Habitat Restoration Division Coastal Program Partner For Wildlife Program Schoolyard Habitats Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Richard Starr My talk today will cover: Quick overview of SHARP and the importance of comprehensive stream restoration Four projects Rural watershed and stream assessment and restoration Urban watershed and stream assessment and restoration (I will compare and contrast the difference between rural and urban projects related to problem ID and addressing problems) Dam removal

Stream Restoration Approach Training and Education Technical Assistance Demonstration Projects

Training and Education Promote Fluvial Geomorphology and Natural Channel Design Methods NCTC River Science Curriculum Advisory Stream Classification and Assessment Courses (Levels I, II, and III at NCTC) Natural Channel Design Review Checklist Stream Function Pyramid Protocol Development and Training Since 1994, over 1000 participants representing non-profit, local, state and federal agencies Training will be used in implementation of 500 projects Close to 250 miles of stream and riparian habitat restoration in 18 major river basins Key Accomplishments: Training of over 500 participants. Training used by participants in over 500 projects. Restoration Implementation of 250 Miles of Stream

Types of Technical Assistance Develop Assessment and Design Tools Develop Protocols Conduct Watershed and Stream Monitoring Conduct Project Review Publish Findings

Demonstration Projects Natural channel design methodology Stream restoration Fish barrier removal

Stream Functional Pyramid Hierarchical framework that categorizes stream functions Each level builds on the previous level Based on work Fischenich 2006 Functional based goals Functional assessments with quantitative thresholds Functional based monitoring Mitigation debit and credit protocols Supporting guidelines document Training module

Natural Channel Design Review Checklist Checklist of critical questions associated with NCD stream restoration projects Four categories Watershed assessment Geomorphic assessment Conceptual design Final design Supporting guidelines document Training module

Natural Channel Design RFP Protocol Checklist of critical tasks required for NCD stream restoration projects Eight categories SOW Objectives Watershed assessment Geomorphic assessment Alternative analysis Conceptual design Feasibility design Final design

Bank Erosion Rate Curve Used to estimate rate of bank erosion based on condition of bank stability Provides a basis for prioritizing restoration Quantifies sediment supply from bank erosion Once we selected our group of cross sections to resurvey, we resurveyed them approximately one year after the initial survey. This cross section plot is a sample of surveyed cross sections. Note that this curve is draft, includes only DC data and we are still QA/QC’ing it. Show how the curve is used. We will revise the curve to include reference reach data and Baltimore City data and then release the curve

Hydrologic Regional Curves Bankfull calibration required for fluvial based assessments Regional curves reduce the need for bankfull gage calibration Current Curves in Maryland: Piedmont, Coastal Plain, and Ridge and Valley and Allegheny Plateau Physiographic Regions Regional Curve Development USFWS, MD SHA, USGS · Piedmont Q bkf = 84.56DA 0.76 R 2 = 0.93 ¢ AP/VR Qbkf = 34.02DA 0.94 = 0.99  W. Coastal Plain = 31.35DA 0.73 = 0.98 ¨ E. Coastal Plain = 14.65DA = 0.97 1 10 100 1000 10000 Drainage Area (mi2) Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Points: Accurate determination of bankfull is a must because all relationships are based on bankfull measurements The most accurate way to determine bankfull is to use the data from a USGS gage, however and unfortunately, there are not USGS gages at all of our stream projects. Fortunately however, many researchers like Leopold, Miller, and Dune have shown that there is a statistically strong correlation between drainage area and channel dimensions and stream discharge. Knowing this, practitioners have been developing hydrologic regional curves to determine which geomorphic feature at their non-gaged streams is associated with bankfull flows. Much time is saved if regional curves exist for your region because gage calibration is not a necessity to verify bankfull determinations. FWS has developed regional curves for MD in the piedmont, coastal plain, and RV and AP physiographic regions

Reference Reach Database Dimensionless Ratios - Cross Section. E Streams - Western Coastal Plain RATIO RANGE AVERAGE Width/Depth 5.73 to 12.83 9.10 Widthpool/Widthbkf 0.74 1.66 1.03 Areapool/Areabkf 0.86 2.11 1.29 Riffle Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.05 1.98 1.50 Pool Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.52 3.71 2.25 Run Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.21 1.60 Glide Depthmax/Riffle Depthbkf 1.08 2.76 1.59 Rosgen Stream Types C, E, and B reference stream database Developed from western coastal plain streams Departure from potential analysis Design criteria Dimensionless Ratios - Profile. E Streams - Western Coastal Plain RATIO RANGE AVERAGE Riffle Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.17 to 4.96 1.81 Pool Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.02 1.01 0.41 Run Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 0.04 6.68 1.19 Glide Slope/Average Water Surface Slope 1.82 0.50

Defining River Corridors Widths Buffer width based on fluvial geomorphic requirements Meandering streams require, at the minimum, 3.5 times the bankfull width Avoid meandering floodplains

Stream Stability Rapid Assessment Protocol Rapid stream assessment based on observation of instability indicators Watershed characteristics Lateral stability Vertical stability Stability Trend Localized v.s. widespread instability Potential instability cause(s)

Stream Feasibility Assessment Protocol Rapid stream assessment based on observations Four evaluations Existing habitat Existing stream stability Restoration feasibility Proposed habitat Quantitative score

GIS Stream Stability Prediction GIS-based stream stability prediction model GIS layers Percent impervious Stream slope Percent forest cover Forest age stand Erodible soils Thresholds set for coastal plain physiographic region Field validated model accuracy with over 200 sites Model accuracy 87 percent

Stream Monitoring Protocol Tiered monitoring protocol Tier 1 – rapid assessment based on observations of instability indicators Tier 2 – monumented measurements or repair

Other Tools and Protocols Riffle Stability Index (Kappesser 2002, USFS) RiverRat (NOAA and FWS, 2009) RiverMorph (Stantec) STREAM Modules (Ward et al, Ohio State) Proper Functioning Condition (Prichard et al., 1998, BLM) Bed Material Composition Method (Potyondy and Bunte 2007, USFS) GIS-based Streambank Erosion Rate Estimation (Evans et al, 2003, Penn State) Watershed Assessment of River Stability Sediment Supply (WARSSS) (Rosgen 2006) Vermont Watershed and Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols Physical Stream Assessment: A review of Select Protocols (COE & EPA 2004)

Future Tools and Needs Stream assessment checklist Stream monitoring checklist Site selection checklist Sediment prediction model comparison Climate change sediment transport

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401 www.chesapeakebay.fws.gov Richard Starr (410) 573-4583 Rich_starr@fws.gov