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 higher elevations 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
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
|
COST
|
|
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
|
TIME
FRAME
|
|
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
|
