Document Redmond_doc_ff62192bd3

Large Woody Material Enhancement in Urban Streams Puget Sound, Washington: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Prepared by Natural Systems Design Seattle, Washington and City of Redmond Public Works Department Natural Resources Division May 2007 Redmond Urban Watersheds Initiative Contribution No. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Large Woody Material Enhancement in Urban Streams Puget Sound, Washington: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Prepared by Natural Systems Design Seattle, Washington & City of Redmond Public Works Department Natural Resources Division May 2007 Redmond Urban Watersheds Initiative Contribution No. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study explores application of the monitoring and adaptive management approach to enhancement projects using large woody material (LWM), in small urban streams (80 to 800-acre watersheds) in the Puget Sound lowlands of western Washington. An initial LWM stream enhancement informational survey conducted across several jurisdictions yielded only limited success. While monitoring of LWM projects is generally enthusiastically called for and endorsed, it is not clear what or how LWM project data should be gathered, how it will be used, or how it would be retrieved once an agency has collected it. Senior management needs to more consistently encourage a much better job of monitoring the outcomes of these projects. The second phase of the study focused on seven stream enhancement projects installed in the City of Redmond between 1991 and 2004. A straightforward, objective monitoring protocol was developed and applied to determine if each project had achieved its goals. The protocol used LWM loadings and spatial distributions in undisturbed Pacific Northwest streams of similar size to Redmond’s, to provide the best “reference” for comparing habitat enhancement projects – for these are the natural conditions under which local salmon species evolved. Redmond’s projects all contained significantly less LWM than the reference systems. While most Redmond projects satisfactorily achieved bed and bank stability, our success at creating instream habitat was more limited. This “under achievement” is directly related to the inadequate hydraulic interaction between various stream flows and the LWM. A majority of LWM volume needs to be below bankfull depth if it is to provide habitat value or energy dissipation during storm events. Two other issues received attention: First, it appears that real stream enhancement opportunities might be missed based on “risk aversion” – unrealistic fears of LWM and stream flow interactions. Second, because of contract liability issues, in-house staff typically have little control over potential shortcomings in the LWM installation process. Moving through this review it became clear that better visual examples of desirable stream habitat features – both, natural and constructed – could substantially benefit stream restoration planning efforts. The final phase of this study provides a solid start towards filling this need. The most striking conclusion of this study is that hugely beneficial insights accrued to Redmond staff as a result of instituting the relatively simple and inexpensive project review and monitoring procedures described herein. ---PAGE BREAK--- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The City of Redmond Public Works Department, Natural Resources Division, is especially grateful to staff members from several adjacent jurisdictions who participated in early discussions about a project such as this, helping formulate potential study goals and approaches. Contributions from Paul Cereghino (NOAA), Kirk Lakey (WDFW), Frank Leonetti (Snohomish County), Gino Lucchetti (King County), Kit Paulson (City of Bellevue), and Chris Woelfel (City of Seattle) are particularly acknowledged. The City of Bellevue Utilities/Environment Division, represented by Kit Paulson, funded Natural Systems Design to conduct the initial information-gathering phase of the study, generating the survey results and reference materials presented in Section Two of this report. The Natural Systems Design study team including Alan Johnson, Mike Hrachovec, P.E., and Nick Silverman, worked closely with Redmond staff to refocus the objectives for the second and third phases of the study. They then did an outstanding job – voluntarily carrying their research considerably beyond the limited scope of the City contract. City of Redmond staff, Keith Macdonald, Ph.D. (Project Manager), Jerallyn Roetemeyer, P.E., Roger Dane, ASLA, and Peter Holte, also rose to the occasion. The project staff are especially grateful to Natural Resources Division Managers, Jon Spangler, P.E., and Daren Baysinger, for their encouragement and financial support and to Dave Rhodes, Director of Redmond Public Works, for embracing the broader, long-term benefits of a study such as this. For further information, please contact: City of Redmond Department of Public Works Natural Resources Division P.O.Box 97010 Redmond, WA 98073-9710 [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- PREFACE An important part of this study was to determine what constitutes “project success” for urban stream enhancement projects – and how that might be measured. Perspective is obviously an issue here. To an ecologist, “success” might mean restoration of natural functions and processes, or the return of sustainable fish populations. To an engineer, it might be the protection of infrastructure and elimination of local flooding. Achieving both goals would surely be optimal. If project success is to be measured, then an obvious key is to have well defined project goals at the outset. Stream enhancement is not a reach-by-reach enterprise, but rather demands a more holistic, watershed perspective. An early conversation with Alan Johnson offers one experienced practitioner’s insights into successful urban stream enhancement: “Stream restoration isn’t really about fish habitat — it’s about energy dissipation and achieving a new stream channel equilibrium after adding additional stormwater runoff to our streams. Stream flow is the product of the cross-sectional area of the stream channel(A) and water velocity Stream Discharge, Q = VA. “When additional stormwater is added to a stream and its discharge increases, one of three things will happen – the channel will become deeper (down-cutting, bed scour); or wider (bank erosion); or the water will flood over the stream banks (flooding). To reduce the risk of any of these three “politically undesirable” things from happening, the stream velocity needs to be decreased through the addition of instream structure to dissipate energy. That is, energy dissipation will reduce the risks of stream down-cutting, bank erosion, and flooding. If fish habitat is enhanced, it will be as a by-product of these changes that dissipate energy – a “freebie.” “So what is fish habitat? In the simplest of term, it reflects hydraulic complexity. Good fish habitat requires three things: a refuge – from both predators and high velocity flows; a source of food – based on leaf fall, organic matter, and bugs; and a place to reproduce – well-flushed, oxygenated, gravels. Most importantly, all three of these things need to be available in close proximity to the fish. This can only happen in stream reaches that experience hydraulic complexity.” We hope this pilot study will encourage a broader documentation and open discussion of urban stream enhancement projects. Achieving the goals of the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts throughout the Pacific Northwest will clearly require more successful approaches to urban stream enhancement than have been accomplished to date. To benefit from this broader experience, to move us all in the “right” direction, requires better documentation and understanding of successful LWM methodologies. To be truly beneficial, we then need to share that information. ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. Summary Overview SECTION 2. City of Bellevue: LWM Informational Survey & Reference Materials. SECTION 3. The Use of LWM in Stream Enhancement Projects Within the City of Redmond, Washington. Appendices A – Weighted Averages & Field Forms B Watershed maps and project locations. C Westlake Sammamish parkway Stream. D Idylwood Park Stream E Lower Peters Creek F Peters Creek at Arco AM/PM G Upper Peters Creek/Redmond H Upper Peters Creek/KCD I Willows Creek at Overlake Church. SECTION 4. Using LWM in Stream Projects: Are We Hitting the Mark? ---PAGE BREAK--- SECTION ONE SUMMARY OVERVIEW Thoughtful field monitoring to measure “project success,” followed by adaptive management – the systematic application of lessons learned – is fundamental to successful achievement of the Clean Water Act goals and the protection of endangered species (WRIA 8 Steering Committee, 2005). Surprisingly, documented applications of these approaches remain scarce. This study explores the application of the monitoring and adaptive management approach to enhancement projects on small urban streams (80 to 800-acre watersheds) in the Puget Sound lowlands of western Washington. The series of studies reported here grew out of conversations with Daren Baysinger, Environmental Compliance Manager for the City of Redmond and Alan Johnson, Natural Systems Design, Seattle, Washington. Noting that Redmond had been conducting an urban stream water quality monitoring (including B-IBI) program since 1995, Baysinger was seeking to incorporate more ecological analysis into the City’s monitoring program. Since most Puget Sound urban stream enhancement projects include installation of large woody material (LWM), Johnson suggested that monitoring the ‘effectiveness’ of LWM installation might provide the type of ecological insight Baysinger was seeking. During this same time, Keith Macdonald was representing Redmond on the Technical Advisory Committee preparing the Lake Washington-Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Salmon Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 2005). His discussions with Committee representatives from several regional and local jurisdictions confirmed a strong interest and willingness to directly participate in a LWM study such as that proposed by Johnson. As originally conceived, the LWM study consisted of three parts. In Phase 1, an informational survey would be sent to jurisdictions indicating an interest in the study. This survey was to identify the ‘universe’ of local LWM projects and assemble basic data such as project size, purpose, and installation history on each jurisdictions projects. Five to ten LWM projects, with varying goals and reflecting different watershed settings, would then be selected for detailed analysis. Phase 2 was to develop a practical field monitoring/data collection protocol that could be applied to each selected project to assess the ‘effectiveness’ of the LWM installation. Phase 3 would summarize the findings of the field monitoring, LWM installation lessons learned, and where appropriate, suggest strategies to further enhance the success of future LWM projects in urban streams. Phase 1: City of Bellevue LWM Informational Survey In September 2004, the City of Bellevue Utilities Environment Division conducted an informational survey on the use of LWM in local urban stream restoration projects. An electronic survey form requested general project information on the types of LWM projects undertaken, their construction methods, maintenance requirements, overall 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- success, and total project costs. Draft versions of the survey form were circulated among all interested parties and their suggestions incorporated. The survey forms were then e- mailed it to all jurisdictions that continued to express interest in the survey. By the end of February 2005, despite several direct requests and follow-up, only one agency had responded to the information requests. SECTION TWO of this report summarizes the findings of this effort. Table 1 provides a bulleted list the key findings – and a list of recommendations to improve future project monitoring. The foremost conclusion of the survey was that while monitoring of LWM projects is generally enthusiastically called for and endorsed, it is not clear what or how LWM project data should be gathered, how it will be used, or how it would be retrieved once an agency has collected it. As one participant noted, “The bottom line remains that if we’re investing thousands – maybe millions – of dollars in LWM stream enhancement projects, we certainly need to be doing a much better job of monitoring their outcomes. Not to mention looking at their cost effectiveness!” Phase 1A: LWM Reference Materials In addition to the survey data mentioned above, a compilation of reference materials focused on the form, function, and installation of LWM in small-forested stream systems was prepared. A bibliography of these materials is provided in SECTION TWO. A CD containing this information is included at the back of this report. Phase 2: LWM Monitoring Methodology & Results As the City of Redmond chose to fund the remainder of this study, the study focus narrowed to stream projects within the City of Redmond in which LWM was a key component. In August 2005, six Redmond Public Works/Natural Resources LWM stream projects across the City (a seventh project was added in August 2006) were field reviewed to: • Document the use of LWM in each project. • Provide examples of the range of effectiveness of LWM installations. • Recommend guidelines for designing and constructing future LWM installations to increase their overall effectiveness. Two major assumptions underlie this phase of the study. First, experience indicates that understanding the functions and processes operating in undisturbed natural systems provides the best template for habitat protection and enhancement Spence et al. 1996; Riley 1998). Thus documenting LWM form and function in undisturbed small forested stream systems provides our best opportunity to enhance urban stream 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 1. Collecting LWM Project Data FINDINGS • The survey forms were relatively simple to complete: Redmond staff spent a total of 12 hours documenting 13 stream projects involving LWM installation. • The low response to the survey reflects a general low priority for completing the LWM project survey within the context of regularly scheduled workload. • Most jurisdictions lack an established infrastructure to readily locate and summarize LWM project data. Locating pertinent information often involves searching through paper records held by individual project managers. • LWM projects are often on time critical pathways tied to capital improvement project (CIP) budgets and schedules. The focus is on LWM project design and construction with little attention given to monitoring. • When LWM work is part of a larger CIP project, it is often difficult to isolate real project costs. In-house and volunteer contributions are rarely accounted for. • When LWM project data are required – even by permitting agencies – it is not clear what data should be collected nor how that data will be used once collected. Insights on the effectiveness of various designs, construction methods, materials, or project costs are not investigated. RECOMMENDATIONS • To be meaningful, management must make LWM project monitoring a priority within staff budgets, work plans, and schedules. Monitoring must include a timeline in which it is to be completed. • Guidance should be provided on what to track and how to begin LWM project effectiveness monitoring. For example: 1. What were the purpose and goals of the LWM project? 2. What was done and why? 3. How effective was the LWM project at meeting its goals? 4. Is the project making a difference, and if so, to what? 5. If identified as a project goal, did the LWM project result in improved instream habitat? • A watershed plan can provide a framework for collecting LWM information and ensuring more reliable retrieval of the data. restoration practice. Second, monitoring LWM project outcomes over time is our only objective way to learn how to improve design and installation methods. If projects reveal what Alan Johnson refers to as “unexpected results,” it provides a unique opportunity for us to learn how things might be done differently. It is with this perspective that staff of Redmond’s Natural Resources Division chose to share their personal project experiences with others. 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 2. Redmond LWM Stream Enhancement Projects FINDINGS • The central role of LWM in maintaining stream stability and creating instream habitat is well established. As such, the addition of LWM is commonly required in federal, state, and local permits for projects that impact aquatic environments. • LWM loadings and spatial distributions in undisturbed Pacific Northwest streams of similar size to Redmond’s, provide the best “reference” for comparing habitat enhancement projects – for these are the natural conditions under which salmonids evolved. • Seven Redmond stream restoration and enhancement projects (installed 1991- 2004) were reviewed. All contained significantly less LWM than the “reference” systems (<25th percentile for wood volume). • Most LWM was installed to provide bed and bank stability – which was reliably achieved on a majority of projects. • Largely due to a lack of hydraulic interaction, little of the installed LWM directly created or maintained instream habitat. Instream cover was limited at all sites; small shallow pools provided little instream refuge; only half the sites had a balance of fast and slow moving water habitat. • LWM was predominantly installed as single pieces. This limits instream hydraulic diversity and reduces the accumulation of small woody material needed for habitat complexity and cover. • While LWM with attached rootwads was more common than in “reference” systems, it provided only limited instream habitat. RECOMMENDATIONS • More closely approximating LWM loading and spatial characteristics of the “reference” stream systems would improve stream bed, bank, and habitat quality. • Install LWM to hydraulically interact over a much wider range of stream flows minimum flow to 10-year flows). Increased hydraulic interaction will dissipate stream energy to provide additional pool formation, and cover by collecting small woody debris. • Increase the amount of wood that provides instream cover. LWM installed with a majority of its volume above bankfull depth provides very little habitat value or energy dissipation during storm events. • Rather than single pieces, LWM installed in accumulations of three or more pieces will increase instream hydraulic diversity, scour pools, and cover. • Limit placement of rock in areas where the goal is to create habitat. Allow plunge pools to form on the side of sill logs and the outside of bends. • An objective monitoring/review protocol is essential for determining if project goals have been achieved. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- A summary describing the general study approach, detailed methodology, study results, and conclusions for this second phase of the study is contained in SECTION THREE.. The combined field survey data and available project background information were combined to generate individual summaries for each Redmond LWM project. These summaries include: project goals, tabulated LWM evaluation and habitat data, watershed/project maps, and an illustrated narrative summary that describes the role of LWM in the project and opportunities for project enhancement. Individual project summaries are included as Appendices B through I, at the back of Section Three. Once the individual LWM project analyses were completed, Natural Systems Design prepared a summary that also included general guidance for enhancing LWM use in future projects. A bulleted summary of key findings from this second phase of the study is presented in Table 2, along with recommendations for enhancing future LWM stream projects. Phase 3: Using LWM in Stream Projects — Are We Hitting the Mark? As we moved through the review of Redmond’s stream enhancement projects, it became clear that useful and specific guidance for better project planning is limited. While literature descriptions of desired stream habitat features are common, there are few visual examples to illustrate these desired features. Perhaps the “under achievement” of some urban stream enhancement projects partly reflects this lack of examples illustrating the “desired results.” Specifically, what is good instream habitat? How will we know it when we see it? From a design perspective, are we sure we know where we’re going? With these questions in mind, a document providing visual examples of various regional, instream habitats, both natural and constructed, was desired. The resulting document, entitled “Using Large Woody Material in Stream Projects: Are We Hitting the Mark” is included as SECTION FOUR of this report. While this final phase of Redmond’s study could be a ‘stand alone’ document – and we think it will prove useful to many stream restoration practitioners – Redmond staff believe that it gains greater meaning when presented in the context of the complete monitoring and adaptive management study. The report addresses the issues of: What is instream habitat? How are complex habitats formed? What is a “successful” restoration project? Specifically, the illustrations included focus on: • The complexity of natural streams and habitat features • Constructed habitat features that don’t match the complexity of natural systems • Constructed habitat features that match the desired complexity. A summary of the ‘lessons learned,’ presented at the back of the report, is included here in Table 3. 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 3. Installing Better LWM Projects LESSONS LEARNED • Instream habitat is not “one size fits all.” All aquatic species have adapted to a specific set of hydraulic conditions i.e., water depths and velocities. If those conditions do not exist, then habitat for that species does not exist. • The focus for enhancement projects should be on stream hydraulics, not habitat. Most instream habitat elements are the by-product of hydraulics. If stream flows and structural elements – boulders, LWM, or installed structures – do not interact hydraulically, viable habitats will not be created nor maintained. • The presence of LWM does not imply that habitat will automatically occur. Hydraulic interaction is required for structural elements to be successful in creating viable habitats. • Many projects have not enhanced stream habitats. Projects that contain too little LWM, where the LWM is not adequately in contact with flows, or where the LWM are single pieces widely spaced along the stream channel, generate minimal hydraulic diversity and consequently provide minimal habitat benefits. • Both large and small woody material play critical roles in creating ecologically functional stream habitats. • Natural stream systems provide our best templates for designing stream enhancement projects. Structures that emulate natural stream conditions have the highest chance for success. Projects that fail to emulate natural stream functions and processes usually provide little significant habitat benefits. • More creative and natural use of LWM can function to both stabilize stream banks and provide real habitat benefits. Change the focus to creating habitat projects that stabilize the bank rather than bank stabilization projects with some habitat. • Projects will only succeed when the practitioner – when selecting and placing structures – incorporates an understanding of how the various structures will likely respond to different levels of flow. • Without objective project monitoring or review, it is difficult to know which practices are effective in achieving restoration goals. A much higher priority is needed for gathering and disseminating data on stream restoration methods, and most importantly, the resulting outcomes. The most important lesson here confirms the theme of Alan Johnson’s conversation early in the project and highlighted in the Preface – urban stream enhancement isn’t about installing something that “looks like fish habitat.” Rather it is about encouraging and shaping the hydraulic interactions between LWM and stream flows. This approach can reduce bed and bank erosion, helping to stabilize the stream channel and manage 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- potential sediment flux issues. Highly functional instream habitat is mostly generated as a “by-product” of the creation and enhancement of hydraulic complexity within the stream channel at various flows. The goal is to move away from projects designed principally to stabilize stream beds and banks – instead develop habitat projects that also function to more naturally stabilize the channel bed and banks. Moving Forward With Adaptive Management The primary goal of this study was to identify procedures for designing and constructing LWM structures that achieve project goals while accounting for risk, cost, construction constraints, and geomorphic stream types. The significant lessons the City of Redmond learned from this study include: 1. The unexpected difficulty in retrieving records describing local stream projects that incorporated LWM. While monitoring LWM projects is generally enthusiastically called for and endorsed, it is not clear what or how LWM project data should be gathered, how it will be used, or how it would be retrieved once an agency has collected it. 2. To be effective, greater quantities of wood (both numbers of pieces and total wood volumes) are needed in Redmond’s projects. Multiple pieces of LWM should be installed in more diverse orientations relative to the active stream channel. 3. While most Redmond projects satisfactorily achieved bed and bank stability, our success at creating instream habitat was more limited. This “under achievement” is directly related to the inadequate hydraulic interaction between various stream flows and the LWM. Much of the wood in Redmond’s projects was installed parallel with, or set into, the channel banks where there was little opportunity for hydraulic interaction. Other LWM was installed too high on the channel banks, or too far from the actively-flowing channel, to allow frequent hydraulic interaction. 4. A very significant issue is the “risk aversion” of project designers, installers, and project management staff involved in enhancement projects. Keith Macdonald recalls advice received some years ago when he was planning the installation of LWM (in another jurisdiction): “Be sure to install the LWM so that it doesn’t interfere with stream flows in any way. What about installing root wads in alcoves along the bank?” Clearly there was concern about LWM slowing stream flows, causing backwater effects and increased flooding. Yet in this case, the site was an open floodplain set aside for habitat enhancement – much could have been done to add hydraulic and habitat complexity with only the smallest risk of any negative consequences. This issue deserves more aggressive research for it 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- presently appears that real stream enhancement opportunities might be missed based on unrealistic fears of LWM and stream flow interactions. 5. Because stream enhancement projects are often part of much larger CIP projects, they are often designed/installed by designers/contractors with minimal appropriate experience. Detailed project specifications and construction drawings are rarely adequate for stream enhancement work; last minute decisions inevitably depend on personal experience. Because of contract liability issues, Redmond’s in-house staff often have little control over potential shortcomings in the installation process. 6. Finally – and perhaps the most striking – are the hugely beneficial insights that Redmond staff gained from instituting these relatively simple project review and monitoring procedures. This study strongly confirms that simple, repeatable field measurements can be used to gain considerable project insight with modest effort. The insights provided by such a review are essential for determining if a project has achieved its desired goals. Applying similar approaches to stream enhancement projects in other jurisdictions can only lead to substantial improvements in future regional urban stream restoration practice. References Cited Riley, A.L. 1998. Restoring streams in cities. A guide for planners, policymakers, and citizens. Island Press, Washington, DC. 423pp. Spence, B.C. et al. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96- 6057. Man Tech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. (Available from the National marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.) 356pp. WRIA 8 Steering Committee. 2005. Proposed Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Vols. I-III. Seattle, WA. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LARGE WOODY MATERIAL (LWM) IN SMALL FORESTED STREAM SYSTEMS REFERENCE MATERIALS COMPILED BY ALAN JOHNSON NATURAL SYSTEMS DESIGN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 2004 Abbe, T.B. 2000. Patterns, mechanics and geomorphic effects of wood debris accumulations in a forest river system. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 241pp. Abbe, T. B. et al. 2003. Design protocol for wood in rivers. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, WA. Presented at 2003 Northwest River Restoration Symposium, Skamania, WA 38pp. Anon. 1998. Habitat improvements: Cabled log jam. 4pp. Baillie, B.R. and T.R. Davies. 2002. Influence of large woody debris on channel morphology in native forest and pine plantation streams in the Nelson region, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 36: 736-774. Beaudry, L. 2004. Large woody debris replacement in small headwater streams in central British Columbia. (Abstract) Stewardship through Collaboration, Proceedings Forest-Land-Fish Conference II, April 2004, Edmonton, Alberta. 2pp. Beech, S. 1999. The effects of the intentional addition of large woody debris to stream channels in the Upper Coweeman River Basin: Baseline survey results. TFW Effectiveness Monitoring Report, Timber/Fish/Wildlife Monitoring Advisory Group and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Olympia, WA. TFW-MAGI-99-004. 22pp. Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. Journal of Forestry. October 1984: 609-613. Bisson, P.A. et al. xxxx. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, present, future. (Chapter Five). 51pp. Bolton, S. and C. Berman. 2002. Research on streamside issues through the wood compatibility initiative. Proceedings Wood Compatibility Initiative Workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-563. November 2002. 12pp. ---PAGE BREAK--- Braudrick, C.A. and G.E.Grant 2000. When do logs move in rivers? Water Resources Research. 36(2): 571-583. Braudrick, C.A. and G.E.Grant 2001. Transport and deposition of large woody debris in streams: a flume experiment. Geomorphology. 41: 263-283. British Columbia Government. xxxx. Habitat Data Manager – Sampling coarse woody debris. 6pp. Chesney, C. 2000. Functions of wood in small, steep streams in Eastern Washington: Summary of results for project activity in the Athanum, Cowiche, and Tieton Basins. TFW Effectiveness Monitoring Report, Timber/Fish/Wildlife Monitoring Advisory Group and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Olympia, WA. TFW-MAGI- 00-002. 31pp. Cottingham, P. el al. (eds.) 2003. Managing wood in streams. River and Riparian Land Management Technical Guideline Update (Southeastern Australia): 3 (July 2003). 12pp. Duboiski, M. et al. 2000. Report to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board on the Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Workshop, August 2000. 13pp. Dooley, J.H. 2002. Technical products from small diameter timber for habitat enhancement and watershed restoration. Proceedings, Small Diameter Timber: Resource Management, Manufacturing, and Markets. February 2002, Spokane, WA. D.M. Baumgartner et al. (eds.) Pages, 255-260. Dooley, J.H. and K.M. Paulson. xxxx. Large woody debris structures from small diameter poles. ELWd Systems, Federal Way, WA. 7pp. Durst, J.D. and J. Ferguson. xxxx. Large woody debris, an annotated bibliography. Compiled for Region III Forest Practices Riparian Management Committee. 20pp. ELWd. 2000. Fact Sheet: Hydraulic and biologic effects of engineered large woody debris in stream rehabilitation. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2pp. ELWd Systems. 2000. Engineered large woody debris: Solving problems of logistics and large wood availability. ELWd Systems, division of Forest Concepts, LLC. Federal Way, WA. 2pp. ELWd Systems. 2001. ELWd engineered woody debris jam structures for small rivers and streams. ELWd Systems, division of Forest Concepts, LLC. Federal Way, WA. 6pp. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Root wads: Cover modification. Factsheet C-17. 3pp. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flebbe, P.A. and C.A. Dolloff. 1995. Trout use of woody debris and habitat in Appalachian wilderness streams of North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15: 570-590. Fox, M. 2002. Fact Sheet: Large woody debris How much is enough? Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2pp. Gregory, S. and R Wildman. 1998. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project. Effects of floods of 1996, Quartz Creek, Willamette National Forest. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 77pp. Hilderbrand, R.H. et al. 1997. Effects of large woody debris placement on stream channels and benthic macroinvertebrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 54: 931-939. Hilderbrand, R.H. et al. 1998. Design considerations for large woody debris placement in stream enhancement projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18:161-167. Hyatt, T.L. and R.J.Naiman. 2001. The residence time of large woody debris in the Queets River, Washington, USA. Ecological Applications. 11(1): 191-202. Hygelund, B. N. and M. Manga. 2002. Interaction between woody debris and channel morphology: Insights from spring-fed streams in the Oregon Cascades. (Abstract) Cordilleran Section – 98th Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America, May 2002. Hygelund, B. and M. Manga. 2003. Field measurements of drag coefficients for model large woody debris. Geomorphology. 51:175-185. Johnson, S.L. et al. 2000. Riparian forest disturbances by a mountain flood – the influence of floated wood. Hydrological Processes. 14: 3031-3050. Kraft, C.E. and D.R. Warren. 2003. Development of spatial pattern in large woody debris and debris dams in streams. Geomorphology. 51: 127-139. Lancaster, S. S. K. Hayes and G.E. Grant. 2003. Effects of wood on debris flow runout in small mountain watersheds. Water Resources Research, 39(6): 1168. 22pp. Larson, M. 2000. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Center for Urban Water Resources Management, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 10pp. Lassettre, N.S. 1999. Annotated bibliography on the ecology, management, and physical effects of large woody debris (LWD) in stream ecosystems. Prepared for California ---PAGE BREAK--- Department of Forestry, by University of California Center for Forestry, Berkeley, CA. 49pp. Lemly, A.D. and R.H.Hilderbrand. 2000. Influence of large woody debris on stream insect communities and benthic detritus. Hydrobiologia. 421: 179-185. Lisle, T.E. 2002. How much dead wood in stream channels is enough? USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. 9pp. Manga, and J.W. Kirchner. 2000. Stress partitioning in streams by large woody debris. Water Resources Research. 36(8): 2373-2379. May, C. and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater streams in the southern Oregon Coast Range, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33: 1352-1362. May, C. and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Processes and rates of sediment and wood accumulation in headwater streams of the Oregon Coast Range, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 28: 409-424. New South Wales, Fisheries Scientific Committee. xxxx. Removal of large woody debris designated as a ‘Key Threatening Process’ under Fisheries Management Act 1994. 2pp. Oregon Department of Forestry. 1995. A guide to placing large wood in streams. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 14pp. Rodman, R. xxxx. A large woody debris anchoring system for sites with limited access. Technical Tip, Streamline, British Columbia’s Watershed Restoration Technical Bulletin. B. C. Ministry of Environment, Vancouver, B.C. 2pp. Rosenfeld, J.S. and L. Huato. 2004. Relationship between large woody debris characteristics and pool formation in small coastal British Columbia streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23(3): 928-938. Sheilds, D.F., S.S. Knight, C.M. Cooper and S. Testa. 2000. Large woody debris structures for incised channel rehabilitation. Proceedings, ASCE 2000 Joint Conference on Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management. ASCE, Reston, VA. 10pp. Shields, F.D., N. Morin and C.M.Cooper. 2001. Design of large woody debris structures for channel rehabilitation. Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. USDA-ARS-National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS. 8pp. ---PAGE BREAK--- Shields, F.D., N. Morin and R.A. Kuhnle. 2001. Effect of large woody debris structures on stream hydraulics. Proceedings, Wetland Engineering and River Restoration, Reno, Nevada, August 2001. 12pp. Skaugset, B.Bilby and J. Sedell. xxxx. Influence of woody debris piece size and orientation on function in small streams. 2pp. Slaney, P. et al. 2001. Increased abundance of rainbow trout in response to large woody debris rehabilitation at the West Kettle River. Streamline, British Columbia’s Watershed Restoration Technical Bulletin, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Vancouver, B.C. 5(4). 8pp. Stillwater Sciences. 1997. A review of coho salmon life history to assess potential limiting factors and the implications of historical removal of large woody debris in coastal Mendocino County. Prepared for Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Trinidad, CA, by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, CA. 55pp. Swanson, F.J. and G.W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical consequences of large organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. General Technical Report PNW-69. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 15pp. Swanson, F. et al. 1984. Organic debris in small streams, Prince of Wales Island, southeast Alaska. General Technical Report PNW -166. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 12pp. Sylte,T. and C. Fischenich. 2000. Rootwad composites for streambank erosion control and fish habitat enhancement. EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP- SR-21) US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 10pp. Treadwell, S. (ed.) 1997. Guideline B Managing snags and large woody debris. Proceedings of a Workshop in Australia, March 1997. 18pp. Treadwell, J. Koehn and S. Bunn. 1999. Large woody debris and other aquatic habitat. Chapter 7, in Riparian Land Management Technical Guidelines, Volume One. 18pp. Wallerstein, N.P. 2003. Dynamic model for construction scour caused by large woody debris. Earth Surface, Processes and Landforms, 28: 49-68. Water Notes. 2000. The management and replacement of large woody debris in waterways. Advisory Notes for Land Managers on River and Wetland Restoration, Water and Rivers Commission, Government of Western Australia. 2pp. Water Notes. 2000. Importance of large woody debris in sandy bed streams. Advisory Notes for Land Managers on River and Wetland Restoration, Water and Rivers Commission, Government of Western Australia. 4pp.