Strengthening Statewide and Local Partnerships to Achieve

Mac Haupt, Watson Ross, Greg Melia Ecosystem Enhancement Program

Purpose of Study





Look at Water Quality benefits of mitigation projects based on available data from DWQ sample set Sample set for this study, n=54

Current Monitoring Requirements for Stream Mitigation Projects 5 year monitoring period  Stream geomorphology 

   

Dimension Profile Pattern (not required- pebble counts, visual assessment)  Stage- crest gauge 

Vegetation  Plot data

Agency Proposed Stream Metrics 



7 year monitoring period Stream Geomorph  Dimension  Visual assessment  Stage



Vegetation  Plot data



Water Quality     

Macrobenthos Ph Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Temperature

4 Parameters Examined for Study Nitrogen Attenuation Floodplain connection

Bank stability Instream water quality/macrobenthos

Nitrogen Attenuation 

Condition of Riparian buffer  90% of veg plots met or exceeded

requirement 

Nitrogen loading determined by adjacent land use and STEPL model (EPA, 2010)  Avg buffer widths estimated  Nitrogen loading estimates calculated

Nitrogen Attenuation Removal efficiency based on Mayer’s meta-analysis equation (2007)  Sites total lateral loading of 315,125 pounds/year  Estimated removal efficiency averaged 61%  Reduction potential estimated to remove 193,953 pounds of Nitrogen 

Floodplain Connection Metrics used:  Bank Height ratio 

 Values of >1.5 mean floodplains are highly

detached  Mean BHR of 2.65 for n=31, for pre-restored sites  Design target BHR=1, only of few sections of a few projects had BHR >1 

Stage

Bank Stability

Based on EEP Visual Assessment method (post restoration) Documented predata utilized for n=19 Pre-construction bank stability averaged 35% Post-construction bank stability averaged 95%

Instream Habitat-Macrobenthos Looked at 9 projects  Macrobenthic data highly susceptible to watershed perturbations, especially beaver 



7 of the 9 showed improvement over baseline conditions (primarily looking at DIC)

Instream Habitat-Macrobenthos Starmount CC- based on Lynam and Hershey’s paper  Brown Branch- DIC improvement  Price Park-minimal over 5 years, first 3 years significant  Lyle Creek-DIC improvement  Payne Dairy-DIC improvement 

Instream Habitat-Macrobenthos Purlear I and II-improvement based on EPT taxa richness  Brush/Little Pine-no improvement based on macrobenthos  Smith/Austin Creek- DIC improvement 

Instream Habitat-Macrobenthos



More recent summary data DWQ looked at 20 projects (Penrose data)  Thanks to Larry Eaton of DWQ…

Instream Habitat-Macrobenthos 

Three success metrics  Biotic index improved  EPT Taxa richness improved  Intolerant taxa abundance improved

Instream Habitat-Macrobenthos • Results- of the 20 projects

 4 projects met all three metrics  11 projects met at least two metrics  16 projects met at least one metric  4 projects did not meet any metrics

Well? …Is this project working?

If I can find just one more…

Are these Projects Working? Based on the four parameters examined…yes  Are we there yet?...No  We need to measure some of the same metrics and new ones on a long-term basis… 

Restoration Network 

What is it?  Coordination of investigative topics utilizing ○ EEP restoration projects ○ Extensive College and University network around the state



Why?  To create more opportunity for interactive

restoration science education and,  To maintain long-term studies on restoration projects

Ecoregions with Project Locations

Restoration Network 

Current colloaborations  UNC- Bob Peet ○ Geoffrey Bell  Duke- Curt Richardson ○ Emily Bernhardt ○ Martin Doyle  NCSU- Greg Jennings ○ Michael Vepraskas, Wayne Skaggs, Steve Broome  Elon- Janet McFall  Western Carolina- Jerry Miller  UNC-Asheville- David Gillete