Evaluating Water Quality Before and After Stream RestorationSA-BankConferencePresentation-Final2021

NMEB Conference
July 18-22, 2020
Raleigh, NC
2
Evaluating Water Quality Before and After
Stream Restoration
Greg Melia –Presenting
Co-authors:
Danielle Mir
Joe Famularo
Periann Russell
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
NMEB Conference
July 18-22, 2020
Raleigh, NC
3
Need and Justification
•Water quality improvement is often stated as a goal in
mitigation. Bernhardt et al., (2005)
•Historically it has not been measured sufficiently to support
those goals. Palmer et al., (2007)
•Many investigators questioned the functional value and
efficacy of restoration for pollutant attenuation absent
watershed controls Walsh et al., 2005; Bernhardt and Palmer,
2007; Craig et al., 2008; Selvakumar et al., 2010
•The last decade has shown a range of results and promise
but understanding of scale and efficacy of specific practices is
still lacking. (Palmer et al. (2014); Lammers and Bledsoe (2017);
Newcomer Johnsen et al., (2016))
4
DMS Resources
1. DMS has a large inventory of projects from 2 decades of
mitigation.
2.Opportunity for long term observation and monitoring.
3.Tied to a robust watershed planning approach.
5
DMS Study Objectives
1.Provide case examples of water quality response to restoration.
(Todays presentation is focused on one such case example
deliberately selected with a condition of high signal to noise)
2.Gain understanding of the scale under which change detection
is feasible.
(Gradient of signal to noise)
3.Understanding the efficacy of different practices.
4.Understanding the time frames of improvement and their
sustainability.
6
DMS WQ Study Sites
7
DMS WQ Study Sites
Project # Reaches Param
Years
Pre
Years
Post
Heath Dairy 2 F,N,S,M 3 1.7
Millstone 2 F,N,S,M 1.3
Pen Dell 1 F 1 2
Buckwater 1 F,N,S 0.8 1
Big Harris 13 F,N,S,FS,M 5 0.5
Cross Creek 1 F,N,S 1
Crane Creek 1 F,N,S 0.5
Indicates a year or more of post restoration data
F –Fecal; N –Nutrients; S –Total Suspended Solids;
M–Macrobenthos FS –Fish
8
Case Study -Buckwater Site (Hillsborough, NC)
•Overall project mixture of Restoration and Enhancement
•Approximately 12,600 feet, overall drainage of 3.53 M2
•T4 is reach subject to WQ monitoring
9
Buckwater Site Reach T4 (Hillsborough, NC)
•820 Foot Reach
•Overall drainage 77 Acres
•Upper watershed 20 acres
Upstream Site
Watershed Control Station
Dowstream Site
Treatment Station
10
•The main lateral stressor to the reach was livestock.
•Eutrophied pond draining to reach.
•Reach was incised (floodplain disconnection).
•Watershed above upper station completely forested.
•This is a low watershed noise case example.
Buckwater Reach T4 Stressors
11
Buckwater Reach T Stressors
12
Buckwater Reach T4 Stressors
13
Buckwater Reach T4 Stressors
14
Station Setup and Methods
15
Station Setup and Methods
16
Station Setup and Methods
17
Station Setup and Methods
Using ISCO Auto Samplers:
-Records stage measurements in 15 min increments.
-Calculates discharge based on rating curve. Discharge
calculated via weir equations or dilution gauging.
-Water samples pulled as flow composite sample in base or
storm flow conditions.
-Integrated precipitation gauge.
18
Buckwater T4 –Total Suspended Solids
Significant
Median Reduction of 78%
p = 9.6e-5
n=18 n=59
n=37 n=33
19
Buckwater –Total Phosphorus
Significant
Median Reduction 75%
p = 1.6e-7
n=18 n=60
n=37
n=34
20
Buckwater -Nitrate & Nitrite
Significant
Median Reduction 45%
p = 0.0001n=18
n=60
n=37
n=34
21
Buckwater -Ammonia
Significant
Median Reduction 72%
p = 1.9e-7
n=18 n=60
n=37
n=34
22
Buckwater -Total Organic Nitrogen
Significant
Median Reduction 74%
p = 5.7e-8
n=18 n=60
n=37
n=34
23
Buckwater –Total Nitrogen
n=18 n=60
n=37
n=34
Significant
Median Reduction 62%
p = 1.8e-11
24
Buckwater –Fecal Coliform (T-4)
•Stations significantly different
pre-construction
•Stations similar post-
construction
Significant
Median Reduction 74%
p = 8.3e-6
n=28
n=17 n=33
n=39
25
Summation of Buckwater Results Thus Far
-Low watershed noise case study demonstrated:
62 –78% reduction in all pollutants pre-post..
except NO2/NO3 (45% reduction).
-Concentrations and reductions were related to livestock
removal.
NO2/NO3 reductions still significant but this
parameter is more groundwater mediated.
-At this time we cannot attribute the proportion of reductions
to the different treatments applied (e.g. cattle removal,
channel manipulation, floodplain reconnection).
26
Looking Ahead
-Include projects with different levels of signal to noise.
-Determine if reductions are sustained or even increase.
-Examine effects of different restoration treatments? (e.g.
livestock removal versus channel modification)
Example: Millstone Project with NCSU partners.
-Calculate and compare discharge and loads.
-Analyze change in hydrologic residence times.
27
DMS Data Sharing Resources –Web Dashboard
28
DMS Data Sharing Resources –Web Dashboard
29
Acknowledgements
•DMS Management
•Academic Partners
NCSU Bio and Ag Engineering (Dan Line, Jamie Blackwell)
Heath Dairy and Millstone
WCU (Dr. Jerry Miller)
Big Harris Project
•Mitigation Provider Partners
Land and Water Solutions (Pen Dell)
Restoration Systems (Crane Creek)
Wildlands Engineering (Buckwater, Cross Creek, Big Harris)
30
Citations
Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-
Shah, J., and Galat, D. (2005). Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308, 636–637.
Bernhardt, E.S. and Palmer, M.A. (2007). Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater Biol., 52, 738–751. DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01718.x
Craig, L.S., Palmer, M.A., Richardson, D.C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E.S., Bledsoe, B.P., Doyle, M.W., Groffman, P.M.,
Hassett, B.A., Kaushal, S.S., and Mayer, P.M. (2008). Stream restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads. Front.
Ecol. Environ., 6, 529–538. DOI: 10.1890/070080
Lammers, R.W. and Bledsoe, B.P. (2017) What role does stream restoration play in nutrient management?, Critical Reviews
in Environmental Science and Technology, 47:6, 335-371, DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2017.1318618.
Palmer, M.A., Hondula, K.L., and Koch, B.J. (2014). Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and
shifting goals. Annu. Rev. Ecol., Evol. Syst., 45, 247–272. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935.
Palmer, Margaret & Allan, J. David & Meyer, Judy & Bernhardt, Emily. (2007). River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century:
Data and Experiential Future Efforts. Restoration Ecology. 15. 472 -481. 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00243.x.
Newcomer Johnson, T.A., Kaushal, S.S., Mayer, P.M., Smith, R.M., and Sivirichi, G.M. (2016). Nutrient retention in restored
streams and rivers: A global review and synthesis. Water, 8, 116. DOI: 10.3390/w8040116.
Selvakumar, A., O’Connor, T.P., and Struck, S.D. (2010). Role of stream restoration on improving benthic
macroinvertebrates and in-stream water quality in an urban watershed: case study. J. Environ. Eng., 136, 127–139. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000116
Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., and Ladson, A.R. (2005). Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning
stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J. NorthAm. Benthol. Soc., 24, 690–705. DOI:
10.1899/0887-3593(2005)024\[0690:SRIUCT\]2.0.CO;2