cover and current deflector category generally produced the best
      success rates regardless of the species of trout present in the lOTZs represented. Stream
      bank debrushing, sometimes in combination with installation of brush bundles, was very
      effective in a few TZs but scored low in overall success rates for all 9 TZs. More attention
      should be given in future evaluations to improve experimental design by including several
      annual observations of selected variables in paired RZs and TZs before and after habitat
      development in the TZs. Special emphasis is needed on more frequent inclusion of
      season-long creel census studies, despite their high cost, so that changes in trout carrying
      capacity after habitat development can be more accurately assessed.
Hunter, C.J. 1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Management.
Montana Land Reliance, Island Press, Washington,, 321 pp.

      This book was written in response to an explosion of interest in habitat restoration in
      general, and trout-stream habitat restoration in particular. The intent was to synthesize
      state-of-the-art technical information and present it in such a way that it would be readable
      and informative for both the lay and professional reader. Chapters 1-6 provide the
      historical context and technical background necessary to understanding the theory behind
      trout stream restoration and management. Chapters 7 through 9 examine 14 case histories
      showing how theory has, and has not, been put into practice. Chapter 10 provides some
      concluding thoughts on stream restoration management and protection.
A-18  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Inter-Fluve, Inc. 1990. Placer Mining Reclamation Guidance Document (Draft).  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Montana Office, Helena, MT, 78 pp. +
appendices.

      The principal objective if this report is to facilitate informed participation in placer mine
      reclamation. Due to the technical nature of the information contained herein, the primary
      audience for this report is intended to be resource agency personnel. However, it should
      be accessible to a wide audience, including miners, operators, consultants, law makers, and
      administrators. In cases where placer mine activities involve the modification or recon-
      struction of stream environments, it is desirable to reclaim aquatic resources.  This report
      outlines the steps required for fundamental channel reconstruction, focusing on techniques
      to preserve or create channel forms commonly associated with good aquatic habitat.
Jensen, S.E. and W.S. Platts. 1989. Restoration of degraded riverine/riparian habitat in
the Great Basin and Snake River regions. P. 367-404 in: JA. Cusler and M.E. Kentula,
eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I: Regional Reviews.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
OR. EPA600/3-89/038A, 473 pp.

     Riverine/riparian habitat (RRH) includes interdependent aquatic (riverine) and streamside
     (riparian) resources that are valuable for fish and wildlife habitat, flood storage and desyn-
     chronization, nutrient cycling and water quality, recreation, and heritage values. RRH
     includes resources both wetter and drier than stipulated for wetlands.  Whereas the "natural
     or achievable state" of a riparian habitat may be wetland, the "existing state" may be
     non-wetland because of natural or anthropogenically induced changes in the hydrologic
     character of RRH.  There are many different types of RRH, each with distinctive structure,
     function and values. Restoration commonly requires: (1) planning to identify preliminary
     goals and a general  approach, (2) baseline assessments and inventories, (3) designs from
     which the feasibility of accomplishing goals can be assessed, (4) evaluation to assure
     compliance with designs, and (5) monitoring of variables important to goals and objec-
     tives. The goals, approach and design of restoration projects must be tailored to each type
     or RRH. Some general elements important to restoration of degraded RRH are: (1) estab-
     lishment of hydrologic conditions compatible with project goals, (2) efficient handling of
     soil and substrates in construction, (3) selection and propagation of plants suited to the site
     and project goals, (4) evaluation of features to enhance habitat for target species, (5)
     maintenance and control of impacts, and (6) scheduling construction to reflect site con-
     straints and goals. Perhaps the most universally applicable recommendation is "don't fight
     the river" but, rather, encourage it to work for you.


Kanaly, J. 1975. Stream Improvement Evaluation in the Rock Creek Fishway, Carbon
County, Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Fish Division, Administrative
Report, Project  5075-08-6602.

     With the advent of Highway 1-80 from Laramie, Wyoming to Walcott Junction, Wyoming,
     a 1,200-foot channel change on Rock Creek near Arlington was deemed necessary by the
     Wyoming Highway Department.  Confronted by the virtual loss of 1,200 feet of good fish
     habitat which supported populations of rainbow, brook and brown trout, the Wyoming
     Game and Fish Department and the Wyoming Highway Department agreed to attempt
                                                   Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography  A-19

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
     restoration of this reach of stream. The cost of the restoration was included as part of
     highway construction expenditures for 1-80. This report reviews the success of the project.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1982. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environ-
mental Management 5(l):55-68.

     The central assumption of nonpoint source pollution control efforts in agricultural water-
     sheds is that traditional erosion control programs are sufficient to insure high quality water
     resources^ We outline the inadequacies of that assumption, especially as they relate to the
     goal of attaining ecological integrity.  The declining biotic integrity of our water resources
     over the past two decades is not exclusively due to water quality (physical/chemical)
     degradation.  Improvement in many aspects of the quality of our water resources must be
     approached with a much broader perspective than improvement of physical/chemical.
     conditions. Other deficiencies in nonpoint pollution control programs are discussed and a
     new approach to the problem is outlined.  Includes broad comments on habitat structure as
     a primary determinant of the quality of a water resource.
Keeney, D.R. 1982. Nitrogen management for maximum efficiency and minimum pollu-
tion. Ch. 16 in: Nitrogen in Agricultural Soils - Agronomy Monograph No, 22, pp. 605-649.

      Agriculture must evolve towards conserving nonrenewable energy resources and minimiz-
      ing adverse environmental impacts.  Of the essential plant nutrients  which can be realisti-
      cally managed, N undoubtedly has the greatest potential environmental and health impact.
      Further, while small relative to total U.S. energy use, N fertilizer manufacturing has the
      largest energy requirement for any single facet of production agriculture.  The objectives
      of this chapter are twofold: (1) to consider the impacts of N in the environment, and (2) to
      examine various management systems for conservation of N (and, hence, minimization of
      pollution) in agro-ecosystems.


Key, J.W.  1987.  Small Instream Structure Construction for Meadow Restoration in Clark
Canyon, California. Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference,
November 18- 20,1986, West Sacramento, CA, p. 161.

      The project area in Clark Canyon Creek covers approximately four  stream miles within the
      East Walker River subbasin, Mono County, California. This perennial stream receives
      most of its subsurface flow throughout Clark Canyon. Heavy algal  growth has occurred in
      the meadow sections of the stream due to the elimination of undercut banks, widening of
      stream beds, and large amounts of nutrients added from livestock grazing and trailing.
      Naturally occurring erosion in the upper stream reaches contributes a large amount of
      sediment from the upper watershed to lower riparian areas. As a result, an increase of
      suspended sediments and turbidity has occurred in the lower stream reaches where avail-
      able population of rainbow trout is found.  Small instream structures have been constructed
      using inexpensive materials and simple techniques to (1) stabilize active erosion, (2)
      restore wet meadow riparian areas, (3) improve aquatic habitat, and (4) improve wildlife
      cover and downstream fish habitat.
  A-20 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Kiefling, J. 1981. Snake River Investigations. Federal Aid Project Completion Report
F-37-R.
                                                          »
      Habitat improvement procedures were conducted on Hat Creek, Lower Bar BC Spring
      Creek, Three-Channel Spring Creek, and the Gros Ventre River. Compacted gravelssand a
      decided lack of suitable gravels in the tributaries of the Snake River had reduced the
      spawning potential significantly and contributed to increased numbers of superimposed
      redds. The mechanical rejuvenation of gravels, stocking of commercial gravels, and
      development of protected resting sites has been instrumental in significantly increasing the
      numbers of spawning cutthroat trout in all areas. The eyed egg stocking program initiated
      in 1972 (in combination with habitat improvement projects), has been extremely success-
      ful.  The significant return of spawners has been largely attributed to the'egg stocking
      program and points out the limited availability of gravels as being a major limiting factor
      in the Snake River Fishery. In addition, this program is an economical method for return-
      ing imprinted cutthroat trout to specific tributaries. The drought conditions of 1977-78 and
      resultant flows exhibited little difference from those flows experienced since this period
      due to restricted storage levels in Jackson Lake Dam. Creel census data indicate the
      average length of cutthroat harvested and fishing success rates have changed very little
      since 1975. These data did note a significant decrease in non-resident use which relates to
      the national economy and increased license fees. Over-exploitation of the fishery during a
      period of reduced flows did not materialize at this time.
Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (Eds.). 1989. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The State of
the Science, Volume I - Regional Reviews. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, EPA 600/3-89/038A, 473 pp.

      Not available.
Larsen, D.P., M. Omernik, R.M. Hughes, D.R. Dudley, D.M. Rohm, T.R. Whittiers, A.L.
Kinney, and A.L. Gallant. 1986. The correspondence between spatial patterns in fish
assemblages in Ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions. Environmental Management
10:815-828.

      Land classification systems can be useful for assessing aquatic ecosystems if relationship
      among them exist. Because the character of aquatic ecosystems depends to a large extent
      upon the character of the landscape it drains, spatial patterns in aquatic ecosystems should
      correspond to patterns in the landscape. To test this hypothesis, the US state of Ohio was
      divided into four aquatic ecoregions based on an analysis of spatial patterns in the combi-
      nation of land-surface form, land use, potential natural vegetation, and soil parent material.
      During the period July-October 1983, fish assemblages were examined relative to the
      ecoregions; distinct regional differences were identified.  The assemblages differed most
      between the Huron/Erie Lake Plain region and the Western Allegheny Plateau region;
      assemblages in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains and the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain-Interior
      Plateau regions were intermediate.  This pattern also reflects the gradient in landscape
      character as one moves from the northwest to the southeast of Ohio.
                                                    Appendix. A—Annotated Bibliography A-21

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
Lisle, T.E. 1986. Stabilization of a gravel channel by large streamside obstructions and
bedrock bends, Jacoby Creek, northwestern California.  Geological Society of America
Bulletin 97:999-1011.         *

      Jacoby Creek (bed width = 12m; bankfull discharge = 32.6 m3/s) contains stationary
      gravel bars that have forms and positions controlled by numerous large streamside obstruc-
      tions (bedrock outcrops, large woody debris, and rooted bank projections), and bedrock
      bends. Bank-projection width and bar volume measured in 104 channel segments 1
      bed-width long are significantly cross-correlated at lags of -1, 2, and 4, indicating the
      tendency for large obstructions and bends to form bars 3 to 4 bed-widths downstream and
      1 bed-width upstream.  All of the 18 bars downstream of large obstructions or bends in the
      study reach were along the obstruction side of the channel or outside bank of the bend.
      Most of the pools (85%) were next to large obstructions or in bends; conversely, 92% of
      large obstructions or bends had pools. Comparison of the volume of four bars with volu-
      metric bar changes and volume of bedload transported during four high-flow events
      suggests that rates of sediment transport were sufficient to cause major changes in bars
      during bankfull events.  The only important channel changes observed in 4 yr, however,
      have been associated with the movement of large woody debris and with changes in the
      angle at which the flow approaches the obstruction. A general model is proposed that
      large obstructions and non- alluvial bends stabilize the form and location of gravel bars.
      Bars are stabilized by two related mechanisms: 1) Large obstructions and bends cause
      intense, quasi-steady secondary circulation in scour holes that terminate upstream bars at
      fixed locations.  Obstruction width, channel deflection, scour-hole width, and bed width
      were measured at 26 obstructions. These data 'show that obstructions wider than approxi-
      mately one-third of the bed form "pools" spanning the entire channel and, thus, terminat-
      ing bars; smaller obstructions form "scour-holes" contained within a single bar, and 2)
      Bars are deposited upstream of large obstructions and sharp bends because of backwater
      reductions in stream power. Bars are deposited downstream because flow energy is
      expanded around obstructions and bends and because the flow expands downstream of
      constrictions that result from large obstructions. The formation of bars and pools inherent
      in many gravel channels can, thus, be enhanced and fixed in position by flow structures set
      up around large obstructions and bends formed of resistant materials.
Madsen, B.L. 1987. Restoration of Danish streams and insect habitats.  Entomologiske
Meddelelser 55(2-3) :85-90.

      Change in the use of land during recent decades has resulted in a deterioration of the
      biological environment in most Danish streams. A good indicator is the drastic decline in
      well known stream insect communities. The main causes have been pollution, ochre
      depositions, and physical changes in stream channels and surroundings. Because of the
      maintenance procedures the high physical diversity inherent in streams has vanished.
      Recent legislation and administrative practices are reversing the past trend. Most impor-
      tant is the Danish Water Course Act of 1982 which is supposed to be implemented within a
      decade. This law states, e.g., that maintenance procedures must be planned and undertaken
      in such a way that the former diverse physical template can be restored. Recent reports
      from the local Water Authorities show evidence of improvements in the stream biota.
 A-22  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration; A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 Marcus, M.D., M.K. Young, L.E. Noel, and BA. Mullen. 1990.  Salmonid-Habitat Relation-
 ships in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
 Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Report RM-188,84 pp.

      This report includes a general review and analysis of the literature summarizing the
      available information relevant to salmonid-habitat relationships, particularly as it pertains
      to the central Rocky Mountains. Also included is a comprehensive indexed bibliography.
      Indexed subjects include: beaver, channel morphology, grazing, habitat enhancement,
      nutrients, organic materials, riparian, sediments, streamflow, temperature, urbanization,
      and water development.


 Marston, RA. 1982.  The geomorphic significance of log steps in forest streams. Annals of
 the Association of American Geographers 72(1):99-108.

      A functional account of log steps in forest streams is provided by field surveys of 163
      kilometers of streams in the central Oregon Coast Range. Natural treefall, rather than
      silvicultural activities, accounts for the majority of log steps.  During low-flow conditions,
      dissipation of potential stream energy by log steps amounts to 6 percent, approximately
      equal to that by falls. There are no statistically significant differences regarding spatial
      distribution of log steps between study basins with contrasting silvicultural and natural
      stream inputs of large woody debris.  However, significant spatial differences are revealed
      between streams of various orders, a finding that points to channel flushing capacity and
      stream- adjacent topography as dominant controls on log step  development. Application of
      thermodynamic principles to stream systems demonstrates that neither falls nor log  steps
      cause a statistically significant difference in equilibrium  conditions of stream networks.
      The volume of sediment stored behind log steps in third-, fourth-, and fifth-order streams is
      123 percent of the mean annual sediment discharge (suspended load and bed-load).  De-
      priving some streams of log steps by stream clean-out or repeated harvest of
      stream-adjacent trees may initiate an episode of progressive erosion by not dissipating
      stream energy in excess of that needed to transport imposed sediment supplies. Addition
      of log steps to streams with energy already insufficient to balance sediment inputs and
      outputs may only serve to accentuate progressive deposition. Functions of instream large
      woody debris not incorporated as log steps must also be addressed in forest management
      decisions.
Meyer, J.L. and G.E. Likens. 1979. Transport and transformation of phosphorus in a
forest stream ecosystem. Ecology 60(6): 1255-1269.

     A phosphorus budget was constructed to examine P retention and processing during 1 yr.
     (1974-1975) in Bear Brook, an undisturbed headwater stream in the Hubbard Brook
     Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. Year-to -year variation in the P mass balance
     was also estimated for a 13-yr period using an empirical model of the annual budget. In
     the model, fluvial inputs and exports of P were calculated using the 13-year record of
     streamflow and the regressions between P concentration and discharge developed from
     measurements made during 1974-1976.  Precipitation and streamflow were average in the
     1974-75 water year, and the relative importance of P input vectors during this year were:
     tributary streams (62%) > falling and blowing litter (23%) > subsurface water (10%) >
     precipitation (5%).  Geologic export of P in stream water was the only export vector of
                                                    Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-23

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
     consequence. Under these average hydrologic conditions, there was no annual net reten-
     tion of P in the stream: annual inputs of 1.25 g P/m2 were essentially balanced by exports
     of 1.30 g P/m2. However, during most days of this year inputs exceeded exports: P
     accumulated, was processed in the ecosystem, and was exported during episodes of high
     stream discharge. Because of the pulsed nature of P flux, a mass balance provides an
     overestimate of the P entering functional pathways of a stream ecosystem. Over the 13-yr
     period (1963-1975), annual mass balances calculated with the model were variable; the
     ratio of P exports to inputs varied from 0.56 to 1/6 and was directly related to annual
     streamflow. Thus monthly transport patterns or annual mass balances generated from only
     1 yr of record may lead to erroneous conclusions on stream ecosystem function. Although
     variability characterizes most aspects of P dynamics in Bear Brook, processing of P is
     consistent.  Inputs of dissolved P (DP, < 0.45 um-1 mm) and coarse particulate P (CPP, > 1
     mm) exceeded exports, while exports of fine particulate P (FPP, 0.45 um-1 mm) exceeded
     inputs. Thus there was a net conversion of other forms of P to the FPP fraction, which was
     the predominant form (62% of the total) exported downstream.


Moore, K.M.S. and S.V. Gregory. 1988. Response of young-of-the-year cutthroat trout to
manipulation of habitat structure in a small stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 117:162-170.

     In Mack Creek, a third-order stream flowing through a 450-year-old coniferous forest in
     Oregon's Cascade Mountains, population size of young-of-the-year cutthroat trout (Salmo
     clarkt) was positively correlated with length of stream edge and area of lateral habitat.
     Lateral habitats included backwaters and eddies at the margin of the channel that made up
      10-15% of total stream area. Lateral habitat area was reduced at higher or lower
     streamflow, but the length of channel perimeter formed by lateral habitats was never less
     than twice the length of the reach. In an experimental manipulation of lateral habitat
     before the emergence of young fish from the redd, an increase in lateral habitat area of 2.4
     times the area observed in the control reaches resulted in a 2.2 times greater density of •
     age-0 cutthroat trout. Young-of-the-year fish were virtually eliminated from stream
     sections with reduced area of lateral habitat. Growth was not effected by the greater
     density of fish in reaches with enhanced lateral habitat.


Morrison, S.W.  1988. The Percival Creek corridor plan. Journal of Soil and Water Conser-
vation, 43(6):465467.

      Within the shadow of the Washington State Capitol dome, Percival Creek and the Black
      Lake Drainage Ditch flow 3.3 miles form Black Lake throughout Thurston County and the
      cities of Tumwater and Olympia to Capitol Lake at Percival Cove.  Within this short
      distance, the corridor contains three distinct creek reaches. Each reach is abundant in
      water, wetlands, and related natural resources. These resources and amenities survive in an
      urban area experiencing rapid population growth and development.  Because of these
      pressures,  conflicts have arisen between upland activities and the future maintenance of the
      creek's natural integrity.  In 1984, public controversy surrounding construction of the West
      Olympia Bridge indicated that current land use and shoreline regulations were inadequate
      to address the unique conditions within the Percival Creek corridor. The upshot of this
      controversy has been the development of a corridor plan that strives to achieve a balance
      between environmental protection and economic development.
 A-24 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration:  A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
 Mullaney, R.J. and J.T. Windell. 1989. A Proposal for Control of Non-point Source Pollu-
 tion with Best Management Practices on Dry Creek, Boulder County, Colorado. Clean Water
 Act Section 319 Program, Non-point Source Pollution Control, Colorado Department of
 Health.

      The City of Boulder Department of Public Works was awarded a matching grant by the
      Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission, Section 319 Program,
      in January 1989. The grant was based on a proposed project "A Proposal for Control of
      Nonpoint Source Pollution in Boulder Creek with Best Management Practices - A Demon-
      stration Project" dated November 4, 1988. All of the grant money is to be spent on con-
      struction of six best management practices designed to reduce and control nonpoint source
      pollution. Specific BMP's were selected that will not only control NFS pollution, but
      facilitate aquatic and riparian zone habitat restoration and ecosystem function over time.
      Dry creek, a tributary that connects with Boulder Creek contributes significant amounts of
      NFS pollution to Boulder Creek. This proposal has been prepared to compliment the
      Boulder Creek proposal. Includes information in aquatic habitat improvement, (especially
      fisheries), revegetation, and some ditch repair.


 Munther, G.L.  1982. Beaver Management in Grazed Riparian Ecosystems.  In: R. Wiley
 (ed.) Proceedings of Rocky Mt. Stream Habitat Management Workshop, Sept. 7-10,1982,
 Jackson, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY.

      Beaver activity has substantially influenced the structure of many low gradient streams and
      associated valley bottoms in western Montana. These areas, with their  flat valley bottoms
      and low gradient streams, have high wildlife, fisheries , and livestock values.  Because
      riparian zones are in delicate equilibrium with their surroundings, the removal of beaver
      through the elimination of habitat or overharvest often leads to dramatic changes in the
      valley bottom and its stream channel. Reductions in wildlife and fisheries habitat can
      result. Continued livestock grazing in the absence of beaver in some valley bottom types
      eliminates shrubs, causes stream channel changes, and lowers water tables. Once the
      channel  has degraded, and the water table lowered, livestock forage production is usually
      reduced, and vegetative type changes result in a less diverse wildlife community. The
      lower vegetative productivity in combination with a more active stream channel inhibit
      riparian recovery and necessitates substantial livestock management changes for recovery.
      Several riparian management practices, depending in individual site analysis, are available
      to increase the quality of this zone. These include using grazing systems that favor shrub
      production, shrub plantings, regulation of beaver harvest, beaver transplants into favorable
      habitat, and reduction of livestock grazing in sensitive areas following loss of beaver.


Myers, TJ. and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, stream type, and
livestock bank damage in northern Nevada.  Water Resources Bulletin 27(4):667-677.

     The quality of stream habitat varies for a  variety of natural and anthropogenic reasons not
     identified by a condition index.  However, many people use condition indices to indicate
     management needs or even direction.  To better sort natural from livestock influences,
     stream types and levels of ungulate bank damage were regulated to estimates of aquatic
     habitat condition index and stream width parameters in a large existing stream inventory
     database. Pooyriffle ratio, pool structure, stream bottom materials, soil  stability,  and
                                                   Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-25

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
      vegetatipn type varied significantly with ungulate bank damage level.  Soil and vegetation
      stability were highly cross-correlated.  Riparian area width did not vary significantly with
      either stream type or ungulate bank damage. Variation among stream types indicates that
      riparian management and monitoring should be stream type and reach specific.


 National Research Council (NRC).  1991.  Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science,
 Technology, and Public Policy. Prepublication copy, National Research Council, 11 pp.

      This report describes the status  and functions of surface water ecosystems; the effective-
      ness of aquatic restoration efforts; the technology associated with those efforts; and the
      research, policy, and institutional reorganization required to begin a national strategy for
      aquatic ecosystem restoration.


 National Research Council (NRC).  1992.  Water Transfers in the West: Efficiency, Equity,
 and the Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

«     Not Available.


 Nelson, R.W., G.C. Horak, and J.E. Olson. 1978.  Western Reservoir and Stream Habitat
 Improvements Handbook: Guide to the Performance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Popu-
 lation Improvement Measures Accompanying Water Resource Development. U.S. Depart-
 ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-78/
 56.
      This book is a guide to the performance 9f habitat and population improvement measures.
      It is designed to be a handbook of guidance for selecting more effective measures to
      recommend and negotiate among administrators, biologists and engineers offish and game
       and construction agencies.  The guide is based primarily on measures shown to be effective
      in the past at a representative selection of 90 dam  and reservoir projects in 19 western
       States. The major effort in preparing  the guide was devoted to investigation into the
       historical success of approximately 286 individual improvement measures within 60   :
       categories.  Secondarily, the guide presents measures believed to be potentially effective
       by investigators involved in current research or authors of recent literature.


  Nelson, W.R., J.R. Dwyer, and WE. Greenberg.  1987. Regulated flushing in a gravel-bed
  river channel habitat maintenance: a Trinity River fisheries case study. Environmental
  Management ll(4):479-493.

       The operation of Trinity and Lewiston Dams on me Trinity River in northern California in
       the U.S., combined with severe watershed erosion, has jeopardized the existence of prime
       salmonid fisheries.  Extreme streamflow depletion and stream sedimentation below
       Lewiston have resulted in heavy accumulation of coarse sediment on riffle gravel and
       filling of streambed, causing the destruction of spawning, nursery, and overwintering
       habitat for  prized Chinook salmon (Salmo gairdnerii) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus
        tschawytscha). Proposals to restore and maintain the degraded habitat include controlled
        one-time remedial peak flows or annual  maintenance peak flows designed to flush the
        spawning gravel and scour the banks, deltas, and pools. The criteria for effective channel
   A-26 Appendix. A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       - Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
      restoration or maintenance by streambed flushing and scouring are examined here, as well
      as the mechanics involved.  The liabilities of releasing mammoth scouring-flushing flows
      approximating the magnitude that preceded reservoir construction make this option invi-
      able. The resulting damage to fish habitat established under the postproject streamflow
      regime, as well as damage to human settlements in the floodplain, would be unacceptable,
      as would the opportunity costs to hydroelectric and irrigation water users.  The technical
      feasibility of annual maintenance flushing flows depends upon associated mechanical and
      structural measures, particularly instream maintenance dredging of deep pools and con-
      struction of a sediment control dam on a tributary where watershed erosion is extreme.
      The cost effectiveness of a sediment dam with a limited useful economic life, combined
      with perpetual maintenance dredging, is questionable.
Oberts, G.L. 1977.  Water Quality Effects of Potential Urban Best Management Practices: A
Literature Review, Department of Natural Resources, Madison WI, Tech. Bull. No. 97,
25 pp.

      This paper presents a review of the literature regarding the water quality effects of all
      readily available urban management practices commonly used to alleviate or control
      pollution from such sources as construction, street runoff, litter, combined sewer over-
      flows, and all predominantly urban activities that potentially add pollutants to streams.
      Three alternative management approaches for dealing with pollution from urban runoff are
      discussed: source control, collection system control, and discharge treatment.
Osborne, L.L., B. Dickson, and D. Kovacic.  1989.  Water Quality Restoration: A Perspective
and Some Methods.  Paper presented at the North American Benthological Society's Tech-
nical Information Workshop on "Stream Rehabilitation and Restoration", May 18, 1989,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

     The purpose of this paper is to provide an individualistic, and hopefully realistic, perspec-
     tive on water quality restoration, address fundamental issues involved with any restoration
     effort, provide a general overview of available water quality restoration strategies, and
     discuss some limited methods available for streams degraded by diffuse source impacts.
Packer, P.E. 1957. Management of forest watersheds and improvement offish habitat.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 87:392-397.

      Management of forest watersheds in the western United States for protection against floods
      and sediment and to improve water yields can also be very beneficial in fishery manage-
      ment. Some of the important hydrologic processes that operate on watersheds are dis-
      cussed. The principal kinds of watershed protection and water yield improvement prob-
      lems are outlined and discussed in relation to maintenance of desirable fish habitat.  Need
      for research to determine quantitative hydrologic relationships on watersheds and develop
      methods of forest management for better regulated and higher quality stream flow is
      emphasized.
                                                    Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-27

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
Pennington, C.H., S.S. Knight, and M.P. Farrell. 1985. Response of fishes to revetment
placement.  Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings 39:95-97.

      Routine fish sampling with hoop nets was conducted monthly from April through Decem-
      ber 1978 along natural and revetted riverbanks of the lower Mississippi River near Eudora;
      Arkansas, to monitor changes in fish populations affected by placement of new revetment
      for bank protection. Eighteen species of fish were collected with four species comprising
      over 75%of the total catch. During the months prior to revetment placement, freshwater
      drum, (Aplodinotus grunniens), was the most abundant (32.7% of the catch) species
      collected. Following in abundance were the flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris - 9.8%),
      common carp (Cyprinus carpio - 7.8%), and blue catfish, (Jctalurus furcatus - 3.3%).
      After revetment placement in August 1978, the freshwater drum was again the most
      abundant component, comprising 9.7% of the catch. Gizzard shad (Dorosoma
      cepedianuni), flathead catfish, and blue catfish followed in abundance and comprised 8.9,
      4.1, and 3.4% of the total catch, respectively. Catch per effort data indicated that fish were
      generally more abundant at natural bank stations than revetted bank stations but the
      difference was not significant.  The study suggests that fish inhabiting natural riverbank
      habitat recover quite rapidly from bank perturbation caused by the placement of revetment.
Phillips, J.D.  1989. Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests
along a coastal plain river. Journal of Hydrology 110:221-237.

     A detention-time model of water quality buffer zones is used to evaluate the nonpoint
     source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests in a two-county area of the lower
     Tar River basin, North Carolina.  Soil map units, which represent specific combinations of
     soil, topography, and vegetation characteristics, are compared in terms of their relative
     ability to filter nitrate in agricultural runoff.  All typical riparian forests provide significant
     water quality protection, but there is a wide variation in buffer effectiveness. This suggests
     a need for flexibility in determining buffer widths. A range of 15-80 m is appropriate for
     the soil- landform-vegetation complexes found in riparian zones within the study area.
     Buffer widths of 60 m - and after much less - are generally adequate on the soils likely to
     be used for agricultural production.
Platts, W.S. and J.N. Rinne. 1982. Riparian-Stream Protection and Enhancement Research
in the Rocky Mountains. In: R. Wiley (ed.) Proc. of Rocky Mt. Stream Habitat Manage-
ment Workshop, Sept. 7-10,1982, Jackson, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department,
Laramie, WY.

     Artificial change of watershed condition whether by logging, road construction, livestock
     grazing, or mining can effectively override climatic and geologic controls and maintain a
     stream in an artificial state. Such an artificial unstable state, will persist until natural
     stabilizing forces can override the disturbing factory. Presently, many streams in the
     Rocky Mountains,are functioning in a recently-imposed, artificial state which fishes have
     difficulty adapting their life requirements to. In addition, some natural streams, because of
     innate geologic and climatic control, do not offer the necessary environmental conditions
     that provide suitable habitat for certain specie of fish, especially salmonids. These two
     stream conditions (artificial stressed and naturally having an innately low habitat quality)
     are the situations that fishery biologists must address when attempting stream enhancement
  A-28  Appendix, A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
      projects to improve fish habitat. As biologists plan and construct these enhancement
      projects they will find that research in the Rocky Mountains concerning stream and
      riparian enhancement is very limited. This report attempts to summarize what is available
      under one cover and make recommendations for further research direction in this area.
      Contains some reference to the influence of restoration on chemical factors (see p. 16).


Platts, W.S. and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Riparian and stream enhancement management and
research in the Rocky Mountains. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
5:115-125.

      This report reviews past stream enhancement research int he Rocky Mountains, its ad-
      equacy, and research that should be done to improve the effectiveness of future stream
      enhancement projects.  Research is lacking»on stream improvement in a watershed context
      on a long-term basis. Not all streams can be enhanced. Enhancement should be attempted
      only after techniques described in the literature have been carefully considered and judged
      to be appropriate for the selected site. Contains some mention of improvement to the
      water column (physical dimensions and physiochemical factors such as dissolved oxygen,
      temperature and pH) by grazing restriction, channelization techniques and stream improve-
      ment structures, natural enhancement, and control of agricultural runoff from adjacent
      lands. Mentions that brush and tree cover lowers stream temperatures, and techniques that
      attempt to improve the water column.
Richards, C., P.J. Cernera, M.P. Ramey, and D.W. Reiser. 1992. Development of
Off-channel Habitat for use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon.  Manuscript in publication.

      Fisheries habitat improvement frequently requires the exploitation of existing or man-made
      features of stream channels and associated floodplains.  In the Yankee fork of the Salmon
      River, a series of off-channel dredge ponds were connected to the river by excavating
      connecting channels and construction of surface-water control structures. This habitat was
      created to increase available rearing habitat for juvenile chinook salmon. The dredge
      ponds had been left as a result of past mining activities. Highest fish densities in the newly
      constructed pond series were in connecting channel habitats.  These densities are higher
      than those reported in other streams and may be related to the hatchery origin of the
      stocked fish. Densities observed in the ponds were similar to those reported in natural
      habitats. Addition of habitat through incorporation of dredge ponds increases management
      options for rebuilding chinook populations in the stream.
Roseboom, D., R. Twait, and D. Sallee. 1989. Habitat Restoration for Fish and Wildlife in
Backwater Lakes of the Illinois River. Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Man-
agement of the Illinois River System: The 1990's and Beyond, Peoria, IL, Oct. 3-4,
1989, pp. 65-68.           v

      The Lake Peoria Habitat Restoration project was sponsored by the Illinois Department of
      Conservation with Sport Fish Restoration funds to create fish habitat. The Illinois River
      and Lake Peoria were the greatest fishing and hunting areas in Illinois. Excessive rates of
      sedimentation are destroying Lake Peoria and all backwater lakes of the Illinois River.
      Concurrently with increased sedimentation, much of the aquatic vegetation disappeared *
                                                   Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-29

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
     between 1950 and 1965. High rates of sedimentation buried aquatic vegetation beneath
     thick layers of fluid sediments. Wave action prevents natural revegetation by uprooting
     young plants from the fluid sediments. When the aquatic vegetation died off, populations
     of waterfowl and gamefish declined quickly. The Lake Peoria Restoration project has
     developed low cost techniques to restore aquatic vegetation. When placed behind a tire
     breakwater, arrowhead and pondweed plantings have been successful in 1987,1988, and
     1989. Both the breakwater and plant beds have survived two winters after the initial
     plantings. The breakwater also serves as an artificial reef. Gamefish response has been
     quick and dramatic.  The number of fish species has doubled and the numbers of fish have
     quadrupled.  The vegetated area serves as a nursery for young bluegill, channel catfish, and
     bass. In 1989, large bluegill were found on the vegetated site only. In fact, the number
     and total weight of bluegill and channel catfish in the vegetated area exceeded the number
     and weight of all fish (mainly carp) in the control area.
Rost, R.A., J.C. Brand, R.M. Bruch, D.H. Crehore, S.I. Dodson, R.L. Fassbender, L.J.
Herman, T.F. Rasman, and A.M. Stranz. 1989. Water Quality and Restoration of the Lower
Oconto River, Oconto County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI, Technical Bulletin No. 164, 37 pp.

     The purpose of the Oconto River Restoration Project (1979-83) was to develop and
     implement a plan to restore the water quality, aquatic environment, and fish habitat of the
     lower Oconto River in Oconto County, Wisconsin.  This river segment had been severely
     degraded for over 70 years by pulp mill effluent. Because of noncompliance with federal
     and state water quality standards, the mill was closed in 1978. The owner paid a court-
     ordered settlement, part of which was allocated to the Wisconsin Department of Natural  ,
     Resources for development of a remedial plan. The principal elements of the plan were: 1)
     an extended drawdown of the Machickanee Flowage to change the physical consistency of
     the accumulated sediment; .2) chemical treatment of fish populations in the Machickanee
     Flowage to eradicate rough fish; 3) fish stocking to establish game fish and panfish follow-
     ing chemical treatment; 4) access development; 5) establishment of contingency funds for
     habitat improvement and additional fish stocking if necessary; 6) continuous monitoring
     for a three-year period to determine the effectiveness of the management techniques
     applied; and 7) an intensive public relations program conducted throughout the project.
     Because of the drawdown the character of the sediment changed such that both numbers
     and species of aquatic plants and aquatic macroinvertebrates greatly increased. The
     amount of substrate for fish spawning also increased. A creel census and other surveys
     conducted after the management plan was implemented indicated that the aquatic ecosys-
     tem was more favorably balanced.
Rowe, M., S. Spaulding, J.M. Gunderman, and K. Bacon.  1989.  Salmon River Habitat
Enhancement - Annual Report. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Annual Report, Bonneville
Power Administration, Portland, OR, Project No. 83-359.      v

      Fine sediments from an inactive dredge mine in the headwaters of Bear Valley Creek
      (BVC) contributed to degradation of spawning and rearing habitat of chinook salmon and
      steelhead trout in a 55 km section of stream. Major construction efforts targeted at de-
      creasing recruitment of fine sediments in the mined area were completed in the fall of
 *    1988. In 1989 a completed revegetation program has finalized enhancement efforts in the
 A-30 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
      mined area. Biological monitoring evaluation of project efficacy continued throughout the
      length of Bear Valley Creek during the summer of 1989. Physical habitat features were
      monitored only in the mined area and the strata directly below this area in 1989.  Baseline
      floodplain cover measurements were also initiated this year. In June, densities of Age 0+
      chinook salmon were highly variable according to location and time of year. Age 0+
      chinook salmon densities were highest in the.mid-portion of BVC at 25 fish/100m2pool
      compared to upper BVC where densities ranged from 0.8 - 8.0 fish/100m2pool. By late
      August, however, we documented high chinook salmon densities in upper BVC of 77 to
      118 fish/100m2pool compared to less than 1 fish/100m2pool in lower BVC. It was found
      that sloughs play an important role in early season chinook salmon rearing in upper BVC
      where high flow conditions likely preclude most fish from channel habitat. In early July,
      chinook salmon densities of 134 and 59 fish/100m2 were estimated in slough areas of the
      two upper BVC strata.  By August, chinook densities in these sloughs were less than July
      densities, as well as late season stream densities. Most fish move out of the sloughs by
      August and this movement may be partially responsible for the high number of chinook
      observed in upper BVC by late  August. Various physical parameters have responded    *
      favorably to the project. The percentage of fine sediments in the mined area has decreased
      from a high of 34.4% in 1987 to a low of 23.5% in 1989; this difference, however, was not
      significant. The stream area directly below the mined section has undergone a similar
      decrease in fine sediments, from 50.1% in 1987 to 37.9% in 1989. Amount of riparian
      cover has continually increased since 1984 in the mined area with 1989 measures signifi-
      cantly greater. The mean percentage of vegetative cover ranged from 8.4% in lower
      floodplain of the mined area (seeded in 1988) to 34.6% in the upper floodplain region
      (seeded in 1986). The present cover in the 1986 plot was significantly (P<0.05) greater
      than cover in the 1988 plot. The grasses (Pla pratensis, Agropyron spp. and Phleum
      pretensis) were the primary cover constituents in the three plots.  Annual reports from
      1987 and 1988 are also available, but this is the most recent on this project as they are
      approximately 3 years behind in publication.
Sedell, J.R. and J.L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: the
isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S A., from its floodplain by snagging and
streamside forest removal. Verh. Internet. Verein. LimnoL 22:1828-1834.

     The river continuum concept (Vannote et al. 1980) stressed the point that the influence of
     the terrestrial system on a stream diminishes as the stream gets larger. The role of flood-
     plains in the river continuum concept was limited to decomposition of particulate organic
     material during periods of low water and the subsequent return of organic materials by
     flood waters and surface runoff. The river continuum concept emphasizes some functions
     of streamside forest in inferring a downstream decrease in influence, but does not give
     attention to other functions related to overbank flow that increase in importance down-
     stream as outlined by Welcomme (1979).  The influence of the floodplains has been
     reduced by local activities such as snagging the mainstem, diking and improved drainage
     of floodplains for agriculture or urbanization, and the reduction of the extent of flooding
     because of upstream activities such as flood control dams. These alterations within the
     stream and on the floodplain have modified the relationship between mainstem and flood-
     plain by changing the composition and structure of the floodplain vegetation and changing
     the sources and sinks for organic matter along large rivers. The combined effects isolate a
     river system from the influence its floodplain has on the structure and nutrient capital of
                                                   Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-31

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
      the aquatic ecosystem. This report describes the pristine and present streamside forest,
      channel geomorphology, and role of downed trees in the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A.
      From this case history, a modification of the river continuum concept is presented.
 Seehorn, M.E. 1982.  Trout Stream Improvements Commonly Used on Southeastern National
 Forests. In: R. Wiley (ed.) Proc. of Rocky Mt. Stream Habitat Management Workshop,
 Sept. 7-10,1982, Jackson, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY.

      "Structural" improvement in itself is a broad term encompassing habitat needs such as fish
      passageways, fish barriers, fencing, spawning structures, and cover devices. With only
      limited anadromous fisheries on southeastern forests, emphasis is for the most part, ori-
      ented towards instream cover needs, and construction of fish barriers to preclude upstream
      migration of undesirable fish species.  The following accounts describe structures most
      commonly used on Southeastern National Forests. Cost estimates, given in crew days, are
 *    based on a 4- to 6-man crew working in relatively accessible areas, using hand tools and
      cutting logs on site.
 Seehorn, M.E.  1985.  Fish Habitat Improvement Handbook. U.S. Department of Agricul-
 ture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Technical Publication R8-TP 7.

      This handbook provides fishery managers with structural designs that may be used to
      correct stream fish habitat deficiencies over a broad range of existing conditions.  With the
      exception of the fish barrier, the primary objective of the designs is to improve instream
      conditions by creating deeper water and overhead cover. The designs in this handbook are
      for structures that can be installed using hand labor with little or no heavy equipment.
 Shields, F.D., Jr.  1982.  Environmental features for iflood control channels. Water Re-
 sources Bulletin 18(5):779-784.

      The environmental effects of flood control channel modifications such as clearing and
      snagging, straightening, enlargement, and/or paving can be quite severe in some cases.
      Information review reveals that several environmental features have been incorporated into
      the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of recent flood control channel projects
      to avoid adverse environmental impacts and enhance environmental quality. Typically,
      these features have been proposed by conservation agencies and designed with minimal
      quantitative analysis. Environmental features for channel projects include selective
      clearing and snagging techniques, channel designs with nonuniform geometry such as
      single bank  modification and floodways, restoration and enhancement of aquatic habitat,
      improved techniques for placement of excavated material, and revegetation.
 Simpson, P., J.R. Newman, M.A. Keirn, R.M. Matter, and P.A. Guthrie. 1982. Manual of
 Stream Channelization Impacts on Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
 and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/24,155 pp.

       To control flooding and flood damage, increase available land for agriculture, improve
       navigability, and maintain hydraulic efficiency of streams, many channelization or stream
 A-32 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
     modification activities have been performed in the last several years.  Channelization
     activities associated with small streams include clearing and snagging, riprapping, widen-
     ing, deepening, realignment, and lining. This manual describes the impacts of these
     activities on the physical, chemical, and biological environments of streams.  Associated
     impacts are identified based on existing literature. Relevant literature was used to assess
     probable impacts where studies had not been performed. Historic and current legislation
     governing channelization activities is also addressed.  A step-by-step procedure to assess
     channelization projects is recommended.
Skinner, Q.D., J.L. Dodd, J.D. Rodgers, and M.A. Smith. 1985. Antidesertiflcation of
Riparian Zones and Control ofNonpoint Source Pollution. Perspectives on Nonpoint Source
Pollution: Proceedings of a Conference, Kansas City, MO, May 19-22,1985, pp. 382-386.

      Overgrazing by domestic livestock and periodic flooding are often cited as sources for
      increasing nonpoint source pollution in streams within semi-arid rangelands. Riparian
      zones along streams may help decrease nonpoint pollution if maintained in a healthy
      ecological condition. This paper will address two research programs designed to reverse
      desertification of streamside zones along cold desert streams in Wyoming by:  (1) manipu-
      lating livestock grazing; (2) promoting regrowth of desirable vegetation; (3) willow
      planting; (4) using instream flow structures to store water in channel banks and trap
      sediment; and (5) encouraging beaver damming. Research theory as well as monitoring
      protocol will be discussed and related to ease of use by management agencies fcnd  producer
      groups affiliated with western rangelands.


Sparks, R.E., P.B. Bayley, S.L. Kohler, and L.L. Osborne. 1990. Disturbance and recovery
of large floodplain rivers. Environmental Management 14(5):699-709.

      Disturbance in a river-floodplain system is defined as an unpredictable event that disrupts
      structure or function at the ecosystem, community, or population level. Disturbance can
      result in species replacements or losses, or shifts of ecosystems from one persistent condi-
      tion to another.  A disturbance can be a discrete event or  a graded change in a controlling
      factor that eventually exceeds a critical threshold. The annual flood is the major driving
      variable that facilitates lateral exchanges of nutrients, organic matter, and organisms.  The
      annual flood is not normally considered a disturbance unless its timing or magnitude is
      "atypical". As an example, the record flood of 1973 had little effect on the biota at a long-
      term study site on the mississippi river. In contrast, the Illinois river has been degraded by
      a gradual increase in sediment input and sediment resuspension that changed a formerly
      productive 320-km reach of the river from clear, vegetated areas to turbid, barren basins.
      Traditional approaches to experimental design are poorly suited for detecting control
      mechanisms and for determining the critical thresholds in large river-floodplains.  Large
      river-floodplain systems cannot be manipulated or sampled as easily as small streams, and
      greater use should be made of man-made or natural disturbances and environmental
      restoration as opportunistic experiments to measure thresholds and monitor the recovery
      process.
                                                     Appendix, A—Annotated Bibliography A-33

-------
 Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality,
Stern, D.H. and M.S. Stern. 1980a. Effects of Bank Stabilization on the Physical and
Chemical Characteristics of Streams and Small Rivers: A Synthesis. Eastern Energy &
Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, USDOI,
Kearneysville, WV.

      This report is a synthesis of available literature relating the effects of bank stabilization to
      the physical and chemical characteristics of streams. A companion document contains the
      references to the literature which formed the basis for the synthesis. The synthesis pro-
      vides guidelines for planning bank protection and stabilization activities.  Contains infor-
      mation on temperature, suspended solids, bed materials, and dissolved substances among
      other subjects.
Stern, D.H. and M.S. Stern. 1980b. Effects of Bank Stabilization on the Physical and
Chemical Characteristics of Streams and Small Rivers:  An Annotated Bibliography. Eastern
Energy & Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, USDOI,
Kearneysville, WV.

      Companion document to ER73. This annotated bibliography provides a source of informa-
      tion on the impacts of bank stabilization on the physical and chemical characteristics of
      streams and small rivers. The bibliography has 213 references, and is indexed by 26 key
      subject headings. Papers range from technical documents to general discussions address-
      ing the physical and chemical changes that result from various type of bank stabilization
      activities. Many of the annotations provide a thorough summary of pertinent information
      contained in the respective references.
Stockner, J.G. and K.R.S. Shortreed. 1978. Enhancement of autotrophic production by
nutrient addition in a coastal rainforest stream on Vancouver Island. /. Fish. Res. Board
Can. 35:28-34.

      In 1976 streamside nutrient-enrichment experiments were conducted using wooden
      troughs. Triling of the PO4- concentration, with or without a similar increase of NO3-,
      increased algal biomass  on the troughs by 8 times after 35 days.  Increasing NO3- alone
      had no appreciable effect on algal growth. A sloughing of algal biomass in August 1976 is
      believed to have been due to the instability of the heavy algal mat on the troughs and to the
      very poor light conditions that prevailed throughout August. Visual observation indicated
      that the relatively  heavy algal population in Carnation Creek rapidly declined concurrent
      with the decline in the troughs, and Frangilaria vaucheriae replaced Achnmanthes
      minutissima as dominant on the phosphorus enriched trough.  No shift to green or
      blue-green algal dominated assemblages occurred despite alteration of the N:P ratio.  The
      dynamics of species succession, distribution, and growth, with and without nutrient
      addition, are discussed.
Thomas, R.B. 1990. Problems in determining the return of a watershed to pretreatment
conditions: techniques applied to a study at Caspar Creek, California.  Water Resources
Research 26(9):2079-2087.

      Using a previously treated basin as a control in subsequent paired watershed studies
      requires the control to be stable. Basin stability can be assessed in many ways, some of
 A-34 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       .EcologicalRestoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
      which are investigated for the South Fork of Caspar Creek in northern California.  This
      basin is recovering from logging and road building in the early 1970s.  Three storm-based
      discharge characteristics (peak discharge, quick flow, and total storm flow), daily flows,
      and concentration of suspended sediment were studied to see of the South Fork can be used
      as a control in a second experiment. Mean sediment concentration in three discharge
      classes and regression parameters for the other data were tested to estimate remaining
      treatment effects relative to the North Fork. Patterns of change were similar for most data,
      with rises in response followed by returns toward pretreatment conditions. The storm and
      sediment data showed few significant differences, but tests on daily flows indicated that
      differences still exist. The overall evidence suggests that the South Fork has returned to
      near pretreatment conditions. Better sediment data are needed for studies of the effects of
      land management.
 Thurston, R.M., G.R. Phillips, R.C. Rosso, and S.M. Hinkins. 1981. Increased toxicity of
 ammonia to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) resulting from reduced concentrations of
 dissolved oxygen. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:983-988.

      The medial lethal concentration (LC50) of aqueous ammonia at reduced dissolved oxygen
      (D.O.) concentrations was tested in acute toxicity tests with rainbow trout (Salmo
      gairdneri) fingerlings. Fifteen 96-h flow- through tests were conducted over the D.O.
      range 2.6 - 8.6 mg/L, the former concentration being the lowest at which control fish
      survived. There was a positive linear correlation between LC50 (milligrams per liter
      un-ionized ammonia) and D.O. over the entire D.O. range tested; ammonia toxicity in-
      creased as D.O. decreased. Ammonia LC50 values were also computed for 12,24,48, and
      72 h; the correlation with D.O. was greater the shorter the time period.
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service.  1991. A Casebook in Managing Rivers
for Multiple Uses. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

      This report presents eight case studies that illustrate innovative and successful strategies
      for multi-objective river corridor planning and management. Rivers from throughout the
      country were chosen to represent a variety of physiographic an climatic zones and include
      both urban and rural communities. Case studies include Charles River, South Platte River,
      Chattahoochee River, Kickapoo River, Boulder Creek, Kissimmee River,  Wildcat & San
      Pable Creeks, and Mingo Creek. Also includes contact list and bibliography.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Riparian-Wetland
Initiative for the 1990's.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.  BLM/WO/GI-91/001+4340, 50 pp.

      This Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990's provides a blueprint for management and
      restoration or riparian-wetland areas encompassing 23.7 million acres of BLM lands.  This
      overall national strategy complements other plans such as Waterfowl Habitat Management
      on Public Lands, A Strategy for the Future; Fish and Wildlife 2000; Range of Our 'Vision;
      and Recreation 2000 in an interdisciplinary, multi-program, cooperative effort. Nation-
      wide riparian-wetland goals have been established along with broad- based implementation
      strategies to achieve these goals. This Initiative does not establish specific objectives or
                                                    Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-35

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality-
      priorities for actions. Most actions will be taken at the field level. Each state, through
      their individual strategic plans, establishes specific objectives and priorities to implement
      this Initiative consistent with laws, regulations, policy, and funding.
 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Development and
 Evaluation of Habitat Suitability Criteria for Use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodol-
 ogy: Instream Flow Information Paper No.  21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
 Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO, Biological Report (86)7.

      Accurate and comprehensive suitability criteria are critical to the effective use of the
      Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Five major topic areas relating to the develop-
      ment and evaluation of microhabitat suitability criteria are discussed in this paper: (1)
      study and planning design, (2) development Of criteria by professional judgement and
      consensus, (3) field methods for fitting data to curves or mathematical functions, and (5)
      methods for evaluating criteria accuracy and transferability.  The discussion of each
      technique includes a brief summary of the advantages, limitations, and potential sources of
      error and bias. The paper also provides a foundation for the development of regionalized
      microhabitat suitability criteria by a strategy of complementary study planning and math-
      ematical convergence.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1988.  The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guid-
 ance Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division,
 Nonpoint Source Branch, Washington, DC, EPA 440/5-88-002.

      The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual represents a landmark in this
      nation's commitment to water quality, as it brings to the lake user practical knowledge for
      restoring and protecting lakes and reservoirs. More than an explanation of restoration
      techniques, this Manual is a guide to wise management of lakes and reservoirs. The
      purpose of this manual is to provide guidance to the lake manager, lake homeowner, lake
      association and other informed laypersons -on lake and reservoir management, restoration
      and protection.


 Van Haveren, B.P. and W.L. Jackson. 1986. Concepts in Stream Riparian Rehabilitation.
 Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,
 March 21-26,1986, Reno, NV, pp. 280-289.

      The purpose of this paper is to discuss interrelationships between riparian systems and the
      hydrologic and geomorphic processes operating in the associated stream channels.  We
      show how the proper hydrologic function of the floodplain, stream-dependent water table,
      and stream channel erosion an deposition processes are all necessary for a healthy riparian
      ecosystem. These factors and interrelationships are brought to bear in a discussion of
      rehabilitation principles and approaches for use on degraded riparian areas. Proper identi-
      fication of the causes of degradation and stage of channel evolution is required before
      developing a rehabilitation plan. We stress that stream riparian systems undergoing major
      geomorphic or hydrologic adjustments should not be treated with habitat improvements '
      until the channel has reached a new dynamic equilibrium.  We consider the stream riparian
      zone to be the entire active channel area, including that portion of the floodplain that
      supports a riparian vegetation community.


 A-36 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                      . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream. Quality
Wesche, T.A.  1974.  Habitat Evaluation and Subsequent Rehabilitation Recommendations for
the Laramie River Channel Change Area in Laramie, Wyoming. Water Resources Research
Institute, Laramie, WY, 35 pp.

      The relocation of the U.S. Highway 130-230 bridge across the Laramie River in Laramie,
      Wyoming will require the channelization of 1,330 feet of the present channel by the
      Wyoming Highway Department.  The objectives of this report were to describe the habitat
      which presently exists in the river reach to be affected, define the adverse impacts to this
      habitat which will be realized by the channelization project, and recommend suitable
      habitat improvement measures for the new channel.
Wesche, T.A.  1985. Stream channel modifications and reclamation structures to enhance
fish habitat.  Pp. 103-163 in: J.A. Gore, ed., The Restoration of Rivers and Streams.  Theo-
ries and Experience. Butterworth, Stoneham, MA. 280pp.

      The process of channel modification has played a major, although not always beneficial,
      role in the development of this country.  Dredging, land drainage, channel realignment and
      redesign and overgrazing of riparian areas have all had an effect on our streams and rivers.
      In 1972 it was estimated that over 200,000 miles of stream channel had been modified in
      the United States.  Given the sheer magnitude of such river manipulations and an increas-
      ing awareness by the public of the environmental ramifications of such acts, it is little
      wonder that engineers and biologists find themselves continually debating the pros and
      cons of channel modification. In recent years the concept of river restoration has become
      widespread.  The underlying tenet of the river restoration approach is that by thorough
      planning done before modification activity begins, a design simulating that of nature as
      closely as possible can be developed that not only alleviates the problem causing the
      needed modification, but also preserve many of the other valued reach characteristics.
      After a brief review of the basic in-stream components of fish habitat (for brevity, this will
      focus on the salmonid family), the impacts of various  channel modification activities on
      habitat diversity will be discussed. The concluding section of the chapter will then con-
      centrate on channel restoration procedures and structures to enhance fish habitat, from a
      planning aspect as well as from a design and installation approach.
Wesche, T.A. and D.W. Reiser. 1976. A Literature Summary on Flow-related Trtout Habitat
Components. Paper presented at Forest Service - Region 5, Earth Science Symposium,
Fresno, CA, November 8-12,1976.

      Four fundamental components of salmonid habitat include; water quality, food-producing
      areas, spawning-egg incubation areas, and cover. To provide a suitable habitat for salmo-
      nid population, no matter how large or how small the stream, a proper range of flows is
      required through the channel configuration which the stream itself has formed. Each
      habitat constituent directly influences the type and quality of salmonid fisheries that are
      able to exist under a given set of conditions. A careful look at each of the components will
      lead to a better understanding of its importance in comprising salmonid habitat. Contains
      information on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and total suspended solids.
                                                    Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-37

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality—
 Whittier, T.R., DJP. Larsen, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L. Gallant, and J.M. Omernik.
 1988. Project Summary - The Ohio Stream Regionalization: A Compendium of Results.  U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR,
 EPA/600/S3-87/025.

      Regional patterns in terrestrial characteristics can be used as a framework to monitor,
      assess and report the health of aquatic ecosystems. In Ohio, five ecological regions were
      delineated using spatial patterns in land- surface form, land use, soil and potential natural
      vegetation. We evaluated this framework by studying the water quality, physical habitat,
      and fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages of 109 minimally impacted representative
      streams. Water quality and fish assemblages showed clear regional differences. The
      highest quality water and fish assemblages were consistently found in the southeast
      ecoregion, and the lowest quality in the northwest ecoregion. We found no clear regional
      patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblages and limited regional patterns in physical habitat.
Wiley, M. J., L.L. Osborne, and R.W. Larimore.  1990. Longitudinal structure of an agri-
cultural prairie river system and its relationship to current stream ecosystem theory.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:373-384.

      The largescale structure of an agriculturally developed prairie river system in central
      Illinois was examined and compared with predictions from current stream ecosystem
      theory. High rates of primary productivity were characteristic of the watershed, although
      longitudinal patterns in riparian vegetation, stream temperature, and primary productivity
      were inverted relative to typical streams in forested uplands. Empirical models of gross
      primary production and community respiration were developed.  Light availability, medi-
      ated by both channel shading and turbidity, appeared to be the principal factor limiting
      primary productivity.  Both nitrate and orthophosphorus were found in high concentrations
      throughout the watershed. Largescale patterns in nutrient availability suggest that landuse
      patterns, and particularly urbanization, strongly affected spatial and temporal distributions
      of both nutrients. Differences between prairie river systems and "prototype" structures
      envisioned by the River Continuum Concept (RCC) derive from the descriptive nature of
      the RCC, and its inability to incorporate nonstandard distributions of key driving variables.
      The use of empirical modelling in stream ecosystem studies is discussed.
Wiley, R. (ed.).  1982.  Proceedings: Rocky Mountain Stream Habitat Management Work-
shop, September 7-10,1982, Jackson, Wyoming. Wjroming Game and Fish Department,
Laramie, WY.

      Enthusiasm for habitat management has increased in the last 50 years and continues to
      occupy the minds of fishery biologists throughout North America and internationally as
      well. This meeting is the third in the series and this proceeding represents contemporary
      reports provided by the participants. Please use the contents of the proceedings as appro-
      priate. Apply and modify the ideas and techniques to fit your needs and advance the state
      of the art  Included are various case studies which contain techniques, costs, and historical
      records.
A-38  Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                        . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Wilkin, D.C. and SJ. Hebel.  1982. Erosion, redeposition, and delivery of sediment to
midwestern streams. Water Resources Research 18(4):1278-1282.

      While sediment in surface waters may be one of our more serious water quality problems,
      the sources of this sediment are not well defined.  Sediment control programs for water
      quality are presently concentrating on the application of best management practices
      (BMPs) across the watershed with little regard to location. The authors have studied
      sediment movement patterns in a midwestern watershed using fallout cesium-137 tech-
      niques and have concluded these programs may be largely ineffective. The implications
      from this work are that cropped floodplains are the most severely eroded lands in the
      watershed, followed by cropped lands bordering the floodplains. Most of the eroded
      sediment either originates on or is delivered directly to the active floodplain and hence to
      the stream.  The authors conclude that the majority of cropped uplands may bet be nearly
      as important in determining sediment levels in streams as generally thought.
Wilzbach, M.A., K.W. Cummins, and J.D. Hall. 1986. Influence of habitat manipulation
on interactions between cutthroat trout and invertebrate drift. Ecology 67(4):898-911.

      The objectives of this study were to examine the interactions of the riparian setting (logged
      vs. forested) and prey availability on the prey capture efficiency and growth of cutthroat
      trout, and to determine of the riparian setting influences the impact of trout predation on
      drift composition.  Short-term relative growth rates of cutthroat trout, experimentally
      confined in stream pools, were greater in a logged than in a forested section of stream.
      Differences in growth rates were attributed to differences among pools in invertebrate drift
      density, and to differences in trout foraging efficiency that were related to differences
      between sections in the amount of overhead shading and substrate crevices. Mean percent-
      ages of introduced prey captured by trout were greater in logged control pools and pools of
      both sections whose bottoms were covered with fiberglass screening to eliminate substrate
      crevices than in forested control pools and logged pools that were artificially shaded. A
      logarithmic relationship was found between trout foraging efficiency and surface light of
      pools. Drift density significantly increased relative to controls in pools from which trout
      were removed in the logged reach, but not in the forested section.  This may result from
      habitat features in the logged section that favor greater trout foraging success  and the
      occurrence of behaviorally drifting prey taxa, which represent a predictable food supply
      for the trout.
Windell, J.T., L.P. Rink, and C. Rudkin. 1991. Compatibility of stream habitat reclama-
tion with point source and nonpoint source controls. Water Environment and Technology,
Jan.1991.

      A series of studies done under contract with the city of Boulder (Colo.) Public Works was
      completed recently. The studies concluded that implementation of state-approved
      stream-management practices downstream of the city's wastewater treatment plant
      (WWTP) could potentially eliminate the need for future denitrification towers, resulting in
      long-term cost savings for WWTP capital construction, operation, and maintenance.
      Stream management practices included: fencing to exclude cattle from riparian habitat;
      restoration of streambank stability using log revetments; planting 9000 willow and cotton-
      wood cuttings to regenerate riparian habitat; removing streambank berms so vegetation
                                                    Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography A-39

-------
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality.
      would be closer to the water table and could grow; excavation of 0.5 miles of thalweg (low
      flow channel) to concentrate and deepen water flow and reduce the amount of photosyn-
      thesizing aquatic vegetation; and creating three boulder aeration structures to increase
      instream oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations. Project costs are also mentioned.
Windell, J.T., L.P. Rink, and C.F. Knud-Hansen. 1987a. A One Year, Biweekly, 24-Hour
Sampling Study of Boulder Creek and Coal Creek Water Quality. Aquatic and Wetland
Consultants, Inc., Boulder, CO, 63 pp. + appendices.

      The City of Boulder is in the process of a $12-14 million dollar upgrade and expansion of
      the 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant in order to meed NPDES permit requirements.
      Expansion and upgrading includes installation of one nitrification tower for ammonia
      removal costing $1.3 million dollars with three additional towers possibly required during
      the next twenty years. Present studies funded by the City concluded that Boulder creek
      segments 9 and 10 were impaired by non-water quality factors that preclude attainment of
      the designated Class 1 Warm Water Aquatic Life use regardless of improvements in water
      quality.  It was suggested that future Class 1 Warm Water Aquatic Life use could not be
      attained without implementation of aquatic and riparian zone best management practices
      and improvements to the stream ecosystem. Phyisical and biological impairments could be
      mitigated by aquatic and riparian zone restoration to achieve the designated use, and could
      result in significant financial savings for the City by potentially eliminating the need for i
      additional nitrification towers. Restoration would have the effect of reducing daily tem-
      perature and pH excursions and thus reduce average un-ionized ammonia levels in Boulder
      Creek downstream of the WWTP. The purpose of this study was to collect diurnal water
      quality data each hour on a bi-weekly basis for one year (providing 26 data sets) on
      Boulder Creek and Coal Creek.  This information was used to analyze those factors
      influencing ammonia dynamics, understand more fully ammonia dynamics specific to
      Boulder Creek, and to estimate the effects of Coal Creek on Boulder Creek.
 Windell, J.T., L.P. Rink, and C.F. Knud-Hansen.  1988. A 24-Hour Synoptic Water Quality
 Study of Boulder Creek Between the 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant and Coal Creek.
 Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Inc., Boulder, CO, 98 pp. + appendices.

      Excessive livestock impacts, through heavy grazing and trampling, affect riparian-stream
      habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, changing streambank and channel
      morphology, and increasing stream sediment transport. Often there is a lowering of the
      surrounding water tables.  Thus livestock are perceived as a major cause of habitat distur-
      bance in many Western riparian areas. This perception has resulted in accelerated concerns
      from various resource users because riparian areas generally represent the epitome of
      multiple use.  In addition to the livestock forage, riparian areas and the associated streams
      often have high to very high values for fisheries habitat, wildlife habitat, recreation,
      production of wood fiber, transportation routes, precious metals, water quality, and timing
      of water flows. Includes information on recommended grazing management practices.
 A-40 Appendix A—Annotated Bibliography

-------
                                       . Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality
Windell, J.T., and L.P. Rink. 1987. A Use Attainability Analysis of Lower Boulder Creek,
Segments 9 and 10. Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Inc., Boulder, CO, 23 pp.

      The City of Boulder is in the process of a $12-14 million dollar upgrade and expansion of
      the 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant in order to meed NPDES permit requirements.
      Expansion and upgrading includes installation of one nitrification tower for ammonia
      removal costing $1.3 million dollars with three additional towers possibly required during
      the next twenty years. Present studies funded by the City concluded that Boulder creek
      segments 9 and 10 were impaired by non-water quality factors that preclude attainment of
      the designated Class 1 Warm Water Aquatic Life use regardless of improvements in water
      quality.  It was suggested that future Class 1 Warm Water Aquatic Life use could not be
      attained without implementation of aquatic and riparian zone best management practices
      and improvements to the stream ecosystem. Physical and biological impairments could be
      mitigated by aquatic and riparian zone restoration to achieve the designated use, and could
      result in significant financial savings for the City by potentially eliminating the need for
      additional nitrification towers. Restoration would have the effect of reducing daily tem-
      perature and pH excursions and thus reduce average un-ionized ammonia levels in Boulder
      Creek downstream of the WWTP. The purpose of this study was to determine if non-
      water quality related factors preclude attainment of the Class I Warm Water Aquatic Life
      use classification.  This purpose was based on recognition that non-water quality factors
      are an important standard setting  consideration.
Windell, J.T., and L.P. Rink.  1992.  Boulder Creek Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Project: A Bibliography of Reports, Proposals, Publications, Videos, Presentations, Prelimi-
nary Data/draft Monitoring Reports,  and Abstracts. Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Inc.,
Boulder, CO, 10 pp.

      A bibliography of all references and materials used in the Boulder Creek project. Contains
      reports, proposals, publications, preliminary data/draft monitoring reports, and abstracts.
Yount, J.D. and G.J. Niemi, eds. 1990. Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from
disturbance: Theory and application. Environmental Management 14(5):515-762.

      The September/October issue of Environmental Management is devoted to lotic ecosystem
      recovery. Some of the topics covered by various authors are case study reviews, life
      history and behavioral characteristics of ecosystem communities, the problem of
      spatial-temporal variability, ecosystem and landscape constraints on community recovery,
      theoretical bases for defining and predicting community recovery, and research needs and
      priorities.
                                                    Appendix, A—Annotated Bibliography  A-41

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------
tt"0 Q
w 0 3>
o i p;
  ^s.

  o?
   I'
   CD


   CO
   CD
a
o
         o
         ?
             i CD  B.
    -D

    3

              5'
             CO

             CD

-------