"Habitat Restoration Division Coastal Program Partner For W"
Habitat Restoration Division Coastal Program Partner For Wildlife Program Schoolyard Habitats Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.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 3.0 Final Design 3.1 Natural Channel Design Was a proposed channel alignment provided • Checklist of critical questions and developed within the design criteria? associated with NCD stream Were proposed channel dimensions provided and developed within the design criteria? restoration projects Do the proposed channel dimensions show the adjacent floodplain or flood prone area? • Four categories Was a proposed channel profile provided and developed within the design criteria? – Watershed assessment Were specifications for materials and construction procedures provided and – Geomorphic assessment explained for the project (i.e., in-stream structures, erosion control measures, etc.)? – Conceptual design 3.2 Sediment Transport – Final design Was sediment transport analysis needed? If needed, was the type of sediment transport • Supporting guidelines analysis explained? Were existing versus design relationships of document shear stress, velocity, and stream power versus stage or discharge provided? • Training module Did sediment transport capacity analyses show that the stream bed would not aggrade or degrade over time? 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? Natural Channel Design RFP Protocol IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A. Alternatives analysis 1. Project limitations evaluation 2. Alternative description and discussion Functions (i.e., hydraulics and geomorphologic • Checklist of critical tasks i. principles) Improvements to hydraulics, hydrologics, and/or ii. required for NCD stream geomorphic stability of the stream Effects on stream stability, infrastructure, stream restoration projects iii. habitat, water quality, private property, and other relevant factors 3. Advantages and disadvantages of alternatives • Eight categories 4. Alternative cost estimates and comparison B. Alternatives Analysis Report – SOW 1. Project description and summary 2. Aerial photograph(s) – Objectives 3. Baseline map(s) 4. Summary of existing assessment reports – Watershed assessment i. Type, extent, and cause of stream impairment ii. Bankfull determination and validation – Geomorphic assessment iii. Bankfull characteristics and discharge iv. Drainage area – Alternative analysis v. Percent impervious cover vi. Current and planned landuse(s) – Conceptual design 5. Summary of hydraulic and hydrologic studies 6. Summary of restoration objectives 7. Summary of alternative analysis – Feasibility design i. Alternative evaluation ii. Alternative selection – Final design C. Alternatives analysis submission package 1. Draft alternatives analysis report (2 copies) 2. Final alternatives analysis report (2 copies) D. Alternative analysis meeting Bank Erosion Rate Curve Hick ey Run Reach HR-03 Cross Section # 06 (Transverse Riffle) 105.00 • Used to estimate rate of bank erosion based Relative Elevation (ft) 95.00 on condition of bank stability 85.00 -5.0 15.0 35.0 55.0 75.0 95.0 • Provides a basis for Distance (ft) 03/10/03 05/11/04 prioritizing 10.00 USFWS Bank Erosion Curve restoration Extreme BEHI High - Very High BEHI 1.00 Moderate BEHI Lateral Bank Erosion Rate (Ft/Yr) • Quantifies sediment 0.10 Low BEHI supply from bank 0.01 erosion 0.00 Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Near Bank Shear Stress Low Moderate High/Very High Extreme Rosgen Trend Hydrologic Regional Curves • Bankfull calibration required for fluvial Regional Curve Development based assessments USFWS, MD SHA, USGS 10000 • Regional curves Piedmont 0.76 AP/VR Qbkf = 34.02DA 0.94 reduce the need for Qbkf = 84.56DA Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1000 R2 = 0.93 R2 = 0.99 bankfull gage W. Coastal Plain Qbkf = 31.35DA 0.73 calibration 100 R 2 = 0.98 E. Coastal Plain • Current Curves in 10 Qbkf = 14.65DA0.76 R 2 = 0.97 Maryland: 1 – Piedmont, Coastal 0 1 10 100 1000 Drainage Area (mi2) Plain, and Ridge and Valley and Allegheny Plateau Physiographic Regions Reference Reach Database Dimensionless Ratios - Cross Section. E Streams - Western Coastal Plain • Rosgen Stream Width/Depth RATIO 5.73 RANGE to 12.83 AVERAGE 9.10 Types C, E, and B Widthpool/Widthbkf 0.74 to 1.66 1.03 reference stream Areapool/Areabkf Riffle Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 0.86 1.05 to to 2.11 1.98 1.29 1.50 database Pool Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.52 to 3.71 2.25 Run Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.21 to 2.25 1.60 • Developed from Glide Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.08 to 2.76 1.59 western coastal plain streams Dimensionless Ratios - Profile. E Streams - Western Coastal Plain RATIO RANGE AVERAGE • Departure from Riffle Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.17 to 4.96 1.81 potential analysis Pool Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.02 to 1.01 0.41 Run Slope/Average Water Surface • Design criteria Slope 0.04 to 6.68 1.19 Glide 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 Anne Arundel County, Maryland • Rapid stream assessment Watershed: _______________________________ Stream: _____________________________ Date:____________________________________ Crew: ______________________________ Rosgen Stream Type: ______________________ Page ____2____ of ____2____ LATERAL STABILITY based on observation of Width/Depth Ratio: ________________ Rating: Stable Unstable Dominant BEHI: Score: Rating: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Dominant NBS: Low Moderate High Extreme instability indicators Presence of bank armoring: Yes No Description: Presence of specific lateral erosion causes: Yes No Description: • Watershed Overall Lateral Stability: Stable Unstable: Localized Widespread characteristics Incision Ratio: VERTICAL STABILITY Rating: Not Incised Slightly Moderately Highly Extremely Presence of headcut: Yes No Description: • Lateral stability Presence of bedcontrol: Yes No Description: • Vertical stability Presence of deposition: Yes No Description of Deposition Feature: • Stability Trend Bed Feature Type: Riffle/Pool Riffle/Run Run/Pool Plane Step/Pool Cascade • Localized v.s. Bed Definition: Well Defined Moderately Well Defined Poorly Defined Overal Veritcal Stability: Stable Degrading Aggrading OVERALL REACH STABILITY widespread instability Stream Sensitivity: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Potential Sediment Supply: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Recovery Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Evolution Stability Sequence: Evolution Stability Trend: Stable Degrading Aggrading Recovering • Potential instability Overall Reach Stability: Potential Cause of Instability: Stable Unstable: Localized Widespread cause(s) Stream Feasibility Assessment Protocol STREAM ASSESSMENT and RESTORATION FIELD DATA SHEET Watershed: Form 2 of 4 Stream: Rater(s): Reach ID: Date: If stream is stable and restoration is not needed, the stream restoration score is 40. STREAM RESTORATION POTENTIAL SOLUTION, COST, and FEASIBILITY Category Parameter Significant • Rapid stream Minimum Restoration Moderate Restoration Extensive Restoration Restoration 1. Potential Localized Restoration - Localized Restoration - Widespread Restoration - in- Widespread Restoration - new Restoration Solution bioengineering and/or minor bioengineering and/or minor channel adjustments, instream channel and/or channel bank grading. Less than 50 % bank grading and some structures, and bioengineering realignment, in-channel of reach requires localized localized placement of instream throughout entire project area. adjustments, instream assessment based on restoration. structures. Greater than 50 % structures, and bioengineering of reach requires localized throughout entire project area. restoration. SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Parameter Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor observations 2. Construction Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some Access location has steep Access open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, over 100 feet of a steep slopes, some vegetation slopes, wet areas, heavily a road road, and requires special clearing required, some wet vegetated, is over 100 feet of a construction road treatments areas, and is within 100 feet of road, and requires special a road, and requires special construction road treatments construction road treatments • Four evaluations SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. Constraints No Constraints or impacts to Slight vegetation clearing Moderate vegetation clearing Vegetation clearing required, existing healthy habitat and no required and minor impacts to required, infrastructure crossing infrastructure repair or infrastructure existing healthy habitat and no and/or potential repair or relocation required, special infrastructure relocation required, impacts to access treatments required, healthy habitat and/or potential impacts to healthy habitat, impact of T & E species impacts to T & E species – Existing habitat SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. Potential Shallow gradient slope < 0.5 %, Shallow gradient slope 0.6 - 1.0 Moderate gradient slope 1.1 - Steep gradient slope > 2.0 %, Success/Risk cohesive bed and banks, %, cohesive bed and banks, 2.0 %, cohesive bed, non- non-cohesive bed and banks, incision ratio 1.00 - 1.10, incision ratio 1.10 - 1.30, cohesive banks, incision ratio incision ratio >1.51, entrenchment ratio > 2.2, entrenchment ratio > 2.2, 1.31 - 1.50, entrenchment ratio entrenchment ratio > 2.3, meander width ratio of 3.0 to 8.0 meander width ratio of 3.0 to 4.0 1.4 - 2.2, meander width ratio of meander width ratio of < 2.5 for – Existing stream for Rosgen E and C stream for Rosgen E and C stream 2.5 to 3.0 for Rosgen E and C Rosgen E and C stream types, types, design complexity low, types, design complexity stream types, design complexity design complexity high, high minimum restoration moderate, moderate restoration moderate to high, moderate to restoration construction, construction, no infrastructure, construction, infrastructure high restoration construction, infrastructure crossing repair upstream and downstream crossing, upstream and/or infrastructure crossing and and/or /orprotection, upstream stability conditions stable downstream conditions have potential repair and/or and downstream conditions localized stablity issues protection, upstream and/or have widespread stablity downstream conditions have issues localized to widespread stablity issues SCORE ______ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – Restoration feasibility Restoration Potential Description Stream Restoration Total Score – Proposed habitat Parameter RESTORATION ESTIMATED COST Category and cost Moderate localized bank In-channel adjustments and • Quantitative score In-channel adjustments, bank grading (> 50% of reach), new channel construction, Minor localized bank grading grading, instream structures localized bank plantings (> bank grading, instream (< 50% of reach), localized (i.e., vanes, cross vanes, W 50% of reach), moderate cost structures (i.e., vanes, cross Project difficulty bank plantings (< 50% of weirs, sills, etc.) reach-wide bio-engineering, instream vanes, W weirs, sills, etc.) reach), low cost bio- plantings and/or bio- structures to address reach-wide plantings and/or engineering (i.e.,…….), engineering, repair of localized instability problem bio-engineering, protections infrastructure, (i.e.,…….), 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: $___________ 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 Monitoring Protocol RAPID STREAM MONITORING EVALUATION ATTRIBUTES • Tiered monitoring 1 Degradation Bed 1 Banks Increase in confinement protocol 2 Increase incision 2 Increase in entrenchment • Tier 1 – rapid 3 Scour 3 Lateral scour/undercut Problem Incdicator(s) 4 Increase in facet slope 4 Planform/radius of curvature adjustments assessment based on 5 Poorly defined facet features 5 Cutoff channel development observations of 6 7 Decrease in facet slope Deposition/Bar Development 6 7 Loss of bank vegetation Bank deposition instability indicators 8 Decrease incision 8 Decrease in entrenchment • Tier 2 – monumented 9 Aggradation 9 Decrease in confinement measurements Stream Name: Project Name: Project Location: Crew: Date: Project Description: or repair Station Identification Number Type Indicator(s) Problem Description Severity Im plication(s) Cause(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bed Bank Structure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 11 12 13 14 15 Photograph(s): Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bed Bank Structure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 11 12 13 14 15 Photograph(s): Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: 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 Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401 www.chesapeakebay.fws.gov Richard Starr (410) 573-4583 Rich_starr@fws.gov