Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Standardizing Process for Monitoring NMISC-USBR Habitat Restoration Projects in the San Acacia ReachAPPLICATION AND TESTING AT NMISC & RECLAMATION PROJECT SITES
Standardized monitoring?
No “one-size fits all” Only relevant where projects share similar goals &
objectives Allows apples-apples comparison Replication helps determine transferability Inform management decisions Adjust conceptual model, future project designs
Why is this important?
Emphasis on Adaptive Management Learning-by-Doing requires systematic process &
detailed documentation Restoration community world-wide has done poor
job monitoring Nationwide – 10% (Palmer et al. 2005) Southwestern U.S. – 28% (Follstad-Shah et al. 2007)
Likely inflated few practitioners had data
MRG - ? new HR geo-database
Focus on process implemented by NMISC & Reclamation
Conceptual model Defining project goals Developing S.M.A.R.T. management objectives
Quantitative success criteria
Quantitative AM thresholds/triggers
Standardized monitoring methodologies Develop SOPs
Train local watershed group (SOBTF)
Reporting & AM decision process (who, when, what)
Improve River-Floodplain Connectivity
Limited overbank flooding <4000 cfs
Limited off-channel spawning-nursery habitat
Extensive channelized river segments
Egg & larval entraiment (even at low-moderate
discharges)
Effects riparian vegetation recruitment/establishment
Floodplain Surface
Spawning fish Eggs & Larva
confined to channel
Limited recruitment
Conceptual ModelPre-Rehabilitation
Floodplain Surface
• Access to productive nursery habitat• Increased recruitment
Conceptual ModelPost-Rehabilitation
Restoration Goals & Objectives
Goals: 1. Create and maintain off-channel nursery habitat for RGSM at
low-moderate discharges (< 2,000 cfs)2. Create conditions that promote passive recruitment of
cottonwood-willow
Project Design Objectives:1. Low-velocity backwater habitats 2. Inundates (at least partially) every year during snow-melt
runoff3. Variable inundation depths 4. Drains during flood recession
San Acacia Reach Projects
Project Name* Acres Designedby
General Design Features
RM 114 1.7 NMISC Two backwater channels, inundation initiated at approximately 800 cfs
RM 112 1.5 NMISC One backwater channel, inundation initiated at approximately 800 cfs
RM 104.5 (Escondida East)
3.2 USBR One backwater channel, inundation initiated at approximately 300 cfs
RM 103 (Escondida West)
10.5 USBR Four backwater channels and one high-flow channel, inundation initiated at approximately 300 cfs
RM 100.5 8.2 NMISC Two backwater channels, inundation initiated at approximately 800 cfs
RM 100 1.4 NMISC One backwater channel, inundation initiated at approximately 800 cfs
RM 99.5 3.5 NMISC Two backwater channels, inundation initiated at approximately 800 cfs
RM 93 (Rhodes)
17.2 USBR Eleven embayments and one high-flow channel, inundation initiated at approximately 300 cfs
Design-Construction Process
- Hydrodynamic modeling- Construction plans-specs- Estimate excavation
volumes
Implementation Monitoring- Construction field support- As-built topographic surveys- Quantify excavation volume- Document costs (veg + sed)
Effectiveness Monitoring Program
S.M.A.R.T Management Objectives S = Specific M = Measurable A = Achievable R = Relevant T = Time Bound
USFWS 2004. Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook.
BCMSRM (British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management). 2004. Writing Resource Objectives and Strategies: A Guide to Preparing Effective Resource Management Plans, 2nd Edition. Compiled by Daryl Brown Associates, Inc. for the BCMSRM, Forest, Lands and Marine Branch Resource Management Division. October 2004.
Bjerke, M.B. and R. Renger. 2017. Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 61. Pp. 125-127.
S.M.A.R.T. Objectives
Considerations Is project functioning as designed?
Inundation-discharge relationships
Depth-velocity thresholds
Adult + larval RGSM
Riparian seedling recruitment
What are predictable AM / maintenance issues? Sedimentation limits site drainage / future function
Non-native species
S.M.A.R.T. Monitoring Objectives
Goal 1: Create and maintain off-channel nursery habitat for RGSM at low-moderate discharges (<2,000 cfs) #1: Surface water begins inundating project sites when snowmelt
discharge at SA Gage is ≤800 cfs #2: Surface water has inundated at least __% of project site when
snowmelt discharge at SA Gage is ~2,000 cfs #3: Flow depths are variable and average depth <2 ft when snowmelt
discharge at SA Gage is ~2,000 cfs #4: ___% of measured flow velocities are <0.5 ft/sec when snowmelt
discharge at SA Gage is ~2,000 cfs #5: Designated channel maintenance zones near backwater channel
inlets/outlets will remain void (0%) of any woody vegetation over the life of the project
S.M.A.R.T. Monitoring Objectives
Goal 1: Create and maintain off-channel nursery habitat for RGSM at low-moderate discharges (<2,000 cfs) #6: Adult RGSM are present within portions of the excavated project
footprint when spring snowmelt discharge at the SA Gage is ≥ 800 cfs #7: Larval RGSM are present within portions of the excavated project
footprint when spring snowmelt discharge at the SA Gage is ≥ 800 cfs
SWCA developed more comprehensive research study (next presentation)
S.M.A.R.T. Monitoring Objectives
Goal 2: Project sites will experience natural recruitment of native riparian vegetation dominated by cottonwood and willow #1: Native cottonwood and willow will naturally establish within at
least 25% of the excavated project footprint area (outside of the designated channel maintenance zone) within the first three years following project construction
#2: Invasive woody plant species found growing within the excavated project footprint will occur within less than 5% of monitoring grid cells by end of each summer growing season.
Monitoring & AM Plan (GSA 2019)
>3000 cfs
RM 100.5
March 14, 20191,250 cfs
April 23, 20192,350 cfs
RM 112
2,000 cfs Inundation metric – yesDepth metric – yesVelocity metric - yes
2,000 cfs Inundation metric – noDepth metric – yesVelocity metric - yes
2,000 cfs Inundation metric – yesDepth metric – yesVelocity metric - yes
2,000 cfs Inundation metric – yesDepth metric – yesVelocity metric - yes
Restoration Site
Date Monitored
Total Project Acres
Total Acres Inundated
Percent Inundated
RM 114 April 23, 2019 1.7 0.5 29% RM 112 April 23, 2019 1.5 1.0 67%
RM 104.5 April 25, 2019 3.2 2.7 84% RM 103 April 25, 2019 10.5 4.5 43%
RM 100.5 April 24, 2019 8.2 6.74 82% RM 100 April 24, 2019 1.4 0.7 50% RM 99.5 April 24, 2019 3.5 2.92 83% RM 93 April 25, 2019 17.2 12.0 71%
RGSM Monitoring ResultsSWCA next presentation
Map & Quantify Sediment Deposition
Sediment Deposition vs.
Volume Removed for Construction
Sediment Volume (yds³)
Site
RM 114 RM 112
RM 104.5 RM 100.5 RM 100
RM 99.5 RM 93
Removed During Construction 2,000 3,500 15,000 15,000 7,000 21,000 45,000
Post-Inundation Deposition at
Inlets 781 387 1,714 265 67 438 1,253 % of
Construction Volume 39% 11% 11% 2% 1% 2% 3%
Vegetation Monitoring
Woody plant seedlings 20’ x 20’ grid Presence-absence Percent of grids containing different woody species Metrics
Cottonwood-willow in 25% of grid cells within 5 years
Non-natives in fewer than 5% of grid cells each year
Zero-tolerance for herbaceous noxious weeds
Vegetation Monitoring Results
Site Cottonwood Coyote WillowGoodding’s
Willow Both Cottonwood & Willow
RM 114 19% 6% 1% 20%
RM 112 12% 2% 1% 13%
RM 104.5 (Escond. East) 7% 2% 1% 9%RM 103 (Escond.West) 5% 2% 0% 6%
RM 100.5 12% 1% 0% 13%
RM 100 12% 2% 0% 13%
RM 99.5 13% 2% 0% 14%
RM 93 (Rhodes) 10% 21% 9% 26%
Vegetation Monitoring Results
Site Saltcedar Siberian Elm Russian Olive Any Exotic Species
RM 114 29% 0% 13% 42%
RM 112 11% 0% 6% 17%
RM 104.5 (Escond. East) 40% 0% 0% 40%
RM 103 (Escond. West) 13% 0% 2% 16%
RM 100.5 24% 1% 10% 35%
RM 100 26% 0% 3% 28%
RM 99.5 19% 0% 9% 28%
RM 93 (Rhodes) 45% 0% 4% 49%
Vegetation Monitoring Results
Site Perennial pepperweed
Ravenna grass
Russian knapweed
Whitetop Grand Total
RM 112 15 15
RM 104.5 4 4
RM 103 4 1 5
RM 100.5 2 2
RM 99.5 12 12
RM 93 40 24 2 66
Grand Total 50 12 40 2 104
Adaptive Management Actions
Remove inlet sediment plugs
Treat non-native plants
Document actions (what, where, costs)
Year 1 Results - Implications
Most performance metrics were achieved / on trajectory Bathymetric data resolution effects model inundation accuracy Riparian recruitment on good trajectory, time will tell if survive and develop canopy Non-native vegetation will continue to risk project viability Periodic sediment removal will be required
Conceptual model validated RGSM captured at all sites monitored Reproductive status
Continue / expand data collection to document and understand: Site functional longevity Aquatic habitat development-evolution Riparian vegetation recruitment/development potential Annual monitoring and maintenance costs
Summary
For AM to work, project sponsors need to develop systematic monitoring programs Clear Goals S.M.A.R.T. Objectives Quantitative Success Criteria and AM Triggers Methods Designed Specifically to Measure Quantitative Criteria
Projects with similar goals should adopt standard methods (replication, transferability)
Strong documentation Implementation Monitoring Effectiveness Monitoring
Management Feedback Loop Share Results
