Stream Restoration Revisited

1 Welcome to the Webcast

To Answer a Poll Question ◦ Simply select the preferred option. For those viewing this session alongside several colleagues, respond in a manner that represents your organization as a whole. We ARE Recording this Session ◦ All comments and questions will be recorded and included in the archives. We will notify you as soon as the recording and related resources are loaded on the web. We Appreciate Your Feedback ◦ Fill out our evaluations – our funders need to hear it!

2 The Latest from CSN!

➢ Annual CSN Network Survey

➢ Designing Effective Outreach Programs to Reduce Pet Waste

➢ User’s Guide to Urban BMPs in the Bay: MOST Course

➢ Floating Treatment Wetlands Fact Sheet

www.chesapeakestormwater.net 3 Upcoming Webcasts

Thursday, September 28th Effective Program Showcase: RiverSmart Program

Thursday, October 12th: Enhanced Roadside Ditch Management

4 Poll Question #1

Tell us a little about yourselves…who are you representing today?

▪ Local government ▪ Private sector ▪ Regulatory agency ▪ Non-profit ▪ Academia ▪ Other…tell us in the chat box

5 Poll Question #2

Have you designed a project in the past 3 years?

▪ Yes ▪ No ▪ I’m trying to repress that memory

6 Poll Question #3

If so, did you use any of the stream restoration protocols to calculate your reduction credit?

▪ Protocol 1 ▪ Protocol 2 ▪ Protocol 3 ▪ Some combination of the 3 ▪ Did not use the protocols

7 Today’s Speakers

Bill Stack Lisa Fraley-McNeal Josh Running Center for Watershed Protection Center for Watershed Protection Stantec [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Alex Foraste Kip Mumow Stantec Ecosystem Services 8 [email protected] [email protected] Today’s Agenda

▪ Stream Restoration Protocols: A Refresher

▪ Frequently Asked Questions

▪ Prevented Sediment Evaluation and Monitoring

▪ Best Practices for Applying the Protocols

9 Stream Restoration Protocols

Stream Restoration Webcast

Bill Stack and Lisa Fraley-McNeal

September 14, 2017 Stream Restoration Expert Panel Report

Stream Restoration Protocol Revisions

 WQGIT approved initial Protocols on May 13th 2013

 USWG approved revisions on January 17th 2014

 WTWG approved revisions on August 28th 2014

 WQGIT approved revisions on September 8th 2014

Note that a lot of people are inadvertently using the August 2014 version which has an older version of the default rates. Review of the Old Rate compared to New

Edge-of-Stream 2011 Interim Approved Removal Rates per Linear Foot of Qualifying Stream Restoration (lb/ft/yr) Source TN TP TSS* Initial CBP rate based 0.02 0.0035 2.55 on Spring Branch 44.88 non-coastal plain Revised Default Rate 0.075 0.068 15.13 coastal plain Derived from six stream restoration monitoring studies: Spring Branch, Stony Run, Powder Mill Run, Moore's Run, Beaver Run, and Beaver Dam Creek located in and *To convert edge of field values to edge of stream values, a sediment delivery ration (SDR) was applied to TSS. The SDR is 0.181 for non-coastal plain streams and 0.061 for coastal plain streams. Additional information about the sediment delivery ratio is provided in Section 2.5 and Appendix B.

OLD CBP TP reduction from 1,000 ft. Load from 2 acres of impervious cover of stream restoration (used by MDE) = NEW CBP TP reduction from 1,000 ft. Load from 40 acres of stream restoration of impervious cover Default Rate Compared to Literature Values

100,000 Edge-of-Field Erosion Rate (lb/ft/yr)

10,000

Erosion Rate Erosion 1,000 (lb/ft/yr)

100 Streambank

10

1 Qualifying Conditions

 Stream restoration projects that are primarily designed to protect public infrastructure by bank armoring or rip rap do not qualify for a credit.

 The urban stream reach must be greater than 100 feet in length.

 The project must utilize a comprehensive approach to stream restoration design, involving the channel and banks.

 Stream restoration project must provide functional lift and be part of a comprehensive watershed management plan.

 No removal credit will be granted for any project that is built to offset, compensate, or otherwise mitigate for an impact to a stream or waterway elsewhere in the watershed. Environmental Concerns

 Stream restoration should not be implemented for the sole purpose of nutrient or sediment reduction.

 Stream restoration should be directed to areas of more severe stream impairment, and the use and design of a proposed project should also consider the level of degradation, the restoration needs of the stream, and the potential functional uplift.

 Before credits are granted, stream restoration projects will need to meet post-construction monitoring requirements, document successful vegetative establishment, and conduct initial project maintenance.

 A qualifying project must demonstrate that it will maintain or expand riparian vegetation in the stream corridor, and compensate for any project-related tree losses in project work areas.

 All qualifying projects must have a designated authority responsible for development of a project maintenance program that includes routine and long-term maintenance. What is Stream Restoration?

Refers to any NCD, RSC, LSR or other restoration project that meets the qualifying conditions for credits, including environmental limitations and stream functional improvement.

The Panel agreed that any single design approach was not superior to the others, as any project can fail if it is inappropriately located, assessed, designed, constructed, or maintained. Stream Restoration Protocols

1. Prevented sediment approach 2. In-stream denitrification

3. Floodplain reconnection 4. The “tweener” Dry Channel RSC Protocol 1: Credit for Prevented Sediment during Storm Flow

This protocol provides an annual mass nutrient and sediment reduction credit for qualifying stream restoration practices that prevent channel or bank erosion that would otherwise be delivered downstream from an actively enlarging or incising urban stream.

• Applies to all types of projects except RSC’s

• Estimate stream sediment erosion rates

• Convert erosion rates to nitrogen and phosphorus loadings

• Estimate reduction efficiency attributed to restoration Recommended Methods

• Monitoring • Surveyed cross sections, bank pins…

• BANCS Method • With validation

• Alternative Modeling Approach • Or other methods with validation (e.g., CONCEPTS, BSTEM, stepwise regression) Protocol 2: Credit for Denitrification in the Hyporheic Zone during Base Flow

Step 1.Determine the total post construction stream length that has been reconnected using the bank height ratio of 1.0 or less (for NCD) or the 1.0 inch storm (other design approaches that do not use the bank full storm)

Step 2. Determine the dimensions of the hyporheic box

Step 3. Multiply the hyporheic box mass by the unit denitrification rate

Qualifying Condition: 5 feet + stream width + 5 feet Nitrogen removal credit cannot exceed 40% of the total nitrate load for any given land-river segment. 5 feet depth Protocol 3: Credit for Floodplain Reconnection Annual mass nutrient reduction credit for projects that reconnect stream channels to their floodplain over a wide range of storm events

The floodplain connection volume is equated to a wetland volume so that a wetland removal efficiency can be applied.

Step 1. Estimate the floodplain connection volume

Step 2.Estimate the N and P removal rate attributable to floodplain reconnection (using Jordan 2007 study)

Photos courtesy of Jeff Hartranft, PADEP Floodplain reconnection through legacy sediment removal – Big Spring Run, Lancaster, PA Protocol 3: Credit for Floodplain Reconnection

Excess floodplain flow

Floodplain flow treated

Channel flow FAQ Document “One-Stop-Shop” for answering questions about the crediting of Stream Restoration BMPs under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL framework. Stream Restoration Revisited cover September 14, 2017

Image © John Foraste Photography

J. Alex Foraste, P.E.: [email protected] Josh Running: [email protected] CBPO SR Expert Panel Report: 4 Protocols ➢ P1- Credit for ➢ P2- Credit for Instream & Riparian Prevented Sediment Nutrient Processing within the During Storm Flow Hyporheic Zone During Base Flow

➢ P3- Credit for Floodplain ➢ P4- Dry Channel RSC as an Reconnection Volume Upland Retrofit DEQ CB TMDL AP Guidance(5/18/2015)

CBPO Urban Stream Restoration FAQ (9/2017)

” A10. The expert panel encouraged the use of the Protocols in all other instances” [non-historic conforming projects]. ➢ Interim/Default Removal Rate

One Size fits all? 0.068 lbs TP/ft/yr Sediment loss from stream banks varies depending on many factors including rate of lateral erosion, bank heights, hydrology and hydraulics, channel geometry, landscape position, sediment dynamics, historical development, conditions in upland watershed, soils, vegetation, etc.

10 ft 15 ft+

2 ft

0.068 lbs TP//ft/yr = 0.068 lbs TP/ft/yr = 0.068 lbs TP/ft/yr ➢ Protocol 1 – Prevented Sediment

Acceptable Approaches to Application of P1:

• METHOD 1: BANCS - (BEHI/NBS) for yearly tonnage with default concentration of 1.05 lb/ton P, 2.28 lb/ton N

• METHOD 2: Direct Measurement - Site monitoring with bank pins/toe pins/cross-section surveys, soil samples and precipitation monitoring

• METHOD 3 Alternative- Modeling Approach P1 Method 1 – BANCS Prevented Sediment Method 1 – BANCS BEHI/NBS Field Assessments

Photo 2: Reach 2 (BEHI Very High, NBS Extreme) BEHI/NBS Field Maps Method 1 – BANCS Bank Erosion Rate (BER) Curve

- USFWS (Hickey Run) - NC Revised

- Colorado - Yellowstone - Sequoia - Local Curves

Figure B-1. Bank Erosion Rate Curve Developed by the USFWS [Hickey Run]. Appendix B, Protocol 1 Supplemental Details. Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream Restoration Projects. 2014, Sept 8. Method 1 – BANCS Sediment & Nutrient Reduction Estimates

NC Rev. BER Curve

Hickey Run BER Curve (USFWS)

Default Rate Comparison Curve Length Reductions NC 100.2 lbs TP/yr

Hickey 172 L.F. 136.3 lbs TP/yr Default* 11.7 lbs TP/yr * Default/interim rate = 0.068 lbs TP/LF/yr x 172 LF = 11.7 lbs TP/yr Method 1 – BANCS Comparing Application of Various Bank Erosion Rate (BER) Curves

Project ID Rest. Length NC Curve USFWS Curve Default (L.F.) (lbs TP/yr)1 (lbs TP/yr)1 (lbs TP/yr) Project A 3,620 148 400 246 Project B 1,500 46 126 102 Project C 477 47 117 32 Project D 863 134 245 59 Project E 419 551 N/A 28.5 Project F 172 LF 100.2 136.3 11.7 Project G2 952 3.5 N/A 65 Project H2 384 2 N/A 26 Project I 4,688 267 956 319 Project J2 2,793 81 315 190 Project K 305 1.9 13.4 21 Project L 409 39 77 28 1 Most projects utilizing default nut. concentrations & 50% efficiency 2 Utilized measured nutrient concentrations in stream bank soils for low estimate. P1 Method 2 – Direct Measurement • Lateral Erosion Rates (Toe/Bank Pins) • Nutrient Concentrations in soils • Bulk Density ➢ Default Nutrient Concentration in Stream Bank Soils (P1 BANCS)

One Size fits all? 1.05 lbs TP/1 ton Sediment Nutrient Concentration in stream bank soils can vary widely depending on soil type, geology, vegetation, historical land use, soil applications, and other factors ➢ Method 2 – Direct Measurement (Nutrient Concentrations in Stream bank Soils)

• CBPO Default TP concentration:

aaaa

1.05 lbs TP/ton sediment (~525mg/kg) selected as CBPO default value for ALL projects. However, range is • 2013 White Paper Sample Findings: 0.19 – 1.92 (10 x) Looked at 16 past Restoration Reaches w/ 124 bankline soil samples ➢ Method 2 - Direct Measurement (Nutrient Concentrations in Stream bank Soils) • What WEG 2013 White Paper found: ➢ Method 2 – Direct Measurement (Nutrient Concentrations in Stream bank Soils)

• WEG (Stantec) 2013 White Paper Findings:

Sample Locations by TKN Conc. TKN Conc. TP Conc. TP Conc. Number of Total # of Physiographic Test Year Range (lbs Avg. (lbs Range (lbs Avg. (lbs Projects Samples1 Province1 TN/ton SED)2 TN/ton SED) TP/ton SED)2 TP/ton SED)

Piedmont lowland & 2008- 16 124 0.06-3.12 0.62 0.02-4.24 0.33 upland, Coastal Plain 2013 1 All projects in tidewater and northern ; most projects tested 2-5 samples; three projects contained a large number of samples; 2 TKN as Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; TP tested with USEPA SW-846 method; total samples for TKN less than TP 3 All samples tested at A&L Eastern Laboratories in Richmond, VA and reported as ppm; results coverted to lbs/ton of SED by WEG.

Yikes! Summary: 124 sample Average = 0.33 lbs TP/Ton Sediment w/ range of 0.02 – 4.24 (vs. 1.05 lbs TP/Ton Sediment CBPO default) (High value is 100 x greater than low value) Method 2 – Direct Measure (Example Project) • Didn’t have time to monitor the site for even ½ year. • Performed a BANCS (NC Curve) : 358 tons/year • Collected soil samples within the channel and in the field

Forest TP = 314 ppm

Field TP = 1250 ppm Method 2 – Direct Measurement Nutrient Concentrations in Stream bank Soils (Example Project ) • Potential Mitigation Bank Located in the Piedmont • Required to show uptick in value to proceed • Spring-fed streams eroding into pasture, minimal wooded riparian corridor P1 Method 2 – Direct Measurement Lateral Erosion Rate

CBPO SR EP Report, Pg 33 “Monitoring through methods such as cross 10’+ Headcut section surveys or bank 12-24’ Banks pins is the preferred No Vegetation left Highly erodible soils approach…” Just nasty Monitoring Needed (Project Application) • Network of Bank Pins • Soil Concentrations • Rainfall Observation • ½ year – No Bankfull events (conservative) Monitoring Results (Lateral Erosion Rate) 2 ft Extrapolated for 1 year Provided range using lower soils concentration 90% efficiency was estimated (rather then 50%) Lateral Bank Bank Erosion Volume Length (ft) Height (ft) (ft) Lost (cf) 15 15 2.0 450 61 17 2.0 2074 83 16 0.3 332 88 15 0.1 132 105 19 0.1 199.5 70 21 0.1 147 89 23 0.1 204.7 38 17 0.1 64.6 SUM 3603.8 10/21/14 – 03/10-15 (~5 months) NC: Measured: Monitoring Results 0.65 ft/yr 2 ft/yr (Comparison Applying Various Lateral Erosion Rate)

# Method Notes TP TN Description (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1 Default Removal Fixed 28.5 31.4 Rate Rate 2 BANCS 15 ft–23 ft 1322 2871 bank hts Default Hickey: 3 BANCS 10 ft max 551 1196 bank hts 0.09ft/yr 1.0 ft/yr 4 Monitoring (bank w/ 525 502 1090 pins) @90% ppm TP (default) 5 Monitoring (bank w/ 128 110 475 pins) @90% ppm TP (measrd)

NOTE: Lateral erosion rates for NC and Hickey in graphic are adjusted to BEHI/NBS VH/Extr 5 month rate. Default rate estimated from TP removal, bank ht and other factors. >50% efficiency Spotsylvania County, VA (400 LF)

PRE – RESTORATION POST – RESTORATION

CBPO SR EP Report, Pg 36 : “The Panel felt that efficiencies greater than 50% should be allowed for projects that have shown through monitoring that the higher rates can be justified subject to approval by the states. This will hopefully promote monitoring (e.g., Big Spring Run in Pennsylvania) of stream restoration projects.” Development of Regional Bank Erosion Rate Curve for Urban Virginia Streams Local Bank Erosion Rate Curve Research Need One of the research needs identified is to “Provide support for the development of regional stream bank erosion curves for the BANCS method using local stream bank erosion estimates throughout the watershed and a statistical analysis of their predicted results. Ideally, measured bank erosion rates within each subwatershed or County would be used to validate the BANCS Method specific to that location.”

CBPO Stream Restoration Expert Panel Section 8.2 Research Management and Needs Local Regional Bank Erosion Rate Curve Map of Toe Pin Installations by Locality

Replace w/ actual map showing locations

New Data Collection Effort Began in 2015: - 26 project sites - 62 Toe pin installations - Collaboration with Local Gov. partners, Fairfax, USFWS, others; - DEQ, recent increased interest/participation Measuring Bank Profile

Toe Pin Installation

2.0

Soil Loss over 1 Year

1.5

1.0 Elevation Stream Bank Profile Stream Bank Profile 2016 2015

0.5

Horizontal Distance 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 Local Regional Bank Erosion Rate Curve Cross Section Overlays 5/10/16 5/16/17 Date Rainfal l (inche s) 9/19/16 3.08 10/9/16 3.92 1-YR 24HR 2.77 j 2-YR 24HR 3.36 tims Local Regional Bank Erosion Rate Curve Cross Section Overlays

2/27/17 11/15/15 Date Rainfal l (inche s) 2/24/16 2.28 9/29/16 2.63 1-YR 24HR 2.68 BEHI/NBS Combo Bank/Toe Pin Installations Regional Bank Erosion Rate Curve1 # of points approximate and for planning purposes only BEHI/NBS BEHI NBS Target # Actual # New Hickey Run (USFWS) NC Rev. Total # Data Potential Need Combination Data Points Data Points (STN) # Data Points1 # Data Points1 Points1 1 V. Low V. Low 3 0 0 0 0 X 2 V. Low Low 3 0 0 0 0 X 3 V. Low Mod. 3 0 0 0 0 X 4 V. Low High/VH 2 0 0 1 0 X 5 V. Low Extreme 0 0 0 0 0 6 Low V. Low 3 0 0 0 0 X 7 Low Low 3 1 2 0 3 8 Low Mod. 3 0 2 0 2 X 9 Low High/VH 3 2 0 0 2 X 10 Low Extreme 3 0 0 0 0 X 11 Mod. V. Low 3 1 0 1 2 X 12 Mod. Low 3 2 5 0 7 13 Mod. Mod. 3 9 3 3 15 14 Mod. High/VH 3 7 3 5 15 15 Mod. Extreme 3 0 0 1 1 X 16 High/VH V. Low 2 0 1 5 6 17 High/VH Low 3 1 16 1 18 18 High/VH Mod. 3 11 3 0 14 19 High/VH High/VH 3 27 4 6 37 20 High/VH Extreme 3 1 1 3 5 21 Extreme V. Low 2 0 0 0 0 X 22 Extreme Low 3 0 1 1 2 X 23 Extreme Mod. 3 0 0 1 1 X 24 Extreme High/VH 3 0 2 2 4 25 Extreme Extreme 3 0 1 1 2 X Total 68 62 44 31 137 Bank Erosion Rate (BER) Preliminary Comparison of Lateral Erosion rates at select cross section applying various Methods1 Project and Bank Description Method of Lateral Erosion Rate Time

Project BEHI/NBS Bank NC Rev. Hickey Default2 Toe Pin Elapsed Height (ft) (ft/yr) (ft/yr) (ft/yr) Measurement1 Project A, BP1 Mod/H 5 FT 0.11 0.81 0.27 0.53 ft/yr 12 Mo.

Project A, BP2 Mod/Mod 4.5 .06 .30 0.30 0.15 ft/yr 12 Mo

Project B, BP1 & 2 H/Mod 4.25 0.16 0.61 0.32 0.08 -0.13 ft/yr 12 Mo.

Project B, BP3 & 4 Mod/Mod 3.5 0.06 0.30 0.39 0.09 -0.24 ft/yr 12 Mo.

Project C, BP3 H/Mod 4 0.16 0.61 0.34 0.75 ft/yr 15 Mo.

Project C, BP4 VH/Mod 10 0.73 0.61 0.13 1.86 ft/yr 4 Mo.

Project D, BP2A H/H 3.5 0.2 1.0 0.39 0.39 ft/yr 15 Mo.

Project D, BP4 H/Ext 1.5 0.38 2.6 0.9 1.15 ft/yr 15 Mo.

Project E, BP_up VH/Ext 15 1.5 2.6 0.09 2.0 ft/yr 5 Mo

Project F, BP2 & 8 VH/VH 7.5 1.2 1.75 0.18 0.76 -1.55 ft/yr 13 Mo.

Project F, BP1 H/Mod 4 0.16 0.61 0.34 0.42 ft/yr 13 Mo.

1 Values presented herein represent a preliminary sample of findings and are subject to change. Lateral rates (ft/yr) represent average rate and differ along bank height. 2 Default avg. erosion rate represents estimate of TP default removal rate converted from lbs TP/LF/yr to ft/yr assuming 1.05 lbs TP/ton Sed, 96 lbs/cf, and noted bank height. Takeaways: Pluses and Minuses

• Default Removal Rate: Ok for Planning purposes, but final estimates should be based on site specific methods. • Default rate does not factor in bank height, severity of channel degradation, watershed land use, or soils and may over/under estimate SIGNIFICANTLY (10 x or more). • Could incentivize selection of streams w/ only minor degradation (same credit for <$). Over time, this could potentially lead to decreased reductions (lb/LF)

• Expert Panel SR Protocols: Does offer better approach to capture site specific conditions. Monitoring is best, both for sake of accuracy, but also may lift 50% efficiency cap, nearly doubling credit. Takeaways: Pluses and Minuses

• BANCS: More site specific stream channel conditions and can be assessed in a short period of time. However, limited availability of regional Bank Erosion Rate Curves…and Hickey Run or NC? Selection can affect results by multiples (~4x). Need exists for local Bank Erosion Rate Curve(s).

• Nutrient Concentrations: Observed conc. in stream bank soils varied by multiple of 100 times (10 – 2100 ppm TP); Default value in CBPO may be high on average; actual is sometimes +/- and is site dependent. Sampling costs are very low ($25 lab fee).

• Monitoring (Toe/Bank Pins): Time consuming, more expensive, but…

• Greater Reductions -Ability to measure/document much greater erosion in severely eroding streams; • Search for ‘Gross Pollutors’ - Encourages/rewards search for and fixes to the ‘gross pollutors’, aka the “Zombie Apocalypse” • Increased Efficiency - Able to increase efficiency (pre to post restoration), nearly doubling credit. • Headcut Migration - Able to capture reductions from repair of activity migrating headcuts . P1 (BANCS) accounts only for lateral erosion of existing centerline, not upstream migration • Improved Accuracy - Better science and encouraged by CBPO. Thank you cover

Image © John Foraste Photography

J. Alex Foraste, P.E.: [email protected] Josh Running: [email protected] Q&A Stream Restoration Revisited Prepared For: Chesapeake Stormwater Network September 14, 2017

Presented By: Kip Mumaw, PE New bank protection techniques! State-of-the-art sediment transport science! • Qualifying Conditions • Protocol 1 Revisiting • Protocol 2 • Protocol 3 • Shameless Promotion Site Selection

• Watershed context • Functional assessment & goals • Prioritization of projects • Public involvement!! “…social forces shape the morphology of restored streams.” – Martin W. Doyle, Jai Singh, Rebecca Lave, and Morgan M. All Robertson. The morphology of streams restored for market and nonmarket purposes: Insights restoration from a mixed natural-social science occurs approach within a “…natural elements of a river landscape, which may be the aim of an ecologically cultural driven restoration, may be viewed negatively [by the public].” – Ellen Wohl, context Stuart N. Lane, and Andrew C. Wilcox The science and practice of river restoration Protocol 1: Sediment Prevented

• Erosion Estimate – BANCS: BEHI, NBS, Bankfull – Bank pins, aerial imagery, BSTEM • Bulk Density • Pollutant Concentrations • Restoration Efficiency BANCS Concerns

Where’s the data Rosgen! • Based on Bankfull discharge • Confirmation bias • Parameter assessment consistency • NBS methodology BEHI Concerns • Based on Bankfull discharge – Regional Curve, field observation, PFD Data (1.5yr), USGS Regression? • Confirmation bias – Is the erosion to the right severe? Of course!!! • Parameter assessment consistency

75 % Root Density

50 % Root Density

•25% Root Density BEHI Best Practices

• Based on Bankfull discharge – Use multiple methods and look for converging evidence. At least 2! • Confirmation bias & parameter assessment consistency – Field calibration – Assess parameters not banks (GPS Methodology) – Use survey data & processing techniques NBS Concerns

• What Level of investigation is appropriate?

• Stream hydraulics are complicated… NBS Best Practices

• What Level of investigation is appropriate? – All of them! – Look for converging evidence to support your decision. Beware of Bankfull observations in dynamic systems (most urban streams are highly dynamic) • Stream hydraulics is complicated… – Model it! Bulk Density Best Practices

• Measure bulk density in the field – Account for all soil types and stratification Protocol 2: Nutrient Processing during Base Flow • Length of stream with Bank Height Ratio of one or less • Determine median base flow depth • Calculate hyporheic box(es) • Calculate denitrification • Check to make sure you’re under the cap! Protocol 2 Best Practices

• Median Base Flow Width – USGS regression – Monitoring data – Field measurements – Geomorphic observations w/ modeling Protocol 3: Floodplain Reconnection • Develop hydrologic and hydraulic model to estimate volume of runoff & area of floodplain accessed • Determine treatment efficiency – Ratio of watershed to floodplain – Ratio of total runoff volume to volume accessed by floodplain wetlands – Wetland removal efficiency • Determine pollutant loading – Remove baselines and loading removed by upstream practices Protocol 3 Best Practices

• Model calibration • Determine what probability storm event has access to the floodplain • Use hydraulic model to determine storm probability that equals 1’ depth over floodplain wetlands

Stream Restoration Revisited Prepared For: Chesapeake Stormwater Network September 14, 2017 Q&A Webcast Resources www.chesapeakestormwater.net

Title of Resource Web link Stream Restoration Expert Panel Report http://chesapeakestormwater.net/download/3720/

Stream Restoration Fact Sheet http://chesapeakestormwater.net/download/5979/

FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/stream/protocols.html Technical Resources

Will Harman’s pyramid scheme and other https://stream-mechanics.com/stream-functions-pyramid-framework/ resources (particularly the Quantification Tool!)

NOAA Fisheries River Restoration Analysis https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=275:1:::: Tool (River RAT)

CSN Stream Restoration Webcast http://chesapeakestormwater.net/events/webcast-urban-stream-restoration/

Stream Restoration FAQ Document Coming Soon!

93 Evaluation

Please take a few moments to answer our short survey to help us better serve your needs in our webcast series.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/streams_revisited

We use this information to assess our work, your needs and to report it to our funders for future webcasts !

94