DOCSLIB.ORG

2017-2020 Implementation Reporting a Snapshot of Partner Efforts to Protect and Enhance the Willamette River for People and Wildlife

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017-2020 Implementation Reporting a Snapshot of Partner Efforts to Protect and Enhance the Willamette River for People and Wildlife Willamette Anchor Habitat Working Group Progress Update 2017-2020 Implementation Reporting A snapshot of partner efforts to protect and enhance the Willamette River for people and wildlife. Anchor Habitats Where Progress Towards 2022 Targets (%) Work is Underway 1 Columbia River Bottomlands Ecological Target Total Floodplain Acres 2,602 acres Impacted by Actions 336.76 1,468.34 493.1 Control Trees and Shrubs Floodplain Aquatic Newly Planted Reconnected Invasive Plants 1 Pudding - Molalla 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Confluence 2022 Target 1 Grand Island 2 Outreach Targets Windsor 3 Island Minto Island Expert audiences reached through 200 people meetings, workshops, field tours 2 Youth engaged in 1,500 people educational events Luckiamute - Santiam - Willamette Confluence Public attendees at 6,000 people 11 meetings and tours Bowers Rock - Truax Island Broader 10,000 people media reach 6 Long Tom - Willamette Confluence 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 240% 2022 1 Target McKenzie - Willamette Confluence 5 Middle Fork - Coast Fork Confluence In 2020… 40 46 Private Landowners Engaged Public Properties Enhanced in Restoration Actions by Restoration Actions 2019-2020 Project Performance Not Started Ongoing Complete NA FUNDING OUTREACH OUTREACH DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PLANTING MAINTENANCE EXPECTED COMPLETION BPA MMT OWEB Albany Oxbows (CWC) 2022 • Alternatives for Ludwigia control (BSWCD) 2023 • Bowers Rock Phase 1 Restoration 2024 • • • Collins Bay 2023 Darrow Rocks Landing Riparian and Wetland Restoration 2020 Gail Achterman Floodplain Enhancement 2026 • Glassbar Island Floodplain Reforestation 2022 • Green Island Floodplain (TA grant) 2021 • • Half Moon Bend Landing Floodplain Revegetation 2020 2020 Harkens Lake Phases 1-5 2022 Horseshoe Lake Phase 1 2019 • Horseshoe Lake Phase 2 2023 • Little Willamette 2019 • Lower Coast Fork - Turtle Flats Floodplain Restoration 2025 • Lower Coast Fork Willamette Hydrologic Analysis and Design Project 2021 • Lower Kiger Side Channel 2020 • Luckiamute State Natural Area Floodplain Reconnection & Reveg 2025 • • • Luckiamute State Natural Area Enhancement Phases 1-3 2025 • • • Minto Brown Island Floodplain Forest Restoration 2025 • Minto-Brown Island Aquatic Habitat Enhancement 2024 • • Mission Bottom Riparian and Floodplain Restoration 2025 Molalla Confluence Floodplain Restoration 2026 • • My Brothers’ Farm 2020 • • Sam Daws Landing Floodplain and Side Channel Restoration n/a • • • Sam Daws Landing Floodplain Revegetation 2023 • Scappoose Creek Restoration 2022 • • Snag Boat Bend Floodplain and Side Channel Restoration 2024 Snag Boat Bend Floodplain Revegetation 2025 • Snag Boat Bend Porter Dam Revetment Restoration 2027 • Truax Island 2024 • Wapato Cove n/a • Willamette Confluence Restoration Project 2021 • • • Willamette Mission Floodplain Reforestation 2026 • • • Primary Actions Projects Advanced in 2017-2020 Increase and enhance Plant riparian vegetation Increase native fish access Enhance former gravel pits floodplain plant along sloughs and side to floodplains by modifying and alleviate stranding by communities through channels to provide shade floodplain topography to re-connecting shallow pits, planting and invasive and support fish rearing increase the extent and regrading pond boundaries species control: 23 Projects habitat: 16 Projects duration of floodplain and filling ponds: 5 projects inundation: 5 Projects Treat invasive aquatic Construct lateral channels Remove revetments and weeds that degrade water or sloughs in areas with a levees in reaches likely quality and biodiversity: high likelihood of hyporheic to experience channel 18 Projects flow: 4 projects changes: 4 projects The Effects of the Pandemic Usual tours and activities decreased because of public Contractors and practitioners faced staffing challenges access to project sites primarily in the Middle Fork-Coast because of the pandemic and the ongoing threat of Fork Confluence Anchor Habitat zone, effecting engagement wildfires. In the highly visible area of the Minto-Brown at the Willamette Confluence Restoration Project Island Aquatic Habitat Enhancement site in Salem, OR, and My Brothers’ Farm. the crews overcame staffing obstacles and were able to tackle two projects in this Anchor Habitat. Adaptive Management in the Field The Luckiamute State Natural At the Minto-Brown Island The Molalla River Watch removed Area Floodplain Reconnection and Floodplain Forest Restoration an old rip-rap from the middle of Reforestation project implemented site, the City of Salem is working the river that used to be on the bank the floodplain reconnection piece, to keep visitors on trail and off of to allow for increased flow at the expanding the area and duration of the conservation area. They are Molalla Confluence Floodplain inundation by enhancing connection purposefully leaving blackberry Restoration site. points to the lower Luckiamute River bushes along the boundary to and regrading swales. Volunteers spread avoid the creation of new paths and native grass seed in disturbed areas and entries into the protected zone. contractors installed 9,000 live cuttings. Over 55,000 native bare root trees and shrubs were installed in January 2021. Data Source:Data ESRI, 2019; CEG Data, Field 2019 Scale: 1 inch = 0.05 miles Date: 8/13/2019 Priority Zones) (First- Acre Planting Per and Shrub Estimated Tree Legend Desired Future Conditions Acres) Management Units (123.18 Acres) Boundary (290.8 GAWA (13.86 Acres) Riparian Wapato-Scrub-Shrub Shrubs (4.31 Acres) and low Wetland Emergent Acres) (10.65 Wetland Forested (23.55 Acres) Willow-Spirea-Dogwood (24.71 Acres) Cottonwood Floodplain Forest (40.41 Acres) Forest Floodplain Hardwood Mixed (1.69 Acres) Oak Woodland Acres) (4 Savannah/Prairie Oak Anchor Habitat Highlights 2000 1600 1200 1000 300 0 300 600 900 1,200 150 F G E A Feet C Gail Achterman Wildlife Area D Desired Future Conditions Future Desired M L Z:\GIS\215. Z:\GIS\215. Achterman\101 Gail maps\DFC_letter_10_1.mxd B K H N J I I ! Willamette Mission Harkens Lake, Horseshoe Gail Achterman State Park Lake and Little Willamette Wildlife Area Restoration of Willamette Mission is The work at Harkens Lake, Horseshoe Formerly recognized as Hayden important because land conversion Lake and Little Willamette by the Island, the Gail Achterman Wildlife and development in the early 20th Greenbelt Land Trust created over Area (GAWA) is one of the largest and century cleared native vegetation and 800 acres of floodplain habitat on most intact riparian forests remaining opened the site to noxious weeds, the Willamette River on former between the Willamette River’s which inhibit natural regeneration of agricultural land. The projects have confluence with the Santiam River these important forests. Restoration is successfully reconnected the historic and Willamette Mission State Park. improving habitat complexity, water floodplain to the Willamette River, The vision for preservation of this site quality through flood interaction thus creating a nursery for juvenile is credited to the late Gail Achterman, with the restored forest, and reducing fish while simultaneously reducing a conservation leader, lawyer and habitat fragmentation. Benefit downstream flooding on populated policy expert who inspired many will accrue to ESA listed Chinook areas. Nearly 500,000 trees and to preserve natural resources and steelhead and a multitude of shrubs have been planted in order throughout Oregon. important and at-risk wildlife species to shade the river, sequester carbon, that occupy the park. There were 33 and provide refuge for countless newly planted acres in 2020. species of wildlife. Bowers Rock My Brothers’ Farm Albany Oxbows The efforts at Bowers Rock aim to A diverse selection of native trees The Calapooia Watershed Council is recapture the signature braided and shrubs were planted to increase currently working with River Design river that the Willamette River once plant diversity at My Brothers’ Farm. Group to assess restoration actions held. The primary actions include, Re-establishing a native riparian that could include log placements, a connection of a 40-acre gravel pit buffer and fencing off the waterways turtle nesting/basking structures, during winter flows, the removal and in this lower reach of the Coast Fork connection augmentation and replacement of culverts that restrict Willamette will benefit fish and wildlife native vegetation planting at the egress of water after high water habitat and improve water quality. Albany Oxbows. events, and the treatment of invasive The riparian buffer and fencing will Ludwigia in the area. shade the water in the river and filter out fine sediments and nutrients in order to foster a more resilient habitat in the face of climate change. Other Achievements: Mission Lake is now accessible due to low Ludwigia densities in the Willamette Mission State Park. Reflections from the Coordinator Taylor Larson is the coordinator for the AHWG, the Working Lands Project Manager at the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council and a Farmer at My Brothers’ Farm Stewarding a river as dynamic and complex as the “ Willamette is a challenging task. Luckily for all of us that live here, we have a community of habitat restoration professionals dedicated to improving the health of our river for generations to come. Coordination and collaboration at a watershed scale is critical to the success of ecosystems that can support thriving populations of fish, wildlife and humans inhabitants. The Willamette Anchor Habitat Working Group is a vital forum for our collective efforts to live in harmony with this place we call home.” Thanks to our long term funders: Usual tours and activities decreased because of public access to project sites primarily in the Middle Fork-Coast Fork Confluence Anchor Habitat zone, effecting engagement at the Willamette Confluence Restoration Project and My Brothers’ Farm. For more info or questions about this report, contact: Kathleen Guillozet [email protected] For more info about the AHWG, please contact: Taylor Larson [email protected] Thanks to Kira Waldman for diligence in aggregating and confirming information in this report. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stream Restoration, a Natural Channel Design
    Stream Restoration Prep8AICI by the North Carolina Stream Restonltlon Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant INC STATE UNIVERSITY I North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation. Contents Introduction to Fluvial Processes 1 Stream Assessment and Survey Procedures 2 Rosgen Stream-Classification Systems/ Channel Assessment and Validation Procedures 3 Bankfull Verification and Gage Station Analyses 4 Priority Options for Restoring Incised Streams 5 Reference Reach Survey 6 Design Procedures 7 Structures 8 Vegetation Stabilization and Riparian-Buffer Re-establishment 9 Erosion and Sediment-Control Plan 10 Flood Studies 11 Restoration Evaluation and Monitoring 12 References and Resources 13 Appendices Preface Streams and rivers serve many purposes, including water supply, The authors would like to thank the following people for reviewing wildlife habitat, energy generation, transportation and recreation. the document: A stream is a dynamic, complex system that includes not only Micky Clemmons the active channel but also the floodplain and the vegetation Rockie English, Ph.D. along its edges. A natural stream system remains stable while Chris Estes transporting a wide range of flows and sediment produced in its Angela Jessup, P.E. watershed, maintaining a state of "dynamic equilibrium." When Joseph Mickey changes to the channel, floodplain, vegetation, flow or sediment David Penrose supply significantly affect this equilibrium, the stream may Todd St. John become unstable and start adjusting toward a new equilibrium state.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Outcomes of Urban Floodplain Restoration
    ECONOMIC OUTCOMES OF URBAN FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION IMPLICATIONS FOR PUGET SOUND JUNE 2020 PREPARED BY BRANDON PARSONS American Rivers LAURA MARSHALL ECONorthwest MARK BUCKLEY ECONorthwest Lower Snoqualmie Valley near Duvall,WA, JONATHON LOOS December 9, 2015 fl ood Dartmouth College Source: King County, WA A Acknowledgments For over 40 years ECONorthwest has helped its clients make sound decisions based on rigorous economic, planning, and fi nancial analysis. For more information about ECONorthwest: www.econw.com. ECONorthwest prepared this report for American Rivers. We received substantial assistance and contributions to the report from Brandon Parsons, PLA with American Rivers, Jonathon Loos (Ph.D. Candidate, Dartmouth College), as well as Spencer Easton and Susan O’Neil with Environmental Science Associates. Other fi rms, agencies, and staff contributed to other research that this report relied on. Signifi cant input and review was provided by the steering committee members, who include: • Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 Salmon Recovery Manager • Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz, WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery • Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Habitat Projects Coordinator Manager • Matt Goehring, WRIA 9 Planning and Technical • Weston Brinkley, Principal, Street Sounds Ecology Coordinator • Tracy Stanton, Executive Director, The Emerald Alliance We specifi cally want to acknowledge the former Chair of the WRIA 9 Management Committee and Tukwila City Council Member - Dennis Robertson for his years of service. Dennis has devoted himself to restoring the Green-Duwamish River to benefi t the salmon and people that rely on it. Dennis is a strong proponent of healthy rivers that support healthy communities and tirelessly works to improve the environment for future generations which helped inspire this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Johnson Creek Restoration Project Effectiveness Monitoring
    Bureau of Environmental Services • City of Portland Johnson Creek Restoration Projects Effectiveness Monitoring Reporting on data collected from 1997 through 2010 DECEMBER 2012 Dan Saltzman, Commissioner Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner • Dean Marriott, Director Acknowledgements Implementation of the effectiveness monitoring program for restoration projects in the Johnson Creek Watershed has drawn on the expertise, support, and dedication of a number of individuals. We thank them for making this report possible. City of Portland, Environmental Services Staff Jennifer Antak, Johnson Creek Effectiveness Monitoring Program Lead Sean Bistoff Trevor Diemer Mathew Dorfman Steven Kass Theophilus Malone Chris Prescott Gregory Savage Wendy Sletten Maggie Skenderian Ali Young Supporting Organizations and Consultants Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Salmon River Engineering ‐ Janet Corsale, PE CPESC Portland State University ‐ Denisse Fisher Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Johnson Creek Overview ...................................................................................................1 Project Effectiveness Monitoring Program....................................................................12 Overview ........................................................................................................................12 Monitoring Methods.....................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment of the South River Watershed, MA
    Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment of the South River Watershed, MA Prepared for Franklin Regional Council of Governments Greenfield, MA South River Prepared by John Field Field Geology Services Farmington, ME February 2013 South River geomorphic assessment - February 2013 Page 2 of 108 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 8 2.0 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 8 2.1 Reach and segment delineation ................................................................................. 9 2.2 Review of existing studies ...................................................................................... 10 2.3 Watershed characterization ..................................................................................... 11 2.4 Historical aerial photographs and topographic maps .............................................. 12 2.5 Mapping of channel features ................................................................................... 13 2.5a Mill dams and impoundment sediments ............................................................ 14 2.5b Bar deposition ................................................................................................... 15 2.5c Bank erosion, mass wasting, and bank armoring ............................................. 15 2.5c Wood
    [Show full text]
  • A Geomorphic Monitoring and Adaptive Assessment Framework to Assess the Effect of Lowland Floodplain River Restoration on Channel–Floodplain Sediment Continuity
    RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS River Res. Applic. (in press) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/rra.911 A GEOMORPHIC MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK TO ASSESS THE EFFECT OF LOWLAND FLOODPLAIN RIVER RESTORATION ON CHANNEL–FLOODPLAIN SEDIMENT CONTINUITY J. L. FLORSHEIM,a* J. F. MOUNTa and C. R. CONSTANTINEb a Geology Department and Center for Integrated Watershed Science and Management, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Now at Department of Geological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA ABSTRACT The state of the science of lowland river floodplain restoration reflects the relatively new and experimental nature of large river floodplain rehabilitation efforts. Based on results of a case study of floodplain restoration at the lowland Cosumnes River, California, we present a geomorphic monitoring and adaptive assessment framework that addresses the need to inform and utilize scientific knowledge in lowland floodplain river restoration activities. Highlighting hydrogeomorphic processes that lead to habitat creation, we identify a discharge threshold for connectivity and sediment transfer from the channel to the floodplain and integrate discharge magnitude and duration to quantify a threshold to aid determination of when geomorphic monitoring is warranted. Using floodplain sand deposition volume in splay complexes as one indicator of dynamic floodplain habitat, we develop a model to aid prediction of the sand deposition volume as an assessment tool to use to analyze future monitoring data. Because geomorphic processes that form the physical structure of a habitat are dynamic, and because the most successful restoration projects accommodate this fundamental characteristic of ecosystems, monitoring designs must both identify trends and be adapted iteratively so that relevant features continue to be measured.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area
    Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area A report to: The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento River Project1 By: Eric M. Ginney2 Bidwell Environmental Institute, California State University, Chico December 2001. 1Please direct correspondence to: TNC, Sac. River Project Attn: D. Peterson 505 Main Street, Chico CA 95928 [email protected] 2Bidwell Environmental Institute CSU, Chico, Chico, CA 95929-0555 [email protected] Cover: An abstract view of the Sacramento River, looking upstream. Big Chico Creek enters from the east, in the lower portion of the image. Photograph and image manipulation by the author. Table of Contents Section I Study Purpose, Methods, and Objectives 1 Purpose 1 Methods and Objectives 2 Section II Tributary Confluences: Restoration 3 Opportunities Waiting to Happen Ecological Importance of Tributary Confluences and 3 Adjacent Floodplain Importance of Sacramento River Confluence Areas in 5 Collaborative Restoration Efforts Conservation by Design 7 Site-Specific Planning 8 Section III Critical Habitat Identification and Analysis 10 of Physical Processes Location and Description of Study Area 10 Landscape Level 10 Historic Conditions of Study Area and Changes 10 Through Time Current Conditions and Identification of Critical Habitat 16 Hydrologic Data 16 Soils 17 Hydro-geomorphic Processes 17 Site-Level Description: Singh Orchard Parcel 18 On-The-Ground Observations: Singh Parcel 19 Critical Habitat for Species of Concern
    [Show full text]
  • Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project
    B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment December 2014 DOE/EA-1974 This page left intentionally blank � Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i � Tables v � Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... vi � Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... vi � Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 � Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................................. 1-1 � 1.1 Need for Action .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 ­ 1.2 Purposes ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3 ­ 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1-4 ­ 1.3.1 Statutory Context .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Restoration
    Prepared By: Tom Parker Geum Environmental Consulting, Inc. Topics covered: Definition of riparian and floodplain restoration Floodplain attributes as a basis for developing criteria for restoration designs Evolution of floodplain restoration design approach Floodplain restoration planning for the Upper Clark Fork River—example of design criteria Riparian and floodplain restoration – Creating conditions that will sustain natural processes and support floodplain functions The following floodplains attributes reflect how we think about natural processes and floodplain functions to support designing floodplain restoration projects Disturbance regime Hydrologic connectivity Nutrient transport and storage Substrate Topographic diversity Biological interactions Light regime Frequent, low-intensity disturbances such as livestock grazing, haying, and weed control prevent plant communities from progressing to later successional stages Initially, we were designing restoration treatments to address the existing static condition based on a modified disturbance regime Our response was to address the local symptoms of this modified disturbance regime: restore organic matter, limit weed competition and facilitate establishing native woody riparian vegetation in the floodplain no modification of topography or substrate Experimental treatments addressed soil moisture, temperature, and competition from other plants Total Survival by Species for Each Treatment (N=794) 100% 80% 60% BP CM 40% CO MO 20% 0% BP = Black plastic, woven polyethylene
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Forces in a Floodplain Restoration Project: Interaction Between Surface Water, Groundwater and Morphodynamic Processes During an Ecological Flooding
    146 Erosion and Sediment Yields in the Changing Environment (Proceedings of a symposium held at the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS-Chengdu, China, 11–15 October 2012) (IAHS Publ. 356, 2012). Driving forces in a floodplain restoration project: interaction between surface water, groundwater and morphodynamic processes during an ecological flooding PETER FISCHER1, FLORIAN HAAS1,2 & BERND CYFFKA1,2 1 Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Applied Physical Geography; 85072 Eichstaett, Germany [email protected] 2 Floodplain Institute Neuburg, Germany Abstract Erosion, transport and deposition of sediment play a major role in restoration projects and sustainable river management. The main driving variables, water and sediment dynamics resurrect the natural processes in “riverscapes” and floodplains. After the first flooding of a new river course in the flood- plain along the River Danube between Neuburg and Ingolstadt (Germany) in 2010 (up to 5 m3/sec), new morphological activity started instantly. However, intensive erosion rates were measured during the first two controlled ecological flood events with water discharges of 10 m3 s-1 and 20 m3 s-1. The relatively new river banks are prone to lateral erosion and during bankfull stages new undercut slopes have developed. To understand the processes in this new river channel, its development is being recorded by a package of methods such as terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) measurements. Key words river restoration; floodplain; ground-based LiDAR; hydromorphology; monitoring INTRODUCTION Varying water levels and changing discharges with different flow conditions and directions are characteristic of floodplains. All these hydrological conditions directly influence the morphological processes in rivers, but also they have an effect on the riverine landscapes and their biocenoses.
    [Show full text]
  • Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project (Draft
    Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment August 2020 DOE/EA-2135 This page left blank intentionally Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms vi Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1-3 Public Scoping and Key Issues ................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Main-Channel Realignment and Restoration ............................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Improve Secondary Channel and Floodplain Interactions ......................................... 2-2 2.1.2.1 Install Habitat-Forming In-Stream Large-Wood Structures ...................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Wetland Creation ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.4 Riparian and Upland Vegetation Planting ................................................................. 2-3 2.1.5 Temporary Staging Areas, Access Roads, and Water Crossings ................................ 2-4 2.1.6 New Groundwater Well and Removal of Existing Infrastructure ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Restoration and Storm Water Management: Guidance and Case Study
    Floodplain Restoration and Storm Water Management: Guidance and Case Study Prepared by: Chagrin River Watershed Partners, Inc. Biohabitats P.O. Box 229 2026 Murray Hill Road, Room 107 Willoughby, Ohio 44094 Cleveland, OH 44106 (440) 975-3870 216.921.4430 (440) 975-3865 (fax) 216.751.2087 (fax) www.biohabitats.com www.crwp.org Floodplain Restoration and Storm Water Management: Guidance and Case Study Page 2 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Chagrin River Watershed Partners, Inc. (CRWP) under award LEPF 05 -12 from the Lake Erie Protection Fund, with funding made possible by the sale of the Lake Erie Number Plates. The statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission. Additional support for this report was provided by the Members of CRWP through their annual Member dues. CRWP is a non-profit technical organization formed by the townships, villages, cities, counties, and park districts of the Chagrin watershed to develop and implement innovative solutions to address current, and minimize new, flooding, erosion, and water quality costs and to control the increasing infrastructure costs associated with urban/suburban development. CRWP provides Members with advice and assistance on zoning and subdivision codes, implementation of these codes, development plan review, and other best practice implementation at Member direction. Cover Photographs. Top Left: Floodplain Restoration in Germany (Photo by: Unknown from internet website)
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Consensus Recommendations to Improve Protocols 2 and 3 For
    FINAL Approved by WQGIT: October 26, 2020 Consensus Recommendations to Improve Protocols 2 and 3 for Defining Stream Restoration Pollutant Removal Credits Photo Courtesy: Joe Berg Drew Altland, Chris Becraft, Joe Berg, Ted Brown, Josh Burch, Denise Clearwater, Jason Coleman, Sean Crawford, Barbara Doll, Jens Geratz, Jeremy Hanson, Jeff Hartranft, John Hottenstein, Sujay Kaushal, Scott Lowe, Paul Mayer, Greg Noe, Ward Oberholzer, Art Parola, Durelle Scott, Bill Stack, Joe Sweeney, and Jeff White October 27, 2020 Prepared by: David Wood and Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network Recommendations to Improve the Floodplain Restoration Protocols in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Executive Summary Two groups of more than 25 stream experts have worked over the last year on how to better apply protocols 2 and 3 to integrated stream and floodplain restoration projects (FR) (Section 1). Floodplain restoration can be achieved using two basic techniques to reconnect incised streams to their floodplains. The first approach, termed legacy sediment removal (FR- LSR), removes sediments to lower the floodplain surfaces, increasing out-of-bank flow and re-establishing the hyporheic exchange zone by reconnecting the floodplain with the hyporheic aquifer. The second approach, known as raising the stream bed (RSB), involves several techniques to raise the elevation of an incised stream channel and shallow groundwater, thereby increasing the volume of runoff diverted into the floodplain for treatment. These two approaches are often used in combination. The group came to consensus on the key terms, definitions and qualifying conditions for both floodplain restoration design approaches (Section 3). The groups reviewed the considerable research conducted over the last decade on the sediment and nutrient dynamics associated with FR projects (Section 4) and concluded that: Denitrification can be enhanced when the hyporheic exchange zone is expanded, floodplains are connected to hyporheic aquifers and runoff, and roots and other organic matter provide a carbon source.
    [Show full text]