DA-15-00001 Palomino Fields Master File

Home Browse Search

assessment should identify problems on a stream reach basis. A is defined as a section of stream between two defined points (Fischenich 2000). A number of assessment protocols are available, such as: Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP), Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Rapid Stream Assessment, etc. The assessment should identify problems such as, water removal, fish barriers, culverts, etc. that affect fish and hydrology by stream reach. It should also identify eroding areas, the type of erosion, and severity of the erosion. When the assessment is completed, there should be enough infonnation to identify the reaches of the stream that need some kind of treatment, treatment alternatives that could be used, which reaches are the highest priority, other problems that need to be addressed, and an estimate of the potential success of a planting. Based on a good site assessment, you should be able to develop a project rehabilitation schedule or plan including a list of treatment alternatives, a cost estimate for each reach, a -cost es iina e for ie en ire prof ec area, and- a-prWit5r-1-rst-ofwhi-ch-reaches-shoaid-be-treated-f rst. Site Considerations Careful planning before planting is necessary to ensure the solution does not create additional problems. * Management (prescribed grazing system, livestock exclusion, riparian buffers, etc.) must be in- place to maintain or improve riparian vegetation. Without proper management, planting efforts could be destroyed (Crouse and Kindschy 1984; Van Haveren and Jackson 1986). * If native willows or cottonwoods are not found in the vicinity, planting them may not be a good option. * Willow and cottonwood plantings apply only to situations where the rehabilitation time frame is long enough to allow the cuttings to become established and stabilize the site. Hard structures (i.e. rock, concrete, etc.) may be more appropriate under emergency situations. * Unrooted cuttings can be used on sites that range from flat to near vertical slopes. Risks of wash-out and mortality increase as the slopes become steeper. A reconnaissance upstream and downstream of the site selected for revegetation may save time and effort. If there are willows and cottonwoods on adjacent sites, check the hydrology, soil and site conditions and compare them to conditions at the revegetation site. Plantings will be most successful on sites similar to the stable vegetated areas. Risk of mortality increases as soil, site, and water column parameters depart from those of the vegetated sites. There are reasons for vegetation not growing on the disturbed site. Some parameters to inventory in addition to management at the revegetation site include: high streamflow velocities, sharp outside curves, vertical to near vertical or undercut banks, hanging streambanks, mixed stratigraphy of cohesive materials over gravel, and evidence of mass soil slumping. When these parameters are present, revegetation can still be considered, but the underlying causes must be addressed. Establishing vegetation is much more difficult under these conditions because the time period required for stabilization increases, the planting schedule must accelerate, and additional soil losses can be expected. These conditions indicate engineered hard structures or bioengineering techniques not covered in this Technical Note need to be included in the planning considerations. Some data suggests vegetative protection may be adequate if maximum streamflow velocities do not exceed 8 feet per second. Structural and bioengineering techniques should be considered for velocities greater than 8 feet per second. Woody materials should be considered with velocities less than 8 feet per 4