1. Potential Project Evaluation and Prioritization Indian and Howard’s Creeks Local Watershed Plan April 23, 2009

2. Project Evaluation and Prioritization Stream Assessment Methods Stream Assessment Results Wetland Assessment Methods Wetland Assessment Results BMP Site Assessments Prioritization Methodology Stakeholder Input & NECBA

3. Stream Assessment Methods

4. Phased approach –EEP provided sites to assess from Phase 1 –ENTRIX performed aerial photo and GIS evaluations to prioritize sites for field work –ENTRIX performed field assessments on 40 potential stream restoration sites and 10 potential preservation reaches –Preliminary prioritization based on field data

5. Stream Assessment Methods Aerial photo and GIS evaluations –80 stream restoration sites evaluated (31.8 mi.) 26 high priority sites based on EEP’s Phase 1 43 medium priority sites based on Phase 1 11 low priority sites based on Phase 1 (selected based on proximity to another project) –22 stream preservation sites evaluated (15.5 mi) All priority sites from Phase 1

6. Stream Assessment Methods Stream GIS and aerial photo evaluations included: Buffer vegetation condition Historic channelization Presence of bank erosion or sediment deposition

7. Stream Assessment Methods Aerial photo buffer vegetation assessment Percentage of 50 foot buffer zone forested based on 2005 aerial photo –0% to 25% forested cover –26% to 50% forested cover –51% to 75% forested cover –76% to 100% forested cover

8. Stream Assessment Methods GIS-based assessment of channelization Based on comparison of historic aerials (1938, 1951, and/or 1968) with 2005 aerials Included consideration of topography Resulted in “channelized” or “not channelized”

10. Stream Assessment Methods Aerial photo assessment of erosion and sedimentation Reviewed aerial photos to identify areas where erosion or deposition were present Resulted in “erosion/sedimentation present” or erosion/sedimentation not present”

12. Stream Assessment Methods Field Assessments Two person crew evaluated 40 potential restoration sites and 10 potential preservation sites Entire reach walked up to 3,000 ft. for restoration sites or 5,000 ft. for preservation sites Reach boundaries located with GPS Digital images taken and field forms utilized to document conditions

13. Stream Assessment Methods Field Assessments DWQ habitat assessment for piedmont and mountain streams Stream bank stability assessment – modified HEC-20 assessment Evaluation of channel hydraulic capacity Evaluation of Mitigation Project Potential

14. Stream Assessment Methods DWQ habitat evaluation 8 riparian and in-stream habitat metrics: –Evidence of channel modification –In-stream epifaunal habitat –Bottom substrates –Pool variety –Riffle habitats –Bank stability and vegetation –Canopy coverage –Riparian zone width

15. Stream Assessment Methods Channel stability assessment Watershed land use Flow status Channel pattern Entrenchment/confinement Bed material Bar development Presence of obstructions Bank soil texture/coherence Bank angle Bank vegetation Bank cutting Mass waisting/failure

16. Stream Assessment Methods Channel hydraulic capacity assessment Cross-sectional area measured –To top of bank –At representative riffle Flows computed with USGS regional regression equations for Q 2 and Q 10 Channel gradient, roughness, and Q used to calculate flow area Ratio of calculated to measured flow area developed to identify channel enlargement

17. Stream Assessment Results

18. GIS-based prioritization for field assessment Reviewed and amended by EEP Forty stream restoration sites prioritized for field assessment (+ alternates) Ten stream preservation sites prioritized for field assessment

19. Stream Restoration Parameters Buffer Percent ForestedChannelizedEEP RankingErosion Value0-2525-5050-7575-100YesNoHighMedLowYesNo Score32103032010 Stream Preservation Parameters Buffer Percent ForestedChannelizedEEP Ranking Value0-2525-5050-7575-100YesNoHighMedLow Score012303320 Stream Assessment Results GIS assessment results

24. Stream Restoration Site Examples

25. R-90 Howard’s Creek Middle

26. R-61 Howard’s Creek Middle

27. R-77 Howard’s Creek

28. R-31 Mill Creek

29. R-51 UT to Howard’s Creek Upper

30. Stream Preservation Site Examples

31. P-10 Howard’s Creek

32. P-6 Indian Creek Upper

33. P-31 Indian Creek Upper

34. Wetland Assessment Methods

35. Phased approach –EEP provided 59 sites to assess from Phase 1 –ENTRIX performed aerial photo and GIS evaluations to prioritize sites for field work –ENTRIX performed field assessments on 30 potential wetland restoration sites –Preliminary prioritization based on field data

36. Wetland Assessment Methods Aerial photo and GIS evaluations 57 wetland restoration sites evaluated All priority sites from Phase 1 –2005 aerial photographs, –Soils GIS data (NRCS, 2007), –Topography data (EEP, 2008 –NWI data (USFWS, 1999).

37. Wetland Assessment Methods GIS-based wetlands assessments Determination of mapped hydric soils Extent of wetland vegetation –no vegetation –partially-vegetated –fully-vegetated Proximity to NWI wetland Proximity to potential stream project

38. Wetlands Assessment Methods Field Assessments ENTRIX evaluated 30 potential restoration sites Utilized standard USACOE assessment methodology: 1.Hydric Soils Evaluations –Two borings per site 2. Hydrology Assessment –Primary and secondary indicators of wetland hydrology on the USACOE form were evaluated. 3. Vegetation Characterization –A qualitative vegetation survey - several locations at each site. Dominant plant species documented based on NRCS Plant Databases indicator code. Indicator status will be recorded.

39. Wetland Assessment Methods DWQ staff evaluated 67 potential preservation sites (DWQ, October, 2008) –To identify and assess a random sample of jurisdictional wetlands within the Indian/Howard’s Cr. LWP area; –To calculate restoration equivalents based on potential for enhancement at each of the assessed jurisdictional wetlands, where appropriate; –To characterize the level of functioning of wetlands as a whole throughout the LWP area by using a stratified random sampling design.

40. Wetland Assessment Results

41. GIS-based prioritization for field assessment Reviewed and amended by EEP Thirty wetland restoration sites prioritized for field assessment (+ alternates)

42. Wetland Assessment Results Wetland Restoration Parameters VegetationNWIEEP Ranking Adjacent to Stream Restoration Opportunity ValueFullyPartiallyNoYesNearbyNoHighMedLowYesNo Score01.5332132030 GIS assessment results

43. Wetland Assessment Results Add in maps, tables, and pictures

45. Wetland Restoration Site Examples

46. W-30 Howard’s Creek

47. W-39 Middle South Fork Upper

48. W-44 Middle South Fork Upper

49. W-80 Howard’s Creek

50. W-25 Tanyard Creek

51. Potential BMP Site Assessments

52. Potential locations for BMPs identified through GIS analysis –Available space –Urban watershed –Topography/drainage Preliminary field site review of each potential facility Site reviews performed for 10 sites

53. Site quality – Medium Potential BMP type – Bioretention, swale Construction access – Excellent Treatment area – Bus and car parking lot (approx. 0.7 acres) BMP-2 Cherryville HS

54. Site quality – High Potential BMP type – Bioretention, swale, and/or wetland Construction access – Excellent Treatment area – Parking lot (up to approx. 2.3 acres) BMP-8 West Lincoln HS

55. Site quality – Medium Potential BMP type – Bioretention Construction access – Excellent Treatment area – Parking lot (up to approx. 0.2 acres) BMP-4 First Baptist Church

56. Prioritization Methodology

57. Step 1: GIS analysis Step 2: Field Assessment Step 3: Develop project database –25 stream restoration projects –10 stream preservation projects –20 wetland restoration projects –3 BMP projects Step 4: Pollutant removal analysis Step 5: Stakeholder input – Net Environmental and Community Benefits Analysis (NECBA) Step 6: Develop final ranking, Project Implementation Report, & Project Atlas

58. Overview of Net Environmental and Community Benefit Analysis

59. Situations Where MCDA Provides Value Complex projects with significant uncertainties Numerous potential strategies with multiple decisions Multiple stakeholders with competing objectives and different definitions of success Potential risks to human health and safety, environment, and reputation Significant project costs Organizes client intuition Reveals insights about trade-offs and cost drivers Provides a systematic, transparent, decision-making process Helps identify the strategy that best meets client’s goals Provides bottom-line cost savings Benefits of MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

60. Capital Budget Priorities for a Port Authority Remedial Priorities for Portfolio of 500 Sites for an Oil & Gas Company Recreation Priorities for Restoration Projects for State Agencies Private Land Use Planning Examples of Applications

61. Decision Analysis – Framework On-Line Survey Framing Session Develop Model Prioritize Projects

62. Example Trade-Off Question for On-line Survey Which alternative is better ? Alternative AAlternative B Implementation Cost$500,000$1,000,000 Number of Credits400600 Habitat Score8060 Probability of Success, Technical Feasibility 75%50% A is much better than B A is better than B A and B are about the same B is better than A B is much better than A 

63. Weights from Trade-Off Questions

64. Example of Scoring Calculations Cost Success Habitat Credits (0.41 x 25) + (0.29 x 40) + (0.15 x 2)+ (0.08 x 50) = 26.2 Green = Weight Yellow = Amount of criteria output for an alternative

65. Comparison of Scores Project A Project B Project C 010203040506070

66. Sensitivity Analysis Success Credits Habitat Cost Weight