Laserfiche WebLink
Review of the 12/1/99 draft Tech Committe Monitoring and Research Demonstration <br />Project on Cottonwood Ranch <br />Dave Carlson 12/2/99 <br />In general it seems like there are four proposals here, one each for channel morphology, <br />temperature, hydrology, and species surveys. The cost indicates to me that we'll need to <br />thoroughly develop these issues by splitting them up, and flesh them out accordingly by <br />providing specific details on who, what, when, where, why, and how questions. <br />Objectives 1 and 3: channel morphology <br />I think the inter-related channel morphology issues of objectives 1 and 3 could and probably <br />should be combined. The sediment transport, channel morphology, vegetation encroachment and <br />vegetation seral analysis issues are related to habitat objectives of restoring and maintaining <br />wide, flat, unvegetated channel with slow. There are at least three specific things are that could <br />advance management by demonstrating: 1) if and how we address issues for getting permits that <br />physically restore channel conditions; 2) how we go about mechanical widening; and then; 3) <br />develop and implement appropriate monitoring protocols to describe the vegetation, physical <br />(sediment and channel hydraulics) and hydrological linkages on site and downstream as they <br />respond to restoration activities. Hydraulic information gathered throu.gh this process of <br />sediment monitoring and research will directly relate to the species habitats. I agree that <br />vegetation monitoring should include species in addition to cottonwoo3, and that monitoring <br />vegetation growth/re-growth in the widened channels would naturally include though not <br />necessarily be limited to colonization by the invasive plant species. <br />The total estimated cost is very high, and we need very good information resulting from that <br />amount. In my view, the protocol development would occur through the implementation and <br />refinements made to our understanding of vegetation/hydraulics/hydrology linkages. This might <br />be semantics, because the portion for protocol development and review, generally set at $3000, <br />seems very low. <br />Objective 2. Swale development and water in sloughs and backwaters. <br />I'm unclear on the objectives for Cottonwood Ranch in respect to swale enhancement and <br />development. Are these habitat types objectives for the target species, or criteria for other <br />species of concern, or something else? I can understand that the Districts and/or FWS may <br />desire to apply measures in meeting responsibilities for non-listed species, but how these relate <br />to habitat objectives of the Proposed Program will need explanation. Is this topic is related to out <br />of channel habitats or areas within the forested floodplain, or both. Are the two different types <br />intended to function differently with respect to the four target species ar "other" species? <br />Objective 4: Temperature <br />Meteorological variables and discharge make this a rather complicated issue, as attested by past <br />controversy. Would this topic is be more related to detailed research? Much of the controversy <br />seems to be how data are analyzed, so getting agreement on the past analysis and how new <br />analysis will be conducted should be a significant element of this proposal. We need to clarified <br />how the information we gather will improve upon the existing long-term temperature monitoring <br />database, and will help address outstanding controversies. If the questions pertain to narrow