Field Rep Assessments


Published on

CWMTF field representatives site visits to completed construction projects

Published in: Technology, Sports
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • .
  • Field Rep Assessments

    1. 1. CWMTF Field Representatives 2009 Assessment of Stream Restoration and Stormwater Projects
    2. 2. <ul><li>Background on project types </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of assessment tools </li></ul><ul><li>Field rep site visits </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of findings </li></ul><ul><li>Board discussion </li></ul>Topics
    3. 3. Restoration Projects <ul><li>CWMTF - funded over 150 restoration projects </li></ul><ul><li>Water quality benefits : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Immediate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction in stream bank and bed erosion and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increase in connectivity to floodplain </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Longer term </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improved habitat and biological health of the stream </li></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Stormwater Projects <ul><li>CWMTF funded about 80 stormwater projects </li></ul><ul><li>Water quality benefits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Immediate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction in rate of runoff reaching the streams, Better quality of the runoff. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long-term benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>improved habitat and biological health of the stream. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Field Rep Site Visits -Project WQ Monitoring -Special Monitoring -NCSU Contract Assessment Methods Visual assessment Field measurements
    6. 6. Field Rep Site Visits <ul><li>Compliance with scope of work and conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance of riparian buffers and BMPs </li></ul><ul><li>Display of signs </li></ul><ul><li>Repairs/issues requiring attention </li></ul>
    7. 7. Field Rep Presentations <ul><li>Agriculture BMPs & Shoreline Restoration – Damon Tatem </li></ul><ul><li>Wetland Restoration – Sarah King </li></ul><ul><li>Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Will Summer </li></ul><ul><li>Stream Restoration & Buffer Establishment – Tom Massie </li></ul>
    8. 8. Agricultural BMPs & Shoreline Stabilization/Restoration CWMTF Meeting February 14-15, 2010 Cary, North Carolina
    9. 9. Vegetated Stream Buffers in Eligible Watersheds-Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NCDSWC) Initially funded in 1998 by CWMTF-Provides contributions for purchase 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)
    10. 10. Vegetated Stream Buffers CREP Program <ul><li>30 year- contracts-830, acres-19,162, stream miles-526.955 </li></ul><ul><li>Perm contracts-190,acres-6,409, stream miles-176.248 </li></ul><ul><li>Total contracts-1,020, acres-25,571, stream miles-703.20 </li></ul><ul><li>Total Match thru September 2009-$64,448,152 </li></ul>Total 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
    11. 11. Cattle Exclusions Livestock Exclusion-Significantly Reduces Erosion Impacts & Sedimentation Macon County / Tom Massie
    12. 12. Conservation Tillage-Funded No-Till Drills Cape Fear RC&D 1999A-901 Columbus Co. 2000A-901 Conservation Tillage-Funded No-Till Drills Cape Fear RC&D 1999A-901 Columbus Co. 2000A-901
    13. 13. Constructed Wetland Filters on Field Drainage 2001B-042 Flows from cross ditches & canals draining agricultural lands are 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 cutting sediment loading. A low cost-effective-low maintenance solution to nutrient & sediment loaded Ag runoff.
    14. 14. 2006A-046
    15. 15. Shoreline Stabilization & Restoration Perquimans River 2001 Degraded river & sound side shorelines produce tons of sediment particularly during storm events. Stabilization through the use of rock sills to protect the 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
    16. 16. Perquimans River 2006
    17. 17. OVERALL SITE-REVIEW OBSERVATIONS <ul><li>Most applicant efforts have been effective </li></ul><ul><li>Long maintenance is a potential problem-grantees need to understand their long term responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Applicants have learned from past errors and most experienced grantees have a good understanding of our procedures & expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Boundary/easement marking maintenance is difficult & in some cases marking is impractical </li></ul><ul><li>WQ data of sampled projects has proven that they are effective over the long term if properly maintained </li></ul>
    18. 18. Wetland Restoration
    19. 19. Wetland Restoration <ul><li>In NC we have riparian wetlands (floodplains, bottomlands, swamps), non-riparian (pocosins, hardwood flats, Carolina Bays), and tidal wetlands </li></ul><ul><li>50% wetlands in NC altered/impacted- agriculture, forestry, development </li></ul>Riparian wetland Cypress Swamp Carolina Bay Tidal wetland
    20. 20. Wetland Restoration <ul><li>Water Quality Benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Natural filter for physical debris as well as water-borne pollutants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sediment, Nitrogen, Phosphorus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Volume reduction, dampen peak flows </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Habitat Benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Habitat for rare and endangered species </li></ul><ul><li>Over 80% NC fisheries depend on wetlands </li></ul>Rain Event McMillan King National Geographic
    21. 21. <ul><li>UNC- Chapel Hill/ Open Grounds Farm- 1997B-407 </li></ul>Before
    22. 22. Carteret Community College 2003A-701 Before
    23. 23. NC Coastal Federation North River Farm 2006B-402 Before 2009
    24. 24. <ul><li>New Hanover County 2004B-513 </li></ul>Goldsboro Polishing Wetland 1997A-101
    25. 25. Wetland Restoration <ul><li>Project Monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>CWMTF project goals include parameters such as area restored, plant species, volume runoff. </li></ul><ul><li>Visual inspection of sites effective </li></ul><ul><li>Grant recipients receptive to site visit </li></ul><ul><li>Common issues observed by field reps: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vegetation issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>lack of easement signs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project modification </li></ul></ul>Morris Landing
    26. 26. Wetland Restoration <ul><li>Project Monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Research-level monitoring efforts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>long term data sets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Water quality, soil development, water table, habitat succession, restoration techniques, species abundance, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. CWMTF Board Meeting February 14, 2010 W. Summer <ul><li>PREVIEW: </li></ul><ul><li>Stormwater background </li></ul><ul><li>What CWMTF funds and why </li></ul><ul><li>BMP examples + ‘a little data’ </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance and repair </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
    28. 28. Background – ‘Stormwater 101’
    29. 29. Background – ‘Stormwater 101’
    30. 30. Results
    31. 31. Conventional stormwater detention addresses flooding problems, but water quality is still an issue
    32. 32. What CWMTF funds and why
    33. 33. BEFORE
    34. 34. Constructed wetland: Vegetation removes nutrients and other pollutants while sediment is trapped in the forebay above. Forebay Constructed wetland
    35. 36. Preliminary Water Quality Data for Fred Fletcher Wetland
    36. 37. Bioretention area (a.k.a. ‘rain garden’): Allows stormwater to infiltrate and recharge groundwater
    37. 38. Innovative Stormwater Treatment: Floating Islands – These floating mats of wetland vegetation hold promise of providing benefits of wetlands in a smaller area.
    38. 39. Maintenance & Repair
    39. 40. Maintenance & Repair
    40. 41. Maintenance & Repair
    41. 42. Summary
    42. 43. Stream Restoration and Buffer Establishment Vertical Bank, moderate riparian buffer Pacolet River 2007
    43. 44. Incised stream, no buffers, straightened Town Creek 2003
    44. 45. <ul><li>Examples of practices to deal with vertical banks and bank stability </li></ul><ul><li>Cross veins in stream </li></ul><ul><li>Root wads along bank </li></ul><ul><li>Whole tree revetments to capture sediment </li></ul><ul><li>New plantings of trees and shrubs </li></ul>1 2 3 4
    45. 46. 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
    46. 47. Stream bank stabilization is less expensive, but can also have dramatic 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 left Is a reclaimed area with buffer plantings and fencing. Approximate cost varies from $15 up to $75 per foot depending on materials. 2009 Planted 1998 Little Tennessee Henson Property
    47. 48. 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
    48. 49. 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
    49. 50. Important Long-term Issues Appropriate Design Structural Failure Natural vs. Man-made <ul><li>Survival of Buffer Plantings </li></ul><ul><li>Adequate soil preparation </li></ul><ul><li>Larger Plant Stock </li></ul><ul><li>Proper maintenance by owner </li></ul>
    50. 51. General Findings <ul><li>Scopes completed and conditions met </li></ul><ul><li>Riparian buffers maintained with a few exceptions </li></ul><ul><li>Some issues with maintenance and repairs </li></ul><ul><li>Few have not submitted project monitoring </li></ul>