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) 573-4583Rich_starr@fws.gov