Land Conservation Strategies- Jeff Hartranft
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Land Conservation Strategies- Jeff Hartranft

on

  • 954 views

Presentation given by Steve Sylvester on June 4, 2012 at the Third Annual Choose Clean Water Conference.

Presentation given by Steve Sylvester on June 4, 2012 at the Third Annual Choose Clean Water Conference.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
954
Views on SlideShare
954
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Illustration from:Mills on the Tsatsawassa: Techniques for Documenting Early 19th Century Water-Power Industry in Rural New York, by Philip L. Lord, Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, New York, 1983.

Land Conservation Strategies- Jeff Hartranft Land Conservation Strategies- Jeff Hartranft Presentation Transcript

  • Legacy Sediment Problems in Pennsylvania What to do about those dammed eroding streams? Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania Legacy Sediment Workgroup Jeffrey Hartranft Bureau of Waterways Engineering and Wetlands Division of Wetlands Encroachments and Training
  • Presentation Outline• Legacy Sediment Examples and Definition• A New Best Management Practice to Address the Problem• Big Spring Run Demonstration Project• Aquatic Resource Restoration Potential
  • Big Beaver Creek – Lancaster County, PA Photos Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Conoy Creek – Lancaster County, PA
  • Mountain Creek - Cumberland County, PA
  • Seneca Creek, Maryland Photo Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Impact of Water-Powered Mills on Sediment Storage New dam Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Typical Mill Dam and Valley Cross Section Riparian Zone Time 2 Time 1Upland Upland Modern Substrate Soil Soil Colluvium Legacy Sediment Colluvium Natural Wetland Soils Natural Wetland Soils Gravel Gravel r Gr ate oun Bedrock oun dw dw a te Bedrock Gr r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  • Typical Valley Cross Section Evolution Riparian Zone Time 1 Time 2 - Dam Breached Time 3 - Dam BreachedUpland Modern Substrates Upland Soil Legacy Sediment Legacy Sediment Soil Colluvium Colluvium Natural Wetland Soils Natural Wetland Soils Gravel Gravel r Gr ate oun Bedrock oun dw dw a te Bedrock Gr r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  • Mill density map based on the 1840 US Census and county boundaries.More than 65,000 waterpowered mills existed along U.S. streams in the year 1840. The greatest density of mills occurred in the Piedmont and Ridge and Valley physiographic province. http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake
  • Dam Locations from 1860-1870 Era Atlases http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake
  • Photos Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake
  • Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water-Powered Mills January 18, 2008 pp. 299-304Robert C. Walter and Dorothy J. Merritts Franklin & Marshall College Lancaster, PA
  • Riparian Zones With Incised Channels Riparian Zone Rural • Bank Trampling • Stormwater Sub- & Urban • Upland Soil Erosion • Impervious surfaces &Agriculture • Few Trees / Shrubs • Few Trees / Shrubs Urban • Manure • Wastewater discharges Flood Flow Legacy Sediment Legacy Sediment Gro und w ater ter dwa Natural Wetland Soils Base Flow Natural Wetland Soils Gro un Gravel Gravel r Gr ate oun dw Bedrock Gr o un dw a te r Bedrock Conventional wisdom DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  • Typical Existing Condition Flood Flow 1850 AD (210PB) Existing Root Zone Bank-full Flow Legacy Sediment~300 - ~10,000 BP (14C) Hydric Paleosol Base Flow Hydric Soils Gravel Bedrock Modern, inset bar • Legacy sediment stored in valley bottoms predominantly was established by the combined effect of increased sediment supply from uplands and sediment trapping behind ubiquitous dams in many watersheds of the mid-Atlantic Region. (Walter and Merritts, 2008) • Conceptual models linking channel condition and sediment yield exclusively with modern upland landuses are incomplete for valleys impacted by mill dams (Merritts, et al. 2011) • Streambanks represent a significant sediment and nutrient source in watersheds where channels have incised through legacy sediment. (Walter, Merritts, Rahnis, 2007; 2010)
  • Big Spring Run - Type Section Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Ecological Restoration Guiding PrinciplesAddress ongoing causes of degradation. • Restoration efforts are likely to fail if the sources of degradation persist. • It is essential to correctly identify the causes of degradation and eliminate or remediate them. • Understanding a stream’s evolutionary trajectory is relevant to correctly diagnosing the problem, as well as to developing restoration approaches that are likely to be sustainable. “… understanding the legacy sediment problem is the first step in proposing a fix.” Bay Journal, March, 2007. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.
  • Natural Floodplain, Stream and Riparian Wetland Restoration Best Management Practice Conceptual Design Typical Existing Conditions Proposed Restoration Flood FlowExisting Root Flood FlowZone Bank-full Flow Legacy Sediment Bank-full Flow Restored Hydric Paleosol Base Flow Root Zone Hydric Paleosol Base Flow Hydric Soils Gravel Gravel Bedrock Modern, inset bar Bedrock Natural Valley Morphology
  • Typical Existing Conditions Restoration 9/13/2011 9/23/2011 Natural Valley Morphology Photos Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Flow Direction
  • 2007 Banta Restoration Site, Lititz Run – Lancaster Co. Photo Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • 2007 Banta Restoration Site, Lititz Run – Lancaster Co. Photo Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • 2007 Banta Restoration Site, Lititz Run – Lancaster Co.
  • 2011 Banta Restoration Site, Lititz Run – Lancaster Co.
  • Big Spring Run Natural Floodplain, Stream and Riparian Wetland Restoration Project We have assembled a multidisciplinary team of biologists,ecologists, engineers, geomorphologists, geochemists, landowners, restoration practitioners, and construction experts (Hartranft et al,
  • USGS 015765195 Big Spring Run near Mylin Corners, PA
  • Funding PartnersPA Department of Environmental Protection Franklin & Marshall College US Environmental Protection Agency US Geological Survey Joseph V. Sweeney Chesapeake Bay Commission Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds PA Fish and Boat Commission Lancaster Farmland Trust Big Spring Run ca. 1930 Photo Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Monitoring and Research Partners Franklin and Marshall College US Geological Survey US Environmental Protection Agency (ORD & Region III) PA Department of Environmental Protection PA Fish and Boat Commission Johns Hopkins University Elizabethtown College Penn State University Big Spring Run ca. 1930 Photo Courtesy Franklin & Marshall College
  • Legacy Sediment Workgroup Collaborator Organizations and Individuals PA Department of Environmental Protection PA Fish and Boat Commission PA Department of Transportation US Environmental Protection Agency US Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Commission Pennsylvania Environmental Council Franklin and Marshall College Penn State University Lafayette College Landstudies Inc. Rettew and Associates CDM Chesapeake Bay Foundation PA Farm Bureau American Rivers PA State Association of Township Supervisors Joseph Sweeney