20080913 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20080717 (423)

Re: Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
<[e-mail]>, "Walker, William T SAW"
<[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Gary Jordan <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], [e-mail]
cc
Subject Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
C7
Hi Everyone:
I have come up with an issue on a proposed stream restoration project that I would like some opinions
on, and eventually probably a decision by the PACG-TC (or IRT for that matter).
This project is an EEP DEsign-Build with Baker as the consultant/designer.
The project proposes to use a restored stream as a reference for designing the restoration.
Please note my comment in a letter, and the response, below:
• According to the plan, the reference reach used for the project, Mickey Creek, is itself a restoration
project. DWQ feels that a natural stream, within the appropriate ecoregion and valley type, should be
used as a reference. Please select a natural, more appropriate reference reach to use in the design of this
project. We request that DWQ reconsider the use of the Mickey Reach as a design reference for the
project. The Mickey Reach design was based upon Craig Creek in Eastern Avery County as its reference
reach. We are fortunate in NC to now have restored stream systems that have been in the ground for
number of years and have performed well. We believe the use of restored streams that have remained
stable for 5 or more years, withstood numerous flood events (Appendix G), and exhibit a high functional
level provide a better design reference than natural reference streams, and is the next evolutionary step
in developing design criteria for stream restoration projects. Whereas natural reference streams have
characteristics that affect their stability and cannot be replicated in a newly restored site (ie. mature
vegetation, root mass, bed material sorting, etc.), using design criteria from restored sites that have
been successful under similar ecoregion and valley type conditions provides very strong evidence that
the design criteria that were used are appropriate and will result in a stable and functional stream
system.
As an example, natural reference reaches often exhibit very tight bends with a low radius of curvature
ratio (often 1.2 or less). The pattern is stable because there are large trees with mature root systems
that provide resistance against bank scour and erosion. However, a similar pattern would likely not be
stable in a newly restored stream, because mature vegetation will take many years to establish.
Therefore, more gentle bends with larger radii are required, and experience has shown that radius of
curvature ratios between 2.0 and 3.0 can be designed to remain stable yet still promote pool scour. This
is information that a natural reference reach cannot provide. Therefore, we believe successful
restoration projects under similar conditions provide the most useful information to predict the design
criteria that will result in a stable and functional stream system.
2 of 3 7/17/2008 8:59 AM
Re: Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
Subject: Re: Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:41:40 -0400
To: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Hi Eric,
I never did respond---sorry. I actually sent this to our Partner's for Fish and Wildlife biologist (Anita Goetz)
who works almost exclusively on stream restoration. Her comments were similar to mine---the first being,
if this restored stream is based on a reference reach and it's stable, why wouldn't that work again?
Her comments are pasted below
**Hmmm. What he states does not make sense to me. If Mickey Creek was designed using Craig Cr. as
a reference and is/has been stable. Why would he state that the radius of curvature needs to be greater in
newly restored systems because of mature vegetation? I would definitely need to see data on that
statement. If the channel physics aren't right from the beginning, the stream will work to set them correctly
for the surrounding landscape.
In addition, with proper bioengineering (and I mean a focus on getting veg. on these sites (eg: high density
live staking)), the project should hold up.
I do recognize the difficulty in finding reference streams for restoration projects, but I'm not sure a project
that is 5+- years old would serve as an appropriate reference channel on which to base a new design.***
and I share her concerns...
food for thought, m
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
Little round planet in a big universe sometimes it looks blessed sometimes it looks cursed, depends on
what you look at obviously... but even more it depends on the way that you see---- b cockburn
Eric Kulz <[e-mail]> To "McLendon, Scott C SAW"
<[e-mail]>, Kathy Matthews
07/03/2008 09:32 AM <[e-mail]>, "Marella Buncick
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, John Dorney
<John. Dorney@ncmail. net>, Tammy L Hill
1 of 3 7/17/2008 8:59 AM
RE: Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
Subject: RE: Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:51:55 -0400
To: "Eric Kulz" <[e-mail]>
Eric:
My opinion, for what it is worth
I would want to take a hard look at the Mickey Creek site, see what parameters were used for its design,
(eg. reference reaches, regional curves, seat of the pants, etc) and also compare to the as built. I don't
mean to sound pessimistic, but there are more than just a few projects where it is absolutely impossible to
figure out why the stream was built the way it was; even after much discussion in a plan about regional
curves and use of reference. It has been exceptionally hard for me to make the connection between
reference streams and what I continue to see built ...................maybe in a 100 years or so. Another thing I
might want to look at is the amount of rock that was used; is the project holding together because it was
designed well or does it have so much rock that it cannot move. All in all it continue to make me believe
that less maybe more when it comes to restoration projects.
Having said all that, the response below does make some sense re: tight bends, veg stability etc. Quite
frankly, in the grand scheme of things it probably does not greatly effect the biologcal response. Maybe a
question to ask Baker would be, is there anything about Mickey Creek you don't like or that isn't working
well. I certainly would not want to endorse this approach on anything less than 5-years old, or maybe even
older (remember S. Prong Roaring Creek, Stone Mountain). Finally, this approach has been on the table
for urban streams for a while now; why build a reference channel when you know it won't hold up to the
watershed pressures.
So there you have it, my two opinions
Scott
From: Eric Kulz [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:33 AM
To: McLendon, Scott C SAW; Kathy Matthews; Marella Buncick (E-mail); John Dorney; Tammy L Hill;
Walker, William T SAW; [e-mail]; Gary Jordan; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Reference Stream Issue - PACG-TC
Hi Everyone:
I have come up with an issue on a proposed stream restoration project that I would like some opinions
on, and eventually probably a decision by the PACG-TC (or IRT for that matter).
This project is an EEP DEsign-Build with Baker as the consultant/designer.
The project proposes to use a restored stream as a reference for designing the restoration.
Please note my comment in a letter, and the response, below:
<!--[if ! supportLists] -->- <!--[endifJ-->According to the plan, the reference reach used for the
project, Mickey Creek, is itself a restoration project. DWQ feels that a natural stream, within the
1 of2 7/17/2008 9:00 AM