This is pretty much the most exciting topic of the month, even though it's only April 1. No fooling.

:)

How to join their group?

https://chesapeakestormwater.net/join/

Are we supposed to be seeing a slide here?

yea we can't see slides

Huzzah!!

What is NRCS?

Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service

The stream bank erosion is happening BECAUSE of the imperviousness upstream, right? Why is stream restoration the remedy and not impervious retrofit?

who tracks the verification? Who "takes away the credit?"

Good question above. Also what is the "lifetime" of stream "restoration" as a BMP practice in terms pollution credits. Most projects fail after 5 years or so.

And if you don't fix the upland conditions that led to the erosion, aren't you just in a vicious circle?

I've seen some stream restoration structures fail over time (some quickly, others take longer, some are fantastic). Is there a greater concern about how these BMPs are being designed by a new group of engineers? Do we know the current failure rate? What are the typical metrics used to determine whether a stream restoration is "successful"? And, are these practices required to be paired with upland mitigation (Ie: riparian buffers, ag management practices, Bioretention, etc.)?

The stream bank erosion, yes, is linked to upstream impervious areas. But the proximal cause is the volume and energy of water in the channel, which can be engineered to mitigate. The solutions are yes and, not either/or

Responding to Tali - this is a point of discussion that the Environmental Finance Center has with communities - i.e. should you invest municipal dollars into one of these projects if the upland flows have not been addressed? Is that a good investment?

What are the assumptions about where sediments eroded from a bank go? They don't all make it to the bay, especially the coarser sediments.

Is it EVER appropriate to do a RSC in a perennial stream channel? Consider diadromous fish and freshwater mussels.

Can we get a copy of this presentation please?

We will share a recording of the webinar as well as a copy of the slides!

Yes, it will be made available to everyone.

I'm fine with RSCs in intermittent channels. In a perennial stream, the RSC should also have a new side channel to allow passage of critters.

go back to that slide!! Please

or bring it back up later, maybe?

I would disagree on cost effectiveness, especially if the issue that is causing the problem is not addressed, limiting the lifetime of the project.

We are hearing that the point about "must maintain or improve" riparian vegetation has gotten lost.

Where are the environmental folks?

would like to get more clarity around "creditable with limits" for popular types of armoring

Per Rod Simmons, City of Alexandria Natural Resources Manager: The large-scale removal of existing, irreplaceable natural features, including mature and old-age trees and forest; rare and specialized plant species and habitats; and wildlife such as box turtles, salamanders, aquatic macroinvertebrates, etc., and their complete replacement with man-made, artificial elements and landscape is never a balanced trade-off, no matter what "natural techniques” are used in rebuilding the stream valley.

creditable with limits should be used more often; less impact to forested floodplains

How does a community challenge a project they believe is poorly sited and obtaining non-qualified credits?

Isn't an outfall project by definition a project to protect public infrastructure?

Following up on that "verification" question, is the verification a structural one or is it verifying that it is actually having the downstream water quality impact expected or anticipated?

I have never heard of that analogy. I am def using it next time

😂

Is there more credit given for projects that include instream wood structures and more bank veg/seedlings that add leaf debris? Both of these are known to increase the de-nitrification processes.

is the width of the stream channel an indicator of a restored stream? This happens with restoring riparian area. if not, why?

Related to previous questions and Gross Primary Production...Consensus shows that denitrification is the primary benefit of urban stream projects, but a recent Cary Institute study from 2019 suggests that denitrification is due to tree canopy opening during construction activity, as opposed to the actual stabilization/restoration itself... Considering the associated loss of ecosystem services in these natural systems for uncertain scientific benefits, how do we justify projects through high quality forested areas?

Do we know if macroinvertabrates return in floodplain restorations, given a shrubbier or grass wetland riparian zone?

If long term impacts are not known, shouldn't we curtail/stop these types of projects until we have the answers?

Re holistic watershed mgmt, some stream resto sites are still being placed wherever contractors can find a willing landowner, not where there is necessarily a need.

Case in point: Glenstone Museum in Potomac, MD

The whole conversation is centered around large construction projects and the problems they cause and failures. Why not focus instead on upstream reduction of storm water runoff?

Urban streams with sewer lines in them should be categorically excluded from site selection for stream restoration projects.

Eels are a little tougher climbers, but definitely mussels and river herring need an alternate channel to be part of the design.

Good point Jack. Within an MS4, there's no reason the local government shouldn't be able to gain access to those with or without the permission of the HOA.

IDDE Illicit discharge Detection & Ellimination

Tom — isn’t redevelopment of parking lots into mixed-use development which includes stormwater controls (where none exist today) another strategy for upland flow reduction?

Piggybacking on that- how would a citizen nominate a particularly degraded stream channel as a candidate for restoration within their jurisdiction?

With the advent of general permits and nationwide permits for stream restoration, public notification and ability to comment have been reduced, not expanded.

Is there any plan to create a certification for designing this sort of practice, given the tremendous variation in success? What is the current success : failure ratio?

can we stop the screen share so we can see faces? Unless there is a specific slide that helps address the question

Kudos to everyone for making this a fair and balanced discussion on stream restoration. Long overdue. Usually these are cheerleading sessions for the status quo.

I meant "can you stop it?" ;-)

Tali you can click gallery view in the upper right to view all the faces.

I see y'all!

The cost effectiveness of stream "restoration" needs to be reevaluated before too much damage is done. There is a "gold rush" of stream projects being proposed as consulting firms are blanketing the countryside looking for WIP credits, stream banking, or other mitigation requirements. I am seeing so many established forest buffers that I helped get in the ground get clear cut. RKK is looking to wipe out a 20 acre buffer planted 12 years ag

If the same conditions are still in place upstream that caused the stream degredation in the first place, won't the stream end up back in the same degraded state? Or do the restorations create "super streams" that can handle the impacts from the upstream impervious surface etc better than the original natural stream?

Good point Autumn. the same MS4 jurisdiction paying for the stream restoration is adding the impervious surface upstream. Better to just burn the money.

I think that is a great line of questioning, Autumn. But we should remember that these are not natural streams right now. They have been historically altered and their current state (large banks of legacy sediment) is part of the problem.

Per Katie's question: The regulatory agency is the same agency designing and installing these projects in Baltimore.

So basically, from 1600 to 1800 we cleared the land and filled the streams and rivers with sediment, from 1800 to present we hardened the watersheds sending high energy into these sediment beds?

Good point Alison. That very aspect should be part of the siting criteria guidance.

Thank you for the clarification.

yea Tom. Buffers arent big business. Hoping to get there..

Credits for improving forest quality would be great, too.

Retrofit? For every dry basin that never detains any water in the biggest storms, reduce the low flow orifice by 50%. Cheap.

Perhaps as we climb out of COVIDland, we can change those incentives to favor trees over bulldozers. Easier to social distance. Keep an eye on the Keystone 10 M trees campaign in PA. Leading the way on this.

Hi all, just wanted to point you to some macroinvertebrate data that the Audubon Naturalist Society Water Quality Monitoring Program produced. Volunteers from ANS have been monitoring tributaries of Rock Creek in D.C. for 25 years and one of the streams we monitor was daylighted and restored via regenerative stormwater conveyance in 2014 by D.C.'s Department of Energy and Environment. Since then, there has been an increase in biodiversity of macroinvertebrates, which we attribute in large part to the restoration. The report is here, and I'll post a particularly helpful excerpt below: https://anshome.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ANS-Water-Quality-Summary-Report-for-DC-sites-FINAL.pdf

From Page 23: "We are encouraged by the District’s investment in stream restoration, including the early indications of success to date on the regenerative stormwater conveyance technique used at Pinehurst Branch and Broad Branch. However, it is critical that stream restoration using any technology be closely coupled with upland stormwater retrofits, as called for in the draft Sustainable DC 2.0 plan. If the volume and velocity of stormwater are not reduced before flowing into a stream channel, we are concerned that over time the stability of the restoration itself will be at risk—as exemplified by the riprap installed at Normanstone Run that has been pushed downstream by continued excessive stormwater flows. This risk will only increase, not lessen, in the future as climate change is expected to continue generating more intense storms in our region. DOEE must couple stream restoration projects with intensive investments in up-watershed stormwater retrofits in order to ensure the long-term success..."

Is anyone on this call interested in partnering with a Howard County Watershed Steward to restore a perennial headwater stream currently on private property so it can be turned over to the county for long-term maintenance? If so, please email me at cprpenpal@gmail,com

Thanks so much David and Tom! Great presentation and good discussion!

120 people attending this webinar. Congratulations to the organizers for spreading the word very effectively!!

Shout out to Peter, Emily and Kristin!!

I think we hit 141 at its peak!!!! woo hoo!!!

I love that idea Frank.

I stand corrected.

Seems like we should have followup conversations to: 1) look at the existing program structure and incentives 2) find ways to accelerate upland projects 3) scale up reforestation 4) create incentives to allow work on private land…

Amazing questions and comments. I am definitely save the chat section.

I wonder if you can "save" the chat so we could look it over later...

saving

THanks all

We can save as well and send with recording

We as attendees can at last copy all of it and paste it into a document to save.

Wondering if anyone has done a look back at all/many SR projects to learn from them?

I'd be happy to help planning an in-person round table on this later in the year if that turns out to be the will of the members.

Well said Frank- any other ideas from anyone on how to credit siting or have current site conditions and location incorporated in the next permits?

looking for a report or study

Virginia DEQ will be updating its SLAF guidance and that will be a good time to include the updated SR numbers.

great job Tom and David!

Thanks!