Assessing The Effectiveness of Restroration Technologies

1
Assessing the Effectiveness of Restoration
Technologies
Elise Striz and Joe Williams
Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division
2
ORD Ecological Research Approach
Effectiveness ?

3
The Plus sustainable economies flood
reduction carbon sequestration species
diversity recreation timber/wood production safe
water supply liveability tourism
Research to evaluate ecosystem benefits of
restoration actions
Ecosystem Restoration Actions
4
(No Transcript)
5
How can we evaluate the effectiveness of stream
restoration?

• Metrics
• Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)
• Ecosystem Services (denitrification, carbon
  sequestration,etc.)
• Stream Geomorphic Stability
• Stream Flow
• Sediment Transport
• Water Quality

6
Impacts of Stream Restoration on Nitrate
Processing, Hydrology, Biology and Sediment
Transport at Mine Bank Run in Baltimore, MD
US EPA NRMRL GWERD
Maryland District USGS Water Resources Division
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Baltimore County Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management
Baltimore County Parks Department
7
Mine Bank Run Before Restoration
8
Comparison of restoration technologies to be
employed at Minebank Run

• AFTER
• Bank stabilization techniques
• Energy dissipating structures
• Stream channel relocation

• BEFORE
• Point Bars
• Pools
• Riffles

• Relative effects on
• Water Quality ( nutrient processing)
• IBI
• Sediment Transport

9
Bank Stabilization Re-shaping
Organic Soils
Saturated Zone
Organic Soils?
Saturated Zone?
Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook
10
Mine Bank Run Transect Design
11
Mine Bank Run Stream restoration plans and
selected transect locations
12
Hypothetical relationship between carbon and
denitrification among stream features
After
Before
Wing Vane
Riffle
Pool
Increasing Organic Matter
Point Bar
RipRap
Re-shaping Slope
Increasing Denitrification Activity
13
David G. Jewett, U.S. EPA, ORD, NRMRL, Ada,
OK Mark L. Lord, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, NC Jerry R. Miller, Western Carolina
University, Cullowhee, NC Jeanne C. Chambers,
USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV
14
(No Transcript)
15
Riparian and wet meadow ecosystems

• Comprise less than 2 of land area in the Great
  Basin
• Contain a large percentage of the regions
  biodiversity
• Impacted by stream entrenchment and loss of
  valuable habitat

16
(No Transcript)
17
Depth to WT vs Vegetation Type
18
Factors to consider when evaluating
management/restoration alternatives

• Hydrogeological conditions leading to meadow
  formation
• Sensitivity of existing vegetation to changes in
  water table depth
• Challenge traditional restoration approaches
  because of unique groundwater/surface water
  dependency.
• What techniques will work? What metrics can be
  applied?

19
Research to translate ecosystem benefits into
economic benefits
20
How can we estimate the costs/benefits of stream
restoration?
Costs Accessible and Defined

• Benefits Existing Metrics-Can we value the
  change?
• Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) Benthic and
  Fish communities improve
• Ecosystem Services (denitrification,etc.)-Water
  quality improvements, lower pollutant load
  downstream
• Stream Geomorphic Stability-Protect
  infrastructure, land, maintain aquatic
  environment
• Sediment Transport-Protect in stream and
  downstream habitats

21
Current Reality Willingness to Pay
22
Partnerships between ORD and Canaan Valley
Institute
The Highlands Action Program model for
implementing sustainable resource management
decisions in the MAHA.
Research to develop tools for cost/benefit
analysis of restoration Develop restoration
prioritization methodologies including
cost/benefit
23
We are here
Our Destination
Stable Channel Good IBI Balanced Sediment
Transport Improved Water Quality BenefitgtCost
Unstable Channel Poor IBI Sediment Transport Poor
Water Quality
Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division