Could you tell us more about this? Have they written "no trees in the floodplains" specifications? If so, do you have a link to them? And what are examples of such projects?
Stream restoration people have been arguing about what vegetation should be on the floodplains. Some prefer the floodplains to be covered with trees, the other camp prefers herbaceous, i.e. non-woody vegetation, grasses and forbs.
Yea i have seen the conceptual benefits of reconnecting floodplain and allowing water to go into gravel basal layer/increase ground water recharge and have been looking for data on this recently as well too but have not seen any. Need to ask someone who knows where to find it if it exists. Have been working with a consultant who says large preexisting trees in flood plain and make the flood plane lower but non uniform or “hummicky”. I know they plant shrubs like silky dog woods and that kind of stuff. But generally i think canopy is way sub par. Of you ate doing a restoration for native brook trout i do not see why you would not want to put tree species that create better thermal benefits in the area regardless of reconnecting water to the gravel basal layer or increase aquifer recharge. The inly reason I could see not to is if a target species of restoration besides brook trout is ESA listed or also SGCN or there is SITE SPECIFIC evidence of a reference condition. I think the shrubbery is based on one dig done by Dr. Dorothy Merrits and has been wildly extrapolated. Ot seems that the main consultant doing this work in lancaster county also has going back into the flood plain in there business model for perpetual sediment removal in some cases which quick growing shrubbery would seem more friendly too. Not making accusations just observations.
Yea thats alot of people working in restoration ecologies point that how often do you see a bunch of hemlocks surrounded by skunk cabbage in soupy soils. I think that while it was not all forested wet lands, doing legacy sediment removal 500 feet downstream of forested SGL that is filled with conifers, oaks, maples ect with brook trout that was likely historically deforested land for agriculture is taking their limited findings a little too far. I mean this when i say this, EVERY site i have visited our consultant has told me DEP is not going to want trees in the flood plain with a legacy sediment removal project. And i got a tour of big spring run in east lampeter township from Dave and Jeff and they told me as much.
What legacy sediment projects do you know of?
I know there was a major cut on the Girl Scout property. That was a crime. I'm not sure what creeks that might impact. Maybe the headwaters of Indian Run. I'm not sure if any trout remain there but I doubt it. The headwaters of Elders Run was hit a couple of times.
I believe middle creek has one. We have been looking at 3 potential areas in the hammer creek watershed and are in talks with landowners. We have a consultant who has been doing restoration first for fish and wild life for over a decade, then in private firm for over 10 years, and he actually was also involved in academia at one time and has written some restoration protocols used by the state of maryland. He does multiple styles of restoration including legacy sediment. I have walked about 10 potential sites for the technique with him in the hammer watershed trying to find out where the high ecological lift, landowners desires, and funding opportunities all match up. Thats where I het most of my information on this topic. I also have called and spoke with Dr. Merrits the inventor of the technique to hear her thoughts on application of the technique as well. She is very nice to talk to. Brubaker run is another site tou can go and see. They did a single thread channel plan form there which is different from the litiz run or big spring run. When I talk about the technique i am talking about digging a trench down to where you find gravel basal layer (made up of colluvium from thermal expansion cracking roughly 10-15k years ago as per Dr. Merritt) then removing sediment down to the historic wetland/hydric soils right above that gravel basal layer that is made up of colluvium. Thats what i consider legacy sediment removal because when water can percolate into that gravel basal layer those are thermal benefits lyco was talking about(theres others like down welling into aquifer and flood plain connection as well).
What ashame, water grabs are crazy look at nicholas meats they just started withdrawling with no permit got no fine or penalty from srbc and turned around and applied for like 700k gallons a day in total or something from the sugar valley aquifer that would steal from big fishing creek. Water grabs or pacing over/manipulating karst formations are basically stealing/destroying our best thermal refuge in many cases. The situation your brother described is a microcosm of Pennsylvania.
Sorry Jeff thats the one i meant cocalico
Most trees do not extend roots deep into the ground. You can see this when trees get uprooted. Typically the roots extend out a lot, but don't go down very deep.
Yea thats true i have heard anecdotally some trees have trouble growing when there is a deep layer of legacy sediment between the surface and wetter soils. Think that had to do with shallower roots possibly?
TB, during my tenure up until early 2019 the two projects that you mentioned involving legacy sediment were to my knowledge the only ones in the region.
Interesting info Lyco and glad to learn of it. Even though the mitigation bank that you described is probably independent of what I was writing about, Codorus was one of the priority wild trout waters for funds directed specifically to York and Lancaster Co priority wild trout streams. By now I expect that York Co’s Conservation District has made progress in capturing those monies. They were working on doing so when I retired.
