Field Rep Assessments
-
Upload
clean-water -
Category
Technology
-
view
491 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Field Rep Assessments
CWMTF Field Representatives 2009 Assessment of Stream Restoration and Stormwater
Projects
1. Background on project types2. Overview of assessment tools3. Field rep site visits4. Summary of findings5. Board discussion
Topics
Restoration Projects
• CWMTF - funded over 150 restoration projects• Water quality benefits :
- Immediate - Reduction in stream bank and bed erosion
and - Increase in connectivity to floodplain
- Longer term- Improved habitat and biological health of
the stream
Stormwater Projects
• CWMTF funded about 80 stormwater projects
• Water quality benefits
– Immediate• Reduction in rate of runoff reaching the streams,
Better quality of the runoff. – Long-term benefit
• improved habitat and biological health of the stream.
Field Rep Site Visits
-Project WQ Monitoring-Special Monitoring-NCSU Contract
Assessment Methods
Visual assessment
Field measurements
Field Rep Site Visits•Compliance with scope of work and conditions• Maintenance of riparian buffers and BMPs• Display of signs• Repairs/issues requiring attention
Field Rep Presentations
•Agriculture BMPs & Shoreline Restoration – Damon Tatem
•Wetland Restoration – Sarah King
•Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Will Summer
•Stream Restoration & Buffer Establishment – Tom Massie
Agricultural BMPs & Shoreline
Stabilization/Restoration
CWMTF Meeting
February 14-15, 2010
Cary, North Carolina
Vegetated Stream Buffers in Eligible Watersheds-Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NCDSWC)
Initially funded in 1998 by CWMTF-Provides contributions forpurchase of conservation easements next to farm streams, ditches & other watercourses improving & protecting water quality & enhancing habitat-utilizes a combination of federal
& state resources-Covers 10 watersheds (76 Counties)
Vegetated Stream BuffersCREP Program
• 30 year- contracts-830, acres-19,162, stream miles-526.955
• Perm contracts-190,acres-6,409, stream miles-176.248
• Total contracts-1,020, acres-25,571, stream miles-703.20
• Total Match thru September 2009-$64,448,152Total Contract Amounts:CWMTF 1998A-999 (closed)$5,885,549.00, CWMTF 2002A-305(closed)$4,200,000.00,CWMTF 2004B-040 (closed)$5,191,580.00,CWMTF 2006B-404 (active)$3,441,878.60,
Total$18,719,007.60*CWMTF Funds Remaining $2,299,224.36
Most of the current land sign up is coming from recently expanded areas
(Roanoke, Cape Fear, Pasquotank, Lumber, etc.) DSWC staff is currently
installing boundary signs to deter easement violations across the state with priority on permanent
easements
Cattle Exclusions
Livestock Exclusion-Significantly Reduces Erosion Impacts & Sedimentation
Macon County / Tom Massie
Conservation Tillage-Funded No-Till DrillsCape Fear RC&D 1999A-901
Columbus Co. 2000A-901
Conservation Tillage-Funded No-Till DrillsCape Fear RC&D 1999A-901
Columbus Co. 2000A-901
Constructed Wetland Filters on Field Drainage
2001B-042
Flows from cross ditches & canals draining agricultural landsare retained in vegetated constructed wetland areas and
released over a period of time. Nutrients are absorbed by the selected vegetation in the wetland traps and water flows are
reduced in velocity to receiving streams thus cuttingsediment loading. A low cost-effective-low maintenance
solution to nutrient & sediment loaded Ag runoff.
2006A-046
Shoreline Stabilization & Restoration
Perquimans River2001
Degraded river & sound side shorelines producetons of sediment particularly during storm events.
Stabilization through the use of rock sills to protectthe shoreline during periods of high wave activity
in conjunction with shoreline plantings has been very effective on the Perquimans River,in Carteret County, & other sites across the state.Sedimentation is dramatically reduced using &
Quality near shore habitat is created.
FAILURE
Perquimans River2006
OVERALL SITE-REVIEW OBSERVATIONS
• Most applicant efforts have been effective • Long maintenance is a potential problem-grantees
need to understand their long term responsibilities• Applicants have learned from past errors and
most experienced grantees have a good understanding of our procedures & expectations
• Boundary/easement marking maintenance is difficult & in some cases marking is impractical
• WQ data of sampled projects has proven that they are effective over the long term if properly maintained
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Restoration
Riparian wetlandCypress Swamp Carolina Bay
Tidal wetland
• In NC we have riparian wetlands (floodplains, bottomlands, swamps), non-riparian (pocosins, hardwood flats, Carolina Bays), and tidal wetlands
• 50% wetlands in NC altered/impacted- agriculture, forestry, development
Wetland Restoration
Rain Event
Water Quality Benefit
• Natural filter for physical debris as well as water-borne pollutants– Sediment, Nitrogen, Phosphorus– Volume reduction, dampen peak flows
Habitat Benefit
• Habitat for rare and endangered species
• Over 80% NC fisheries depend on wetlands
McMillanKing National Geographic
UNC- Chapel Hill/ Open Grounds Farm- 1997B-407
Before
Carteret Community College 2003A-701
Before
NC Coastal Federation North River Farm 2006B-402
Before
2009
New Hanover County 2004B-513
Goldsboro Polishing Wetland
1997A-101
Wetland RestorationProject Monitoring
• CWMTF project goals include parameters such as area restored, plant
species, volume runoff.
• Visual inspection of sites effective
• Grant recipients receptive to site visit
• Common issues observed by field reps:
– Vegetation issues
– lack of easement signs
– project modification
Morris Landing
Wetland RestorationProject Monitoring
• Research-level monitoring efforts
– long term data sets
– Water quality, soil development, water table, habitat
succession, restoration techniques, species abundance, etc.
CWMTF Board Meeting
February 14, 2010
W. Summer
PREVIEW: • Stormwater background• What CWMTF funds and why• BMP examples + ‘a little data’• Maintenance and repair • Summary
Background – ‘Stormwater 101’
Background – ‘Stormwater 101’
Results
Conventional stormwater detention addresses flooding problems, but water quality is still an issue
What CWMTF funds and why
BEFORE
Constructed wetland: Vegetation removes nutrients and other pollutants while sediment is trapped in the forebay above.
ForebayConstructed wetland
Preliminary Water Quality Data for Fred Fletcher Wetland
Bioretention area (a.k.a. ‘rain garden’): Allows stormwater to infiltrate and recharge groundwater
Innovative Stormwater Treatment: Floating Islands – These floating mats of wetland vegetation hold promise of providing benefits of wetlands in a smaller area.
Maintenance & Repair
Maintenance & Repair
Maintenance & Repair
Summary
Stream Restoration and Buffer Establishment
Vertical Bank, moderate riparian buffer
Pacolet River2007
Incised stream, no buffers, straightened
Town Creek2003
Examples of practices to deal with vertical banks and bank stability1. Cross veins in stream2. Root wads along bank
3. Whole tree revetments to capture sediment4. New plantings of trees and shrubs
1 2
3 4
Town Creek before and after stream restoration and riparian replanting. Stream was realigned, bends restored and stream buffer was restored @ 50’ on both sides. Cost varies from @$125 per foot in rural locations upwards of $250 per foot in urban settings.
2009
2003
Stream bank stabilization is less expensive, but can also havedramatic results. Above is an example of vertical bank w/o any buffer.Below (left and right) is an area stabilized using whole tree revetments, then planted to hold bank in place and to reclaim new bank. Example on leftIs a reclaimed area with buffer plantings and fencing. Approximate cost varies from $15 up to $75 per foot depending on materials.
2009Planted 1998 Little TennesseeHenson Property
Example of vertical banks reconstructed to create a flood bench,then in stream structures placed within the stream bed and banks re-vegetated with trees and shrubs. Location: Azalea Park, Asheville
2002 2009
Stream stabilization on the West Fork of the Linville River was undertaken in 2003 to restore natural sinuosity to the stream, reduce erosion from vertical banks, improve stream buffers and provide good fisheries habitat.
2005
2009
Important Long-term Issues
Appropriate Design Structural FailureNatural vs. Man-made
Survival of Buffer Plantings•Adequate soil preparation
•Larger Plant Stock•Proper maintenance by owner
General Findings
•Scopes completed and conditions met• Riparian buffers maintained with a few exceptions•Some issues with maintenance and repairs• Few have not submitted project monitoring