Merritt's Presentation

Project Investigators

Robert Walter, Franklin & Marshall College Dorothy Merritts, Franklin & Marshall College Michael Rahnis, Franklin & Marshall College

Michael Langland, Dan Galeone, and Allan Gellis, US Geological Survey William Hilgartner, The Johns Hopkins University

David Bowne, Elizabethtown College John Wallace, Millersville University

PA Fish and Boat Commission Paul Mayer, Ken Forshay, Roxanne Adeuya, and Bart Falkner, EPA

Funders

PA DEP (Jeff Hartranft), US EPA, F&M NSF grants

Engineers

LandStudies, Inc.

Evalua&ng a New Approach to Aqua&c Resource Restora&on, Big Spring Run, PA

Lauren Manion ‘04, Graham Boardman ‘05, Serena Wren, ‘05, Christina Arlt ’05, Caitlin Lippincott ‘05, Sauleh Siddiqui ‘07, Yoanna Voynova ‘06, Andrey Voynov ‘05, A. Sullivan ‘06, Adam Ross ‘07, Mark Voli ‘08, Chris Scheid ‘08, Zach Stein ‘08, Julie Weitzmann ‘08, Colette Buchanan ’08, Doug Smith, ‘08, Alison Winterer, ‘09, Zain Rehman ‘09, Brian Hughes, ‘09, Erik Ohlson ‘10, Franklin Dekker ‘10, Stacey Sosenko ‘09, Liz Cranmer ‘09, Matt Jenschke ’09, Wanlin Deng ‘12, Katie Datin ‘12, Laura Kratz ’11, Andrea Shilling, ‘10, Yupu Zhao, ’10, Derek Matuszewski, ‘10, Austin Reed, ‘10, Alex DiIonno, ‘10, Erik Olsen, ‘11, Ali Neugebauer, ’11, Elvis Andino, ‘12, Peter Rippberger, ‘12, Aakash Ahamed, ‘12, Conor Neal, ’12, Danielle Verna , ‘12, Joe Galela, ’11., Kayla Schulte, ‘13, Aaron Blair (IUP), ‘13, Evan Lewis, ‘15

Evalua&ng a New Approach to Aqua&c Resource Restora&on, Big Spring Run, PA

Student Collaborators

Landowners

J. Sweeney, Kirchner Family, and H. Keener (Big Spring Run)

Note: All videos in this ppt can be seen at

h3p://www.youtube.com/channel/UCorgwKIsH03jLRuTSF3Wxzg

•  Piedmont stream

•  South of Pleistocene

glacial ice margin

•  Pleistocene permafrost

•  Silt belt (loess)

•  Predominantly agriculture historically

•  Wheat belt

•  Limestone bedrock

Big Spring Run, PA

BRID

GE

RD

ROSIER WAYCHELSEA LOOP

NEWPORT

DR

AP

PLE

BLOSSOM

DR

WH

EA T

L AN

D S

CH

OO

L R

D

VALETTE

DR

WINDING

WAY

LAM

PE

TER R

D

PLANK AVE

HU

NTI

NG

WO

OD D

R

WINDY HILL RD

GOLF RD

HAN

S H

ER

R D

R

ME

NT Z

ER R

D

KIWA

NIS

DR

LONG RIFLE RD

HO

US

ER

RD

PE

QU

EA

LN

SO

UT

H V

IEW

RD

BO

OK

RD

SPRECHER RD

MO

RNIN

GSI

DE D

R

MACKIN AVE

VILLA

GE SQ

WILLO

W S

TR

EE

T P

IKE

MAIN ST

BATT AVE

CEDAR DRBIRCH DR

LAUREL DR

KINDER AVE

CASEY DR

PO

OL DR

DONNELLY DR

HOLLING

ER

RD

LOCUST LN

LONG LN

NECTAR TER

RIDGEFIE

LD DR

SA

ND

STO

NE

DR

VILLAGE RD

NO

LT AV

E

ELK LN

PE

AC

H B

OT

TOM

RD

BA

RB

AR

A AVE

GLEBE LN

STRASBU

RG PIKE

VIOLET AVE

CO

BB

LES

TON

E

DR

PENN GRANT RD

EAGLE DRBALD

WIN DR

LONG RIFLE RD

MIL LW

OO

D R

D

DO

RIANNE D

R

BEAVER VALLEY PIKE

WIL

LOW

VALLEY SQ

PIONEER RD

THOMAS RD

WILLO

W STR

EET P IK

E

CONARD RD

MYLIN AVE

ED

GE

MO

NT

DR

WILLOW RD

GYP

SY

HILL

RD

CHARLESTO

N D

R

ROCKVALE RD

WYNWOOD DR

450

450

400

300

300

350

300 400

450

400

300

400

350

350

450

400

400

300

400

250

350

400

350

350

450

400

450

400

350

400

300

400

400

400

400

400

400

76°13'0"W

76°13'0"W

76°14'0"W

76°14'0"W

76°15'0"W

76°15'0"W

76°16'0"W

76°16'0"W

76°17'0"W

76°17'0"W40°0'0"N

40°0'0"N

39°59'0"N

39°59'0"N

I0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 ft

Big Spring Run Watershed

Big Spring Run Watershed, PA (~15 km2)

Big Spring Run Restora&on Reach

04/2005

04/2013

Pre-‐Restoration

Post-‐ Restoration

•  Buried wetland landscape—ecosystem

values can be rejuvenated

•  Modern incised stream

•  Modern high loads of bank erosion and suspended sediment in stream

•  High nutrients in surface/groundwater

•  Limited habitat, invasive species

•  303d listed stream

Why Restore It?

Big Spring Run: Typical Incised mid-‐Atlan&c Stream

Flume experiments and video footage from Dr. Allesandro Cantelli, Univ. of Minnesota, NCED h\p://www.nced.umn.edu/Stream_Restora&on_Toolbox.html

~80 yr old channel

Exhumed Pleistocene

Gravel

300-‐yr old wet meadow

Dam removal and breaching: Incision and bank erosion, exposing buried landscape

Pompeii Effect

1 hr 40 minutes old

Big Spring Run: Typical Incised Mid-‐Atlan&c Stream

Flume experiments and video footage Dr. Allesandro Cantelli, University of Minnesota h\p://www.nced.umn.edu/Stream_Restora&on_Toolbox.html

Exhumed Pleistocene

Gravel

Dam removal and breaching: Incision and bank erosion, exposing buried landscape

Wetlands and Their Value

Ecosystem services they provide: –  Habitat for fish and wildlife

–  Improved water quality –  Storing floodwaters – Maintaining surface water flow

–  DenitrificaSon

Objec&ve: Rejuvenate the ecological funcSon of the buried wetland.

Banta Restoration (2004) on Lititz Run, Warwick Twp., Lancaster Co., PA

•  90 tons/yr silt from ~3000 e of stream bank erosion

•  Majority of erosion in winter (Dec-‐Mar)

•  Majority of suspended sediment transport in April, May, December

•  Associated nutrients

Why Restore It?

New Freeze-‐thaw Apron Forming 8 Days aeer Jan 25, 2010, High Flow Event, Big Spring Run, PA

Yellow arrows mark trim line from high water event

Needle ice and bank erosion, SE PA

0 2 cm

Needle Ice Forma&on and Erosion on Stream Bank, Big Spring Run, PA Day and Night (Infrared) Field Camera, March-‐April 2011

Thesis work of J. Galella, 2010-‐11, F&M College

Restore to What?

From: Findlay and Taylor, 2006, Why rehabilitate urban river systems? , Area, v. 38, p. 312-‐325. (Modified from Rutherfurd et al, 2000.)

# sides signifies SYSTEM complexity and biodiversity

Ecosystem structure or species richness

Ecosystem fu

nc&o

n or biomass

(# individu

als, indica&o

n of produ

c&vity)

Original Ecosystem

Partly Re-‐instated Ecosystem

Degraded Ecosystem

Created/Modified Ecosystem

Remedia4on

Degrada4on

Holocene Streams in Low-‐Relief Landscapes

Although anabranching channels are considered relaSvely uncommon today, a review of archaeological, historic and geomorphological evidence indicated that anastomosing channels and floodplain wetlands ‘were formerly of considerable significance’ in lowlands of England and Wales [Lewin, p. 267]. From Merri:s et al, 2011, Anthropocene streams

Lewin, J. 2010 Medieval environmental impacts and feedbacks: The lowland floodplains of England and Wales. Geoarchaeology 25, 267–311.

A remnant, late Pleistocene-‐Holocene tussock-‐sedge wet meadow

The Great Marsh – A Rare Ves&ge of a Late Pleistocene-‐Holocene Wetland

Paleoecologist C. Grand Pre and Palynologist C. Bernhardt

The Great Marsh – A Rare Ves&ge of a Late Pleistocene-‐Holocene Wetland

Top

Bo\om

9580 +/-‐ 40 BP Cal BP 11130 to 10740

Alaskan Periglacial Valley and Slopes (analog for mid-‐Atlan&c Pleistocene condi&ons)

Photo Courtesy Ellen Wohl

Coarse gelifluc&on deposits fill small valley bo\om

Holocene Wetland plants and organic muck accumulate at groundwater seeps/springs.

Small channels.

Alaskan Periglacial Valley and Slopes (analog for mid-‐Atlan&c Pleistocene condi&ons)

Photo Courtesy Ellen Wohl

Millpond sediments bury periglacial toe of slope and

wetland VB deposits

Incised channel post-‐dam breach.

Coarse gelifluc&on deposits fill small valley bo\om

Reconstruc&ng Original Holocene Wetland Condi&on

1 mm

160± 40

140± 40

90 ± 40

270 ± 40 230 ± 40

230 ± 40 850 ± 40

1220 ± 40

2860 ± 40 3000 ± 40

All but one date on single nut.

Big Spring Run, PA, Buried Wetland Soil Radiocarbon (AMS) Dates and Paleo-‐seed Sampling

European se\lement 1709

Paleo-‐seed sample column

0 170 cm

Paleo-‐seed Analysis: Changes in Seeds with Depth (Time)

•  89 cm of sediment sampled at 2-‐cm intervals

•  2,485 seeds extracted •  1,547 seeds idenSfied •  938 seeds unidenSfied •  38 plant species idenSfied

A.   Neugebauer, F&M Honors Thesis 2011; M. Voli, F&M Thesis, 2008; W. Hilgartner (Johns Hopkins) and J. HartranS (PA DEP)

Glyceria striata (Fowl manna grass)

Eleocharis obtusa (blunt spikerush)

1 mm

Carex prasina type (n =165) -‐drooping sedge Obligate wetland perennial

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 72 76 80 84 88 92 96

100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 141 147 157

Number of Seeds

Depth (cm)

250 BP*-‐European Contact 795 BP 1540 BP 3000 BP

Wet Meadow

72

80

88 96

104

112

120

128

136

144

152

160

Depth, cm

Eleocharis obtusa (n = 125)-‐ blunt spikerush Obligate wetland perennial

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 72 76 80 84 88 92 96

100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 141 147 157

Number of Seeds

Depth (cm)


Mud Flat

72

80

88 96

104

112

120

128

136

144

152

160

Depth, cm

Wet Meadow

Alisma plantago (n =27)-‐ water plantain Obligate wetland, aqua&c (up to 15-‐cm water depth)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 72 76 80 84 88 92 96

100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 141 147 157

Number of Seeds

Depth (cm)

Transgression (higher water) Not just increase in sed supply


Pond

Mud Flat

72

80

88 96

104

112

120

128

136

144

152

160

Depth, cm

Wet Meadow

How to Restore to “Target”

04/2013

Before: 04/2005

Aeer: 04/2013

0 0 0.25 0.5 km

Big Spring Run Floodplain/Wetland Restora&on Sta&s&cs

NCALM lidar DEM

•  Watershed area: 4.3 km2

•  Length Restored: 915 m

•  Mass Removed: ~20,000 tonnes

•  Area of Wetland Created: 1.6 ha N

Restora&on Reach

Map Boundaries and Depth of Historic Sediment and

Reconstruct Extent of Original Wetland

•  Trenching •  Coring •  Mapping incised

banks

New Channel(s) and Floodplain

BSR Stream Bank Excava&on

Began September 2011

Big Spring Run Floodplain Wetland Restora&on WebCamera

Completed November 2011- Designed and Engineered by LandStudies Inc.

Wetland-‐Floodplain Restora&on Experiment, Big Spring Run, PA

Restora&on by LandStudies, Inc., Li&tz, PA

Pre-‐restora&on (March 2011)

During restora&on (October 2011)

Big Spring Run View West

Before Excava&on 9/13/11 Aeer Excava&on 9/28/11

Objec&ve: Reconnect the groundwater with a low, hydric floodplain. Increase hyporheic exchange, storage of OM, and interacSon with DOC.

Big Spring Run View East

Before Excava&on 9/13/11 Aeer Excava&on 9/28/11

Objec&ve: Remove the impairment… the eroding stream banks that contribute to high suspended sediment and nutrient loads, and permit frequent OB flow.

Big Spring Run Aeer Restora&on April 2013

Before Restoration April 2005

Big Spring Run Before Restora&on April 2005

Big Spring Run Aeer Restora&on November 2011

Post-‐Restora&on August 2013

Pre-‐ and Post-‐Restora&on Monitoring

Big Spring Run Floodplain Wetland Restoration

See video of 18 September 2012 flood at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCorgwKIsH03jLRuTSF3Wxzg

Aerial views Pre-‐ and Post

04 14 2007 06 04 2013

0 0 0.25 0.5 km Hydrogeology: 18 piezometers, 32 shallow wells Q, T, flow, pH, DO, DOC, N, P 3 USGS Gage Sta&ons 3 ISCO samplers 3 Turbidity sensors

Monitoring H2O, Sed & Nutrients In and Out: Pre-‐ and Post-‐Restora&on

NCALM lidar DEM

East Branch

West Branch

Main Stem

N

Restora&on Reach

Channel Cross Section Surveying

Mapping & Surveying Stream Banks

Pre-‐se\lement Wet Meadow and Modern Anthropocene Stream Measuring Rates of Erosion and Deposi&on 2004 -‐ present

Repeat high-‐resolu&on topographic surveys, Big Spring Run, PA Shilling, 2010, and Becker, 2011 (F&M); Collabora&on with A. Gellis, USGS

2004

Cross sec&on

Cross sec&on

Measuring Rates of Erosion and Deposi&on 2004 -‐ present

Repeat high-‐resolu&on topographic surveys, Big Spring Run, PA Shilling, 2010, and Becker, 2011 (F&M); Schulte, Blair, and Lewis, 2013 (F&M); Collabora&on with A. Gellis, USGS

Grain Size Analysis Stream Banks: ~100% silt, v.f. sand, and clay

Bars along incised corridor: ~10-‐20% sand or finer

Bank

Point Bar

0 0 0.25 0.5 km

% Contribu&on from Stream Banks -‐ Chemical Fingerprin&ng

NCALM lidar DEM

Sweeney Gage

Fry Gage

Keener Gage

N Mean = 63%

Mean = 54%

Mean = 33%

0 100 %

0 100 %

0 100 %

Inset Point Bars

“Floodplain” 1. 80-‐100% of deposiSon on “Sle pads” on inset point bars is from bank erosion.

% Bank Erosion

2. No deposiSon on Sle pads on “floodplain” (i.e., on legacy sediment terrace).

Tile Pad Experiment – Where Does Deposi&on Occur?

•  Discharge •  Turbidity •  Suspended sediment loads •  Loud out – Load into restora&on reach

USGS Gage Data

Out – In < 0 No erosion, Yes deposi&on



Pre-‐ and Post-‐Restora&on (Out – In)

Legacy Sediment Removal/Riparian Wetland Restoration Best Management Practice

•  The BMP proposed by PADEP is an ecological restoration and management strategy. •  Restoration and management actions are proposed to re-establish

natural stream, wetland, floodplain and riparian conditions and functions. •  Monitoring at BSR and future implementation sites are necessary to fully quantify and document the BMP benefit (i.e., load reduction). •  Contact Jeff Hartranft, PADEP: [email protected]

Collaborators include •  37 researchers, •  11 ins&tu&ons •  3 agencies PA DEP, EPA, USGS •  4 graduate •  ~22 undergrad •  Restora&on by LandStudies, Inc.

Ongoing Research at BSR

Merritt's Presentation

Documents