Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Nancy A. Seger, P.E.
Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.
2013 NPS Monitoring Conference, Cleveland, Ohio
Is it possible to improve a WWH stream to EWH?
Existing condition
Challenges
Design Plan
Prediction
Results
Conclusions
QHEI ~ 55-60 QHEI ~ 70
Big Darby Creek is one of the most biologically diverse streams of its size in the Midwest, harboring 100 species of fish and 44 kinds of freshwater mussels.
It is continually
threatened by agricultural practices, incompatible development, water pollution, & invasive species.
Leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people.
Address the most pressing conservation threats at the largest scale.
For over a decade, The Nature Conservancy and its partners have been working to protect the Big Darby Headwaters through land acquisition, education and restoration efforts.
Consists of ~850 acres in Logan County
Compliments State-Owned properties
Showe and 5/3 Properties
Surveys of the headwaters region found central mottled sculpin, southern redbelly dace and least brook lamprey, which are indicators of good stream health.
Wetlands in the area support such plant species as marsh marigold, skunk cabbage, trillium, jack-in-the-pulpit and
Cottonwood along with the surrounding forests, sustain wild turkey, eastern screech owls and great crested fly-catchers.
River Mile Location within Project
QHEI IBI ICI Attainment Status
80.8 State Route 287 –
Downstream Project Area
75.5 50 50 Full EWH
81.1 Ex Iron Bridge
70.5 44 46 Partial EWH
81.9 Along US 33 – Upstream Project Area
52 44 38 Non EWH
Within the project area, Big Darby Creek is in full attainment of WWH but not EWH as recommended
by OEPA.
Continued IBI improvement from 2001 - 2008
Particularly increases in overall abundance & addition of species
Increase mostly in tolerant species
Habitat still limited by sedimentation Past US Highway 33 improvements
Continued bank erosion
Mottled Sculpin
5,880 LF of Big Darby Creek
Hydro-modified for Agricultural Drainage
Rosgen “F4” Ditch
10’-30’ Riparian Width
7 Tributaries
Class I, II and III Primary Headwater Habitat Classifications
HHEI scores ranging from 27-76
HFMEI scores ranging from 7-41
Southern redbelly dace
Two-lined salamander
4 Class III perennial cool-cold headwater streams
All impacted by head cutting as a result of main stem ditching
16 Existing Wetlands ranging from Category I - III
9.7 acres
1) Improve Water Quality
2) Increase Biodiversity
3) Increase Resilience to Any Potential Upstream Developmental Impacts
Identify problem areas
Review possibilities for improvement
Erosion within Channel
Not Much Variety or Quantity
Low Sinuosity – Low Number Pools
Erosion and Thin Riparian
Short Unstable Riffles
Stream Bank Stabilization?
Riparian Plantings?
Invasive Species Management?
Rock Weirs?
2-Stage Ditch?
Over Wide Ditch?
Natural Channel
Which of these alternatives meet the Project Goals –
i.e. a WQ improvement objective?
Overwide Ditch
Overwide Ditch
Two-Stage Ditch
Overwide Ditch
Two-Stage Ditch
NCD with Rock Weirs
Overwide Ditch
Two-Stage Ditch
NCD with Rock Weirs
NCD with Riffles & Pools
QHEI
Metric
Avg.
Existing
Over
Wide
2-Stage NCD w/
Weirs
NCD
w/
R&P
Substrate 13 Decrease Same Decrease Same/
Increase
In Stream
Cover
7 Decrease Decrease Same/
Increase
Same/
Increase
Channel
Morph
12 Decrease Same Increase Increase
Riparian 5 Decrease Same Same/
Increase
Same/
Increase
Pool/Glide
Riffle/Run
10.5 Decrease Same Same/
Decrease
Increase
Gradient 10 Same Same Same Same
Totals 57.5 Decrease Same Slight
Increase
Increase
1) Improve Water Quality
2) Increase Biodiversity
3) Increase Resilience to Any Potential Upstream Developmental Impacts
All But One Involve Water Quality Improvement.
If we can create QHEI = 70 with physical restoration then we have the potential to meet EWH
Habitat Improvement alone does not = WWH
(or in this case EWH)
Review recruitment opportunities
QHEI
Metric
Avg
Existing
Over
Wide
2-Stage NCD w/
Weirs
NCD
w/
R&P
Substrate 13 Decrease Same Decrease Same/
Increase
In Stream
Cover
7 Decrease Decrease Same/
Increase
Same/
Increase
Channel
Morph
12 Decrease Same Increase Increase
Riparian 5 Decrease Same Same/
Increase
Same/
Increase
Pool/Glide
Riffle/Run
10.5 Decrease Same Same/
Decrease
Increase
Gradient 10 Same Same Same Same
Totals 57.5 Decrease Same Slight
Increase
Increase
The Big Darby Headwaters Nature Preserve and the Joseph Glenn Ebersole Stream Restoration Site were financed in part through a grant from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the provisions of Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act. Land acquisition was made possible in part through the Ohio EPA’s Water Pollution Control Loan Fund – Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program.
Design & Permitting $83,005
Construction $1,423,548 ($200/LF)
Dana Corporation
Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.
The Gary J. Jainshig Estate
The Jeffrey Company
Tad and Nancy Jeffrey
The Harriet D. Lattimer Estate
Midwest Express Group
The Mary Eleanor Morris Fund of The Columbus Foundation
NiSource and NiSource Charitable Foundation
Clifford and Mary Ozias Conservation and Forestry Fund of The Columbus Foundation
The Proctor & Gamble Fund
Anne Powell Riley
The Kelvin and Eleanor Smith Foundation
Steve Stephens and Diana Lockwood
James R. and Judith Thomas
Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Tritsch
U.S. Fish and Wildlife (ARRA)
The Robert W. Wilson Fund
Creating 7,086 linear feet of meandering channel within a vegetation accessible floodplain using a “Priority 2” Restoration Technique
Floodplain Widths Vary 60’ to 180’
61,000 CY of Excavation
18,000 CY Excavation
8,000 Tons of Sand, Gravel & Cobble Substrate
Fish Lunkers located along the outer bank of a Pool mimic Undercut Banks
Gathered from onsite clearing required for new meander pattern
Floodplain Pocket Wetlands or Vernal Pools Constructed throughout Project Area
Raised channel inverts with gravel/cobble substrate in order to counteract head-cutting.
35,000 Bare Root and 3-Gallon Container Native Trees & Shrubs were Planted along the Banks of the newly constructed channel
TNC Volunteers and Staff continue to work to eradicate honey suckle and other invasive species from the properties.
Columbia Gas Line Relocation
Services East Liberty & Honda Motor Company Plant
$65,800 to Relocate ~60 LF
In order to move Big Darby Creek away from US Highway 33, a cut through the hillside was required.
USACOE NWP 27 for Stream Restoration
OEPA NOI & SWP3 for Big Darby Creek Watershed
QHEI Metric Existing Potential 2012 (1-yr
Post)
2013 (2-yr
Post)
Substrate 13 Same/
Increase
15 15
In Stream
Cover
7 Increase 11 15
Channel
Morph
12 Increase 12 15
Riparian 5 Increase 7 7
Pool/Glide
Riffle/Run
10.5 Increase 10 11
Gradient 10 Same 10 10
Total 57.5 Increase 65 73
2001 2008 2012 (1-yr
Post)
IBI 42 44 50
Grab Samples show 55% reduction of Nitrogen & Phosphorus and 80% reduction in Fecal Coliform
Similar to trends
shown in other projects of >1 mile in length
Project Goals
1) Improve Water Quality
2) Increase Biodiversity
3) Increase Resilience to Any Potential Upstream Developmental Impacts
Project Goals
1) Improve Water Quality
2) Increase Biodiversity
3) Increase Resilience to Any Potential Upstream Developmental Impacts
Results •QHEI = 73 •IBI = 50 •Reductions in Nutrients Healthier the System = More it can Handle
Western Basin of Lake Erie?
Or on a smaller scale – Grand Lake St. Mary’s?
How much restoration in any given stream is enough to change its aquatic life use designation to WWH?
How much restoration is necessary to assimilate NPS pollution such as phosphorus and nitrogen?
How much restoration is needed to have a positive effect on the receiving stream or water body?
Finding Sufficient Length 500 LF segments don’t do much
Landowner Cooperation How much will you pay me?
Grants can only be used on Public Lands Public Lands are not always located in the right area of
the watershed to make a noticeable difference.
The restoration project constructed 7,086 linear feet of meandering channel within a vegetation accessible floodplain through the TNC properties.
The restored channel form provided better morphological functionality, habitat quality and quantity, and an overall better ecosystem capable of achieving WWH (QHEI range 60-65) initially.
Two years post construction the project is meeting WWH and trending toward the desired EWH designation