Whats gone terribly wrong with stream restoration

[lycoflyfisher]

I tend to think that much of what we regard as unnatural erosion is either legacy sediment or the product of cutting down buffers.

Or legacy impacts from logging and ore extraction... ie mass deforestation and subsequent erosion, road and rail development that straightened streams and restricted floodplain access, mill dams and splash dam use that caused increased scour and major floodplain alterations are just a few legacy issues that have led to major streambank erosion issues. Not to mention modern impacts from impervious surfaces causing high spikes in flows during storm events, floodplain development, undersized bridges and culverts, etc.

 

[troutbert]

Dreams of Natural Streams

https://gis.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Montgom_Sci_perpsective.pdf

This is an interesting read. I agree with most of it.

But I have some quibbles with: "The authors show how colonial mill dams and land use changed New England’s streams from a marshy multichannel morphology."

He's referring to the Walter & Merritt's studies of legacy sediment. Most of their studies have been in PA, especially SE PA, and especially Lancaster County. Not New England.

Also, it should say that SOME of the streams had a marshy morphology. Probably much more so than now. But there are high gradient, rocky streams in both New England and the mid-Atlantic that were probably never "marshy."

Just to pick one very well known stream stretch, the PIne Creek Gorge. Or, Kitchen Creek in Ricketts Glen. Were these ever "marshy?" I don't think so.

 

[riverwhy]

One thing I remember back in the day of staking Christmas trees in the Seglock, was the incredible number of nymphs on the branches. I don't remember which type they were, but they were there for a reason. I agree though that this is not the best use of time and resources overall.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Dreams of Natural Streams

https://gis.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Montgom_Sci_perpsective.pdf

This is an interesting read. I agree with most of it.

But I have some quibbles with: "The authors show how colonial mill dams and land use changed New England’s streams from a marshy multichannel morphology."

He's referring to the Merritt's studies of legacy sediment. Most of their studies have been in PA, especially SE PA, and especially Lancaster County. Not New England.

Also, it should say that SOME of the streams had a marshy morphology. Probably much more so than now. But there are high gradient, rocky streams in both New England and the mid-Atlantic that were probably never "marshy."

Just to pick one very well known stream stretch, the PIne Creek Gorge. Or, Kitchen Creek in Ricketts Glen. Were these ever "marshy?" I don't think so.

Troutbert, you bring up some great points.

While I think there is a lot of truths behind Merrits research and the legacy sediment removal/ floodplain restoration shows tremendous promise and broader applicability than just sc/ sepa, I think it is a poor assumption to think those baseline conditions existed everywhere. Furthermore, some of the proponents of that restoration design are now saying trees didn't exist in the braided meadow system, so we shouldn't plant trees. My understanding is that idea is rooted on observations from testing seedbanks in legacy sediments in a select few locations in sepa. I think it is misguided to recommend against planting trees at restoration sites based on such limited research.

 

[Mike]

My understanding is that idea is rooted on observations from testing seedbanks in legacy sediments in a select few locations in sepa.

I don’t know how many stream valleys and samples were tested, but it's true that from the samples that were more broadly discussed in a specific site visit the thought was that many (most?) streams in now agricultural or developed ag land portions of Lancaster Co were braided streams flowing through wetlands. The site that I visited with this in mind had old, historical shrub or tree roots or stems deeply embedded in the vertical profile of the legacy sediment exposed by stream bank erosion. In my mind this did not necessarily conflict with the aforementioned seed data without knowing what seeds were identified in samples as there are many wetland shrubs recognized as aquatic or semi-aquatic plants, such as alder, buttonbush, red osier dogwood, and willow.

Even if restoration sites do not presently include tree plantings, I would recommend planting trees and shrubs that enjoy “wet feet” to provide shade as a management technique if the restoration effort is targeting coldwater species. If it’s found from comparative sites where trees and shrubs have not been planted that the results are the same or better, the trees can always be cut down to provide woody debris as habitat. This would be a good example of a fisheries management approach vs a purely ecological approach. And imagine that, the word stocking never came up.

 

[springer1]

I agree with a lot that has been said. One aspect that makes me sad is the tendency to put walking paths very close to the creek banks here in SEPA parks and "nature areas"which may be nice for the walkers but not for the stream or its creatures. I don’t know what a regulated healthy setback should be, but it should be enough to allow trees (live or fallen) and shrubs to help stabilize the banks.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

I agree with a lot that has been said. One aspect that makes me sad is the tendency to put walking paths very close to the creek banks here in SEPA parks and "nature areas"which may be nice for the walkers but not for the stream or its creatures. I don’t know what a regulated healthy setback should be, but it should be enough to allow trees (live or fallen) and shrubs to help stabilize the banks.

A restoration manager once told me that the minimum distance between a bank and a walking path was 15 feet. Not sure there was science behind that statement, but would certainly allow for riparian vegetation.

 

[wildtrout2]

A restoration manager once told me that the minimum distance between a bank and a walking path was 15 feet. Not sure there was science behind that statement, but would certainly allow for riparian vegetation.

I can only hope they don't salt said paths in the winter (snow & ice), being that close to a stream.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

I can only hope they don't salt said paths in the winter (snow & ice), being that close to a stream.

She was talking about a dirt trail, not a slated macadam trail. Yeah, an urban park trail should surely be double that, maybe with exceptions for an interesting view.

 

[Sylvaneous]

I did not look at the episode but I will later. I have thought for years that the piecemeal way these projects are usually done is more a feel good thing .

I've yakked about that here and got the brush-off and pooh-poohed. I DO see it as an evolution. There are stream habiat issues in a place and that gets addressed. But then you pull back in both space and time and the short term fix and the blow-black from that project was in situ and what happened when it was washed out and worn away becomes a real problem and loss of time, $$, habitat, work, effort, etc. A stream close to me, Little Sandy, bears the scars of numerous small projects that have either done almost nothing at this point or done considerable wrong. Little Sandy had a lot going against it, but then that also has to be considered. What do you want to tackle? What will be better in 5 and 15 years? Will it last? Will it matter? Will the stream channel change and leave the project high and dry (as is the case with little Sandy)

Then there are the places where the projects really did significant good and it lasts and as time passes and the stream changes, the work, now displaced, still helps habitat. These aren't common until recently
Syl

 

[Nocktavius]

I've yakked about that here and got the brush-off and pooh-poohed. I DO see it as an evolution. There are stream habiat issues in a place and that gets addressed. But then you pull back in both space and time and the short term fix and the blow-black from that project was in situ and what happened when it was washed out and worn away becomes a real problem and loss of time, $$, habitat, work, effort, etc. A stream close to me, Little Sandy, bears the scars of numerous small projects that have either done almost nothing at this point or done considerable wrong. Little Sandy had a lot going against it, but then that also has to be considered. What do you want to tackle? What will be better in 5 and 15 years? Will it last? Will it matter? Will the stream channel change and leave the project high and dry (as is the case with little Sandy)

Then there are the places where the projects really did significant good and it lasts and as time passes and the stream changes, the work, now displaced, still helps habitat. These aren't common until recently
Syl

Realistically, what’s the difference between this and Pine Creek, Kettle, or the First Fork. They’re all put and take fisheries that have little or no natural reproduction in their worthwhile stretches. Same people that talk this down are probably more than willing to drive like 3-4 hours for a weekend on those bigger name rivers. Me personally, if it keeps people happy fine, but I’m not interested in any of em.

 

[caddisflyer]

I've yakked about that here and got the brush-off and pooh-poohed. I DO see it as an evolution. There are stream habiat issues in a place and that gets addressed. But then you pull back in both space and time and the short term fix and the blow-black from that project was in situ and what happened when it was washed out and worn away becomes a real problem and loss of time, $$, habitat, work, effort, etc. A stream close to me, Little Sandy, bears the scars of numerous small projects that have either done almost nothing at this point or done considerable wrong. Little Sandy had a lot going against it, but then that also has to be considered. What do you want to tackle? What will be better in 5 and 15 years? Will it last? Will it matter? Will the stream channel change and leave the project high and dry (as is the case with little Sandy)

Then there are the places where the projects really did significant good and it lasts and as time passes and the stream changes, the work, now displaced, still helps habitat. These aren't common until recently
Syl

I recently visited a project that was about a year old. The logs they installed on stream banks are now out of the water completely and every place they dredged out is now shallower than ever before and that is at winter flows. Because of what they did the few nice natural deep areas that used to hold fish are now totally silted in. It is a total fiasco. They also cut down all the trees that shaded the creek . I guess this was done to get heavy equipment to the creek. Really a shame.
I am currently interested in a project where the surrounding wetland leading up to creek is being restored. This project at this point is looking very nice. Time will tell.

 

[troutbert]

I recently visited a project that was about a year old. The logs they installed on stream banks are now out of the water completely and every place they dredged out is now shallower than ever before and that is at winter flows. Because of what they did the few nice natural deep areas that used to hold fish are now totally silted in. It is a total fiasco. They also cut down all the trees that shaded the creek . I guess this was done to get heavy equipment to the creek. Really a shame.
I am currently interested in a project where the surrounding wetland leading up to creek is being restored. This project at this point is looking very nice. Time will tell.

Where is this?

 

[joebamboo]

The "improvement" of Spring Creek is prime example of destroying a perfectly good stream! The Yellow Breeches is another one!

 

[caddisflyer]

Where is this?

The project I am following that looks good is in Lancaster County on a section of Little Conestoga Creek. This is an area I know very well as I grew up around there. The removal of a lot of legacy sediment and restoring wetlands is really looking good and also matches other sections of this stream where wetlands still exist along the edges. Very impressive work at this stage.My impression is that this type of work will last. Interestingly it seems to be happening alongside some type of pipeline installation they are doing right along the creek. I plan to keep an eye on it.
Several other recent projects here in Lancaster County are not so great unfortunately.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I am interested in the projects that you do not think look good and who may have done them caddis.

 

[troutbert]

The "improvement" of Spring Creek is prime example of destroying a perfectly good stream! The Yellow Breeches is another one!

Which project(s) on Spring Creek do you think are damaging?

 

[Mike]

Some problems observed at times: 1) individual structure failures, sometimes more structures - sometimes less, while associated tree and shrub plantings have done or are appearing to have done well, 2) installing root wads at the edge of a stream in such shallow water and with the associated tree trunks keyed so far into the stream bank that only a fingerling could utilize the wads as overhead cover… or in another case suspending log deflectors over the eventual stream channel following premature habitat restoration following dam removal, 3) not anticipating or or having limitations in dealing with the power of stormwater runoff in moving individual boulders out of rock cross veins or destroying bank stabilization structures, 4) high flows knocking down some tree plantings and ripping off some plastic tubing, adding to the plastic litter problem and 5) large amounts of stormwater generated shifting substrates and impacts of said substrates’ accumulation on habitat near or within structures.

 

[joebamboo]

Which project(s) on Spring Creek do you think are damaging?

Benner Springs hatchery area. Making them look good does not equate to making them better.