The April 17 Charlotte Observer article (North Carolina spends $140 million on faulty water projects by Dan Kane and David Raynor) aptly highlights many of the problems that plague the still-emerging aquatic restoration industry. When funding escalates for a particular restoration action, money or politics may seek to “replace” sound science.  In North Carolina, DOT mitigation became a very lucrative opportunity.  One clear problem with failed stream and river restoration projects has been the rampant use of a formulaic or “cookbook” approach currently being used across the United States, and certainly in North Carolina.  Unfortunately, this unreliable recipe has been responsible for many spectacular and expensive failures.

As one of the old guys in this relatively new industry of stream restoration we’ve been preaching for more than a decade against simplistic cookbook approaches to complex ecological problems, and have pleaded the case for better industry standards when it comes to assessment and monitoring.  We have watched the growing debate over the uncertainty associated with restoration (and especially with aggressive, formula-based approaches) now reaching a broader public consciousness.

We urge North Carolina and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take a closer look at what works, and what doesn’t in stream restoration methodologies and approaches.  Peter Raabe from American Rivers, an environmental watch group, summarized recently: “Giving more work to the people who are the absolute experts in the field is probably the direction we should be going.”

THI agrees and is supportive of this state’s efforts to steer the industry in a sustainable direction.

Biotechnical stabilization is not a new concept. There are numerous references from the 1930s that advocated biotechnical designs. After World War II these techniques seemed to have lost favor to the hard engineering approaches that rely heavily on rock, concrete, and steel. However, the growing concern for more ecologically-beneficial solutions has renewed interest in biotechnical approaches.

Biotechnical methods provide an ecologically-superior alternative to conventional erosion control methods, such as rock and concrete riprap. These low-impact, and generally lower-cost methods can provide effective streambank stabilization while minimizing damage and disruption to instream and upland habitats. All streambank erosion control practices will be subject to maintenance requirements. However, biotechnical techniques have the potential to self-repair since they are living systems. Because these treatments generally strengthen and improve over time, maintenance costs are generally minimal as well. Biotechnical methods are considered especially appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas where improved recreation, aesthetics, fish & wildlife habitat, or native plants are highly desirable. Receive an electronic copy of the Club EcoBlu white paper info@troutheadwaters.com

Some projects have damaged water quality by dumping sediment into waterways.  According to the story, “errors in design or construction are partly to blame, but taxpayers absorb much of the cost.” 

Reported restoration failures in North Carolina total $140 million. Read the News & Observer Investigation or Learn More about Standards for Restoration Success

Read More: Expensive Stream Restoration Failures Will Diminish Our Nation’s Appetite for Restoration

Doug Pickford of Trout Headwaters, Inc. (THI), an environmental planner with 20 years of experience in the Chesapeake Bay area, will follow events in the bay watershed as the tide turns from voluntary to mandatory for bay cleanup regulations and protections.   Doug’s blog series for THI will document what is likely the largest and most significant watershed clean up effort in the history of the U.S., and offer his insights into some practical ways to assist the health of this magnificent natural resource.

Background

In December 2010, the U.S. EPA issued regulatory language that essentially requires all of the states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce the amount of pollution entering the Bay.  This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a long-awaited step that put an end to more than 25 years of voluntary state efforts to clean up the Bay. 

After decades of missed milestones and pushed back implementation targets, the next critical date for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is Dec. 31, 2011.  This is when the jurisdictions will have to prove they have met the goals they had agreed to back in 2009.   Environmental groups will be closely watching the EPA to see what consequences will occur should these targets go unmet. 

Important Decisions Loom for Bay Restoration Stakeholders

The sheer scale of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, with a high population and a diverse array of stakeholders, is daunting.  As has been the case elsewhere, applying cookie-cutter solutions to stream and wetland restoration is likely to result in expensive failures.   True restoration will require careful planning, a local focus, and highly qualified practitioners to implement the kind of sustainable, meaningful stream, river and wetland restoration that can save the Bay.  

The overall goal of the Bay TMDL is to remove more than 6.67 billion pounds of sedimentation from the streams and rivers feeding the Bay.  More than 90% of this targeted sediment reduction will come from the states of Maryland (1.22 billion lbs.), Pennsylvania (2.09 billion lbs.), and Virginia (2.69 billion lbs.).  Under the current Bay TMDL, all states will have to achieve 60% of their respective reductions by 2017, and meet the final targets by 2025.

The Bay TMDL revolves around the development of Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), which commit each state to specific goals for reducing nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment.   It is by far the largest and most significant watershed clean up effort in the history of the U.S.(and quite possibly the world), and is already being challenged in the courts by the American Farm Bureau Federation and other agricultural interest groups.  These groups contend that the Bay initiative will be costly to landowners, and will set the precedent for implementing similar TMDL’s in other large watersheds, such as the Mississippi.

The work that needs to be done under the Bay TMDL is substantial.  Baywide, the jurisdictions will have to reduce nitrogen by 25%, phosphorus by 24% and sediment by 18%.  Over the next two years the states and the District of Columbia will be required to update their WIPs to determine how all of these goals will be met a the local level.  These plans are where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, and will be very specific in their implementation strategies.

Most streams in the Chesapeake watershed are in poor condition, according to data released recently by the Chesapeake Bay Program. The federal and state partnership that coordinates restoration efforts, also released data showing reductions in key pollutants over the past 25 years at monitoring sites along tributaries that feed the Chesapeake, and noted levels were still below restoration goals.

The stream survey involved sampling of nearly 8,000 streams sites between 2000 and 2008 and found 54 percent were in poor or very poor condition while only 27 percent were in excellent or good condition.  >Read More

The release notes” As technology advances, and our knowledge of the effects we have on our environment increases, it is inevitable that even more of these techniques will be discovered and improved upon and that the traditional approach of riprap or hard armoring a bank will no longer be the norm.”

The authors’ conclude: “We tend to leave a large footprint in our interactions with our surroundings. As we manipulate and attempt to control the water we so love and depend upon, we need to look at the long-term effects we have on our immediate surroundings.”  For an electronic copy of the report request info@troutheadwaters.com