CWMTF Field Representatives 2009 Assessment of Stream Restoration and Stormwater

Projects

1. Background on project types2. Overview of assessment tools3. Field rep site visits4. Summary of findings5. Board discussion

Topics

Restoration Projects

• CWMTF - funded over 150 restoration projects• Water quality benefits :

- Immediate - Reduction in stream bank and bed erosion

and - Increase in connectivity to floodplain

- Longer term- Improved habitat and biological health of

the stream

Stormwater Projects

• CWMTF funded about 80 stormwater projects

• Water quality benefits

– Immediate• Reduction in rate of runoff reaching the streams,

Better quality of the runoff. – Long-term benefit

• improved habitat and biological health of the stream.

Field Rep Site Visits

-Project WQ Monitoring-Special Monitoring-NCSU Contract

Assessment Methods

Visual assessment

Field measurements

Field Rep Site Visits•Compliance with scope of work and conditions• Maintenance of riparian buffers and BMPs• Display of signs• Repairs/issues requiring attention

Field Rep Presentations

•Agriculture BMPs & Shoreline Restoration – Damon Tatem

•Wetland Restoration – Sarah King

•Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Will Summer

•Stream Restoration & Buffer Establishment – Tom Massie

Agricultural BMPs & Shoreline

Stabilization/Restoration

CWMTF Meeting

February 14-15, 2010

Cary, North Carolina

Vegetated Stream Buffers in Eligible Watersheds-Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NCDSWC)

Initially funded in 1998 by CWMTF-Provides contributions forpurchase of conservation easements next to farm streams, ditches & other watercourses improving & protecting water quality & enhancing habitat-utilizes a combination of federal

& state resources-Covers 10 watersheds (76 Counties)

Vegetated Stream BuffersCREP Program

• 30 year- contracts-830, acres-19,162, stream miles-526.955

• Perm contracts-190,acres-6,409, stream miles-176.248

• Total contracts-1,020, acres-25,571, stream miles-703.20

• Total Match thru September 2009-$64,448,152Total Contract Amounts:CWMTF 1998A-999 (closed)$5,885,549.00, CWMTF 2002A-305(closed)$4,200,000.00,CWMTF 2004B-040 (closed)$5,191,580.00,CWMTF 2006B-404 (active)$3,441,878.60,

Total$18,719,007.60*CWMTF Funds Remaining $2,299,224.36

Most of the current land sign up is coming from recently expanded areas

(Roanoke, Cape Fear, Pasquotank, Lumber, etc.) DSWC staff is currently

installing boundary signs to deter easement violations across the state with priority on permanent

easements

Cattle Exclusions

Livestock Exclusion-Significantly Reduces Erosion Impacts & Sedimentation

Macon County / Tom Massie

Conservation Tillage-Funded No-Till DrillsCape Fear RC&D 1999A-901

Columbus Co. 2000A-901

Conservation Tillage-Funded No-Till DrillsCape Fear RC&D 1999A-901

Columbus Co. 2000A-901

Constructed Wetland Filters on Field Drainage

2001B-042

Flows from cross ditches & canals draining agricultural landsare retained in vegetated constructed wetland areas and

released over a period of time. Nutrients are absorbed by the selected vegetation in the wetland traps and water flows are

reduced in velocity to receiving streams thus cuttingsediment loading. A low cost-effective-low maintenance

solution to nutrient & sediment loaded Ag runoff.

2006A-046

Shoreline Stabilization & Restoration

Perquimans River2001

Degraded river & sound side shorelines producetons of sediment particularly during storm events.

Stabilization through the use of rock sills to protectthe shoreline during periods of high wave activity

in conjunction with shoreline plantings has been very effective on the Perquimans River,in Carteret County, & other sites across the state.Sedimentation is dramatically reduced using &

Quality near shore habitat is created.

FAILURE

Perquimans River2006

OVERALL SITE-REVIEW OBSERVATIONS

• Most applicant efforts have been effective • Long maintenance is a potential problem-grantees

need to understand their long term responsibilities• Applicants have learned from past errors and

most experienced grantees have a good understanding of our procedures & expectations

• Boundary/easement marking maintenance is difficult & in some cases marking is impractical

• WQ data of sampled projects has proven that they are effective over the long term if properly maintained

Wetland Restoration

Wetland Restoration

Riparian wetlandCypress Swamp Carolina Bay

Tidal wetland

• In NC we have riparian wetlands (floodplains, bottomlands, swamps), non-riparian (pocosins, hardwood flats, Carolina Bays), and tidal wetlands

• 50% wetlands in NC altered/impacted- agriculture, forestry, development

Wetland Restoration

Rain Event

Water Quality Benefit

• Natural filter for physical debris as well as water-borne pollutants– Sediment, Nitrogen, Phosphorus– Volume reduction, dampen peak flows

Habitat Benefit

• Habitat for rare and endangered species

• Over 80% NC fisheries depend on wetlands

McMillanKing National Geographic

UNC- Chapel Hill/ Open Grounds Farm- 1997B-407

Before

Carteret Community College 2003A-701

Before

NC Coastal Federation North River Farm 2006B-402

Before

2009

New Hanover County 2004B-513

Goldsboro Polishing Wetland

1997A-101

Wetland RestorationProject Monitoring

• CWMTF project goals include parameters such as area restored, plant

species, volume runoff.

• Visual inspection of sites effective

• Grant recipients receptive to site visit

• Common issues observed by field reps:

– Vegetation issues

– lack of easement signs

– project modification

Morris Landing

Wetland RestorationProject Monitoring

• Research-level monitoring efforts

– long term data sets

– Water quality, soil development, water table, habitat

succession, restoration techniques, species abundance, etc.

CWMTF Board Meeting

February 14, 2010

W. Summer

PREVIEW: • Stormwater background• What CWMTF funds and why• BMP examples + ‘a little data’• Maintenance and repair • Summary

Background – ‘Stormwater 101’

Background – ‘Stormwater 101’

Results

Conventional stormwater detention addresses flooding problems, but water quality is still an issue

What CWMTF funds and why

BEFORE

Constructed wetland: Vegetation removes nutrients and other pollutants while sediment is trapped in the forebay above.

ForebayConstructed wetland

Preliminary Water Quality Data for Fred Fletcher Wetland

Bioretention area (a.k.a. ‘rain garden’): Allows stormwater to infiltrate and recharge groundwater

Innovative Stormwater Treatment: Floating Islands – These floating mats of wetland vegetation hold promise of providing benefits of wetlands in a smaller area.

Maintenance & Repair

Maintenance & Repair

Maintenance & Repair

Summary

Stream Restoration and Buffer Establishment

Vertical Bank, moderate riparian buffer

Pacolet River2007

Incised stream, no buffers, straightened

Town Creek2003

Examples of practices to deal with vertical banks and bank stability1. Cross veins in stream2. Root wads along bank

3. Whole tree revetments to capture sediment4. New plantings of trees and shrubs

1 2

3 4

Town Creek before and after stream restoration and riparian replanting. Stream was realigned, bends restored and stream buffer was restored @ 50’ on both sides. Cost varies from @$125 per foot in rural locations upwards of $250 per foot in urban settings.

2009

2003

Stream bank stabilization is less expensive, but can also havedramatic results. Above is an example of vertical bank w/o any buffer.Below (left and right) is an area stabilized using whole tree revetments, then planted to hold bank in place and to reclaim new bank. Example on leftIs a reclaimed area with buffer plantings and fencing. Approximate cost varies from $15 up to $75 per foot depending on materials.

2009Planted 1998 Little TennesseeHenson Property

Example of vertical banks reconstructed to create a flood bench,then in stream structures placed within the stream bed and banks re-vegetated with trees and shrubs. Location: Azalea Park, Asheville

2002 2009

Stream stabilization on the West Fork of the Linville River was undertaken in 2003 to restore natural sinuosity to the stream, reduce erosion from vertical banks, improve stream buffers and provide good fisheries habitat.

2005

2009

Important Long-term Issues

Appropriate Design Structural FailureNatural vs. Man-made

Survival of Buffer Plantings•Adequate soil preparation

•Larger Plant Stock•Proper maintenance by owner

General Findings

•Scopes completed and conditions met• Riparian buffers maintained with a few exceptions•Some issues with maintenance and repairs• Few have not submitted project monitoring