|
 |
|||||||||||
| UPPER DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
FLOODPLAIN AND TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PLAN
Friends of the Upper Delaware River In Cooperation With: The State of New York The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Prepared by: LandStudies, Inc. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR ACTION Legacy Sediments: A Brief History Most people blame current agricultural practices, sewerage treatment facilities, and development – strip malls, residential subdivisions, and paved roads and parking lots – for polluted waterways and unstable streams, but a greater portion of the problem in the Northeastern United States goes back to the industrial and agricultural, or post-settlement, period of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. To understand the problems of sediment and nutrient pollution, erosion, flooding, and other issues associated with unstable stream systems, it is important to understand the changes Northeastern watersheds have undergone over the past three centuries. During settlement and on through rapid urbanization, from the 18th century up through the first half of the 20th century, much of the vegetation disappeared through land clearing for timber, agriculture, commerce, and settlements. Massive erosion from upland slopes into stream and river valleys ensued. To make it easier for farming and other human activities, meandering stream channels were moved from the lowest elevations in the valley centers to the higherelevations at valley edges, and in the process usually were straightened. Thousands of mill dams were built on stream channels throughout the Northeast. Behind the dams, water ponded and its flow velocity slowed. All the eroded sediments and pollutants (phosphorus attaches to soil particles) that had moved into the valleys accumulated behind the dams and on the floodplains between the dams (see Figure 1). Stream channel beds and floodplains grew artificially high, perched on the fine-grained eroded materials. Elevated channel beds and floodplains were no longer closely connected to groundwater supplies; therefore, flows were composed predominantly of surface water runoff, with temperatures far exceeding that of the groundwater. Vegetation changed because of the disconnect. Wetland systems were created not because of their proximity to groundwater but because they sat on dense, fine, nearly impervious sediments perched high above the original stream bed elevation and groundwater. No longer could those wetland plants extend their root systems into the groundwater to remove the nitrogen compounds (see Figure 2). Ecological Impacts and the Need for Action As dams were removed or fell into disrepair – a condition that continues today – stream channels began to work their way down through the accumulated sediments, also known as “legacy sediments,” toward their historical elevations, leaving the artificially elevated floodplain behind and becoming more and more “detached” from the floodplain. Channel beds have cut too deeply through the sediments to allow any but the very highest flows to escape from the channel. Flow forces in the channel, therefore, are excessive and erosive, carrying stream bank sediments and attached pollutants downstream, undercutting banks and causing them to collapse, creating ongoing tree falls and resulting debris jams in waterways. Stream channels are eroding or have eroded back down through sediments that collected behind mill dams, leaving their alluvial floodplains high above the current base flow water elevation, and disconnecting riparian root systems from groundwater flows. The processes of frequent floodplain inundation, relieving in-channel stresses; groundwater infiltration through porous floodplain material; and nitrogen removal from groundwater through root systems are lost under these conditions that are prevalent today throughout the Northeastern United States. The various components of a stream system can no longer interact properly. Stream banks and beds are eroding as they seek their proper elevation and location within the channel valleys. Phosphorus attached to the sediments along the banks is carried downstream with the eroded sediments. Nitrogen uptake by plants in the historical floodplain no longer occurs. Overland flows from stormwater enter the stream instead of the floodplain. Surface flows, once filtered and percolated through floodplain soils to recharge groundwater supplies, now add to the channel flow, increasing the frequency and severity of inappropriate flooding downstream. Normal stream flows now have higher temperatures, because groundwater now intersects the streambed only infrequently. The legacy sediments stored along streams and the abnormally high stream banks contain massive amounts of phosphorus, which is released during channel erosion. Additionally, artificially high banks separate plant root zones from the nitrogen in groundwater. Thus, instead of nitrogen being taken up by plants or being denitrified by bacteria, groundwater flowing through the sediments transports the nitrates, along with phosphates, into streams. Proposal Approach for Restoration of Tributaries The functions and benefits of a stable, natural stream channel and floodplain system are interconnected in physical, ecological, and biological processes. These processes are the goal of stream channel and floodplain restoration, and form the core of our approach to restoring the tributaries of the Upper Delaware. These restoration goals include: · a channel at proper elevation and with stable dimensions, profile, and pattern to minimize evolutionary movement either vertically or laterally and to be able to receive cooling groundwater; · a pool-and-riffle sequence flowing over a stable gravel or cobble channel bed to help provide habitat and passage for trout and other desired aquatic species; · a floodplain low enough to receive more routine flows, thereby reducing excessive and erosive flow forces in the channel at the site and downstream; · a floodplain low enough to allow root systems to interact with groundwater, providing nutrient uptake by the plants, denitrification of the groundwater by bacteria, and effective stabilization of the stream banks; · a floodplain wide and flat enough and composed of the proper earthen materials to absorb and hold overland or flood flow while allowing the flow to percolate through to groundwater; and · a plant community adapted to frequent inundation that will provide suitable habitat for riparian wildlife and whose root systems will provide nitrate and phosphate removal from surface and/or groundwater. To accomplish these goals, we need to restore stream channels and floodplains. Floodplains and stream banks that typically are now 3 to 20 feet high should be 12 to 18 inches high. LandStudies’ approach is to work with, rather than fight against, natural systems, especially in the critical area of stream corridor and floodplain restoration. Our preferred focus is on long-term solutions rather than short-term band-aids. We are in the forefront of stream and floodplain restoration techniques to create stream systems that function the way nature intended, with a full range of interactive components that produce long-term environmental benefits. LandStudies has designed and constructed numerous floodplain and stream restoration projects, including McIlvaine Run in Chester County, Pa. – a project that focused on establishing a wild brown trout spawning area in a spring-fed stream that, over time, had degraded into a roadside ditch. LandStudies relocated the stream to its proper pattern and elevation and created brown trout spawning habitat, including redds, which has remained stable in the 18 months since its completion (see Figure 3). SCOPE OF WORK In the Upper Delaware Watershed, particularly, the impact of these historic activities on trout habitat has been substantial. Sediment transport to the main stem is great enough to shut down fishing during high flows (storm events). Excessive flow forces in channels that have been highly eroded not only have eliminated the gravel beds required for spawning but also have fractured bedrock and contributed to large deposits of gravel, cobble, and colluvial material at the tributary/main stem confluences to the extent that they block fish passage. TASK 1 - A strategy for floodplain restoration in the Upper Delaware Basin will be developed as part of this project, and will form the cornerstone for restoration activities for years to come. We see this approach as providing direct benefits specifically to trout passage, spawning, and growth, as well as the broad array of ecological benefits for the stream and its restored floodplain. Task 1 Specifics: Subwatersheds in the Upper Delaware Basin will be mapped in GIS at a scale that is agreed upon by FUDR and LandStudies. Available digital thematic data will be utilized from either governmental agencies or non-profit organizations. A series of matrices will be established that encompass the environmental criteria that are important to assessing restoration needs for subwatersheds. Pertinent and available ecological, biological, and physical information relative to restoration needs for the subwatersheds will be gathered and assembled. If feasible, a GIS thematic layer will be developed for each matrix that summarizes the existing findings for that matrix in each subwatershed where data is available. Findings for each matrix will be cross-referenced, via footnotes, to the source of the data used to make the summary entered in the GIS thematic layer. If it is not feasible to develop a GIS thematic layer for a matrix, then summary findings for that matrix will be entered into a table or spreadsheet for the subwatersheds where information on that matrix was available. The development of these matrices will include, as a core element, consideration of significant impacts to trout habitat, including: o areas where sediment transport to the main stem is great enough to shut down fishing during high flows (storm events); o areas where excessive flow forces in channels have eliminated the gravel beds required for spawning; o areas where excessive flow forces have contributed to large deposits of gravel, cobble, and alluvial material at the tributary/main stem confluences to the extent that they block fish passage. Another matrix we will include is the identification of former mill dam locations that present opportunities for restoration to stable flow patterns and elevations and upstream sediment trapping. The extent to which we can identify these former mill dam locations is directly dependent on the available historical reports and studies in the Upper Delaware Basin on mill dams. We will research this topic and develop maps of former mill dam locations if sufficient information is available to do so. We anticipate that some subwatersheds may not be included in this analysis because sufficient environmental information is not available. Depending on the regional scale of the study, there may be over 60 subwatersheds within the region. Part of the long-term approach of this Tributaries Strategy is to assess those subwatersheds at a later time. The end product of this task will be a series of maps and/or tables that summarize the “restoration needs” matrices for the Upper Delaware Basin. For each matrix, this product will help us visualize where the “hot spots” from a basin-wide perspective are. TASK 2 – Stakeholder input for subwatershed prioritization in the Upper Delaware Basin. Prioritization criteria will be developed in a collaborative framework with stakeholders identified by FUDR. These criteria will be used to prioritize the subwatersheds in the basin where existing environmental information is available. LandStudies and FUDR proposes to conduct three workshops with interested stakeholders to gather input on what these prioritization criteria should be, and to gather additional input on existing and perceived restoration needs in subwatersheds. Efforts by the LandStudies team will be supplemented with expertise from FUDR scientific members. Task 2 Specifics: For the subwatersheds in the Upper Delaware Basin where sufficient environmental information is already available, a prioritization matrix will be developed to ultimately rank the subwatersheds for priority restoration action. In order to develop this matrix, we need to establish the criteria that are used in the matrix for prioritization. It is important that there is “buy-in” from the start on what these criteria should be, before ranking values and weights are entered (in Task 3). In order to have an inclusive discussion on developing the prioritization criteria, FUDR and LandStudies will hold three workshops at different locations to gather stakeholder input on what these prioritization criteria should be. As part of these stakeholder meetings, we will also solicit information on what stakeholders think the restoration needs are for subwatersheds they have knowledge of. Very often, there is “grass roots” information on environmental problems and trends that never makes it into reports published by agencies. These stakeholder workshops will provide the means to gather information at that level, and to assure participation by those interested in the progress and specifics of this project. As a further effort to gather stakeholder input and to promote information outreach, LandStudies will provide information to FUDR so that they can publish that information on the FUDR web site. Meeting notices will also be announced on the FUDR web site and mailed to specific stakeholders. FUDR will take the lead in promoting and announcing upcoming stakeholder meetings, and in securing the venues for the stakeholder meetings. The end product of Task 2 is that the outcomes of the stakeholder meetings will be summarized by LandStudies and FUDR as part of Task 3. TASK 3 – Subwatershed prioritization and the selection of eight targeted subwatersheds. LandStudies and FUDR will utilize the results of the stakeholder meetings to develop the final prioritization criteria with which to compare analyzed subwatersheds for restoration need and feasibility. We anticipate that the prioritization criteria will include ecological/environmental criteria, public exposure, political expediency, landowner compensation, funding realities, etc. LandStudies will work closely with FUDR to further establish the process by which criteria are weighted so that an overall priority score is determined for each analyzed subwatershed. The goal of the priority ranking process is to identify eight targeted subwatersheds for floodplain restoration. These eight targeted subwatersheds will have the highest combined restoration need and feasibility. Again, efforts by the LandStudies team will be supplemented with the scientific expertise of FUDR members. The end product of Task 3 will be a prioritization matrix for all the analyzed subwatersheds that shows their prioritization criteria and scores, the overall priority rankings, and the identification of the eight targeted subwatersheds. TASK 4 – Restoration analysis of targeted subwatersheds, and selection of three pilot restoration projects. LandStudies will conduct field site visits for the eight targeted subwatersheds with FUDR staff and invitees. These site visits will be performed for the purpose of allowing LandStudies and FUDR to select three of the subwatersheds as pilot restoration projects. A number of aspects will be considered during these site visits, including potential restoration sites, restoration feasibility, restoration strategies, site-specific restoration need, landowner issues, funding needs, etc. The selection of the three pilot project subwatersheds will be a joint effort of FUDR and LandStudies. The selection of the three pilot projects will focus on the opportunities and sites where restoration projects can provide the greatest number of benefits, including: · reducing erosive, in-channel forces (shear stress), · reducing flood elevations, · reducing sediment and nutrient transport, · increasing wetland habitat, · increasing groundwater recharge, · helping maintain proper in-channel water temperatures and base flows, · providing stable trout spawning areas and macroinvertebrate habitat, · improving downstream water quality, and · encouraging the full array of floral and faunal communities to create a functioning and balanced food web. The end product of Task 4 will be the selection of the three pilot project subwatersheds, and a write-up of the justification for their selection based on the prioritization matrix from Task 3 and the site visit findings from this task. TASK 5 – Pilot restoration project development. For the three selected pilot restoration projects, LandStudies will prepare preliminary costs estimates and scopes of work for design, permitting, and construction. The development of cost estimates and scopes of work for the pilot restoration subwatersheds assumes there is an agreed-upon long-term approach to tributary restoration activities in the Upper Delaware Watershed. The cost estimates and scopes of work for these pilot restoration projects will take into consideration specific landowner issues (including loss of use of land, easements, compensation, etc.), the interface between restoration efforts and their degree of impacts to roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, and political and geopolitical issues that can have a bearing on the funding of the pilot restoration projects. The need and extent of pre- and post-restoration monitoring for the pilot projects is critical to demonstrating restoration success, and ultimately for securing funding for the next set of restoration projects. LandStudies will begin pre-restoration monitoring on the three pilot projects as part of this proposal. This is further described as Task 6 below. Public education and outreach are important elements for restoration projects, and those elements will be included in the scopes of work that are developed as part of this task. The end product of Task 5 will be scopes of work and cost estimates for the three selected pilot restoration projects. This end product will allow FUDR and others to proceed with securing funding for implementing restoration for one or more of the pilot restoration projects. TASK 6 – Pre-restoration monitoring of pilot projects. For the three selected pilot restoration projects, we will begin pre-restoration monitoring of stream water quality and macroinvertebrates. A site will be chosen for each pilot project, as part of Task 5, which is representative of where the floodplain restoration project will be implemented. During the last three months of this contract period, the following sampling will occur at each site: · Water quality sampling during a baseflow period, · Water quality sampling during a storm event (high flow) period, · Macroinvertebrate sampling during a baseflow period, · Habitat assessment during a baseflow period. For the water quality sampling, the following parameters will be measured: Total Phosphorus Total Nitrate + Nitrite Orthophosphate (unfiltered) Total Ammonia Orthophosphate (filtered) Total Suspended Solids Total Nitrogen Turbidity Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Water samples will be collected and analyzed for the above parameters in a certified water quality laboratory. Additionally, the following parameters will be measured in the field: Water Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Specific Conductivity pH For the water quality sampling during a storm event, the field parameters listed above plus field turbidity will be measured, as practicable and with safety in mind, on a regular basis during the period of the high flow event (up to the maximum flow, as indicated by a stage rod). Water samples will be collected at these regular sampling times as well. The water sample with the highest field turbidity value will be analyzed in the laboratory for the parameters listed above. Two macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from each pilot project site during a baseflow period. These samples will be collected in a quantitative means using either a Surber or Hess sampler. The organisms in the samples will be identified to the family level as part of this project, and the samples will be preserved and archived for more detailed analyses as part of the subsequent design and permitting project. The budget for these efforts assumes that an academic institution will be involved in this pre-restoration monitoring, and that student assistants will be performing some of this work with supervision by LandStudies staff, FUDR scientists and faculty from the academic institution. This type of monitoring, with supervision, is ideally suited to undergraduate students and/or volunteers. FUDR and LandStudies intent is to begin a partnership with an academic institution interested in this type of restoration monitoring, and that this partnership continue during the implementation and post-implementation phases of the restoration projects. PROPOSED COST The cost for the five tasks in this proposal is $85,525. Cost breakdowns per task are shown below. Task 1 – Strategy for floodplain restoration – subwatershed data $16,800 Task 2 - Stakeholder input for subwatershed prioritization and data $15,100 Task 3 - Subwatershed prioritization and targeted subwatersheds $ 9,150 Task 4 - Restoration analysis and selection of 3 pilot projects $16,400 Task 5 - Pilot restoration project development $10,150 Task 6 - Pre-restoration monitoring of pilot projects $10,150 FUDR - Administrative costs $ 7,775 Total Project Cost: $85,525 SCHEDULE These tasks will be completed with all deliverables submitted to FUDR within 12 months of the notice to proceed. Tasks will be performed sequentially, with the expected time frames for each task shown below. Task 1 – Strategy for floodplain restoration – subwatershed data 3 months Task 2 - Stakeholder input for subwatershed prioritization and data 1 month Task 3 - Subwatershed prioritization and targeted subwatersheds 2 months Task 4 - Restoration analysis and selection of three pilot projects 1.5 months Task 5 - Pilot restoration project development 1.5 months Task 6 - Pre-monitoring of pilot projects 3 months Appendix A - Multiple Benefits of Floodplain and Stream Restoration LandStudies’ restoration approach focuses on restoring new floodplains at the proper elevations relative to site-specific variables, including the size and quantity of the bed/sediment load, downstream base-level controls, and stream bank materials, among others. Restoring our waterways using this methodology has the potential to stem the tide of the current evolutionary path of stream corridor degradation in the Northeast. The multiple and interconnected benefits associated with LandStudies’ natural approach to stream corridor and floodplain restoration are discussed below. Flood Conveyance and Reduction Wetland pockets and functional floodplains will help alleviate nuisance flooding both in the immediate restoration area and downstream as well. During high flows, water that used to add to the downstream flow is now dispersed and slowed on restored floodplains, where it filters slowly down through the soil. A connected floodplain also reduces the shear stresses or erosive forces in the channel and floodplain areas, thereby significantly reducing tree-falls and subsequent debris jams. In addition, the connected floodplain area serves to trap incoming debris and sediments on the floodplain itself. This helps to reduce the frequency of debris jams at constriction points, bridges, and culverts. Wetland Creation Wetland pockets created along the length of the restoration in the restored floodplain areas have multiple benefits, including improved water quality, flood control, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. Water from frequent out-of-bank flows settles in the wetlands, where water-borne sediments can drop out, nutrients can be used by the wetland plants, and nuisance flooding can be abated. Water in the wetlands gradually filters through the ground, recharging groundwater systems. Well-vegetated wetlands are prime habitat for a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Groundwater Recharge As water from high stream flows comes out of the newly restored channel and onto the attached floodplain, the water collects in the created wetland areas, where it is vegetatively filtered and allowed to move slowly down through the soil to recharge the groundwater supply. Removal of the post-settlement/milldam alluvial deposits, which includes the impervious clay layers formed within the material, provides for higher infiltration rates through the remaining loam and gravel/cobble material in the floodplain areas and active channel after the restoration is complete. Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Benefits Lowering overly high stream banks, which are subjected to high stresses and erosive forces, to re-create an attached floodplain immediately removes a source of sediment and nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) loading from the project site. Our studies have demonstrated that the sediment and nutrient loads from eroding stream channels are extremely significant. The removal of this post-settlement fill in our floodplains can have an immediate effect on improving water quality. In the long-term, the frequent connection of flow to the historical floodplains provides enhanced water quality benefits by: removing sediments and debris from the active channel through frequent deposition into the floodplain; limiting in-channel shear stresses to non-erosive levels during flooding events because flows spread out into well-developed valley flats; providing efficient nutrient uptake through root zones that extend into or very near base flow elevations; improving nitrate reduction in restored floodplains and wetlands through bacterial denitrification; allowing regular exchange of organic materials between the channel and the floodplain; creating wetlands; and improving groundwater recharge. Stormwater Management Stream corridor and floodplain restoration can be viewed as an ecologically harmonious, alternative method to address municipal stormwater management issues. A complete stream corridor and floodplain restoration project can serve to meet stormwater management goals for water quality and quantity. Water quality enhancements can be obtained immediately by eliminating sediments and nutrients held in the highly erosive, artificially high stream banks. Over the long term, the frequent flooding into the floodplain and the use of wetland areas throughout the floodplain help trap and filter incoming floodwaters, thus eliminating not only excess water but also water-borne sediments and pollutants from downstream receiving waters. Water quantity benefits can be had by reducing in-stream shear stresses to appropriate levels based on site-specific variables, including the size and quantity of the bed/sediment load, downstream base-level controls, and stream bank materials, among others. This approach serves to correct the root cause of the problem, which is stream channel degradation, rather than chipping away at the symptom with numerous stormwater ponds that serve to hold or infiltrate small portions of the watershed in order to ultimately protect the receiving stream channels. Riparian Buffers Native plants, both herbaceous and woody, will provide many benefits to the stream itself and to the water that moves into the floodplain. Trees and shrubs will help shade the stream, keeping it cooler and healthier for aquatic wildlife. Leaf litter from these woody plants will also provide a source of food for macroinvertebrate life in the stream. Herbaceous plants in the wetland pockets help reduce nutrients through nitrogen and phosphorus uptake. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvement A cleaner stream, wetland pockets, and a variety of native plants create and improve habitat for both in-stream and terrestrial wildlife, starting with the macroinvertebrate life in the stream and continuing up the food web to fish, birds, and mammals. The newly restored site will provide food, cover, and nesting sites for a variety of species. The quality of fish habitat improves significantly with reductions in both sediment erosion and subsequent deposition in the channel farther downstream. Invasive Species Removal The excavation involved with creating a more natural stream channel and floodplain results in the immediate elimination of any invasive species present on the site. The post-construction installation of native herbaceous and woody plants along the riparian corridor discourages the re-establishment of invasive, non-native plant species. Topsoil Generation One of the immediate economic benefits that come from excavating an abnormally high floodplain is the generation of high-quality, nutrient-rich topsoil. This topsoil salvaged from a stream corridor/floodplain restoration site can be readily recycled back into farming practices, which basically restores the soil to its origins. Developers also provide a ready outlet for high-quality topsoil. Aesthetic Enhancement A restored landscape will produce lush green vegetation, bright flowers, and seeds and fruits that will attract a variety of butterflies, birds, and other wildlife species. Appendix B – Studies in the Legacy Sediments & Floodplain Restoration The following documents help explain our current studies and observations and the potential they hold for new best management practices and policies: Bedford Springs Sediment and Soil Investigation (R.Walter and D. Merritts 2006) Agricultural BMPs, Nutrient Load Reductions, and Watershed Restoration – the Octoraro Creek Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay (John R. Shuman 2005) “Back to the Future”: Stream Corridor Restoration and Some New Uses for Old Floodplains (LandStudies 2004) Palynological Analysis of Five Samples from Big Spring Trench Three (Franklin and Marshall College 2004) Colonial Mill Ponds of Lancaster County Pennsylvania as a Major Source of Sediment Pollution to the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay (Franklin and Marshall College 2004) Santo Domingo Creek Sediment & Nutrient Load Study, Lititz Borough, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (LandStudies 2004) An Evaluation of the Pollution Reduction Benefits of the Santo Domingo Floodplain Restoration Project in Lancaster County (Penn State 2004) LandStudies’ Reply to An Evaluation of the Pollution Reduction Benefits of the Santo Domingo Floodplain Restoration Project in Lancaster County (LandStudies 2005) Sediment and Soil Site Investigation (Franklin and Marshall College 2004) Summary of Suspended-Sediment Data for Streams Draining the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Water Years 1952-2002 (United States Geological Survey 2004) Appendix C – Key Personnel LandStudies, Inc. Mark Gutshall is a principal and the founder of LandStudies, a recognized leader in the field of environmental restoration and land planning. He has more than 20 years’ professional experience in designing, permitting, and constructing ecological restoration projects in the Mid-Atlantic region. Bachelor of Science, Forest Science, 1984: The Pennsylvania State University Applied Freshwater Ecology, 1991: Western Michigan University Habitat Evaluation Procedures, 1992: Colorado State University Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, River Morphology and Applications (Level I and II); River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III and IV); Natural Channel Design and River Restoration, 1988: Wildland Hydrology Consultants, Pagosa Springs, Colorado John R. Shuman, Ph.D is a water resources professional with over 15 years experience in water quality assessment and restoration, watershed management, agricultural and other non-point source pollution, sediment transport dynamics, ecosystem restoration, partnership development, strategic planning, funding and budgeting, and staff supervision. Strong experience in both private and public sectors, including 12 years as chief scientist and agency program manager for watershed management and water quality restoration for two river basins. Ph.D. Environmental Science, 1988: Kansas State University Dissertation: Influence of Agricultural Runoff on River Water Quality and Ecology Bachelor of Arts, Biology, 1978: Millersville University Ward L. Oberholtzer, P.E. is a Professional Engineer, registered in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina, with expertise in the assessment, design, and construction of stream restoration projects using natural channel design techniques and fluvial geomorphic principles. He also has extensive experience in the application of those techniques and principles where infrastructure or civil improvements exist. He provides supervision and technical engineering support for all hydrology/hydraulic- and wetland-related projects such as watershed and waterway studies and geomorphic assessments, stream restoration and fish blockage projects, bridge and culvert analysis/design, open and closed highway drainage systems, flood control and insurance studies, BMP analysis/design, erosion and sediment control design, wetlands delineation, and mapping assessment and replacement. Bachelor of Science, Agricultural Engineering, Soil and Water Engineering, 1986: University of Maryland Comparison of Hydrology Models (HEC-1, TR-20, PSRM-88): The Pennsylvania State University Wetlands Delineation and Evaluation Technique (WET II): Wetlands Training Institute Water Surface Profiles (HEC-2): Catonsville Community College Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, River Morphology and Applications (Level I and II); River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III and IV); Natural Channel Design and River Restoration, 1998-2000: Wildland Hydrology Consultants, Pagosa Springs, Colorado |
||||||||||||
| FUDR :: 1148 5th St., New York, NY 10128:: email: catskilldan@mac.com :: 607-363-2001 | ||||||||||||