Kootowis, Staghorn, Lost Shoe Watershed Restoration Project, KWRP
Presented to:
Warren Warttig, Project Coordinator
Enhanced Forestry Division
International Forest Products
P.O. Box 36 2960 Spit Road
Campbell River, B.C. V9W 4Z9
May 15, 1999
RE: Summer Completion Report, Instream Work (Aug. 4th - Oct. 9th, 1998).
Overview
On August 4th crews on the KWRP resumed working to restore the Hydrological, Biological and
Riparian functions of the Kennedy watershed to improve instream fish habitat and adjacent flood plain
conditions. The work primarily involved the removal of small woody debris and anchoring of large
woody debris. The instream component began August 4th and ended October 9th (10 weeks). Over 9
kilometers of stream length were restored in the work areas on: Kootowis Creek and it's tributaries
identified as Creek. 1, Creek. 2, and Creek. 4, as well as Rifle Range Creek. and the west-fork of
Staghorn Creek. On 90 clustered or high density debris jams, workers used close to 6000 m of cable
to anchor approximately 3500 pieces of large woody debris, as well as removing approximately 3000
cubic meters of small woody debris.
A new element to the KWRP this year was the addition of a crew of displaced fishery workers. A
partnership was developed between workers from the Central Westcoast Forest Society (CWFS) and
the West Coast Sustainability/Regional Aquatic Management Society (WCSA/RAMS). This
partnership was developed in co-operation with Forest Renewal BC, International Forest Products, the
Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, and Fisheries Renewal BC. These crews spent
approximately 800 person days (see Table 2) working on the prescribed creeks and more than
doubled their projected target of 4.2 kms.
Overall Strategy
As before, the objective of the restoration project in the Kennedy Watershed systems, was to primarily
work from the top down, addressing concerns regarding further downstream debris transport. This
method continued to provide fish access to upper reach spawning habitat first, which is still in short
supply. In addition to the many jams that were back-watering much of the watershed, were 9 beaver
dams. Together these have affected migrations of many adult and juvenile fish, as well as chronically
inundating adjacent flood-plains and slowing the recovery of the emerging young forest in the lowest
lying areas.
With the exception of Staghorn Creek and a few notable jams on Kootowis Creek. The stream
reaches we concentrated on this year were not as severely impacted as streams we treated in the
previous two years and, as a consequence, there was less SWD (small wood debris) to remove. We
were able to cover more ground and encountered more LWD (large wood debris) which we cabled
into place.
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Summary of Restoration Distance
Work areas and distance restored for 1998 (see map) are identified below. Examples of the work
areas as Before/After pictures of restoration works are attached in the Photo Log.
Table 1. Restoration areas and distance, KWRP 1998.
Restoration Area
Main stem; Kootowis Creek
Tributary; Creek 1
Tributary; Creek 2
Tributary; Creek 4
Rifle Range Creek
Staghorn Creek (west-fork)
Total
Distance (m)
4228
494
907
1190
1500(approx)
950
9269
Roads - improvements
We began restoration work on the complex of tributaries and upper Kootowis mainstem reaches
around the junction of Br. 100 and Grice Bay Main (GBM). This included the installation of two new 1.5
m natural bottom metal culverts at Creeks 1 and 2 across Br 100. The original wood culverts had
collapsed and were a significant problem for migrating fish as water would flood over the road. The
new culverts incorporated flow baffles and gravel spawning beds in the construction plans. This work
was done in conjunction with the experienced Interfor Road deactivation personnel headed by John
Wilson. The half pipe construction design was developed by Warren Warttig (Project Head, Interfor).
It allowed the use of a native gravel bottom, accommodated flood capacity and was a significant cost
savings over a manufactured culvert of similar design.
Other roads on the Kennedy flats area which are prioritized for deactivation were not scheduled in
1998 for either of two reasons, funds were very limited and in many areas, access was still needed for
the creek restoration program (i.e. Grice Bay Main).
Roads - access
Crew access to Creek's 1, 2, and 4, was off Branch 100 and from the Grice Bay Main (GBM). These
tributaries all connect just below Br. 100, and then join the Kootowis mainstem at station 0+ 388
meters. Kootowis Creek was accessed from the GBM and the various spur roads connected to it. Rifle
Range Creek was accessed from the Pacific Rim Fish and Game Association Road and Kootowis
Creek Road (KCR). The west fork of Staghorn Creek was accessed from the two spur roads that
parallel Staghorn Creek above and below the steel plate bridge on Alaska White Pine Road (AWP).
Creeks
Creek 1, is 494 m long overall with 10 jams. Primarily a rearing area, this creek drains a small swamp
at it's head above Br. 100. Due to it's overall very low gradient, SWD was almost exclusively removed
from Cr. 1 above Br. 100 by helicopter. To provide predator and habitat cover, LWD was cabled into
place throughout.
Creek 2 with 7 jams is 907 m long, and above Br. 100 has significantly more gradient and gravel
substrate than below Br. 100. With the new culvert and blockages removed Cr. 2 is now accessible to
spawning fish. Access to workers for the upper sections of Cr. 2 was provided by the 1st spur road to
the right off Br. 100 past GBM.
Creek 3: No work was done on this creek it had only 10 meters of defined channel. Historically it
may have had a more extensive length. It was determined there were no restoration prescriptions
needed for this tributary.
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Page 2
Creek 4, 1190 m in length, had and is accessed from the same spur road as Creek 2, and has a
similar gradient as Creek 2. With both ideal spawning substrate and overhead cover, improved access
to this stream also should result in increased fish utilization and production. SWD was thrown clear of
4 jams above Br. 100, and 2 jams below, one of which presented a significant upstream migration
obstacle.
Kootowis Creek is 4228 m long and restoration of the main-stem began where it is crossed by Br.
100, immediately south of GBM. By the middle of the third week all crews were engaged in the mainstem and were spread evenly along it's length. 38 jams were treated in all, with SWD either placed in
slings and flown by helicopter or thrown clear.
There are 9 beaver dams between station's 1+336 and 2+395 on the Kootowis main-stem. Only a
small sign of activity was evident when inventoried on August 26th. The dams, which were holding
water and contributing to flooding even during a prolonged dry period, were breached throughout the
stream segment during the 2nd week of September.
Rifle Range Creek for a distance approximately 1500 downstream of the Pacific Rim Fish and Game
Club Road to it's confluence with Kootowis Creek was inventoried and cleared of 2 jams just below the
road. No other work was required until after the bridge crossing at Kootowis Creek Road. Below KCR
there were 7 jams where SWD was removed by hand and LWD cabled in place.
Staghorn Creek West Fork on private land, is 950 m long and was heavily impacted along the
treated segment with 22 jams consisting of high density LWD and SWD. Wood that was removed was
thrown clear and LWD was cabled throughout. Water conditions and flow improved almost
immediately. The approach used on Staghorn differs from that used on other streams in that we have
tackled this particular stream segment up towards it's headwaters from the location work stopped in
1997. The CWFS crew were able to assist the RAMS crew which are mandated to work in the
reaches above which KWRP work had to conclude last year.
Spawning Gravel
The 1995 assessments and current field observations noted a lack of spawning gravel in most of the
work area. This gravel shortfall may eventually be realized through natural scour as per our
prescription expectations. In early October as the project was winding down, the crew took the
opportunity to hasten the process. The field staff placed gravel in 3 areas. The gravel was composed
of a mixture of 3/4 " to 4 " round rock.
Site 1 was located at the Branch 100 culvert repair on Creek 2. The new half-culverts had gravel
placed as substrate along their entire length amongst the wooden cribs designed to hold it in place.
Approximately 5 yards of gravel was placed inside each pipe. Downstream of the Branch 100, along
Creek 2, the gravel was distributed in approximately 12 pool tailouts. Each site received a 5 gallon
plastic pail of gravel.
Site 2, located at Jam #25 in the Kootowis mainstem adjacent the Grice Bay Main, had approximately
1 yard of material placed using three helicopter sling loads.
In Site 3, at 1.4 km from the top of Tofino Flats Creek under a bridge, approximately 6 yards of gravel
was placed adjacent to a historic gravel enhancement site. A previous SEP group had placed gravel in
this site many years before.
We hope to assess these as pilot sites in 1999 to help determine the effectiveness of their application.
During walks in the winter it was determined that coho were spawning on the Branch 100 culvert
gravel placement sites and emergent fry were observed there in the spring.
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Page 3
Methods
Our instream restoration techniques and methods continue to evolve and improve over time as the
crew becomes more familiar with their equipment and overall team approaches.
Wood Waste: As mentioned above there was less SWD that needed to be removed this year and a
greater amount of LWD was anchored in place. Wood waste was hauled to the dump from the two
crossing deactivation sites by a local contractor. The helicopter hauled stream waste from floodplain
areas and piled it on deactivated roads along the Grice Bay main and the Branch 100. The upper
Staghorn and other sites with high banks allowed wood debris to be hauled into the forest above the
floodplain.
Access and Egress: Routes to and from all sites throughout the reaches worked on, were cut to
connecting logging roads as well as connecting most jam's to each other. Exposed and disturbed soils
on these routes were seeded at the conclusion of this years project.
Anchoring: Bundled clusters of logs and larger pieces of wood were manipulated into place using
chain-saw winches, turfer jacks, or chain blocks to move before anchoring. Cabled LWD was then
fastened to stumps, large immovable logs, or live trees when necessary. "Duckbill" earth anchors
were used more extensively this year than in previous years largely due to the fact the largest area we
worked in (Kootowis main stem) had a limited amount of suitable stumps, logs, or trees to anchor to.
Attempts to reduce the amount of cable were achieved by creatively cutting notches around which
cable was tightened as opposed to encircling the entire log. A chain-saw that comes with a drilling
attachment efficiently bored holes through which cable was than passed and fastened to anchoring
points.
Helicopter: As in previous years, a helicopter (Tundra Helicopters) was hired to remove wood in
slings to higher ground. While less helicopter time was utilized this year however we still removed
approximately 1000 cubic m of SWD from the lowest gradient reaches we restored. These were
around the Br. 100 and GBM intersection, from Creek's 1 and 2, the Kootowis Creek segments from
station 0+388 to station 2+746, and jam # 37 at station 4+131 also on Kootowis Creek.
Beavers: Beaver dams were addressed by simply creating a notch in the top of the dam and
maintaining summer depth. This was done to primarily allow for upstream migration of spawning adult
fish. With the increase in water flow velocity, a significant amount of down-cutting is occurring in these
notches. As of Oct. 15th some rebuilding effort was evident at only one location, station 2+250 which
also happens to be the largest dam encountered on the main stem. The historical viewpoint of those
First Nation crew members most familiar with the area, are that beavers are not endemic to the
immediate area. This helped to address ethical concerns about potentially displacing the beavers.
While these dams may contribute to some water retention in the system during the summer, they
have also been significantly reducing overall flow velocity and discharge rates as well as impeding
upstream fish passage.
Project Summaries
The project began Aug 4 with one week of training, access clearing and maintenance. Maintenance
work carried on into the middle of the second week with one crew while the other two commenced
with work in the prescribed areas. Three crews were set up and managed by Scott MacDonald who
took care of operational planning and logistics (with advice provided by Thomas Martin, D. R. Clough
Consulting and Warren Warttig of Interfor). Our experienced crew supervisors with weekly biological
support, then efficiently and methodically proceeded with their tasks.
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Page 4
Table 2. *Labor Summary, KWRP 1998.
Activity
Weeks
# Crew
Training/Maintenance
Instream work
Total
1
9
10
(avg.) 16
(avg.) 16
(avg.) 16
# Man
Days
80
810
890
*Note these figures combine both CWFS/RAMS crews and hours
Table 2 above summarizes the total labour by activity for the summer project. The number of workers
fluctuated throughout the work period due to crews being transferred to other projects, i.e. Northwest
Ecosystems Institute, or other Inter-For/FRBC projects in the region. The above table illustrates a
general summary of activities and time spent. These fluctuations did not prevent the crew in
exceeding it's projected expectations by more than double. The addition of the crew from RAMS was
a great assistance to this end and of course the growing skills of the existing restoration crew are a
major factor in this regard. The training, composed of two days in class and three in the field
incorporated some maintenance of sites restored in 1997. This allowed the RAMS workers to get a
good overview of the project to date and gave them a clearer vision of the restoration strategies
endpoint. The RAMS people were spread amongst the CWFS crews where they continued to learn
from the more experienced and seasoned members in their crews. Morale was high throughout the
projects term and the sense of accomplishment that has characterized this project since it's inception
remains very strong.
In addition to working on the KWRP, CWFS personnel were sub-contracted by Northwest Ecosystems Institute (NEI). These people worked on LWD placement in the Upper Kennedy River sidechannel and in Muriel Creek. The fact NEI chose to sub-contract KWRP workers reflects a growing
recognition of their skill, teamwork, and product quality.
Costs
Table 3. Costs Summary, KWRP 1998. This table combines the expenditures to date (Oct. 23rd) to
both project partners. Final costs will be adjusted slightly higher to reflect winter monitoring costs. All
figures shown are approximate and rounded off for clarity.
Table 3. Costs Summary, KWRP 1998.
Wages
Expenses (see below)
Total
Wages as a percentage of total
Restoration costs per meter @ 9269
$175,000
$75,000
$250,000
70%
$27.00
The table clearly shows the intent was met to keep manpower costs as the highest percentage of the
total possible.
Expenses include:
- biological monitoring
- chainsaw rentals (CWFS and employees)
- helicopter time
- crew vehicles
- miscellaneous supplies (examples below):
- fuel/oil
- equipment rentals (Thornton Creek Enhancement Society)
- trucking
- cable/cable clamps/staples/duckbills etc.
- sundry items
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Page 5
Fry Population Densities/Water Quality
Fish populations were sampled Sept 9th and 10th to determine their densities by species at upper and
lower reaches of all three project streams. A party consisting of two or three crew members and a
biological monitor conducted these tests. Results will be reported in the monitoring report but the crew
members gained valuable experience with; electroshocker operation, fish identification, scientific
sampling and water quality testing.
Crew Safety
First aid or equipment safety training was not a component of this years project. Sufficient numbers of
qualified first aid attendants as well as regular safety inspections and tailgate meetings with the crews
very adequately met the issue of crew occupational safety. Reported injuries that did occur consisted
of minor cuts, abrasions and bruises and one partial day was lost to an injury. Over the last three
years, workers have identified many hazards specific to their work environment and have developed
various means to safely address them. This type of experience has been instrumental in ensuring the
projects very good overall safety record is maintained.
Public Relations
During the period this report covers we had the opportunity to make a presentation as well as give a
tour of the project to the Central Regional Board who indicated a very positive response. The type of
restorative work being done by members of the KWRP crew on this project is being described in
media reports and at environmental conferences by MOELP technical people as "world class". Further
to this are the response of those sport fishermen and local hatchery personnel most familiar with
these streams characteristics, who report a noticeable and positive change in the visual quality of the
water as well as noting a gradual increase in some species of fish. People are generally becoming
more aware of our presence and of the work we have done, and a high public regard as well as a
desire to see more stream restoration have developed as a result.
Winter Monitoring/Gant Charts
A winter monitoring program is being developed that will assess for adult fish presence and habitat
utilization in restored areas. Water inundation levels in the main-stem of Kootowis Creek will also be
monitored by means of a data logger. The data logger is installed at the end of the deactivated spur
road, GBM 43. It is anticipated that 15 days will be spent monitoring over the winter of 1998-99. Some
access and egress routes for next summers' restoration work will also be installed during this time.
To assess the performance objectives of the reaches restored during the summer of 1998, Gant
Charts (attached) have been prepared following the assessment criteria supplied by MOELP.
Assessments for results will be done during high water flows that occur this winter and again during
low water flows in the spring or summer of 1999. These assess the installed habitat structures such
as LWD or breached beaver dams to determine if the intended objectives, such as the scouring of
pools or substrate flushing or improving fish passage were met. This assessment rates each
structures performance on a scale of 1-4 with 4 being the highest rating possible. The 1997
assessment of sites (attached) rated very highly in overall scores, we expect even better in 1998.
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Page 6
Conclusion
The project finished on October 9th after a very hot, albeit short summer. The crew feel very proud of
their achievements. Many are still overcoming difficult transitions from former occupations and have
benefited from a personal restoration that directly relates to the natural restoration of the ecosystem
they are an integral part of.
This project is delivering what it was intended to and then some. Fish are utilizing a greater amount of
the streams we have worked on, and changes reflecting a more appropriate natural hydraulic function
are noticeably apparent. On monitoring sweeps of the restored sites since Oct. 9th to Oct. 22nd, adult
fish were seen in areas they have not been able to properly access for years.
The KWRP project has delivered some very important and specific economic benefits as well as
those personal benefits and growth that are not always as easy to quantify. Social benefits through
community and partnership building are increasing as well. These kinds of values are often hard to
come by and all of us eagerly await another resumption of this project so we can keep generating
more.
Yours Truly,
Scott MacDonald
Project Supervisor
David Clough
Project Biologist
Attachments;
Map of KWRP Annual Restoration Sites,
Gant Chart of 1997 Restoration Sites and Assessment,
Gant Chart of 1998 Restoration Sites
Photos of 1998 Restoration Sites and Activities
1999 Work Plan (3 pp)
1998 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Page 7
1999 KWRP Work Plan
We have now treated approximately 26 kilometers of over 160 km of lineal stream length in the three
watersheds. We continue with the following list of priority work areas for 1999. The list was derived
from the work areas identified in preceding years. There are still over 130 km of high density wood
debris and clustered wood debris sites having significant effect on fish production. Our work plan is to
methodically restore all the areas on a priority basis. The areas and priority is described below.
1999 Work Areas
Following the 1995 work plan and assessment, the following areas were identified from the KWRP
project area as the next targeted work sites. The Kootowis system is nearing completion of first priority
areas. The Staghorn Creek west fork upper reach must be completed to finish the reach and there are
large remaining areas of high impact. Lost Shoe Creek has had upslope, channel and road
restoration work but no instream work. This year we would like to do habitat restoration on priority
areas that are not likely to be affected by upslope sediment. Below are some of the areas that could
be undertaken in the next few years as funds and time are available.
Site
West Fork Staghorn
Length
Comment
650 m This is the last remaining reach on this fork to be restored. Previous
lower sites were done in 1996 and 1998. High density wood debris is
the problem.
Morton Trib, Lost Shoe 2200m This first order tributary from Morton Lake and enters Lost Shoe
offers some of the highest habitat potential for the watershed.
Restoration at the clustered wood debris jams will improve channel
morphology and fish access to above the lake.
Lost Shoe Mainstem
250 m This area, just below the Highway 4 bridge is high density wood
debris. Work could be conducted at this site without concern from
upstream influence. There is not likely to be sediment or wood debris
transport capable of moving down through the system. This jam
creates a huge lake in the winter and causes discharge water to flow
into Kennedy lake.
Lost Shoe Mouth
50 m
Staghorn Mainstem
250 m Large clustered wood debris jams immediately downstream of the
MB logging road bridge are backflooding the road to the point the
bridge floats in winter. The resultant effect on the riparian zone and
fish habitat is also bad.
Staghorn Middle Fork
2000m This third order stream is 3 to 5 meters wide and has clustered wood
debris jams throughout.
Staghorn Middle Trib
1400m A second order stream with a 3 meter channel width with numerous
clustered wood debris jams impacting on fish access, spawning and
rearing.
Upper Kootowis
2200m The upper reaches of Kootowis Creek above and below the Alaska
White Pine Road. This area was initially surveyed in 1995 and was
found to have high density wood debris above the road and clustered
jams below. These are first and second order reaches.
1999 KWRP Work Plan
1999 KWRP Work Plan
One isolated jam has built up from logging waste and plugged to the
point of preventing Chum Salmon access. Removal of small wood
debris would correct the problem.
Work Area Selection; Risk Assessment Method
To help prioritize work areas available in the future and help develop a system we can use elsewhere
we have used the Interfor Risk Rating System on Table 4. This table was developed for slope stability
risk assessment. The table uses three parameters of risk;
Risk = Hazard x Consequence x Feasibility.
Each rated from 1 to 9 and multiplied to arrive at a risk score. The maximum theoretical score is 9 x 9
x 9 resulting in 729 points. The Hazard rating is considered from the point of view of immanence of
occurrence. The Consequence is a factor of impact on the resource from the habitat damage. The
Feasibility is the cost and effectiveness of the proposed restoration activity. These factors can be
used to assess habitat on a regional or a watershed scale, for the purposes of this report the risk
assessment will be weighed amongst the Kootowis/Lost Shoe/Staghorn Watershed area. The long
range plans are to develop a risk assessment rating for all the Clayoquot regions' watersheds.
KWRP Site Selection
Within the KWRP watershed, with over 160 km of stream length, it is important to assess our annual
work areas. Within the scope of this watershed the risk assessment factors can be determined from
our past inventory and work experience.
Hazard: The current state of the Kootowis/Lost Shoe/Staghorn Creek system is very poor in
relationship to its' potential. Many areas have poor or little access, habitat space is compromised by
the infilled wood debris and riparian zones are inundated with water. The hazard is continued lack of
full potential fish or riparian zone production.
Consequence: The KWRP wood debris sites have been impacted for 20 years. The impacts
of leaving the area un-restored are continued reduced production. The low gradient system reduces
the possibility of wood debris torrents.
Feasibility: The ability to undertake the project successfully and efficiently relative to the
region or watershed scope. On a regional scale this project is a very high score compared to the
Mooyah, Escalante. The degree of road and trail access on the KWRP sites is the key to efficiency on
this project.
Below on Table 4 are areas of the KWRP watershed identified from previous experience to be the
most likely candidates for work in 1999 based on impacts, production and access.
Table 4. Risk Assessment Table
Site
Hazard
West Fork Staghorn
Ck
Lost Shoe Ck.
6
Consequenc
e
4
Feasibility
Score
Comment
7
168
6
3
6
108
Lost Shoe mainstem
below Hwy 4A
Lost Shoe Mouth
Staghorn M/S
Staghorn Middle
Staghorn Middle trib
Kootowis AWP
6
4
6
144
important spawning, easy
road
Important spawning and
rearing, trail access
riparian damage, trail access
6
6
5
5
6
4
4
3
3
3
5
7
6
6
6
120
168
90
90
108
Park permits, long trail
flood concerns, road access
rearing, trail access
rearing, spawning, trail
spawning, road access
Table 4 risk assessment shows the West Fork Staghorn, mainstem and Lost Shoe Mainstem to be
the three highest rated areas. This identifies the work plan priorities for 1999. Depending on funding
we will work our way down this table in order of score through 1999.
1999 KWRP Work Plan
1999 KWRP Work Plan cont'd.
Hiring
Local and long term employment is a priority for this project. Experienced workers from last years
project as well as replacements for attrition will be hired.
Training
The first activity in the 1999 work plan will be crew training in safe work practices, first aid certification,
streamkeepers, equipment inventory, work techniques (cable splicing, anchors, saws and winches)
and orientation of the work areas. The presenters will be a mix of professionals and journeymen with
appropriate experience in specific areas.
Maintenance
During the beginning of the work period maintenance of the previous years' structures will take place.
As in past years this will involve up to two weeks of time interspersed with other duties such as
surveys of new work areas, safety training and orientation. The maintenance usually requires some
additional anchoring and small debris removal. Our past experience indicates that the most common
task is removal of upswept wood debris from the stream bottom. Loose cables from shifting of logs is
also a common task. An additional benefit of maintenance is the opportunity for the crew to learn or
refresh themselves with the successful restoration techniques.
Instream Activities
Small wood debris will be removed and large wood debris will be conserved, this continues to be our
main objective. These instream activities will be the same as past years objectives. The basis of our
work follows the 1996 Level 2 Inventory and work plan established by the forestry, engineering,
hydrology and biology team. Spawning gravel placement in deficient areas to accelerate production
will be done at select sites.
Our crew skills improve every year in terms of efficiency and some aspects of the job have been
improved with better materials. Duck bill anchors have replaced many longer cable attachments.
Lower cost and stronger pulling strength cable turfer jacks have replaced many of the tasks of
chainsaw winches. Waste disposal will be primarily dispersal above the floodplain adjacent the work
areas.
Monitoring
All work areas will be lineally measured and marked for distance with flagging or tags. Each specific
area will be photographed for representative before and after pictures as in past years. A follow up
survey of the work areas at the end of the year will be done using Gant charts to describe the amount
of distance, number of sites and specific function. The previous years' (1998) work will be assessed
with Gant charts in summer 1999 as well.
We will also keep quantitative results on amounts of cable, anchors and wood waste material moved
from the sites. Fish population analysis will be monitored by electroshock of the historic fry density
monitoring sites. There are two sites in upper and lower areas of each stream reach. A water
temperature and level station at Kootowis Creek mainstem continues to monitor their effects after
restoration.
Reporting
The crew supervisor will provide a weekly update on work areas and accomplishments. A final report
and fiscal summary will be provided for the year end.
1999 KWRP Work Plan