DOCSLIB.ORG

Gamble RS T 2021.Pdf (1.838Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gamble RS T 2021.Pdf (1.838Mb) Evaluating Streambank Retreat Prediction using the BANCS Model in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province Rex S. Gamble Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Biological Systems Engineering Theresa M. Thompson James B. Campbell William C. Hession May 12th, 2021 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: BANCS, NBS, Streambank Erosion Copyright (optional – © or Creative Commons, see last page of template for information) Evaluating Streambank Retreat Prediction using the BANCS Model in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province Rex S. Gamble Academic Abstract Excess sediment in streams is harmful to the environment, economy, and human health. Streambanks account for an estimated 7-92% of sediment and 6-93% of total- phosphorus loads to streams depending on the watershed. Stream stabilization through stream restoration has become a common practice to satisfy the 2010 Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) due its value in credits received per dollar spent. Bank erosion is most commonly credited through the Bank Assessment for Non-point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) framework, an empirically-derived model that predicts bankfull bank erosion rates using Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI), an indicator of bank stability, and Near-Bank Stress (NBS), an indicator of applied flow energy at bankfull discharge. This study assessed the BANCS framework in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province where it has not previously been applied. The spatial and temporal variability of erosion data was assessed to determine the impact of different erosion measurement schemes on bank erosion estimates and BANCS curves, and alternate NBS methods that capture flow energy beyond bankfull were applied. Three years of monthly erosion data on 64 streambanks were used to assess the spatial and temporal variability of erosion measurements and subsequently develop the erosion curves. Predicted erosion rates were then compared to measured erosion rates on three banks in the Valley and Ridge of Southwest Virginia. Analysis of spatial variability suggests bank retreat measurements should be made every three channel widths to reliably quantify reach-scale load estimates. Furthermore, a minimum monitoring period of 12 months is recommended to ensure seasonal patterns in bank retreat are captured. These results also bring into question the efficacy of the BANCS model as a crediting tool, as the developed statistical relationships between erosion rates, BEHI, and multiple NBS methods were not statistically significant. The limited number of significant curves had low r2 values (r2 < 0.1) indicating measures of NBS and BEHI do not adequately explain the natural variability of bank retreat in the Valley and Ridge of Southwest Virginia. Evaluating Streambank Retreat Prediction using the BANCS Model in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province Rex S. Gamble General Audience Abstract While sediment naturally occurs in streams, too much sediment in these systems is harmful to the environment, economy, and human health. Streambanks contribute an estimated 7-92% of sediment pollution into streams. Stabilizing streambanks with stream restoration has become a common practice to reduce sediment for the 2010 Chesapeake Bay pollutant diet. The sediment reduction of bank stabilization is most commonly estimated with the Bank Assessment for Non-point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) framework, a model that predicts bank erosion rates using Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI), an indicator of bank stability, and Near-Bank Stress (NBS), an indicator of flow energy when the stream channel is full of water. This study assessed the BANCS framework in the Southwest (SW) Virginia where it has not previously been applied. In this process, the variability of the erosion data in space and time was assessed to determine the impact of different erosion measurement methodologies on bank erosion estimates and BANCS equations. Additionally, alternate NBS methods that represent flow energy below, at, and above the channel being full were tested. Three years of erosion data on 64 streambanks were used to assess the variability of erosion measurements in space and time and create new BANCS erosion equations. Predicted erosion rates using the new erosion equations were then compared to measured erosion rates on three banks in the area. Analysis of variability in space suggests bank retreat measurements should be made every three channel widths to reliably estimate erosion volume along a length of stream. Furthermore, a minimum measuring period of 12 months is recommended to ensure seasonal differences in bank retreat are captured. The results also bring into question the effectiveness of the BANCS model as a tool to estimate sediment reduction for the Chesapeake Bay pollutant diet, as the developed equations between erosion rates, BEHI, and multiple NBS methods commonly failed to provide significant relationships. The limited number of significant curves had low r2 values (r2 < 0.1) indicating the measures of NBS and BEHI do not explain the natural variability of bank retreat in the study area. Acknowledgements My whole-hearted appreciation goes towards Dr. Tess Thompson, my research advisor and mentor throughout my time at Virginia Tech. Without her knowledge, guidance, and expertise, this research would not be here today. I also would like to thank my committee members Dr. Cully Hession and Dr. Jim Campbell for advising and supervising this project. My most profound appreciate goes towards my research peers: Billy Paraszczuk, Benjamin Smith, Daniel Smith, Coral Hendrix, and Samuel Withers. In my time here, they have all provided extraordinary support academically and socially. Without their company graduate life would not have been as fun, and without their help with field work, this project would not have been possible to complete. I want to thank Laura Lehman who helped me ready field equipment and never failed to provide help when I asked. I also want to thank Denton Yoder for all his help with IT and CAD, as well as all the kombucha he shared. In addition, I would like to broadly thank all the faculty, students, and staff of the Biological Systems Department at Virginia Tech because my growth and well-being as a graduate student would not be possible without their knowledge, companionship, and support. I also want to thank all the land owners who allowed me access to bank sites, in particular Melinda Mays. Finally, I would like to thank Josh Running and Gene Haffey of Stantec who are currently working hard to create more BANCS curves and were kind enough to show me the ropes regarding BANCS. vi Table of Contents Academic Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii General Audience Abstract ............................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xvii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xviii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Regulation of Sediment ....................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads ............................................................ 6 2.1.2 Prevented Sediment Protocol...................................................................................... 11 2.2 Bank Retreat ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Processes and Mechanisms ......................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Measuring Bank Retreat ............................................................................................. 18 2.2.2.1 Methodologies & Categories ............................................................................... 18 2.2.2.2 Erosion Pin Measurements .................................................................................. 19 2.2.3 Predicting Bank Retreat .............................................................................................. 22 2.2.3.1 Empirical Erosion Models ................................................................................... 22 2.2.3.1.1 Bank Assessment for Non-point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS)....................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.3.2 Process-based Erosion Models ............................................................................ 35 3 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT (P.L. 97-117) District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division Government of the District of Columbia Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor PREFACE PREFACE The Water Quality Division of the District of Columbia's District Department of the Environment, Natural Resources Administration, prepared this report to satisfy the listing requirements of §303(d) and the reporting requirements of §305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). This report provides water quality information on the District of Columbia’s surface and ground waters that were assessed during 2008 and updates the water quality information required by law. Various programs in the Natural Resources Administration contributed to this report including the Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Watershed Protection Division. Questions or comments regarding this report or requests for copies should be forwarded to the address below. The District of Columbia Government District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division 51 N St., NE Washington, D.C. 20002-3323 Attention: N. Shulterbrandt ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DC Flood Insurance Study
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments Received
    PARKS & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (DRAFT RELEASE) LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Notes on List of Comments: ⁃ This document lists all comments received on the Draft 2018 Parks & Open Space Element update during the public comment period. ⁃ Comments are listed in the following order o Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions o Comments from Local & Regional Agencies o Comments from Interest Groups o Comments from Interested Individuals Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. IN REPLY REFER TO: Washington, D.C. 20242 May 14, 2018 Ms. Surina Singh National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500N Washington, DC 20004 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Open Space Element Comments Dear Ms. Singh: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft update of the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The National Park Service (NPS) understands that the Element establishes policies to protect and enhance the many federal parks and open spaces within the National Capital Region and that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) uses these policies to guide agency actions, including review of projects and preparation of long-range plans. Preservation and management of parks and open space are key to the NPS mission. The National Capital Region of the NPS consists of 40 park units and encompasses approximately 63,000 acres within the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Our region includes a wide variety of park spaces that range from urban sites, such as the National Mall with all its monuments and Rock Creek Park to vast natural sites like Prince William Forest Park as well as a number of cultural sites like Antietam National Battlefield and Manassas National Battlefield Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 'CHEMICAL COCKTAILS' of TRACE METALS USING SENSORS in URBAN STREAMS Carol Mo
    ABSTRACT Title of thesis: TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS Carol Morel, Masters of Geology, 2020 Thesis directed by: Professor Sujay Kaushal Department of Geology Understanding transport mechanisms and temporal patterns in metals concentrations and fluxes in urban streams are important for developing best management practices and restoration strategies to improve water quality. In some cases, in situ sensors can be used to estimate unknown concentrations and fluxes of trace metals or to interpolate between sampling events. Continuous sensor data from the United States Geological Survey were analyzed to determine statistically significant relationships between lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and mercury with turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and discharge for the Hickey Run, Watts Branch, and Rock Creek watersheds in the Washington, D.C. region. At Rock Creek, there were significant negative linear relationships between Hg and Pb and specific conductance (p<0.05). Watershed monitoring approaches using continuous sensor data have the potential to characterize the frequency, magnitude, and composition of pulses in concentrations and loads of trace metals, which could improve management and restoration of urban streams. TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS by Carol Jisnely Morel Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Geology 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Sujay Kaushal, Chair Dr. Kenneth Belt Dr. Shuiwang Duan Professor Karen Prestegaard Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without data collection and sharing by the USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for VARIOUS TMDLS in MARYLAND October 9, 2020
    IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND October 9, 2020 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND F7. Gwynns Falls Watershed ............................................ 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS F8. Jones Falls Watershed ............................................... 85 F9. Liberty Reservoir Watershed...................................... 94 Table of Contents ............................................................................... i F10. Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs Watersheds .. 102 Implementation Plan for Various TMDLS in Maryland .................... 1 F11. Lower Monocacy River Watershed ........................... 116 A. Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses ....................... 1 F12. Patuxent River Lower Watershed ............................. 125 B. Watershed Assessment Coordination ...................................... 3 F13. Magothy River Watershed ........................................ 134 C. Visual Inspections Targeting MDOT SHA ROW ....................... 4 F14. Mattawoman Creek Watershed ................................. 141 D. Benchmarks and Detailed Costs .............................................. 5 F15. Piscataway Creek Watershed ................................... 150 E. Pollution Reduction Strategies ................................................. 7 F16. Rock Creek Watershed ............................................. 158 E.1. MDOT SHA TMDL Responsibilities .............................. 7 F17. Triadelphia
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV – MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans
    Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION IMPERVIOUS RESTORATION AND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION COORDINATED TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2010a; MDE, 2011a). The allocated trash baseline for MDOT SHA is to IV. MDOT SHA WATERSHED be reduced by 100 percent (this does not mean that trash within the watershed will be reduced to zero). The allocation is divided into TMDL IMPLEMENTATION separate requirements for each County. PLANS PCBs are to be reduced in certain subwatersheds of the Anacostia River watershed. The Anacostia River Northeast Branch subwatershed requires a 98.6 percent reduction and the Anacostia River Northwest A. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED Branch subwatershed requires a 98.1% reduction. The Anacostia River Tidal subwatershed requires a 99.9% reduction. A.1. Watershed Description A.3. MDOT SHA Visual Inventory of ROW The Anacostia River watershed encompasses 145 square miles across both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland and an The MS4 permit requires MDOT SHA perform visual assessments. additional 31 square miles in Washington, DC. The watershed Part III, Coordinated TMDL Implementation Plan describes the terminates in Washington, D.C. where the Anacostia River flows into MDOT SHA visual assessment process. For each BMP type, the Potomac River, which ultimately conveys water to the Chesapeake implementation teams have performed preliminary evaluations for each Bay. The watershed is divided into 15 subwatersheds: Briers Mill Run, grid and/or major state route corridor within the watershed as part of Fort Dupont Tributary, Hickey Run, Indian Creek, Little Paint Branch, desktop and field evaluations.
    [Show full text]
  • DC Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 0 2 0 Table of Contents Dear Friends of the River
    WAter DC Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 0 2 0 Table of Contents Dear Friends of the River, On behalf of Anacostia Riverkeeper, I am pleased to share with you our first Annual DC Citizen Science Volunteer Water Quality Report on Bacteria in District Waters. This report focuses on 2020 water quality results from all three District watersheds: the Anacostia River, Potomac River, and Rock Creek. The water quality data we collected is critical for understanding the health of the Anacostia River and District waters; as it serves as a gauge for safe recreation potential as well as a continuing assessment of efforts in the Methodology District of Columbia to improve the overall health of 7 our streams and waterways. As a volunteer program, we are dependent on those who offer time out of their daily schedule to work 8 Anacostia River with us and care for the water quality. With extreme gratitude, we would like to thank all our volunteers and staff for the dedication, professionalism, and enthusiasm to execute this program and to provide high quality data to the public. Additionally, support 10 Potomac River from our partner organizations was crucial to running this program, so we would like to extend an additional thanks to staff at Audubon Naturalist Society, Potomac Riverkeeper, and Rock Creek 12 Rock Creek Conservancy. We hope you find this annual report a good guide to learning more about our local DC waterways. We believe that clean water is a benefit everyone should experience, one that starts with consistent and 14 Discussion publicly available water quality data.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, December 13, 2017 Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 115 stations that are part of the Non-tidal monitoring network (NTN) (Moyer and others, 2017). Constituent loads are calculated with at least five years of monitoring data and trends are reported after at least ten years of data collection. Data collection began in 1985 at nine of these locations, referred to as River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, where loads are delivered directly to tidal waters. These results are used to help assess efforts to decrease nutrient and sediment loads being delivered to the bay. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Web site (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/) that provides State, Federal, and local partners, as well as the general public, ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Results from two time periods are reported in this summary: a long-term time period (1985- 2016), and short-term time period (2007-2016). All annual results are based on a water year which extends from October 1 to September 30. The results are summarized for 1. loads delivered directly to the tidal waters for the most recent year (Water Year 2016); specifically, the combined load from the nine River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Selection and Justification Technical Memorandum
    Technical Memorandum Model Selection and Justification Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1 2. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................1 3. Technical Approach................................................................................................................................ 2 4. Results and Discussion .........................................................................................................................15 Analysis References .................................................................................................................................................. …17 Attachments .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Comprehensive Baseline Comprehensive – , 2014 , December 22 December Consolidated TMDL Implementation Plan Implementation TMDL Consolidated Technical Memorandum: Model Selection and Justification List of Tables Table 1: Modeling Approach used in Mainstem Waterbodies for MS4 Areas ............................................... 4 Table 2: Modeling Approach used in Tributary Waterbodies for MS4 Areas ................................................ 4 Table 3: Modeling Approach used in Other Waterbodies for MS4 Areas .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Please Provide Feedback Please Support the Scholarworks@UMBC Repository by Emailing [email protected] and Telling Us W
    This work is on a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Access to this work was provided by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) ScholarWorks@UMBC digital repository on the Maryland Shared Open Access (MD-SOAR) platform. Please provide feedback Please support the ScholarWorks@UMBC repository by emailing [email protected] and telling us what having access to this work means to you and why it’s important to you. Thank you. water Article Developing Sensor Proxies for “Chemical Cocktails” of Trace Metals in Urban Streams Carol J. Morel 1,*, Sujay S. Kaushal 1, Maggie L. Tan 1 and Kenneth T. Belt 2 1 Department of Geology & Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center—College Park, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA; [email protected] (S.S.K.); [email protected] (M.L.T.) 2 Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland—Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 8 August 2020; Accepted: 29 September 2020; Published: 14 October 2020 Abstract: Understanding transport mechanisms and temporal patterns in the context of metal concentrations in urban streams is important for developing best management practices and restoration strategies to improve water quality. In some cases, in-situ sensors can be used to estimate unknown concentrations of trace metals or to interpolate between sampling events. Continuous sensor data from the United States Geological Survey were analyzed to determine statistically significant relationships between lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, and mercury with turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and discharge for the Hickey Run, Watts Branch, and Rock Creek watersheds in the Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream Restoration Projects
    Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream Restoration Projects Joe Berg, Josh Burch, Deb Cappuccitti, Solange Filoso, Lisa Fraley-McNeal, Dave Goerman, Natalie Hardman, Sujay Kaushal, Dan Medina, Matt Meyers, Bob Kerr, Steve Stewart, Bettina Sullivan, Robert Walter and Julie Winters Accepted by Urban Stormwater Work Group: February 19, 2013 Approved by Watershed Technical Work Group: April 5, 2013 Final Approval by Water Quality Goal Implementation Team: May 13, 2013 Test-Drive Revisions Approved by the Expert Panel: January 17, 2014 Prepared by: Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network and Bill Stack, Center for Watershed Protection Table of Contents Summary of Panel Recommendations ................................................................................................4 Section 1: Charge and Membership of the Expert Panel ......................................................................6 Section 2: Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay .........................................................................8 Section 2.1 Urbanization, Stream Quality and Restoration ...................................................................... 8 Section 2.2 Stream Restoration Definitions .............................................................................................. 9 Section 2.3 Derivation of the Original Chesapeake Bay Program-Approved Rate for Urban Stream Restoration .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]