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