It should be perfectly fine to prove your restoration works...

I recently was made party to complaints regarding regulating agencies, well, regulating.

In this particular instance, the colleague (doesn't work with me, but is in my industry) was complaining about post-construction monitoring requirements being imposed on in-stream restoration projects. They weren't particularly onerous, just some longitudinal- and cross-sections as well as photo-monitoring, with an annual report for three to five years.

I fail to understand why my colleague was upset that he might have to assure the regulators that his project would do what he said it would do. First, any impact, whether beneficial or adverse, is still an impact, and you need to prove to the agencies that what you're doing is appropriate and feasible and won't cause lasting harm. Second, they quite have the authority to place conditions on permits that they issue in order to assure that the impacts are what they call "minimal." Third, restoration projects fail. Sometimes they fail big, sometimes they fail small. Finally, although I've come across some pencil-pushing dorkbutts, most of the regulators I've worked with are fair, consistent, and very concerned about the overall health of resource that I'm proposing to impact.

My recipe for a succesful application and project:

1. Give your local regulators a well-described and depicted project. What's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to the harried regulator who has 30+ people clamoring for their permits, so you need to make it obvious in your submittal. Quantify the impacts, the need for the project. What's the land use history of the watershed? Why is the stream impaired? Do you have a reference reach that you're trying to emulate? Give them clear, measurable performance standards for your project and tell them when and for how long you will monitor, and tell them when it will be successful. Most agencies have brochures or checklists for complete applications; use them.

2. Be ready and humble enough for all sorts of questions regarding your design and the need for the project. Prepare for potential changes/post-project fixes in your budget and design.

3. Watch your contractors during construction, and put clear damage/non-performance clauses in your contracts. I've heard of contractors driving up and down a narrow stream looking to see how high the splash would go, for a non-profit's fish habitat restoration. I've also seen j-hooks and vanes installed so high that they impeded boats during lower flows. It's not good when your fish habitat project's poor construction really pisses off the fishermen and the regulators.

4. If you have to change design or structure location during construction, tell the regulators. Call them up or email them, tell them what you need to do, and ask if it's okay to keep the contractor mobilized and supply as-builts after construction. If they say no, give them change drawings and ask for a permit modification, ASAP.

5. Do your post-construction monitoring on time. Don't blow it off. If big things happen in the watershed that affect your project, tell them soon afterwards, and include it in your report.

6. If you see that your structure(s) isn't/aren't working, tell them and propose a fix. Make sure your client is aware that sometimes, structures need tweaking and build that into your budget.

Restoration is not an exact science. There's lots of schools of thought (and lots of arguments, too), and no single prescribed method of conducting restoration. If you're prepared to have an honest, humble dialogue with your regulators and give them the information they need to evaluate your project up-front and after construction, you'll likely have a very successful restoration business.

First Post!

Welcome! Thanks for visiting my new blog, mainly focusing on natural resource issues in the greater southwest. I'll likely cover a variety of topics, ranging from geosciences, botanical and wildlife science, to environmental regulation, with an occasional rant on SW politics and women's issues.

In my first post, I'd like to give kudos to Dave Rosgen, Bill Zeedyk and all their philosophical adherents. These folks have done a lot to find ways of effecting bank stabilization and river/creek channel restoration without making it look like an explosion of concrete and rebar (or gabion baskets, just as bad in my book). I've seen at least a few of these structures get installed in AZ, NM, and CO and they seem to be working well to provide areas for riparian regrowth and increased fish habitat (where appropriate).

Zeedyk seems to be the only one that I know of (I'm sure there are more) who works on smaller intermittent and ephemeral systems. One of the nicest I've seen is along Ganado Wash near the Hubbell Trading Post in AZ. He used post and other structures in the wash to effect stabilization/aggradation which, in turn, provided ample opportunity for riparian revegetation. I'm pretty sure that the structures helped effect greater infiltration to the water table, as well. Aesthetically, the whole scene is very pleasing. Unless you know exactly what you're looking for, you would have no idea that any restoration had taken place in the wash. It's probably come fairly close to looking like (and more importantly, functioning like) it's pre-Columbian condition.

I like Zeedyk's general approach to restoration (and rural road building/maintenance for better/more natural water distribution to the land surface). He takes a low-tech approach, mainly looking for the easiest and cheapest ways to conduct the channel work, primarily using hand labor. Most of the restorations I've seen or read about were installed by hand using small structures or rock placement. I've included a link to the Zeedyk/Quivira Coalition's publication http://quiviracoalition.org/Detailed/QC_Publications/Field_Guides/An_Introduction_to_I..._82.html

Send me your favorite restoration, and I'll post a description and a photo here on OHWM. Please be sure to give credit where credit is due. We need to thank the folks who do this work and make sure to pass the word around so more restoration like this gets done!