Whats gone terribly wrong with stream restoration

Fish Sticks

Fish Sticks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
3,194
City
Central PA
This episode is about stream restoration in general but it is spot on and is exactly what the consultants I work with are telling me as far as big picture concepts/goals of restoration. The age of futile engineered habitat structures may finally be passing….thank god. In addition we know creating a bunch of deep overhead structures helps invasive trout eradicate native brook trout. Will be interesting to see if these multi braid dynamic channel flood plain reconnection projects are better for native brook trout where ya have an invasive trout infestation.

podcasts.apple.com

‎The Orvis Fly-Fishing Podcast: We're "Fixing" Trout Streams All Wrong, With Chris Jordan on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Orvis Fly-Fishing Podcast, Ep We're "Fixing" Trout Streams All Wrong, With Chris Jordan - Nov 5, 2023
podcasts.apple.com
 
I did not look at the episode but I will later. I have thought for years that the piecemeal way these projects are usually done is more a feel good thing . What is needed is assessment of watersheds from top to bottom and a comprehensive plan developed. Over the years watching silt pushed from one area and ending up in another due to poor understanding leads me to this idea. I have helped on projects on several streams both on Cross Fork Creek in 1970s and locally and none of these projects held up. Also there is no follow up reporting by the agencies involved to see how things worked out (at least that I am aware of, nothing publicly available).
 
caddisflyer said:
I did not look at the episode but I will later. I have thought for years that the piecemeal way these projects are usually done is more a feel good thing . What is needed is assessment of watersheds from top to bottom and a comprehensive plan developed. Over the years watching silt pushed from one area and ending up in another due to poor understanding leads me to this idea. I have helped on projects on several streams both on Cross Fork Creek in 1970s and locally and none of these projects held up. Also there is no follow up reporting by the agencies involved to see how things worked out (at least that I am aware of, nothing publicly available).
Click to expand...
Yea if there was more post construction monitoring I think people would have stopped funding trying to nail a stream down in place with structures years ago. The interesting part for me is how he broke it down into flood plain and input of sediment and wood that makes the stream move on the flood plain or beavers. I’d love to see some beavers returned to these systems.
 
Fish Sticks said:
Yea if there was more post construction monitoring I think people would have stopped funding trying to nail a stream down in place with structures years ago. The interesting part for me is how he broke it down into flood plain and input of sediment and wood that makes the stream move on the flood plain or beavers. I’d love to see some beavers returned to these systems.
Click to expand...
beaver encounters are probably the best part of fly fishing the Catskills
 
Another interesting point he made was the concept of efficiency.

Current problematic restoration projects like rock J hooks or cross veins try to direct the water to the center and keep it moving passing it through the stretch in a straight line as quickly as possible.

Flood plain creation and having streams use the entire flood plain through multiple braided channels at all flows creates “inefficiencies”(a good thing). Instead of leaving the stream reaches quickly all the wooden obstacles, multiple channels, and deposited sediment makes the water twist reroute turn and take the longest path through the flood plain which keeps water in the soils of wetlands and increased infiltration so you have a much better base flow of ground water/hyporrheic water during drought and less bone dry or non flowing streams.
 
Nocktavius said:
I cringe whenever I see new trap rock and telephone pole BS in the middle of local rivers. Unless you’re remediating AMD, concrete channelization, or some other directly mankind caused issue just let it go!
Click to expand...
Most stream restoration projects are remediating some sort of man made issues.

While I agree that’s fish habitat structures aren’t always the way to go, there are lots of other factors that play into what kind of practices are being implemented in a stream restoration project, and typically is not solely about fish populations. For example, in much of south central PA, stream restoration focuses on a lot of ag impaired streams. Many farmers don’t want to give up much tillable land for stream restoration. The big thing in these areas is the reduction of sediment loading to the stream and protection of the farmers land/preventing steep and degraded stream banks (think Conowingo). In these situations there’s no real feasible way to get a full reconstructed stream bed with meanders and braiding, but that doesn’t mean something shouldn’t be don’t to prevent degradation of the stream from pollutants.

Also, establishing a braided stream channel is extremely expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming. Whether that be because there’s 5-10 feet of legacy sediment that needs to be removed or space needs to be made for flood plain restoration.

All that said, I do agree that the braided stream channel approach is the best way to restore a stream, it’s just not always as simple as it sounds. There are stream projects in PA that’s really focus on reconnection of streams to the floodplain and total stream channel over hauls. It seems like things are leaning more in that direction as time progresses.
 
Last edited:
C_kreek17 said:
Most stream restoration projects are remediating some sort of man made issues.

While I agree that’s fish habitat structures aren’t always the way to go, there are lots of other factors that play into what kind of practices are being implemented in a stream restoration project, and typically is not solely about fish populations. For example, in much of south central PA, stream restoration focuses on a lot of ag impaired streams. Many farmers don’t want to give up much tillable land for stream restoration. The big thing in these areas is the reduction of sediment loading to the stream and protection of the farmers land/preventing steep and degraded stream banks (think Conowingo). In these situations there’s no real feasible way to get a full reconstructed stream bed with meanders and braiding, but that doesn’t mean something shouldn’t be don’t to prevent degradation of the stream from pollutants.

Also, establishing a braided stream channel is extremely expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming. Whether that be because there’s 5-10 feet of legacy sediment that needs to be removed or space needs to be made for flood plain restoration.

All that said, I do agree that the braided stream channel approach is the best way to restore a stream, it’s just not always as simple as it sounds. There are stream projects in PA that’s really focus on reconnection of streams to the floodplain and total stream channel over hauls. It seems like things are leaning more in that direction as time progresses.
Click to expand...
Oh yea for sure not always possible. We have built so darn close to these wiggly entrenched ditches we call streams that real multi thread stream-wetland mosaics would encompas entire neighborhoods. In that case as you mentioned the “restoration” is more about protecting infrastructure and property than restoring any function to the stream. But at the end of the podcast I thought the guests response to Toms question about what if you only get x much land from the farmer/landowner? He basically said its a spectrum that goes all the way from a tiny foot flood bench to a huge stage 0entire valley excavation, and just take what they give ya, make stream occupy all of it at all stages by connecting to flood plain and nothing else you can do.
 
Yea it’s really take what you can get in Pennsylvania it seems. There has also been a huge push to get a lot of streams planted with adequate buffers, whether it’s a vegetative or forest buffer. That’s one of the major issues these ag heavy streams have. Everything is farmed or mowed right up to the stream bank. The idea is to grade the stream banks down, and plant a bunch of stuff. Typically this opens the floodplain a bit too
 
One thing mentioned by us forest service in habitat/restoration was that there is a disturbing trend of DEP in PA refusing to fund any legacy sediment removal project that plants trees in the flood plain. The US forest service said that despite the benefits of legacy sediment removal on temperature we are leaving huge amounts of thermal buffering on the table with no canopy which seems obvious.

DEP’s stated reason is that because of a dig at a site by Dr. Dorothy Meritts (who invented legacy sediment removal) they found seeds from wetland shrubby/herbaceous plants instead. This may have been but I feel like this has been way to overly applied and without trees in the flood plain how is it supposed to recruit wood that makes the complex habitat that creates the best thermal, life history opportunities, and hydrology? It does not make sense and its so frustrating. I am volunteering on a legacy sediment project in a sympatric brook trout stream right now and I hope we can get some trees in the flood plain somehow.
 
Fish Sticks said:
One thing mentioned by us forest service in habitat/restoration was that there is a disturbing trend of DEP in PA refusing to fund any legacy sediment removal project that plants trees in the flood plain. The US forest service said that despite the benefits of legacy sediment removal on temperature we are leaving huge amounts of thermal buffering on the table with no canopy which seems obvious.

DEP’s stated reason is that because of a dig at a site by Dr. Dorothy Meritts (who invented legacy sediment removal) they found seeds from wetland shrubby/herbaceous plants instead. This may have been but I feel like this has been way to overly applied and without trees in the flood plain how is it supposed to recruit wood that makes the complex habitat that creates the best thermal, life history opportunities, and hydrology? It does not make sense and its so frustrating. I am volunteering on a legacy sediment project in a sympatric brook trout stream right now and I hope we can get some trees in the flood plain somehow.
Click to expand...
The floodplains originally were vegetated with trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and sedges. ALL of those.

If they are stating that the floodplains didn't have trees, they are making a serious mistake.

These species are adapted to riparian areas and floodplains in PA: black willow, silky willow, box elder, red osier dogwood, silky dogwood, sycamore, silver maple, pin oaks, swamp white oaks. And cottonwoods further west.
 
I believe this idea is coming from a small excavation or 2 in SC/ SE PA. There may be attempts to apply it more widely, but I don't agree with that. I think the idea is to let mother nature sort out what vegetation ultimately grows at the site and it is likely that trees will seed in naturally, specifically talking about large scale floodplain restoration/ legacy sediment removal sites.
 
troutbert said:
The floodplains originally were vegetated with trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and sedges. ALL of those.

If they are stating that the floodplains didn't have trees, they are making a serious mistake.

These species are adapted to riparian areas and floodplains in PA: black willow, silky willow, box elder, red osier dogwood, silky dogwood, sycamore, silver maple, pin oaks, swamp white oaks. And cottonwoods further west.
Click to expand...
Yea this is my primary concern is that they are only planting the herbaceous shrubs. DEP’s wetland specialist who is heavily involved in deciding which projects get funded is wholly opposed which is ashame and I cannot figure out the true motivation. I wish people would call their elected officials about this because this technique is catching on and could be great with trees in the flood plain for so many reasons. But its taking off right now and none if these projects have trees inside the flood plain that I have seen
 
lycoflyfisher said:
I believe this idea is coming from a small excavation or 2 in SC/ SE PA. There may be attempts to apply it more widely, but I don't agree with that. I think the idea is to let mother nature sort out what vegetation ultimately grows at the site and it is likely that trees will seed in naturally, specifically talking about large scale floodplain restoration/ legacy sediment removal sites.
Click to expand...
Yea that was what I was getting at mentioning Dr. Merrits dig above but I think it has been way too widely applied/extrapolated based on those digs. I agree and my thought on mother nature sorting it out is without live stakes we may be just as liable to see japanese knott weed, mile a minute, and reed canary grass
 
Do you have any sources that DEP doesn’t fund legacy sediment removal. I have not heard of that and would be curious to see if that’s the case. Are you implying that it’s not funded cause the areas are already considered wetlands and can’t be disturbed?
 
Sorry I just reread your post fish sticks, I misread it the first time.. it’s been a long day.

But with that said, I have never heard of DEP not finding a project with tree planting in a floodplain. I know herbaceous buffers are popular but I have always heard that DEP encourages buffer planting and doesn’t really discourage tree planting
 
i will be helping to restore about half mile of a stream next year and a big part of that project will be planting trees to support the river banks from erosion. water will wash out everything, especially in a major flood event. water is one of the most powerful things on this planet. if you support the banks then your one step ahead of the game. take that with a grain of salt.
 
C_kreek17 said:
Sorry I just reread your post fish sticks, I misread it the first time.. it’s been a long day.

But with that said, I have never heard of DEP not finding a project with tree planting in a floodplain. I know herbaceous buffers are popular but I have always heard that DEP encourages buffer planting and doesn’t really discourage tree planting
Click to expand...
I am working in southeastern PA so i deal with DEP wetland specialists down here. They are ok with trees surrounding the excavated flood plain but do not want to fund projects that plan to have trees in the flood plain which I don’t understand. I have toured a fee of these projects and no trees allowed in the actual flood plain its sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top