How Long is Long Enough? - Oxbow River

How Long is Long Enough

To Make a Water Quality

Improvement?

2013 NPS Monitoring Conference

Cleveland, Ohio

Steve Phillips, CPESC, President, Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Nancy A. Seger, P.E., Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Introduction

• Background

• Restoration Focus

• Evaluation Studies

• Results of Real World Examples

• Next Steps

Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.


Background

• Who are we?

• Why do we care?

Restoration Focus

• Water Quality Improvement

• Protecting Downstream Use


Restoration Focus

• 5 Top Causes of Stream Impairment

– Hydro-modification (ditching)

– Siltation

– Organic Enrichment

– Nutrients

– Flow Alteration


Restoration Focus

• Bioassessment Methods can illustrate

upstream impairments effect on

downstream aquatic life uses.

– Habitat

– Fish

– Macroinvertebrates


Current Evaluation Studies

• Assess performance of

restoration projects


Current Evaluation Studies

• Assess performance of

restoration projects

• Can practitioners learn

from these

conclusions and

improve project

results?


Stream Restoration Evaluation

Study Conclusions

• Majority of restoration projects were not

sustainable.

• Less than half were described as ecologically

successful.

• Restoration is driven principally by mitigation.

• Restoration work to date has achieved only

modest success in terms of restoring ecological

integrity.


Doyle and Shields, 2012

• Current stream restoration science is not adequate to

assume high rates of success in recovering ecosystem

functional integrity.

• In all, the utility of stream restoration for generating

measurable and meaningful water quality benefits, as

restoration is currently practiced and for common scale of

practice, is doubtful.

• The balance of published evidence suggests that current

practices of stream restoration – in terms of scale and

technique – cannot be assumed to provide demonstrable

physical, chemical, or biological functional improvements.


Discouraging


Alexander & Alan, 2006

State of Stream Restoration in the Upper Midwest

– Study Purpose

• Show how public money is being spent

– Study Content

• 1,345 stream restoration projects between 1970-2004

• Gathered info from Project Managers

• 39 phone interview

• No site visits or data collection

• Median project cost was $6,000

• Developed criteria to describe sustainability and

ecological success



– Study Conclusions

• Less than half were described as ecologically

successful.

• Majority were claimed to be not sustainable.

• Chemical parameters showed no change therefore

“the streams assimilative capacity had not been

increased”.

• Rather than seeing improved watershed scale

results, they observed a trend toward increasing

project costs and decreasing project length.



– Our Observations

• 60% projects were sand traps, riprap placement,

LWD, deflectors, lunkers and tree revetments

– Maintenance required = not ecologically unsustainable

• 21% did not have funding for monitoring

– No monitoring = ecologically unsuccessful


Stranko, Hilderbrand and Palmer,

2011 Comparing the Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Diversity

of Restored Urban Streams to Reference Streams

– Study Purpose

• Critically examine the effectiveness of urban stream

restorations with regard to biological diversity

– Study Content

• Compared 1)urban restored 2) urban non-restored 3)

nonurban and 4) reference minimally disturbed

• Data from 15 sites within 3 projects

• No pre-data

• Project lengths were 2,600 LF (11 sampling sites),

18,500 LF (3 sites), and 500 LF (1 site)


Stranko, Hilderbrand and Palmer,

2011

– Study conclusions

• Could not report changes in stream conditions before

and after restoration. (No pre data)

• Evidence from several sources indicates a need for

dramatic changes in restoration approach.

• No urban stream restoration to our knowledge

demonstrates substantial, long-term biological

increase.


Functional Assessment of Stream Restoration in Ohio

– Study purpose

• To learn from the restoration assessment based on

ecological integrity, Ohio’s legal foundation to water

quality law.

– Study content

• 53 OEPA 401 mitigation sites with some restoration

projects mingled in the data set

• Median project length < 1,100 LF

• Median watershed size < 0.35 square miles


Mechlenburg & Fay, 2011

– Study conclusions

• Stream restoration efforts around the country have

generally been discouraging.

• Restored streams assimilative capacity had not been

increased.

• Well founded stream restoration tools and assessment

methods are not yet broadly established.

• For low gradient or “Swamp streams”, the common

gravel bed riffle pool single thread meandering

channel should not be the design objective.

• That site specific habitat elements are “artificial

deviations from natural conditions”.




– Our Observations

• 94% were site impact mitigation projects

• Projects assessed tended to the extremes of the ranges

exhibited by Ohio streams (watershed size, energy

and cross sectional area)

• Attempted to re-create key structural components

(watershed size, flows, bankfull sizes) using rapid

assessment methods

• No biological data was provided or collected.

• No pre – post data was provided or collected.


Theme of Study Conclusions

• No standard assessment tool exists


Theme of Study Conclusions

• No standard assessment tool exists

• Not true in Ohio where Bioassessment

Methods exist


Our Conclusions

• Different goals

• Different methods

• Different data sets and definitions

• Different levels of effort

• Different results and conclusions

• Rarely, if ever, discuss project or regulatory data

• Rarely, if ever, discuss pre and post data

• Never discuss downstream impacts


Study Content

• Current trend is to assess individual

structural elements that make up a project

rather than the outcome of the project.

• Each project is unique in its ecological and

engineering inputs because of specific

project goals, objectives and site

constraints.

• Recreate inputs (rapid assessment data) =

false information. Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Issues with Rapid Assessment

Methods

• Watershed Sizes

• Flows

• Sediment Sizes


Example - Clover Groff Run

Stream Stats

• 6.4 sq mi

• 3.65 ft/mi

• Q2 = 315 cfs

• Q50 = 860 cfs

• Q100 = 967 cfs

• D-50 = 6.2 mm

(river4m)


Clover Groff Run

Stream Stats

• 6.4 sq mi

• 3.65 ft/mi

• Q2 = 315 cfs

• Q50 = 860 cfs

• Q100 = 967 cfs

• D-50 = 6.2 mm

(river4m)

Actual Project Info

•4.1 sq. mi

•2.64 ft/mi (.05%)

•Q1.3 = 145 cfs

•Q50 = 709 cfs

•Q100 = 820 cfs

•D-50 = 63 mm

•(D-50 = 50mm)* •Calculated by using riffle slope


Clover Groff

Pebble Count


Pebble Count - Ditch


Project

Excavation

Material exposed

during floodplain

excavation

15 cm

17 cm Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Sieve Analysis Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

>63.0 31.5 16.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.062 <.062

% B

y

Weig

ht

Mesh Size (mm)

Ditch(7+43)

Ditch(9+91)

Rock Pile


Restoration Focus?

• According to Rosgen –

– The goal of stream restoration is not to return

the river to its original pristine state, but to

secure the physical stability and biological

function.


Restoration Focus?

• In Ohio –

– The goal is to restore impaired waters and meet

minimum federal standards as described in

Ohio’s tiered and regional Water Quality

Standards.


Some project don’t make a WQ

Improvement Gantz Park

250 LF of stream restoration


Cosgray Ditch

800 LF stream

restoration

Some project don’t make a WQ

Improvement


Performance Based Restoration

• The ultimate test of success for ecosystem

restoration is attaining the aquatic life goals set

forth in the Ohio WQS and the measurable sub-

components of that process.

• As with any activity- based planning approach,

there is a natural tendency to measure success in

terms of the activity and structural inputs of that

process, which stops short of measuring the

ultimate outcome (i.e., the biology) of the same

process. Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Ecological Results

• Ohio Stream Restoration Projects


Powderlick Run


Powderlick Run

Exceptional

Very Good

Good

Marginally Good

Fair

Poor

1994 Ohio EPA Report

Powderlick Run


Powderlick

Run

Bokes Creek


Powderlick

Run

Bokes Creek

Project Facts

Low Gradient Ag

Stream

Historically Ditched

Several Animal

Access Points

3.8 sq mi watershed

– 1.6 sq mi at project

site

5.7 miles of stream

Highest Nitrogen

levels in Ohio

Non-attainment

MWH (pre data

available)


Powderlick Run

• 3,600 LF of

stream

restoration

• Performance

based

restoration


Metric

(GOAL)

Powderlick

1999 Pre

MWH

Powderlick

2003 Post

RM 2.8-3.2

Powderlick

2005 Post

RM 2.8-3.2

Bokes Creek

1990 - 2010

QHEI

(60)

27 58 58 60

ICI

(36)

<6 Fair 36

IBI

(40)

18

18 @ RM 1

30

24 @ RM 1

34

40 @ RM 1

28 50

Before

Powderlick/Bokes

Creek

After


Powderlick Run

• Critiqued in the Functional Assessment of Stream

Restoration in Ohio

– Failed floodplain connectivity (width, entrenchment)

based upon flow calculations

– Failed floodplain soils (A horizon)

– Failed substrate size (based upon energy calculations)

– Based upon “swamp stream” citation, should be over-

wide ditch not a single thread meandering channel.


Crosses Run

Tributary to Mill Creek/Upper Scioto River

Watershed Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Phase 3

Phase 2

Phase 1

Phase 4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

pre post

Crosses Run

Mill Creek

State threshold for

meeting designated

life use attainment

Crosses Run IBI Scores


For “habitat restoration to be

successful, base flow augmentation

would be necessary”.

REALLY?

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 2

Phase 1 Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Pond Brook

Tributary to Tinkers

Creek/Cuyahoga River

Watershed Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc.

Pond Brook

• Low Gradient

Ag/Urban

Watershed

• Historically

Ditched

• 4.1 sq mi

watershed

• Non-attainment

MWH

• Pre Data

Available


Note this clump of trees

Pond Brook - Pre


Phase 1 – 6,200 LF of stream restoration

Pond Brook - During


Note this clump of trees

Pond Brook - Post


Minimum value

typically associated

with WWH conditions

2002 2010 2011

IBI S

co

re

Sample Year

Pond Brook – IBI Results


Mac-O-Chee Creek • Restore historic

meander pattern as

part of the Mac-O-

Chee Castle history.

• Improve in stream

habitat for fishery.

• Maintain existing

drainage function.

• Improve riparian

corridor.

• Move creek away

from state highway

for improved safety.


Existing Condition

• Tributary to Mad River

• Medium gradient ag stream

• 16.1 sq mile watershed

• QHEI = 71.75 (WWH QHEI > 60)

• IBI = 44

• Macroinvertebrates = 37 total taxa including 13

EPT taxa and 2 cold water taxa

• 2 pollution sensitive species – American brook

lamprey and tongue-tied minnow


Mac-O-Chee Creek


INDEX OPEA

2003

Oxbow

2006

Prediction 2009

1 yr post

2010

2 yr post

2011

3 yr post

QHEI 62 71 72.5 79 83.5 83

IBI 40 44 34 40-42 41-42

ICI - - 48 46-52 54-56

Mac-O-Chee Creek Biological Results


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

pre post

Powderlick

Bokes Creek

Crosses Run

Mill Creek

Woodiebrook

MacOChee

State threshold for

meeting designated

life use attainment

Ecological Results

IBI SCORES


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

pre post

Powderlick

Bokes Creek

Crosses Run

Mill Creek

Woodiebrook

MacOChee

State threshold for

meeting designated

life use attainment

Ecological Results

IBI SCORES


Measurable Outcome?

Success or Failure?

Nutrient Assimilation In

Restoration Projects


Zika, 2008

• USEPA funded study

• Measured Denitrification potential in both ditched

and natural channel conditions

• In-channel only (no floodplains, no buffers)

• Studied 3 stream systems as well as 1 control


Inputs of Nitrogen

Denitrification of input

Denitrification potential =

0.29 mg N m²־ hr³־

Length of

Powderlick

stream system

= 5.7 miles

11

.75

mil

esc

Powderlick Run Denitrification

Uptake length =

19,100 meters (11.75 miles)


Inputs of Nitrogen

Denitrification of input


0.29 mg N m²־ hr³־

Length of

Powderlick

stream system

= 5.7 miles

Ditch acts as “point source" of

pollution to downstream

11

.75

mil

esc

Powderlick Run Denitrification

Uptake length =

19,100 meters (11.75 miles)


Denitrification of inputs

Naturalized streams have 70%

greater assimilative capacity vs.

ditches or two-stage ditches

Powderlick Denitrification


11.9 mg N m²־ hr³־

Uptake length =

799 meters (0.49 miles)

Inputs of Nitrogen


Uptake rate

Nitrogen

U,mg/m2/hr

Assimilative

capacity N

lbs/day

Uptake

Rate

Phosphorus

U,

mg/m2/hr

Assimilative

capacity P

lbs/day

Ditch 3,600 LF

with 4.5’

wetted

width

0.09 8.14

(12 tons/yr)

2.2 200

(36.5 tons/yr

Change

in length

1000

Restored

channel

4,600 LF 10.6 959

(175 tons /yr)

8.85 800

(146 tons/yr)

Generalized Nutrient Load Reduction In-Channel Only


Evaluation Study Conclusions

• State of Stream Restoration in the Upper Midwest

– Less than half were described as ecologically successful

– Chemical parameters showed no change therefore “the

streams assimilative capacity had not been increased”

• Functional Assessment of Stream Restoration in

Ohio

– Stream restoration efforts around the country have

generally been discouraging

– Restored streams assimilative capacity had not been

increased


Our Conclusions

• Do not represent accurate projects outcomes and

are misleading at best.

• Pre and post biological data is a must for

determining successful outcome.

• Rather than examining engineering elements,

focus should be noting water quality improvement

downstream of project.


Restoration Focus

• Clean Water Act says to restore the physical

& biological integrity of the resource.

• Are receiving streams affected positively,

negatively or not at all by upstream

restoration efforts?


How Long is Long Enough?

• 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?


Next Steps

• Are measurable outcomes correlated with a minimum

length of restoration in the context of watershed scale?


Next Steps



• Is there any evidence that project length accumulates

reductions of stressors that result in little response

until some threshold is reached at which time those

positive ecological responses accelerate?


Next Steps



• Is there any evidence that project length accumulates

reductions of stressors that result in little response

until some threshold is reached at which time those

positive ecological responses accelerate?

• In the spatial scale of a sub-watershed, how can public

money best achieve measurable water quality

improvements and mitigate or eliminate downstream

impairments?


Thank you!

How Long is Long Enough? - Oxbow River

Documents

Transcript of How Long is Long Enough? - Oxbow River