Ecesis

ecesis \I-’se-sus, i-’ke-sus\ noun [from Greek oikesis meaning inhabitation]: the establishment of an animal or plant in a new habitat.

The Quarterly Newsletter of the California Society for Ecological Restoration

Summer Solstice 2006 Volume 16, Issue 2

In this issue:
Bioengineering and
Restoration Practice…
2... Biotechnical Slope
Protection
5... Bioengineered Structure
Performance in Riverine
Systems
7... Bioengineering at
Dublin Ranch
7... Sustainable Creek and
River Restoration Using
Biotechnical Methods
Plus…
2... SERCAL Board list
9... Natural Resource Events
11-12... Membership

As the field of ecological restoration continues to advance, the importance of

Ecesis is published quarterly by
the California Society for
Ecological Restoration, a
nonprofit corporation, as a
service to its members.
Newsletter contributions of all
types are welcome and may be
submitted to any of the
regional directors (see page 2).
Articles should be sent as a
word processing document;
and accompanying images
saved as jpg or tif files.
ABOVE Root wad installed
along the channel bank,
exposed during low flows.
Courtesy Chris Bowles, PWA,
ABOVE
Ltd. (see article page 7).
marrying engineering and biology is becoming widely apparent. Bioengineering, as
defined by Dictionary of Natural Resource Management (Dunster & Dunster 1996), is “a
multidisciplinary applied science that uses living plant material as a component of site
engineering and landscape construction in order to stabilize and conserve soils. Modern
applications include riverbank engineering, stabilization of steep slopes, erosion control,
and other earthworks.”
A crucial element in many restoration projects across a variety of ecosystem types,
bioengineering is something that we, as restoration practitioners, should be intimately
familiar with and should regularly utilize for numerous reasons including but not
limited to, increased habitat values, sustainability, and aesthetics. With this in mind, the
following articles highlight how bioengineering was used in specific projects of selected
SERCAL members. I hope you find the information beneficial.
— Regine Miller, SERCAL Board President
Construction of debris jam. Courtesy Steve Seville, and Kevin MacKay, Jones & Stokes (see article page 4)
 SERCAL Board of Directors
President Regine Miller r_castelli@hotmail.com
President-Elect Mark Tucker Tucker & Associates
tuckerandassociates@cox.net
Past President Paul Kielhold LSA Associates, Inc.,
Riverside Paul.Kielhold@LSA-Assoc.com
Secretary John Coy Jones & Stokes JCoy@jsanet.com
Treasurer Bo Glover Environmental Nature Center
BoGlo@aol.com
Directors
Region 1 Nicholas Pacini soilsnick@hotmail.com
— NORTHERN INTERIOR (Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou,
Trinity)
Region 2 Mark Stemen California State University-
Chico mstemen@csuchico.edu — SACRAMENTO VALLEY
(Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Sacramento, Sutter, Tehama,
Yolo, Yuba)
Region 3 Karen Verpeet H.T. Harvey & Associates
kverpeet@harveyecology.com — BAY AREA (Alameda,
Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Solano, Sonoma)
Region 4 Virginia Mahacek Valley & Mountain
Consulting valley_mountainconsulting@yahoo.com
— SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Kern,
Kings, Mariposa, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Tulare, Tuolumne)
Region 5 Margot Griswold EARTHWORKS
Restoration, Inc. earthworks@telis.net — SOUTH COAST
(Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Ventura)
Region 6 Joe Donaldson ASLA, Cal Poly-SLO
jdonaldson1@sbcglobal.net — CENTRAL COAST (Monterey,
San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz)
Region 7 Erin Gates gates_erin@yahoo.com —
NORTH COAST (Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino)
Region 8 Michael Hogan Integrated Environmental
Restoration Services, Inc. revegetate@earthlink.net
— SIERRA (Alpine, El Dorado, Inyo, Mono, Nevada, Placer,
Plumas, Sierra)
Region 9 Mark Tucker Tucker & Associates.
tuckerandassociates@cox.net — SOUTHERN INTERIOR
(Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino)
Guild Chairs
Sage Scrub Margot Griswold EARTHWORKS
Restoration, Inc. earthworks@telis.net
Dunes Vince Cicero California Department of Parks
& Recreation vcicero@hearstcastle.com
Riparian Max Busnardo H.T. Harvey & Associates
mbusnardo@harveyecology.com
____________________
Administration: Susan Clark
smclark@lightspeed.net
2701 20th St., Bakersfield 93301
tel. 661.634.9228 fax 661.634.9540
Newsletter Editor: Julie St. John gui@igc.org
Webmaster: Steve Newton-Reed
webmaster@sercal.org
2 Ecesis Summer 2006 Volume 16, Issue 2
Biotechnical Slope Protection
by Michael Hogan, Integrated Environmental Restoration
Services, Inc., & SERCAL Region 8 Director
Biotechnical slope protection has been used for many years to stabilize soil and
streambanks throughout the world. Biotechnical slope protection has been described
by Gray (1982) and Leiser (1982, 1989) as entailing “the use of mechanical elements
for structures in combination with biological elements (or plants) to arrest and prevent
slope failures and erosion. Both biological and mechanical elements must function
together in an integrated and complimentary manner.” In fact, Schiechtl and others
have led the way to new or re-discovered technologies and applications for
biotechnical slope protection.
In the US, Sotir, Grey, Leiser and others have been instrumental in popularizing
this technology. While most biotechnical slope treatment efforts in the Western US
have been focused on streambank and wet-site (riparian) stabilization, these types of
treatments can also be used on upland slopes. In the European Alps where Schiechtl
and many others have been working, biotechnical approaches have also been used
successfully on steep upland sites. In fact, in areas of relatively high summer
precipitation, willows and other water-loving species can be grown in a wide variety
of site types. This is also the case in some areas of the US such as Georgia and other
areas of the South where summer rainfall may be sufficient to sustain moisture-
loving species in some upland areas. That is not the case in the Western US.
Biotechnical approaches rely to a greater or lesser extent on root reinforcement
to add strength to structural elements such as crib walls and so on. While willows
and other relatively fast-growing species provide obvious root reinforcement to soils,
other plants may provide equally effective but less obvious soil reinforcement. These
plants include grasses, shrubs, trees and forbs. However, actual data on strength
provided by these species is limited. Recent work by Claassen, Grismer and others
has suggested that calculations of root strength, provided by grasses especially, may
be an important element in the realm of erosion control and upland soil restoration.
Historically, grasses have been valued for their contribution to cover with little
attention paid to their ability to add strength to the soil medium. However, as new
techniques are put forth, such as deep tilling of disturbed and compacted soil
(Hogan, Cave Rock Report, in review), geotechnical concerns have been put forward
regarding the potential for mass failure of tilled slopes, especially for rain-saturated
soils. On road cuts, ski runs and other similar slopes, geotechnical engineers and
county inspectors often require 90-95% compaction in order to provide soil
strength.
While this approach does provide internal soil strength, it also carries with it a
number of limitations. For instance, compacted soil is known to reduce plant
growth significantly (Howard 1981, 45:231-236). Further, compacted soil usually
increases runoff and surface erosion by an order of magnitude or more (Grismer
2004). Grasses can be used to provide initial and long-term soil strength in sites that
might otherwise be prone to erosion over the long term. When slopes become
steeper, generally greater than 2:1 (vertical to horizontal), engineers generally revert
to compaction to provide soil strength. However, once soil is compacted, plant
growth is reduced or eliminated and surface erosion is increased. Further,
mechanical soil compaction is temporary at best. Soils are prone to freeze-thaw
movement, natural decompaction through limited microbial activity, and are moved
(eroded) from the surface one small layer at a time. However, if one were to observe
many naturally functioning ‘undisturbed’ steep slopes, one would find that slopes as
steep as 1:1 are stable and have been in place for many years. It is assumed that the
soil strength necessary to keep these
slopes in place is being provided by plant
roots and the by-products of microbial
activity. Using this assumption as a
model, we have begun a study in the
California’s Lake Tahoe region that will
provide some data on the plant root
portion of this equation.
And so, while soil strength is a critical
component of keeping slopes in place,
erosion and sediment delivery into
waterways is becoming an increasingly
important concern throughout North
America and especially in California,
where a great many of our water bodies
are listed by the EPA as ‘impaired’ due to
sedimentation. So what options are
available that can provide soil strength
while at the same time maximizing
infiltration and erosion reduction?
There are a number of projects in and
around the Lake Tahoe Basin and in other
parts of California that are attempting to
answer this question. Vic Claassen from
the UC Davis Soils & Revegetation Lab
has been working on a broad range of
issues related to this question. He has
found that soil loosening may be critical
to plant growth in many disturbed sites.
Tilling allows plant roots to access more
water and allows better access to
nutrients. Further, tilled soil is much
easier for plant roots to move through,
thus allowing roots to go deeper into the
soil for a given amount of energy
expended.
Dr. Grismer and I have also been
working on a variety of tilling techniques
and measurement of erosion on a range
of slopes. We have found that very steep
slopes (greater than 1.5:1) hold up well to
rain and snow melt once vegetation has
been developed. However, we have also
observed some mass failures, especially
during this past winter when we received
near record amounts of rainfall. These
mass failures were limited to newly
treated slopes where vegetation had not
become established yet. Slopes that were
at least one season old and had robust
vegetation cover were not observed to
move at all. (Incidentally, many
compacted, unvegetated slopes were also
observed to fail during the 2005-06
winter due to the extremely heavy rains.)
When we are to be able to loosen
slopes up to depths of 30-50 cm, we will
be better able to understand the tensile
strength provided by plant (grass) roots.
This information will allow us to find the
limits of plant root strength on slopes,
and will hopefully allow us to work
closely with geotechnical engineers to
design better erosion control and
restoration projects where soil
stabilization is important.
Understanding grass root strength will
also add a new or relatively uncharted
tool to the biotechnical slope protection
toolbox. A research project just getting
underway is designed to address this
issue: the California State Water Quality
Control Board has funded a cooperative
study with a number of California ski
Volume 16, Issue 2 Summer 2006 Ecesis
resorts and within this project, a shear
strength study will take place. We hope
that this study will fill in a critical gap in
the soil strength question and will allow
the biologists, erosion control specialists,
and engineers to take a step closer to
working together to solve a common
issue. This study is scheduled to take one
to two seasons. Stay tuned for updates at
the SERCAL conferences and for more
information on biotechnical slope
protection and erosion control. Any of
the references in this article, especially
Gray and Sotir and Schiechtl will provide
excellent information.
Literature Cited
1. Gray, Donald H. and Andrew T.
Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical slope protection
and erosion control. Malabar, Florida:
Malabar.
2. Gray, Donald H. and Robbin B.
Sotir. 1996. Biotechnical and Soil
Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A
Practical Guide for Erosion Control. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Grismer, Mark. 2004. Simulated
Rainfall Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch
Erosion Control in the Lake Tahoe Basin:
Bare Soil Assessment. Paper presented at
Research as a Tool in the Tahoe Basin;
2nd Biennial Conference on Tahoe
Environmental Concerns.
4. Howard, R.F., M.J. Singer and G.A.
Franz. 1981. “Effects of soil properties,
water content and compactive effort on
the compaction of selected California
forest and range soils.” Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 45:231-236.
3
Bioengineered
Structure Performance
in Riverine Systems:
Review of the Guadalupe Creek
Restoration Project Five Years
After Construction
By Steve Seville, P.E., and Kevin MacKay,
Jones & Stokes
Introduction
Prior to the advent of environmental
laws and regulations in the early 1970s,
bank protection techniques relied on
materials such as rock and concrete that
had predictable long life spans and low
maintenance requirements. In recent
years, more stringent environmental and
regulatory compliance requirements and
the desire to create instream and riparian
habitat for native species have promoted
the use of alternative bioengineered
solutions.
As bioengineering techniques have
only been in general use for the last 10 to
15 years, there are a limited number of
reference projects available to assist
designers with evaluating future
performance. Because bioengineering
relies upon the use of natural materials
such as large woody debris (LWD) that
are less durable than traditional materials
(e.g., concrete, sacked concrete), the
structural components of the
bioengineered features are expected to
have a shorter life span — thus, native
vegetation is also incorporated to ensure
stability even after the structural
components have deteriorated.
Under contract to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (District), Jones &
Stokes and northwest hydraulic
consultants prepared plans and
specifications and oversaw construction
of the Guadalupe Creek Restoration
Project (Project) in San Jose, California.
The Project was implemented to offset
the loss of shaded riverine aquatic (SRA)
vegetation associated with construction of
4 Ecesis Summer 2006 Volume 16, Issue 2
the Downtown
Guadalupe
River Flood
Control Project.
As part of the
ABOVE Crib walls, before construction (inset) and one year after.
Project, over
800 individual pieces of LWD were
installed in a 2-mile reach to construct 12
different types of bioengineered
structures. These structures were
designed with the intent of providing
instream and overhead cover, increasing
instream habitat variability, and
stabilizing eroding streambanks. The
Project has been monitored on an annual
basis following construction in 2001. As
of 2006, all of the bioengineered
structures were performing as expected:
LWD components continue to be stabile
and the plantings have become well
established. Jones & Stokes continues to
work with the District to provide
guidance regarding maintenance of
structures and vegetation.
The following highlights a few of the
bioengineered structures that were
constructed along Guadalupe Creek.
Crib Walls
On Guadalupe Creek, crib walls were
constructed in areas where more
substantial measures were required to
protect infrastructure from continued
erosion caused by frequent flooding
events. Large woody debris was placed to
create cells that were then backfilled with
suitable soil to promote rapid plant
establishment. Anticipating the natural
decay of the structural LWD elements, the
waterside face of the structure (in
between the logs), as well as the backfilled
benches created in the cells, were planted
to provide long-term stability. The
upstream and downstream ends of the
crib wall were keyed into the native bank
material and reinforced with rip-rap to
improve the hydraulic transition from
native bank to crib wall and back to
native bank.
The structure performed as expected
during the first flooding season prior to
plant establishment, and over the past five
years the structure has shown no visible
signs of decay. As plant material
continues to mature, the need for the
structural components of the crib wall
will be reduced as the living root mass
will provide the majority of the bank
stability.
Debris Jams
The Guadalupe Creek Restoration
Project also provided the opportunity to
construct and test the applicability of
debris jams in areas where severe erosion
had occurred, but no infrastructure was
in immediate danger. The intent of the
debris jam was to create a stable point in
the channel planform, maintain the
existing scour depth in the channel,
control bank erosion, and provide a stable
planting area to improve SRA habitat.
The basic structure of the debris jam unit
was a triangle of logs. The length of each
ABOVE Two views of the debris jams, one year after construction.
triangle leg was sized based on hydraulic
conditions, site topography, and the
availability of LWD. Additional logs were
interwoven within the basic triangle to
create topographic variations and promote
debris accumulation during high flows.
The voids between each individual log
were backfilled with soil to aid with
anchoring and to provide suitable
substrate for planting native vegetation.
Each debris jam constructed along the
project has maintained the scour hole
adjacent to the structure, greatly reduced
bank erosion at each site, and promoted
the establishment of dense riparian
vegetation. Over the past five years, the
structures have shown no visible signs of
decay. The structures continue to recruit
debris during flooding events, trap more
sediment, and evolve over time.
Log Bank Structures
A key objective of the Project was to
create overhead cover to provide refugia
for salmonids. At several locations along
the Project reach, log structures were
constructed to simulate undercut banks.
Sites were selected that provided a smooth
transition to the upper banks and where
native vegetation was lacking or non-
existent. Generally, all of the logs used
were similar in size, but were named based
on intended function: footer logs, bank
logs, and undercut logs. Footer logs were
keyed into the bank to provide adequate
burial for anchoring on one end and to
encourage bed scour at the other end near
ABOVE Log bank structures: construction (inset) and five years later.
the tips. Footer logs also provided the
foundation for the structure and dictated
the final elevation of the bank logs.
Undercut logs were placed at the same
elevation as the footer logs and were
placed into the bank “behind” the bank
logs to provide stability at the toe of the
streambank. The bank logs were placed
on top of and anchored to the footer logs,
setting the edge of the undercut top of
bank “in front” of the undercut logs. The
bank was then backfilled with soil to
create a suitable slope for planting
riparian vegetation. Plantings were
concentrated near the upstream and
downstream bank transitions to improve
the stability of the entire structure.
Performance of log bank structures
has varied, dependant upon location in
the Project reach, the finished elevation of
the structure, and the geomorphology of
the stream itself. The majority of the log
bank structures are functioning as
intended: the structures are stable, the
undercut geometry has been maintained,
and the riparian plantings are well
established providing the intended SRA
habitat and the living root mass required
to improve overall bank stability.
However, several structures have
experienced varying degrees of deposition
in the undercut space. This can be
attributed to lack of flow velocity through
these sections of the Project reach, as well
as the fact that the footer log may not
create a large enough disturbance to
create localized scour.
Volume 16, Issue 2 Summer 2006 Ecesis
Anchoring
Placement of woody debris can
significantly enhance aquatic habitat and
overall ecological functions and values
of rivers and streams. However, agencies
tasked with flood management and
infrastructure maintenance have
historically removed woody debris in
urban areas to improve flood capacity
and avoid flooding problems associated
with woody debris collecting on bridges
and in front of culverts. Therefore,
installation and anchoring of LWD in
urban settings requires a careful
assessment of potential risks and
downstream impacts.
While anchoring methods and
materials need to be assessed on a site-
specific basis, the following general
questions apply to all projects:
What is the structure buoyant force?
What is the potential impact force from
other debris entrained in flood flows?
What is the risk to public safety near
this structure?
Will the anchor connection design
accelerate decay of the structure?
When the LWD decays, will the anchor
material pose a public safety hazard?
A combination of boulder anchors
and utility pole anchors were used to
anchor structures along the Project
reach. Because of concerns regarding
continued next page
5
Bioengineering at
Dublin Ranch
by Matt Quinn & Patrick Reynolds,
H.T. Harvey & Associates

Over the past 10 years, H.T. Harvey &

Associates has been involved in the restoration
and conservation of hundreds of acres of land
in the Dublin, California, area. Due, in part, to
decades of unmanaged grazing, many of the
creeks in this area are highly degraded,
unstable, incised channels. The environmental
setting provides a great opportunity to
integrate bioengineering techniques into the ABOVE A section of finished streambank looking downstream.
restoration designs for these stream corridors.
to provide escape cover, resting and establish and the rootwad and log
In 2003, a reach of Tassajara Creek was
foraging habitat for the California Red- structures are functioning as designed.
identified as an ideal location to increase the
legged frog as well as improve the Of particular interest, focused surveys
riparian habitat quality, specifically for the
stability of the streambank. In addition, for wildlife usage have confirmed that
existing population of the federally-listed
numerous willow stakes were the local population of California Red-
California Red-legged frog, as well as provide
interplanted within the streambank legged frog are using these structures.
erosion control and bank stabilization in an
structures to provide further erosion This is just another example of how
area prone to bank failures. H.T. Harvey &
control as well as improve the shaded bioengineering techniques are being
Associates and Clearwater Hydrology
riverine aquatic habitat. integrated into restoration project
collaborated on the design and construction
designs, providing multiple benefits for
of an approximately 180-foot long reach of The site has now been through two wildlife habitat as well as erosion
Tassajara Creek. In 2004 the site was winter seasons, both of which control for streambank stabilization.
constructed and included rootwad and log produced numerous, short duration,
structures keyed, and in some cases cabled, high velocity flows. The vegetation
into the bank. These structures were designed planted within the site is continuing to

Bioengineered Structure Many thanks to these 2005 Conference sponsors…

Performance in Riverine Systems
continued from page 5

public safety, all of the anchoring connections were

designed and constructed to minimize exposure. Many
of the connections were completed behind or
underneath logs that were later filled. After five years
and multiple flood events, all of the anchors installed
along the Project reach have functioned as intended;
none of the structures have dislodged, and none of the
anchors have required replacement. However, as the
Project continues to age, it will be important to
continue monitoring the structures to identify
anchoring materials that may need to be removed or
replaced to ensure public safety.
For additional information or questions regarding the
Guadalupe Creek Restoration Project, please contact:
Steve Seville, PE, Jones & Stokes, 2600 V St., Sacramento,
CA 95818.

6 Ecesis Summer 2006 Volume 16, Issue 2

Sustainable Creek and River
Restoration Using Biotechnical
Methods: Engineered Log Structures
by Jorgen Blomberg1, MLA, Senior Associate, Ann Borgonovo1, P.E.,
Principal, Chris Bowles2, Ph. D., Principal, Andy Collison1, Ph.D.,
Associate Principal, Mike Liquori1, LEG, Senior Associate.
1
PWA, Ltd., 720 California St., Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94108. 2PWA, Ltd.,
928 Second St., Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Introduction
The science of creek and river
restoration and design has advanced
rapidly in recent years, to the extent that
innovative methods can now be applied
that integrate geomorphic and ecological
understanding, quantitative analyses and
sound engineering design. This approach
offers multiple benefits and provides a
promising alternative to traditional
engineering approaches. Creek and river
restoration is best addressed from a
watershed-wide perspective by identifying
the physical processes that sustain the
system and how these processes can be
built upon to successfully achieve the
restoration goals. Creek and river
restoration designs are increasingly
utilizing large woody debris in the form
of rootwads and engineered log
structures for sustainable, habitat-
enhancing approaches for bank
stabilization and channel realignment.
This article addresses design
considerations when using woody debris
in river and creek restoration and
provides two case studies of applications
in California.
Design Considerations
Design should begin after the
watershed-scale processes that affect the
project site are sufficiently understood
and “functional requirements” are
identified. Functional requirements
describe specific hydraulic, hydrologic,
geomorphic, ecological, or biological
processes that are no longer functioning
or are causing undesirable impacts, and
which will benefit by direct restoration
actions. Understanding the context for
the project site is essential to successful
and sustainable designs.
This paper describes the use of
ABOVE Log revetment structure on Redwood
natural wood in structures that can be
Creek, year 2.
designed to provide pools, spawning
gravels, sediment storage, bank
protection, bed aggradation, flow
conditions and processes affecting the
diversion, or flow concentration. The size,
site. Based on this initial assessment a
orientation, and spacing of engineered
series of general questions should be
log structures will significantly influence
answered in order to ascertain if the use
the function and result of the structures.
of engineered log structures are
In small streams, individual pieces can
appropriate for the restoration setting.
function effectively, but in larger streams,
These questions are typically:
multiple pieces or engineered log jams
What is the underlying cause of creek
may be required. Generally, woody debris
degradation?
that includes attached rootwads or large
What role would woody debris have
branches tend to be more effective, stable,
played in the historic function of this
and sustainable than logs without roots
creek?
or branches.
Could engineered log structures
Engineered log structures are enhance the function of this creek in
generally most effective in channels with future?
modest gradients (generally less than How long will engineered log structures
0.04) and alluvial substrates (sands to last?
gravel). Structures that are dynamic (e.g., Will the design meet project constraints
respond to flow energy) tend to be more and processes affecting a site?
effective than structures that are static What habitats are you trying to
(e.g., never move). Much can be learned enhance?
about the function of woody debris from What are the bioengineering techniques
natural settings, and the scientific and predictive models most appropriate
literature is rich with examples from for project design?
which design data can be drawn. In
Once it is determined that engineered
natural environments, log structures
log structures are an appropriate design
often evolve over a period of about a
solution, there are several other design
decade or two, so recognizing the post-
considerations to work through. The
restoration evolution of the channel will
specifics of these design considerations
ensure that the structures retain their
are discussed in the following sections.
desired functions over time.
Detailed evaluation of the restoration
continued next page
site should include a reach-based analysis
that documents the current and historical
Volume 16, Issue 2 Summer 2006 Ecesis 7

ABOVE Complex weir structure at Redwood
Creek, looking upstream, year 2.
How much tolerance is there for future
movement or displacement of the
engineered log structure?
The answer usually depends on the
setting, goals and institutional constraints
of the project. The consequences of
displacement of the log structure must be
evaluated — is there potential for bank
erosion at the project site? Could
dislodged logs damage property
downstream or result in culvert or bridge
blockage? Generally, the more developed
the project setting, the less tolerance there
is for structure adjustments or, at worst,
complete failure. The answer to this
question will determine how “engineered”
the structure needs to be. More
“engineered” structures require more
analysis during the design process, precise
log placement, reliable anchoring and
predictable performance.
What is the anchoring mechanism?
The anchoring mechanism for
keeping wood in place should be
compatible with tolerance for log
displacement. When possible, our
preference is always to rely on natural,
rather than mechanical, anchoring
methods. Natural anchoring (e.g.,
embedment, interlocked logs, root
complex) is generally more sustainable
and less subject to catastrophic failure
than “mechanical” anchoring (e.g., cables,
helical screws, etc.). The long-term fate of
anchoring materials and their impact on
the river channel over decades to
centuries should also be considered.
However, in some cases mechanical
anchoring systems are needed if (a) the
structure is inherently unstable, or (b)
8 Ecesis Summer 2006 Volume 16, Issue 2
Sustainable Creek and River Restoration
Using Biotechnical Methods continued from page 7
there is too much uncertainty How will the structure stability change
and/or variability in over time?
destabilizing forces. Not only are rivers inherently
dynamic systems, but the log structure
Is the structure stable?
itself will change over time. The design
Often the log anchoring
process needs to consider how these
system is selected and sized
changes could affect the structure stability
based on judgment and
over time. Factors such as bank erosion,
common sense; however, the
bed scour, log decay/decomposition and
restoration designer should not
log displacement could reduce stability
rely on intuition alone.
over time. Other developments, such as
A force balance analysis or other
wood recruitment, bank revegetation and
methods should be used to evaluate
waterlogging, could contribute to overall
structure stability and select appropriate
stability. The design analysis should
design dimensions. This analysis involves
account for these changing conditions
determining whether stabilizing forces
and their effects on stability. As part of
(weight and passive pressure of overlying
this analysis, a “design life” should be
alluvium or other logs) counterbalance
selected for the structure; project
the destabilizing forces (buoyancy, drag
stakeholders should understand that
and lift forces) on the log. This analysis
beyond the “design life” the structure may
can be used to calculate a safety factor
begin to lose its effective function due to
against possible rotation or dislodging of
decay or other changing conditions.
the log members.
As an example, a rootwad embedded What will be the impact of the log
in the channel bank may be stable under structure on the overall stream system?
“normal” (e.g., bankfull) flow conditions. There are several factors to consider;
The weight and passive pressure of this article only touches on a few. One
channel bank soils counterbalance should understand the effect of the log
hydraulic forces from creek flows (e.g., structures on flood levels, through
drag and buoyancy). However, during an increased channel roughness, potential
extreme storm event (e.g., 20-year or for accumulating racked debris, and other
greater return interval), channel changes to channel configuration. The
conditions, and the response of the log design should also consider whether log
structure, are less certain. Large floating structures could induce channel erosion,
debris could catch on the log, adding by scouring around the logs, or deflecting
weight and destabilizing drag forces. High flows further downstream.
flows could erode the channel bank,
What is the source of woody material?
removing the stabilizing soils and
The designer should determine
exposing more of the log to creek flows.
whether there is a cost-effective and
For certain project conditions, it may be
sustainable source of woody material
entirely appropriate to embed the root
(logs) for the project. The ideal wood
wad and understand the potential for
source is nearby where trees have been
adjustment or complete pull-out during
felled naturally or as part of an
an extreme event. In other circumstances,
environmentally-responsible
any movement of the log may be deemed
management program (e.g., removal of
intolerable, and therefore artificially
non-natives). Often a design is limited by
pinning the log in-place may be
the affordability and sizes of the log
advisable. In the end, project stakeholders
supply. The type of wood, including its
must weigh often-competing objectives
density, decay life and potential water
(e.g., natural function vs. flood
quality impacts, should be considered in
management) to choose the appropriate
the design.
anchoring system.
How will the structure be built and how
can construction-related impacts be
minimized?
Log structures usually involve
placement of large logs in live streams. As
such, the potential impacts during
installation should be carefully
considered when selecting engineered log
structures as a design solution. Items to
consider include:
How will logs be transported to the site
and is construction of a temporary access
road needed?
What is the minimum size of equipment
that can handle the logs (e.g., excavator
or backhoe) and how will it access the
channel? Is vegetation removal required?
What will be done to address short-term
disturbances to the stream channel
caused by the equipment (e.g., de-
vegetation, bank erosion, over-
compaction)?
In perennial streams, how will flows be
diverted during installation?
Without necessarily specifying
construction methods, the designer
should be confident that there is a feasible
solution for each of these questions.
Case Studies
Here we use case studies to highlight
the use of engineered log structures and
the methods by which we have addressed
some of the design questions listed
previously. We list two project sites at
Redwood Creek and Corte Madera Creek.
Redwood Creek Restoration,
Marin County, California
Redwood Creek drains a 7 square mile
watershed, which includes Muir Woods
National Monument, and provides
valuable spawning and rearing habitat for
native coho salmon and steelhead trout.
As a result of channel straightening and
levee construction for agricultural
activities, large areas of floodplain
woodland, riparian vegetation and in-
channel complexity has been lost. A
restoration plan was prepared and
implemented for a 33-acre site in the
lower reaches of Redwood Creek. The
project goals were to improve salmonid
habitat, re-establish physical processes
and successional riparian woodland and
Noteworthy
Natural
Resources
Events
Do you know of an
upcoming event that would be
of interest to SERCAL members?
Send specifics to Ecesis via
gui@igc.org.
expand riparian habitat for nesting
songbirds.
Design Principals
The innovative restoration design
improved in-stream habitat through the
placement of non-anchored engineered
log structures and reconnecting the
floodplain by grading and removal of
existing levees. Eroding banks were also
stabilized using a log revetment and
brush matting.
Practical Considerations
Many critical factors were considered
in the design and construction phases of
the project. Among other factors, the
design had to account for sensitive
habitat, limited access, equipment staging
and maintenance and preservation of
existing mature alder trees (riparian
canopy). Temporary water diversion plans
and coinciding fish relocation efforts were
required prior to project implementation.
The design utilized very large Eucalyptus
rootwads and trunk members (several
weighed upwards of 10 tons) supplied
from a vegetation management project
north of the restoration project site.
There was also concern regarding the
potential regeneration of the Eucalyptus
Volume 16, Issue 2 Summer 2006 Ecesis
Jul 1: Abstract Submittal Deadline for
SERCAL’s Annual Conference. Registration &
info: www.sercal.org
Oct 5-7: Cal-IPC’s Annual Symposium,
Research & Management: Bridging the Gap
(Sonoma Doubletree Hotel, Rohnert Park)
Info: www.cal-ipc.org/ 2006_symposium
Oct 9-12: 6th Annual Oak Symposium
California’s Oaks: Today’s Challenges,
Tomorrow’s Opportunities (Sponsored by UC
Integrated Harwood Range Management
Program, Rohnert Park) Info: 510.642.0095,
danr.ucop.edu/ihrmp/symposium.html or
forestry@nature.berkeley.edu
Oct 26-28: SERCAL’s 13th Annual Conference
Shovels to Science: A Full Range of
Restoration Practice in California (UC Santa
Barbara) Info: www.sercal.org
Oct 29: SERCAL Post-Conference Field Trips
Various locations. Info: www.sercal.org
within the sensitive creek corridor. The
trees were stored onsite for a period of 12
months to dry out. New growth was
pruned and torched to ensure that the
trunks did not root and become viable.
Detailed planning and coordination was
required not only to transport the trees to
the site but also to transport equipment
large enough to construct the engineered
log structures at the remote site. A 50-ton
excavator was required to handle the
engineered log structure and was the
primary piece of equipment for the
project. Maneuvering large equipment
between existing trees and within the
channel at the locations of the engineered
log structures proved to be a challenging
and time-consuming task.
Inconsistencies in the dimensions and
weights as well as surface irregularities of
the logs were not easily accounted for
during the design phase. These became
important factors that required
estimation onsite and dictated
adjustments to the design of the
engineered log structures in the field.
continued next page
9

ABOVE Integrated vegetated rock and root wad
structure at Corte Madera Creek.
Sustainability and Performance
Since construction in 2003, the
restoration elements have enhanced the
natural recovery of the reach and have
promoted the stability of in-channel
complexity. Floodplain woodland
regeneration has been encouraged to
provide the necessary long-term supply of
woody debris and detritus to the creek
channel.
The weir structures have resulted in
the establishment of deep residual pools
and more diverse channel morphology.
One of the engineered wood structures
has experienced erosion at the lateral
limits (flanking) where the logs tied into
the creek banks. Although the erosion is
not a concern for structural stability, it
has created multiple flow paths that have
limited the overall effectiveness of the
structures. In the future the designers
would consider deeper embedment of the
log members in the creek banks.
The brush mat stabilization installed
at the eroded bank location has
established well. Over time, willow and
alder material will provide shade and
additional supply of woody debris to the
system.
Portola Valley Bank Stabilization, Corte
Madera Creek, California
Corte Madera Creek is a major
tributary in the San Francisquito Creek
watershed on the eastern side of the
heavily-wooded Santa Cruz Mountains.
The creek flows through protected open
10 Ecesis Summer 2006 Volume 16, Issue 2
Sustainable Creek and River Restoration
Using Biotechnical Methods continued from page 9
space and the town of Portola
Valley. The primary project
objectives were bank
reconstruction, stabilization, and
enhancement of in-channel and
riparian habitat associated with
installation of a new free-span
vehicular access bridge. PWA led
the technical and design tasks
with input from Pacific
Geotechnical and Biotic
Resources.
This project used a number of
channel and bank stabilization techniques
to provide for a stable channel system,
reduce the magnitude of damaging
erosion events, and integrate habitat
conditions for the California Red-legged
frog, a threatened species.
Design Principals
Large wood logs with rootwads were
installed along the stream channel to
provide the required habitat, along with a
variety of anchoring systems, including
composite rock revetment-woody debris
matrix. Footer and flow deflection logs
were installed to accommodate a variety
of flow conditions along the
reconstructed bank. The upper slope
(above the integrated vegetated rock and
rootwad structure) was restored using
vegetated soil lifts (VSL) and integrated
native plantings. Adjacent and upland
slopes were stabilized through grading,
installation of live willow brush mats and
native grass seeding.
Practical Considerations
Naturally occurring log jams along
Corte Madera Creek provide clear analogs
and reference for the use of engineered
log structures in this creek stabilization
project. Extensive bank erosion and
limited native soil stability, combined
with the project approach to rebuild the
bank and proximity to the new bridge,
required supplemental anchoring of the
engineered log structures. The rootwads
and footer logs could not be adequately
embedded within the reconstructed bank
so the team utilized duckbill anchors to
anchor the wood elements.
Sustainability and Performance
The project was constructed in 2000
and has been actively monitored on an
annual basis. Overall, the project has
performed well to stabilize the bank and
re-establish active channel dynamics.
Although rootwads capture and recruit
woody debris seasonally, coarse cobble
bed material mobilized during large
storm events has battered and reduced
the overall mass of the rootwads.
Localized channel incision has also
disconnected two of the rootwads from
seasonal low flows, reducing their aquatic
habitat value. The VSL, willow mats and
plantings have established successfully
throughout the project with willows and
alders growing through several of the
engineered log structures. Vegetation is
managed immediately upstream of the
bridge to maintain hydraulic conveyance,
to an extent, limiting local supply of
woody material over time.
Conclusions
The use of engineered log structures
in restoration planning and design is not
appropriate for every river and creek
setting. Complex geomorphic, hydrologic
and hydraulic assessments should drive
selection of the design technique and,
where appropriate, drive the design of
engineered log structures. In the science
of river and creek restoration planning
and design much has been learned from
experience, to the extent that, to date, we
have improved the designs, and
successfully implemented the installation
of, engineered log structures. We should
continue to build our understanding of
log structures and their application
through active monitoring programs. In
addition, it is critical to refine the design
principals for engineered log structures
— giving close attention to practical
considerations — and assess the
sustainability and performance of these
methods in the future.
 SERCAL 2006 Membership Complete form and payment to SERCAL and
mail to: SERCAL Administrative Office, 2701
Application/Renewal Form 20th St., Bakersfield CA 93301

Annual Membership Dues

SERCAL’s newsletter, Ecesis, is received with ALL rates. ________________________________________________________
NAME DATE
INDIVIDUALS BUSINESS
Student  $15 Nonprofit Organization  $45 ________________________________________________________
Regular  $35 Contributing  $250 * COMPANY/AFFILIATION
Joint Individual (Discounted) Sustaining  $500 *
SERCAL + Cal-IPC†  $60 Summit Circle  $1000 * ________________________________________________________
SERCAL + CNGA†  $70 ADDRESS
All 3 organizations  $100 * Receive quarterly recognition
Sustaining  $100 * in Ecesis
________________________________________________________
†
Cal-IPC is the California Invasive Plant Council and CITY ZIP COUNTY
CNGA is the California Native Grasslands Association

________________________________________________________
The following members receive additional benefits: PHONE EMAIL
Copies of each No. of discounted rates
Category Ecesis issue ** at SERCAL events
 Check enclosed (please make payable to SERCAL)
Nonprofit Organization 2 1
Contributing Business 3 3  Please charge my credit card: __Visa __MasterCard
Sustaining Business 4 4 _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ Exp: _ _ / _ _
Summit Circle 6 6
Billing address (if different than address above):
**When completing this membership form, you may designate
specific individuals to be included on the mailing list. ________________________________________________________

Many thanks to these 2005 Conference sponsors…

Welcome! to our New Members
through 5 June 2006

Suzanne R. Schrift, Keller Mitchell & Co., Albany

Yolanda Molette, San Francisco
Jocelyn Torralba, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose
Chariss Tweedy, Jones & Stokes, Sacramento
Deveree Kopp, USFS, Fawnskin
Christopher Bronny, EIP Associates, Sacramento
Sean Micallef, Zentner & Zentner. Oakland
John Holloway, The Sea Ranch
Bruce April, CalTrans Dist. 11, Enviro. Div., San Diego
Sheri Asgari, Glenn Lukos Associates, Irvine
Susan Schaff, S&S Seeds, Carpinteria
Paul Weir, Grass Valley
Jeff Thomas, Jones & Stokes, Oakland
Jeff Trow, Foothill Associates, Stevenson Ranch
Matthew Danielsczyk, Santa Rosa
Lech Naumavich, Golden Hour Restoration Inst., Berkeley
Melinda Elster, Morro Bay
Sean McStay, Felton
Barrett Holland, Impact Sciences, Camarillo
Richard C. Brody, Impact Sciences, Camarillo

Volume 16, Issue 2 Summer 2006 Ecesis 11

The California Society for
Ecological Restoration - SERCAL
2701 20th Street
Bakersfield CA 93301
Return Service Requested
Many, Many Thanks to Our 2006
Sustaining Members
INDIVIDUAL : $100
Edith B. Allen, Botany & Plant Sciences,
UC Riverside
Bo Glover, ENC, Newport Beach
David B. Kelley, K &AES, Inc., Davis
Robert C. Kirkwood, Palo Alto
Martha Blane, Martha Blane &
Associates, San Marcos
Rick Storre, Freshwater Farms, Eureka
Virginia Mahacek, Valley & Mountain
Consulting, Galt
BUSINESS : $500
Pacific Restoration Group, Corona
Photo courtesy Steve Seville.
FIRST CLASS
PRESORT
Tucson, AZ
Permit No. 469
Contributing Members
BUSINESS : $250
Ecological Concerns, Inc., Santa Cruz
Restoration Resources, Rocklin
Earthworks Restoration, Inc., Los Angeles
Mitsubishi Cement Corporation, Lucerne Valley
Tree of Life Nursery, San Juan Capistrano
Pacific Coast Seed, Inc., Livermore
Dudek & Associates, San Diego
Ecosystems Restoration Associates, San Diego
Full Circle Compost, Inc., Minden NV
Teichert Aggregates, Sacramento
EDAW, Inc., Sacramento office
Integrated Environmental Restoration
Services, Inc., Tahoe City
Global Search, Carlsbad
Hedgerow Farms, Winters