Upload
donald-osborne
View
224
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Habitat Restoration
DivisionCoastal Program
Partner For Wildlife Program
Schoolyard Habitats
Chesapeake Bay Field OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Richard Starr
Stream Restoration Approach
•Training and Education
•Technical Assistance
•Demonstration Projects
Training and Education• Promote Fluvial Geomorphology
and Natural Channel Design Methods
• NCTC River Science Curriculum Advisory
• Stream Classification and Assessment Courses (Levels I, II, and III at NCTC)
• Natural Channel Design Review Checklist
• Stream Function Pyramid• Protocol Development and
Training• Since 1994, over 1000
participants representing non-profit, local, state and federal agencies
• Training will be used in implementation of 500 projects
• Close to 250 miles of stream and riparian habitat restoration in 18 major river basins
Types of Technical Assistance
• Develop Assessment and Design Tools
• Develop Protocols
• Conduct Watershed and Stream
• Monitoring
• Conduct Project Review
• Publish Findings
Demonstration Projects
• Natural channel design methodology
• Stream restoration
• Fish barrier removal
Stream Functional Pyramid
• Hierarchical framework that categorizes stream functions
• Each level builds on the previous level
• Based on work Fischenich 2006
• Functional based goals• Functional assessments with
quantitative thresholds• Functional based monitoring• Mitigation debit and credit
protocols• Supporting guidelines
document• Training module
Natural Channel Design Review Checklist
• Checklist of critical questions associated with NCD stream restoration projects
• Four categories– Watershed assessment– Geomorphic assessment– Conceptual design– Final design
• Supporting guidelines document
• Training module
Were proposed channel dimensions provided and developed within the design criteria?
Do the proposed channel dimensions show the adjacent floodplain or flood prone area?
3.1 Natural Channel Design
Did sediment transport competency analysis show what particle sizes would be transported with a bankfull discharge?
For gravel/cobble bed streams, does the proposed design move particles that are larger than the D100 of the stream bed?
3.0 Final Design
Was a proposed channel alignment provided and developed within the design criteria?
Was a proposed channel profile provided and developed within the design criteria?
Were existing versus design relationships of shear stress, velocity, and stream power versus stage or discharge provided?
Were specifications for materials and construction procedures provided and explained for the project (i.e., in-stream structures, erosion control measures, etc.)?
If needed, was the type of sediment transport analysis explained?
3.2 Sediment Transport
Was sediment transport analysis needed?
Did sediment transport capacity analyses show that the stream bed would not aggrade or degrade over time?
Natural Channel Design RFP Protocol
• Checklist of critical tasks required for NCD stream restoration projects
• Eight categories– SOW– Objectives– Watershed assessment– Geomorphic assessment– Alternative analysis– Conceptual design– Feasibility design– Final design
IV.
A.1.2.
i.Functions (i.e., hydraulics and geomorphologic principles)
ii.Improvements to hydraulics, hydrologics, and/or geomorphic stability of the stream
iii.Effects on stream stability, infrastructure, stream habitat, water quality, private property, and other relevant factors
3.4.
B.1.2.3.4.
i. Type, extent, and cause of stream impairmentii. Bankfull determination and validationiii. Bankfull characteristics and discharge
iv. Drainage areav. Percent impervious covervi. Current and planned landuse(s)
5.6.7.
i. Alternative evaluationii. Alternative selection
C.1.2.
D.
Final alternatives analysis report (2 copies)Alternative analysis meeting
Alternatives analysis submission packageDraft alternatives analysis report (2 copies)
Summary of restoration objectivesSummary of alternative analysis
Alternatives analysis
Project description and summary
Summary of hydraulic and hydrologic studies
Summary of existing assessment reports
Baseline map(s)Aerial photograph(s)
Project limitations evaluationAlternative description and discussion
Advantages and disadvantages of alternativesAlternative cost estimates and comparison
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Alternatives Analysis Report
Bank Erosion Rate Curve Hickey Run
Reach HR-03Cross Section # 06 (Transverse Riffle)
85.00
95.00
105.00
-5.0 15.0 35.0 55.0 75.0 95.0
Distance (ft)
Rel
ati
ve
Ele
vati
on
(ft
)
03/10/03 05/11/04
0.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00L
ater
al B
ank
Ero
sion
Rat
e (F
t/Y
r)
Near Bank Shear Stress
USFWSBank Erosion Curve
Low Moderate High/Very High Extreme Rosgen Trend
Low BEHI
Extreme BEHI
Moderate BEHI
High - Very High BEHI
ModerateLowVery Low High Very High Extreme
• Used to estimate rate of bank erosion based on condition of bank stability
• Provides a basis for prioritizing restoration
• Quantifies sediment supply from bank erosion
Hydrologic Regional Curves
Regional Curve DevelopmentUSFWS, MD SHA, USGS
Piedmont
Qbkf = 84.56DA0.76
R2 = 0.93
AP/VR
Qbkf = 34.02DA0.94
R2 = 0.99
W. Coastal Plain
Qbkf = 31.35DA 0.73
R2 = 0.98
E. Coastal Plain
Qbkf = 14.65DA0.76
R 2 = 0.97
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (mi2)
Ban
kfu
ll D
isch
arg
e (c
fs)
• Bankfull calibration required for fluvial based assessments
• Regional curves reduce the need for bankfull gage calibration
• Current Curves in Maryland:– Piedmont,
Coastal Plain, and Ridge and Valley and Allegheny Plateau Physiographic Regions
Reference Reach Database
• Rosgen Stream Types C, E, and B reference stream database
• Developed from western coastal plain streams
• Departure from potential analysis
• Design criteria
Dimensionless Ratios - Cross Section. E Streams - Western Coastal PlainRATIO RANGE AVERAGE
Width/Depth 5.73 to 12.83 9.10
Widthpool/Widthbkf 0.74 to 1.66 1.03
Areapool/Areabkf 0.86 to 2.11 1.29
Riffle Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.05 to 1.98 1.50
Pool Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.52 to 3.71 2.25
Run Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.21 to 2.25 1.60
Glide Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.08 to 2.76 1.59
Dimensionless Ratios - Profile. E Streams - Western Coastal PlainRATIO RANGE AVERAGE
Riffle Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.17 to 4.96 1.81Pool Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.02 to 1.01 0.41Run Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.04 to 6.68 1.19Glide Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.02 to 1.82 0.50
Defining River Corridors Widths
• Buffer width based on fluvial geomorphic requirements
• Meandering streams require, at the minimum, 3.5 times the bankfull width
• Avoid meandering floodplains
Stream Stability Rapid Assessment Protocol
• Rapid stream assessment based on observation of instability indicators
• Watershed characteristics
• Lateral stability• Vertical stability• Stability Trend• Localized v.s.
widespread instability• Potential instability
cause(s)
Watershed: _______________________________ Stream: _____________________________Date:____________________________________ Crew: ______________________________Rosgen Stream Type: ______________________ Page ____2____ of ____2____
Width/Depth Ratio: ________________ Rating: Stable Unstable
Dominant BEHI: Score: Rating: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Dominant NBS: Low Moderate High Extreme
Presence of bank armoring: Yes No Description:
Presence of specific lateral erosion causes: Yes No Description:
Overall Lateral Stability: Stable Unstable: Localized Widespread
Incision Ratio: Rating: Not Incised Slightly Moderately Highly Extremely
Presence of headcut: Yes No Description:
Presence of bedcontrol: Yes No Description:
Presence of deposition: Yes No Description of Deposition Feature:
Bed Feature Type: Riffle/Pool Riffle/Run Run/Pool Plane Step/Pool Cascade
Bed Definition: Well Defined Moderately Well Defined Poorly Defined
Overal Veritcal Stability: Stable Degrading Aggrading
Stream Sensitivity:
Potential Sediment Supply:
Recovery Potential
Evolution Stability Sequence:
Evolution Stability Trend: Stable Aggrading Recovering
Overall Reach Stability: Stable Unstable: Localized Widespread
Potential Cause of Instability:
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
LATERAL STABILITY
Degrading
OVERALL REACH STABILITY
VERTICAL STABILITY
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Stream Feasibility Assessment Protocol
• Rapid stream assessment based on observations
• Four evaluations– Existing habitat– Existing stream
stability– Restoration
feasibility– Proposed habitat
• Quantitative score
Watershed: Form 2 of 4Stream: Rater(s):Reach ID: Date:
Minimum Restoration Moderate RestorationSignificant Restoration
Extensive Restoration
1. Potential Restoration Solution
Localized Restoration - bioengineering and/or minor bank grading. Less than 50 % of reach requires localized restoration.
Localized Restoration - bioengineering and/or minor bank grading and some localized placement of instream structures. Greater than 50 % of reach requires localized restoration.
Widespread Restoration - in-channel adjustments, instream structures, and bioengineering throughout entire project area.
Widespread Restoration - new channel and/or channel realignment, in-channel adjustments, instream structures, and bioengineering throughout entire project area.
SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Parameter Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
2. Construction Access
Access location relatively flat, open, dry, and within 100 feet of a road
Access location relatively flat, open, dry, over 100 feet of a road, and requires special construction road treatments
Access location has some steep slopes, some vegetation clearing required, some wet areas, and is within 100 feet of a road, and requires special construction road treatments
Access location has steep slopes, wet areas, heavily vegetated, is over 100 feet of a road, and requires special construction road treatments
SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Constraints No Constraints or impacts to existing healthy habitat and no infrastructure
Slight vegetation clearing required and minor impacts to existing healthy habitat and no infrastructure
Moderate vegetation clearing required, infrastructure crossing and/or potential repair or relocation required, impacts to healthy habitat and/or potential impact of T & E species
Vegetation clearing required, infrastructure repair or relocation required, special access treatments required, impacts to healthy habitat, impacts to T & E species
SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4. Potential Success/Risk
Shallow gradient slope < 0.5 %, cohesive bed and banks, incision ratio 1.00 - 1.10, entrenchment ratio > 2.2, meander width ratio of 3.0 to 8.0 for Rosgen E and C stream types, design complexity low, minimum restoration construction, no infrastructure, upstream and downstream conditions stable
Shallow gradient slope 0.6 - 1.0 %, cohesive bed and banks, incision ratio 1.10 - 1.30, entrenchment ratio > 2.2, meander width ratio of 3.0 to 4.0 for Rosgen E and C stream types, design complexity moderate, moderate restoration construction, infrastructure crossing, upstream and/or downstream conditions have localized stablity issues
Moderate gradient slope 1.1 - 2.0 %, cohesive bed, non-cohesive banks, incision ratio 1.31 - 1.50, entrenchment ratio 1.4 - 2.2, meander width ratio of 2.5 to 3.0 for Rosgen E and C stream types, design complexity moderate to high, moderate to high restoration construction, infrastructure crossing and potential repair and/or protection, upstream and/or downstream conditions have localized to widespread stablity issues
Steep gradient slope > 2.0 %, non-cohesive bed and banks, incision ratio >1.51, entrenchment ratio > 2.3, meander width ratio of < 2.5 for Rosgen E and C stream types, design complexity high, high restoration construction, infrastructure crossing repair and/or /orprotection, upstream and downstream conditions have widespread stablity issues
SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Restoration Potential Description
Stream Restoration Total Score
Parameter
Project difficulty
Minor localized bank grading (< 50% of reach), localized
bank plantings (< 50% of reach), low cost bio-
engineering (i.e.,…….),
Moderate localized bank grading (> 50% of reach),
localized bank plantings (> 50% of reach), moderate cost
bio-engineering, instream structures to address
localized instability problem (i.e.,…….),
In-channel adjustments, bank grading, instream structures (i.e., vanes, cross vanes, W weirs, sills, etc.) reach-wide
plantings and/or bio-engineering, repair of
infrastructure,
In-channel adjustments and new channel construction,
bank grading, instream structures (i.e., vanes, cross vanes, W weirs, sills, etc.) reach-wide plantings and/or bio-engineering, protections and repair of infrastructure
Cost Per Linear Foot $100 - $200 $200 - $300 $300 - $400 $400 - $600
Cost/foot: $___________ Area to be treated: ___________ feet Total cost: $___________
STREAM ASSESSMENT and RESTORATION FIELD DATA SHEET
STREAM RESTORATION POTENTIAL SOLUTION, COST, and FEASIBILITY
Parameter
Category
RESTORATION ESTIMATED COST
Category and cost
If stream is stable and restoration is not needed, the stream restoration score is 40.
GIS Stream Stability Prediction
• GIS-based stream stability prediction model
• GIS layers– Percent impervious– Stream slope– Percent forest cover– Forest age stand– Erodible soils
• Thresholds set for coastal plain physiographic region
• Field validated model accuracy with over 200 sites
• Model accuracy 87 percent
Stream Name: Crew: Project Description:
Project Name: Date:
Project Location:
Type Indicator(s) Severity Implication(s) Cause(s)
Other: Other: Other: Other: Other:
Other: Other: Other: Other: Other:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Problem Description
1 2 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15
Photograph(s):
1 2 3Bed Bank Structure1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15
Photograph(s):
StationIdentification
Number
1 2 3
Bed Bank Structure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3
Stream Monitoring Protocol
• Tiered monitoring protocol
• Tier 1 – rapid assessment based on observations of instability indicators
• Tier 2 – monumented measurements or repair
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
RAPID STREAM MONITORING EVALUATION ATTRIBUTES
Increase in confinement
Increase in entrenchment
Lateral scour/undercut
Decrease in entrenchment
Decrease in confinement
Loss of bank vegetation
Cutoff channel development
Bank deposition
Increase in facet slope Planform/radius of curvature adjustments
Poorly defined facet features
Degradation
Increase incision
Aggradation
Decrease in facet slope
Scour
Deposition/Bar Development
Decrease incision
Pro
ble
m I
ncd
icat
or(
s)
Bed Banks
Other Tools and Protocols
• Riffle Stability Index (Kappesser 2002, USFS)• RiverRat (NOAA and FWS, 2009)• RiverMorph (Stantec)• STREAM Modules (Ward et al, Ohio State)• Proper Functioning Condition (Prichard et al., 1998,
BLM)• Bed Material Composition Method (Potyondy and
Bunte 2007, USFS)• GIS-based Streambank Erosion Rate Estimation (Evans
et al, 2003, Penn State)• Watershed Assessment of River Stability Sediment
Supply (WARSSS) (Rosgen 2006)• Vermont Watershed and Stream Geomorphic
Assessment Protocols • Physical Stream Assessment: A review of Select
Protocols (COE & EPA 2004)
Future Tools and Needs
• Stream assessment checklist
• Stream monitoring checklist
• Site selection checklist
• Sediment prediction model comparison
• Climate change sediment transport
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Chesapeake BayField Office177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401www.chesapeakebay.fws.gov
Richard Starr(410) [email protected]