HomeMy WebLinkAboutGUARDIAN SELF STORAGE - FDP210018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - WETLANDS DOCUMENTS
Guardian Storage Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring, Weed Management &
Maintenance Plan
Prepared by: AloTerra Restoration Services
Prepared For: JR Engineering
DATE: July 14, 2021
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 2 | Page
Table of Contents
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Adaptive Management ................................................................................................................................. 3
Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Monitoring Goals ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Revegetation Goals: .............................................................................................................................. 5
Types of Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 5
Monitoring Timeline and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 6
Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................................................. 7
Vegetation Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 7
General Wetland Condition Assessment .............................................................................................. 7
Weed Management ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Weed Management Recommendations ................................................................................................. 11
Weed Treatments ................................................................................................................................... 12
Site Protection ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Wildlife Control ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Site Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Concluding Remarks.................................................................................................................................... 16
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Appendix A – Monitoring Maps and Baseline Photo Points ....................................................................... 18
Appendix B – Monitoring Forms/Data Sheets ............................................................................................ 20
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 3 | Page
Purpose
The purpose of the Guardian Storage Monitoring, Weed Management, and Maintenance Plan
(plan) is to outline specific approaches, strategies, and protocols related to the post-restoration
care of Guardian Storage. The data derived from monitoring is intended to inform weed
management, irrigation, site protection, and on-going adaptive management (e.g., reseeding,
grade/erosion control, site protection, etc.) necessary to accomplish the project’s restoration
goals.
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is an iterative process, incorporating monitoring results to inform
ongoing maintenance and re-treatments that may be required to achieve long-term success of
a restoration project. Monitoring provides is an essential step in the adaptive management
process, providing feedback for land managers and project designers, as well as allowing for the
comparison of long-term results with baseline conditions. The identification of maintenance
treatments (e.g., weed management, irrigation, site protection, spot seeding, etc.) are the
primary product of adaptive management plans. Like initial revegetation results, maintenance
treatments will be assessed over the long term via monitoring, the results of which will inform
future maintenance efforts via an adaptive management process. In this regard, adaptive
management is a cyclical process, especially in an urban or suburban setting where ongoing
threats to natural areas exist in perpetuity.
Monitoring
Overview
Monitoring is the process of measuring or assessing specific physical, chemical, and/or
biological parameters of a project over time (Thayer, 2003) (Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 2007). Using subjective (i.e., qualitative), or objective (i.e., quantitative) methods,
monitoring can be used to help identify and address project failures due to potential stressors
(drought, insect damage, flooding, etc.) and inform maintenance activities. Qualitative
methods, such as visual observations (i.e., repeat photographic points or completion of
subjective monitoring forms), can effectively document site changes, and can quickly suggest
maintenance activities necessary to correct problems. However, purely qualitative approaches
such as repeat photography or other casual observations can often over- or under-represent
important data such as vegetation cover. Such errors can occur as a result of observer bias (e.g.,
a human’s natural tendency to score green vegetation higher than bare soil) as well as
limitations of methodology (e.g., the oblique angle represented in repeat photographs taken
across a landscape reveal significantly higher vegetation cover than that same cover measured
from an aerial point of view).
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 4 | Page
Quantitative monitoring, conversely, is more data-driven and aims to measure project
outcomes through science-based methods aimed at reducing observer bias. Quantitative
monitoring results may also be used to guide the criteria and methodology for future
restoration projects and maintenance activities of a site, more accurately address permitting
and funding entity requirements, support requests for contractors to perform on various
warranty items (e.g., a minimum of 50% vegetation cover), and allow for sound long-term
tracking of the changes in certain parameters of a site (e.g., changes in plant community
structure and composition over time).
At Guardian Storage, monitoring can answer important questions for post-restoration
management, and provide meaningful direction for adaptative management. Some of these
questions, from Living Streambanks: A Guide to Bioengineering Treatments for Colorado
Streams (Giordanengo, 2016) include:
• Were the appropriate treatments designed and implemented correctly to achieve
restoration goals?
• Were project outcomes achieved according to project goals?
• Are management activities (i.e., mining, hiking, rural/residential landscaping, grazing,
other land use) negatively affecting project outcomes?
• Have site conditions changed in a way that requires an adjustment to existing
structures, replacement of structures or vegetation, or installation of new treatments?
• Is the vegetation community on the expected trajectory of recovery, or are important
design components missing?
• Have invasive or noxious species negatively impacted the site?
The nature, frequency, and intensity of monitoring will vary depending on the questions being
answered by the monitoring program, available resources (e.g., volunteers, staff, equipment,
finances), and the nature of the elements (e.g., vegetation cover) being monitored. With an
assumption that monitoring resources are limited, yet to ensure reliable data gathering, we
have drafted a monitoring strategy and resources to carry out monitoring activities on this
project site.
Monitoring Goals
An essential first step to monitoring is the development of specific restoration objectives (e.g.,
more specific than the original project goals) for Guardian Storage, against which monitoring
results can be measured. The following goals are provided as a recommendation. These goals
should be verified by the client, and additional goals may be required by various permit
agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e.,
management for T&E species), and others.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 5 | Page
Revegetation Goals:
Goal 1: Mitigate for wetland loss due to construction activities to City of Fort Collins
standards.
Goal 2: Create Natural Habitat Buffer Zone per City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4.1.
Given these goals, specific elements to measure over time include:
• Vegetation cover, woody species density, and vegetation structure in (at a minimum)
wetland mitigation areas. As time permits, vegetation cover and woody plant density
and structure should be measured in all restored habitats;
• Weed densities and distribution.
Types of Monitoring
Monitoring, by definition, should be conducted over time, and should utilize consistent
approaches in order to accurately compare data over the length of the monitoring effort. Lewis
et al. (2009) recommend four fundamental monitoring types to answer principal questions:
• Pre-project assessment (i.e., documentation of the current site conditions and how they
inform project selection and design).
• What are the existing site conditions and the reasons for project
implementation? This is similar to baseline monitoring, though does not attempt
to document pre-disturbance conditions.
• Implementation monitoring is done to establish the accuracy of construction.
• Was the project installed according to design specifications, permits and
landowner agreements?
• Effectiveness monitoring is used to assess post-project site conditions and to document
changes resulting from the implemented project.
• Did attributes and components at the project site change in magnitude expected
over the appropriate time frame? This is accomplished through comparison with
pre-project and post construction conditions.
• Validation monitoring is used to determine the cause-and-effect relationship between
the project and biotic or physical response.
• Did macroinvertebrates, wildlife, or water quality respond to the changes in
physical and biological attributes or components brought about by the project?
Pre-project monitoring at Guardian Storage was conducted by AloTerra in the form of an
Ecological Characterization Study. Implementation monitoring (i.e., quantifying the location
and type of restoration work actually completed, as compared to the intended design) will be
completed during construction. Effectiveness and validation monitoring are proposed in this
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 6 | Page
plan and are recommended for a minimum of three growing seasons post-construction. Both
qualitative and quantitative methods will be employed to ensure management objectives are
being met. If it is determined that objectives are not being met, management will adapt in
order to ensure the desired results.
Given budgetary constraints, even the most basic monitoring methods can inform adaptive
management decisions important to the long-term maintenance of a project. However, as the
results of qualitative monitoring can vary significantly from one observer to another, every
effort should be made to integrate at least categorical observations (i.e., high, moderate, low,
none; or scoring 0-5 for various element conditions). An important key, regardless of the
complexity or cost of the monitoring method(s) used, is to employ repeatable/consistent
methods over time. As personal and management circumstances change over time, data will be
collected and managed in a way that can be easily understood and interpreted by a variety of
future land managers and practitioners.
We recommend a combination of monitoring methods to properly assess whether
management objectives are being met at Guardian Storage. The methods proposed include:
• Line-intercept procedure (Herrick, 2005) to measure plant community composition,
especially herbaceous vegetation. This method is highly accurate and repeatable over
time;
• Noxious weed assessment (categorical observation-based protocol);
• Plant survivorship counts (objective assessment);
• General site condition assessment (categorical observation-based protocol).
• General assessment for wetland condition, using cover plants by wetland indicator
status.
Monitoring Timeline and Responsibilities
Vegetation monitoring will be conducted once per year for three years following construction.
We will conduct vegetation monitoring at the peak of the growing season, approximately late
July to early August. Weed assessments should occur in mid spring, to inform the need and
extent of subsequent treatments required to address weeds of concern.
Responsibilities
AloTerra is responsible for the vegetation, noxious weed, wetland condition assessment, and
general site condition assessments and reporting.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 7 | Page
Monitoring Methods
This section provides a summary of monitoring methods for native and non-native vegetation
at the Guardian Storage mitigation site. Appendix B includes a static version of the monitoring
forms for these monitoring methods.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation Cover: The line-point-intercept method will be used to quantify herbaceous
vegetation cover in revegetated areas. 10 transects are recommended (6 in uplands and
four in riparian areas – adjacent to the bankfull elevation). See figure 1 for proposed
transect locations.
Survivorship: A simple quantitative measure to document shrub and tree survivorship is a
shrub survivorship inventory (Appendix B).
Weed Populations: Refer to the monitoring form in Appendix B.
General Wetland Condition Assessment
A product of the vegetation cover data, to determine if the wetland mitigation area is
developing hydrophytic vegetation typical of expected facultative wetlands in the region.
Figure 1. Vegetation Monitoring Map with photo point and transect locations
Weed Management
With regards to their impacts on native plant communities and/or social values, non-native
plants (i.e., weeds) can be benign, invasive, or noxious. Weeds have long been recognized as
ecologically and economically detrimental for multiple reasons, a complete account of which is
beyond the scope of this document. A number of non-native aggressive species have been
identified in Guardian Storage, which are capable of out-competing native plants for water,
light, and nutrients, or secrete phytotoxins which actively inhibit the growth of native
vegetation while providing minimal benefits with regard to soil stabilization, forage, and other
wildlife and pollinator benefits in comparison to native vegetation. These invasive species have
an advantage over native species in part because they lack the full spectrum of biological
controls (i.e., insect predators, plant pathogens, etc.) that serve to keep their populations in
check in their country of origin. As such, they are more likely to continue to spread unabated
throughout a watershed by displacing native plants and forming dense monocultures in
disturbed conditions such as those present immediately following a construction project.
Several non-native species at Guardian Storage were identified during initial vegetation
assessments by AloTerra. Though a formal weed inventory was not conducted, the initial
assessment provided a fairly comprehensive list of weeds and their state rank (Table 1). A
formal weed inventory should be conducted in the summer of 2017 to more accurately map the
density and distribution of weeds in Guardian Storage.
The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (C.R.S. 35-5.5-101-119) creates a legally binding obligation for
the removal/control of noxious species. Through the Colorado Department of Agriculture, a list
of A, B, and C species is managed and periodically updated in order to prioritize the control of
priority weeds. To assist with weed management, a great variety of weed management
resources is provided by these entities, including how to create a weed management plan, best
management practices for weed management, and more:
Colorado Department of Agriculture website:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious-weed-publications,
Colorado State University Extension, Weed Resources:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/weeds.html
Colorado Weed Management Association
https://cwma.org/
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 10 | Page
State of Colorado Noxious Weed Act Priority List Definitions:
List A - Species that have not become established in the state and may have not even been
reported in the state as yet. The most effective way to treat these species is to eradicate them
wherever they are found, and to prevent their introduction into the state if they are not yet
present.
List B - Species for which the Commissioner, in consultation with the state noxious weed advisory
committee, local governments, and other interested parties, develops and implements state
noxious weed management plans designed to stop the continued spread of these species.
List C - These are species for which the Noxious Weeds Commissioner, in consultation with the state
noxious weed advisory committee, local governments, and other interested parties, will develop
and implement state noxious weed management plans designed to support the efforts of local
governing bodies to facilitate more effective integrated weed management on private and public
lands. The goal of such plans will not be to stop the continued spread of these species but to
provide additional education, research, and biological control resources to jurisdictions that choose
to require management of List C species. The goal of such plans will not be to stop the continued
spread of these species but to provide additional education, research, and biological control
resources to jurisdictions that choose to require management of list C species.
Watch List (WL) - Species that have been determined to pose a potential threat to the agricultural
productivity and environmental values of the lands of the state. The Watch List is intended to serve
advisory and educational purposes only. Its purpose is to encourage the identification and reporting
of these species to the Commissioner in order to facilitate the collection of information to assist the
Commissioner in determining which species should be designated as noxious weeds. When
managing for weeds at Guardian Storage, given the goals of increased biological and structural
diversity of a site, it is important to note that the list of species in Table 1 are not the only
species to be managed. Species such as tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum, unlisted in
Colorado) are not a significant concern, while species such as common kochia (Kochia scoparia,
unlisted in Colorado) can be highly disruptive to a restoration project and to long-term site
management. As such, our weed management recommendations below target listed and
unlisted species alike, whether or not their management is required by the State of Colorado.
The most cost-effective time to manage invasive vegetation is early in a project’s lifetime,
before invasive plants have a chance to spread through abundant seeds or vegetative
propagules. Since the initial monitoring stage has taken place, and species of concern have
been identified and documented prior to project implementation, treatment of these species
will occur prior, during, and after construction as needed. Consistent monitoring will take place
throughout and after project implementation, which will identify whether follow-up treatments
are required to address most invasive species problems.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 11 | Page
Table 1. Draft Weed list for Guardian Storage
Common Name Scientific Name
Noxious
Weed List
Downy Brome/Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum C
Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense B
Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B
Teasel Dipsacus fullonum B
Common Kochia Kochia scoparia NL
Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola NL
leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B
Curly Dock Rumex crispus/obtusifolius NL
Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus C
Weed Management Recommendations
Treating invasive species is a necessary step at Guardian Storage to restore it to a more
productive and natural condition. This will also increase biodiversity and will provide greater
protection of slopes and banks. Site management should integrate a variety of restoration and
management activities to control the invasion of non-native vegetation, which include:
• Selecting appropriate and diverse early- to mid-seral seed mixes with the potential to
fully occupy a given area’s botanical niches;
• Seeding and planting in optimal seasons, and using appropriate seeding rates and
seeding methods to increase the likelihood of high vegetation cover in the early years
following restoration;
• Applying appropriate levels of soil amendments, as determined by proper soil testing;
• Minimizing or eliminating the use of nitrogen, as invasive species are preferentially
stimulated over native species through the use of nitrogen;
• Paying close attention to the invasive species seeds that are often present in a seed mix;
• Eliminate the presence of undesirable non-native species brought to the restoration site
by heavy equipment, and via other vectors (cattle and other livestock, clothing and
boots of residents and volunteers, and others)
• Pre-treating the project site to remove invasive and noxious species;
• Eliminating small patches of invading weeds before they become established and
spread;
• Developing an iterative weed management plan, informed by regularly scheduled
monitoring; and
• Keeping records of all weed management activities to aid in monitoring and future planning.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 12 | Page
Weed Treatments
The treatments below include a combination of mechanical and chemical treatments for
species known to occur at Guardian Storage. However, after restoration activities have
occurred, this list may change. A complete weed survey should be conducted to better
understand the extents of each weed population, and hence develop a comprehensive weed
management plan based on priority species and their current and projected distribution. In
addition to the treatments below, biological controls may also be available, and should be
researched as desired.
Breea arvense/Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle)
• List B invasive: Control is necessary to decrease spread. If left unchecked, can create
monoculture.
• Perennial
• Control: Chemical - Aminopyralid (Milestone; wetland approved) @ 5 oz/acre; best
applied at bud or flowering. Combinations of mowing followed by chemical control
have been shown to be effective on the Front Range. Spreads by rhizomatous roots.
Mowing without subsequent herbicide application prior to flowering and tilling can
invigorate and increase its spread.
Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass)
• List C: If left unchecked, can create monoculture.
• Winter annual: Control is early spring or fall.
• Control: Chemical - Imazapic (Plateau) at 4 oz/acre – not wetland approved; aquatic
labeled glyphosate (Rodeo) 8 oz/acre – wetland approved / non-selective. Most
effective before seed set and in early growth stage. Mechanical - Regular mowing
before seed set has also been shown to be effective on the Front Range.
Cynoglossum officinale (houndstongue)
• List B. Easily controlled in its floret stage.
• Biennial: Control in floret stage.
• Control: Mechanical - hand pulling/digging can be effective, remove entire root
crown in rosette stage. For flowering plants, remove flowering stock just before seed
set. If you suspect seeds are present, bag seed heads as appropriate. Chemical -4
pints/acre aquatic labeled 2,4-D (Weedar 64).
Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge)
• List B.
• Perennial.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 13 | Page
• Control: Chemical –2,4-D (chlorsulfuron) @ 25% solution/acre twice per
year.2.65oz/acre with 1% methylated seed oil. Most effective time of year is from
mid- to late June when true flowers begin to appear and then again in mid-
September when fall regrowth has begun.
Dipascus laciniatus (cutleaf and common teasel)
• List B.
• Biennial: Control in floret stage.
• Control: Mechanical - Hand pulling/removal with shovel can be effective if
performed annually until population is eradicated. Sever roots at least 2” below
ground in order to reduce resprouting from perennating buds. Two treatments
likely required. Chemical - Milestone (Wetland approved) @5 oz/acre.
Koschia scoparia (kochia/burning bush)
• Not listed, but control is necessary to decrease spread. If left unchecked, can create
monoculture.
• Annual: Control in early growth stages, before producing seed.
• Control: Chemical – preemergent – indaziflam (Esplanade) @ 3.5-6.5 oz/acre.
Postemergent –fluroxypyr (Vista XRT) @6-22 oz/acre (may be applied as a mix with
2,4-D @ 1 pint/acre such as in the product Trumpcard). Mechanical - hand
pulling/digging can be effective. For flowering plants, remove flowering stock just
before seed set. If you suspect seeds are present, bag seed heads as appropriate,
and pull plant with taproot attached.
Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce)
• Not listed, but if left unchecked, may create monocultures.
• Annual.
• Control: Mechanical - Hand pulling/removal with shovel can be effective if
performed annually until population is eradicated. Sever roots at least 2” below
ground in order to reduce resprouting from perennating buds. Two treatments
likely required. Chemical – Milestone @ 5 oz/acre.
Rumex crispus (curly dock)
• Not listed, but easily controlled.
• Biennial: Control in floret stage or end of year after seed heads have been cut and
bagged.
• Control: Chemical - Milestone (wetland approved) @ 5 oz/acre. Mechanical - hand
pulling/digging can be effective. For flowering plants, remove flowering stock just
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 14 | Page
before seed set. If you suspect seeds are present, bag seed heads as appropriate.
For rosettes, sever root at least 2” below soil surface to avoid resprouting from
perennating buds.
Salsola tragus (Russian thistle)
• Not listed, but control is necessary to decrease spread. If left unchecked, can create
monoculture.
• Annual: Control in early growth stages, before producing seed.
• Control: Chemical – Apply in early spring, while plants are rapidly growing.
Preemergent – indaziflam (Esplanade) @ 3.5-6.5 oz/acre. Postemergent –fluroxypyr
(Vista XRT) @6-22 oz/acre (may be applied as a mix with 2,4-D @ 1 pint/acre such as
in the product Trumpcard). Mechanical - hand pulling/digging can be effective at
early growth stages. For flowering plants, remove flowering stock just before seed
set. If you suspect seeds are present, bag seed heads as appropriate.
Verbascum Thapsus (common mullein)
• List C.
• Biennial.
• Control: Treat in floral stage just before seed set (for flowering plants) and any time
of year during rosette stage. Mechanical - hand pulling/digging can be effective. For
flowering plants, remove flowering stock just before seed set. If you suspect sees
are present, bag seed heads as appropriate. For rosettes, sever root at least 2”
below soil surface to avoid resprouting from perennating buds. Chemical -
Milestone (wetland approved) @ 7 oz/acre with 0.5% non-ionic surfactant.
Herbicide Note
Taking into consideration the proximity to homes and water, we have carefully selected 8
herbicides to be used on the invasive species listed above. Some species, especially annuals
and biennials growing in low density, may not require any chemical applications. Regardless
of the control method used, we recommend up to 3 treatments a year depending on the
labeled maximum annual application rate to ensure sufficient kill rates. The chemicals that
we suggest are described below. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions.
The herbicide label is the LAW! Contact an herbicide expert or your local extension office if
there are any questions regarding usage.
• Aminopyralid (Milestone) is a safe, effective herbicide that can be used safely
(wetland approved) around water supplies (no surfactants) and is grazing approved.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 15 | Page
However, be sure to read the supplemental information related to grazing and
compost.
• Rodeo is wetland approved (no surfactants) glyphosate. The herbicide is not
selective and will impact all plants it contacts.
• 2,4-D (Weedar 64 and many others) is a broadleaf specific herbicide that controls
many species of broadleaf weeds and is available in aquatic approved formulations.
• Imazapic (Plateau) is listed under cheatgrass because it is a very selective herbicide
and will not harm other plants surrounding the target species. It is however not
wetland approved. For this reason, careful consideration will be given to the proper
treatment method for this species upon further inspection of site.
• Imazapyr (Habitat) is a strong broad-spectrum herbicide with aquatic formulations
that will provide control of hairy willow-herb. It is only recommended for controlling
hairy willow-herb.
• Chlorsulfuron (Telar) is a low-use rate broadleaf selective residual herbicide that,
when applied in fall, can reduce spring weed populations by up to 90%. Given it’s
low-use rate (low chemical load) it won’t stress the environment like other high-use
rate herbicides. This herbicide will also allow some native forbs such as milkweeds to
grow while suppressing the target weed. Telar is not wetland approved.
• Indaziflam (Esplanade) is a selective preemergent herbicide that is used to control
many annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. Esplanade works by suppressing the
germination of seeds and the emergence of seedlings in the spring and is not
wetland approved.
• Fluroxypyr (Vista XRT) is a broadleaf specific herbicide that provides excellent
control of Kochia including glyphosate and dicamba resistant biotypes. Vista XRT is
not wetland approved.
Site Protection
In addition to being aware of the negative effect invasive plants can have on desired native
vegetation, this plan considers the impact recreation and wildlife can have on newly planted
vegetation.
Wildlife Control
Unmanaged impacts from livestock or wildlife in a revegetation site can be devastating to newly
established plant materials. As such, wildlife population such as deer and elk should be
observed closely for a period of four to three years post-construction. Once riparian and upland
vegetation is well established, damage caused by typical levels of wildlife browsing and grazing
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 16 | Page
should not negatively impact the trajectory of recovery of the system. At this time, we do not
anticipate grazing by ungulates or rodents to be a significant concern on this site.
Site Maintenance
Maintenance is the collection of actions taken to help ensure a given stream restoration project
performs as designed and attains project objectives (Natural Resources Conservation Service,
2007). Maintenance is closely tied to management, and involves the initial set of planned
activities as well as unplanned activities following project implementation. Without any
maintenance, substantial efforts may be required to correct failures in structures or other
design elements. Active and frequent maintenance can often result in reduced “reconstruction”
and “repair” costs down the road.
Maintenance is most beneficial in the first three to five years following planting, apart from the
occurrence of significant (i.e., 50 years or greater) flood events. Excessive flood flows soon after
planting can cause substantial erosion and slope failure, resulting in unacceptable soil and plant
loss. Such areas may need to be replanted, inter-planted, or reinforced by other means. Other
maintenance efforts may include: (a) placement of large woody debris and other toe protection
treatments on banks to redirect water away from the established areas, (b) repairs of in-stream
rock structures, (c) invasive species management, (d) supplemental irrigation, and (e) fencing.
Results from monitoring efforts will ultimately provide a list of recommended maintenance
activities for Guardian Storage.
Concluding Remarks
Our intention in developing this adaptive management plan is to address the need to enhance
ecological functionality, connectivity, and resilience. With an interdisciplinary team in place,
and stemming from an understanding of management goals, it is our hope this plan will allow
for adequate monitoring and possible maintenance necessary to support the restoration vision
that led to the initial restoration design of Guardian Storage.
Guardian Storage Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan 17 | Page
Bibliography
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use
in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Invertebrates, and Fish, 2nd edition. EPA
841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Daubenmire, R. (1959). A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science, 33, 43-
64.
Giordanengo, J. M. (2016). Living Streambanks: A Manual of Bioengineering Treatments for Colorado
Streams. Co-published by: AloTerra Restoration Services, LLC and Golder Associates, Inc.
Hardy, T. P. (2005). WinXSPRO, A Channel Cross Section Analyzer, User’s Manual, Version 3.0. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Herrick, J. E. (2005). Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Volume I:
Quick Start. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: Las Cruces, NM: U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Jornada Experimental Range.
Lewis, D. L. (2009). Developing a Monitoring Program for Riparian Revegetation Projects . Davis, CA:
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources: University of California
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 8363.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2007). Stream Restoration Design (Part 654). In National
Engineering Handbook. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Overton, C. C., S. P. Woolrab, B. C. Roberts, and M. A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern Intermountain
Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook. General Technical
Report Int-GTR-346. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah.
Rosgen, D. L. (2001). A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. Reno, NV.: In
Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (II: 9-15).
Thayer, G. W. (2003). Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, Volume One: A
Framework for Monitoring Plans Under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law
160-457). Silver Spring, MD: NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science: NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 23(1).
Van Deventer, J. S. and W. S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from
streams. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference
48:349-354.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, I.-F. I. (2003). Integrated Streambank Protection
Guidelines. . Olympia, WA: Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program.
Appendix A – Monitoring Maps and Baseline Photo Points
Figure 1. Monitoring transects and photo points within mitigation area.
Figure 2. Overview of Wetland A from initial wetland delineation.
Figure 3. Overview of Wetland B from initial wetland delineation
Appendix B – Monitoring Forms/Data Sheets
Line-Point Intercept Form
Observers:Project:
Date:Transect Photo:(yes/no)Point spacing (feet):
Transect Location: Monument Installed:(yes/no)Monument Location:
Total 1st hits: Total 1st hits:
Code First hit Bsl*2nd hit (ground)Code First hit Bsl*2nd hit (ground)
Sand (0.06-2mm)Sand (0.06-2mm)
Gravel (2-64mm)Gravel (2-64mm)
Cobble (64-256mm)Cobble (64-256mm)
Boulder (256mm+)Boulder (256mm+)
Silt/clay (cohesive)Silt/clay (cohesive)
Litter/wood Litter/wood
Bare Soil Bare Soil
PHOTOS: Treatment type/Project Name-Property/Trans #/monitoring date (i.e., upland/Peschell/TR 1a/08-31-16)- First + Bsl = 100%
CODES: Litter (includes wood < 1/4" dia); Wood (> 1/4" dia); Bedrock (doesn't move); Straw = ag straw; Standing Dead = litter > 2" off grnd.
UNKNOWNS: AF = annual forb; BF = biennial forb; PF = perennial forb; AG = annual grass; PG = perennial grass; FORB; GRASS
* Bsl column is used if the first hit is a basal area of plant. "Second hit (grd)" is used only for the "second" hit following a canopy hit.
Source: AloTerra Restoration Services, April 15, 2019
Treatment Type:Treatment Type:
Trasect #:Trasect #: