Regional Support of Vegetation on Streams
◦The Upper Maumee Watershed Management Plan was created in 2014 at a cost of $297,066. The Allen County SWCD and Defiance SWCD matched 60% (services/county dollars) to 40% (services/federal dollars). http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/wmp_maumee-upper_wmp.pdf
◦Save Maumee is administering a federal grant from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Funded by the United States Department of Agriculture through the United States Forest Service. Here are some dollar values of job creations and revitalization. http://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GLC-GLRI-FactSheet-FINAL-20170307.pdf
◦Save Maumee Riparian Buffer Initiative received support letters from Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District, Upper Maumee Watershed Partnership, Indiana Forester, Northeastern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council and others to increase riparian buffers at headwater streams. Trees planted on riparian buffer areas help decrease streambank erosion, reduce nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus to help improve water quality all the way from Allen County’s ditches, all the way to Lake Erie.
◦Many local governments are creating buffer protection plans and ordinances without the benefit of scientifically-based guidelines. To address this problem, over 140 articles and books were reviewed to establish a legally-defensible basis for determining riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation; to present the results and proposes several simple formulae for buffer delineation that can be applied on a municipal or county-wide scale. http://kywater.net/wolfrun/Stream-Restoration/riparianbuffer%201%20.pdf
◦CITY OF FORT WAYNE RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL, Aug. 14, 2015 http://riverfrontfw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Fort-Wayne_Bio_Final_Document_10272015.pdf
◦Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for [Indiana] Domestic Action Plan for the Western Lake Erie Basin: 2 Provinces of Canada and 8 U.S. States. https://savemaumee.org/comments-to-glwqa-for-indiana/
Indiana Drainage Handbook suggests ONLY ONE SIDE of a ditch’s vegetation to be removed in usual situations, NOT BOTH!
- Section:2.3-3 – One sided construction – entire area below the banks one side of the stream or open drain.
- Section:2.36 – Overviews of the Agency Application Review Process [Save Maumee Projects are protected by the Flood Control Act (most floodways) and Navigable Waterways Act (where applicable)]
- Section 5.3 – Debrushing – “Vegetation is probably the single most important component of wildlife habitat. Deep rooted native plants) grasses, shrubs and trees_ are usually the most economical means of bank stabilization and erosion control. Therefore, extensive use of debrushing should be reserved only where such activity is absolutely needed for maintaining access, maintaining the flow capacity and conveyance or selectively controlling nuisance species.”
- 5.5 The cost is less – “single bank modification that has modification is less costly.”
- 5.6 Channel Excavation/Dredging “The overbank excavation involves the least amount of disturbance to be the channel and the natural habitat associated with it. However, it sometimes impacts the riparian habitat where excavation is occurring and will also normally require some degree of mitigation.”
- In certain conditions, especially in regularly maintained, man-made drainage ditches where no trees or shading vegetation currently exist along the banks (Exhibit 3.3a), working on both sides of the ditch could be considered. However, even under these circumstances, it is recommended that the work be limited to only one side of the stream, so that permanent, shade-producing trees have a change to be established on the non-worked side. Aside from water quality and habitat benefits, maintaining a shade canopy over the stream inhibits the growth of weeds in the streambed. Growth of dense weeds in the stream channel slow the flow of water and promote sediment deposition in the main channel, increasing the annual maintenance costs.…stream side habitat should be preserved, and some shade retained, by limiting construction to one side of the stream (Exhibit 5.6). When feasible, vegetative filter strips (Practice 804) should be installed along the work-side of the bank.…when compared with two-sided modification, single-bank modification has fewer adverse impacts on terrestrial wildlife habitat, through aquatic habitat is still affected. In some instances, single-bank modification also costs less to construct and vegetate. Therefore, all the practices provided in this section assume that the entire work will be done from one side of the channel with spoil deposited along the work side. However, when two-sided modification is considered, despite its drawbacks noted earlier, work may be done and spoil deposited on both sides of the ditch.
- Practice 602 – Channel Excavation/Dredging – constraints – may require reconstruction of all side outlets to main stream. May negatively impact well established riparian corridor
- Practice 102- Tree Preservation and Protection – applicable to nearly every project. Note: This practice is also included in the Indiana Erosion Control Handbook.
Studies completed to preface current water quality problems and solutions for the Maumee River that drains the Western Lake Erie Basin
- DRAFT is accepting comments until August 28, 2017 Indiana’s Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) DOMESTIC ACTION PLAN (DAP) for the WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN (WLEB) & Save Maumee is in the plan!
- In 2009 the Federal Army Corps of Engineers, Western Lake Erie Basin study was released: http://wleb.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Upper-Maumee-Watershed-Final-Assessment-091509.pdf
- Small Water Systems with a Big Problem: Harmful Algal Blooms https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/small-systems-big-problem-harmful-algal-blooms
- Ohio Sea Grant study: http://lakeerieceap.com
- Ohio State University F.T. Stone Laboratory Center for Lake Erie Area Research via Director, Christopher J. Winslow, PhD, Powerpoint diagraming how the Maumee River is the main pollutant for Lake Erie. https://osu.app.box.com/s/my0liv0f98gwpgtwr684reohu8zyio3s
- Quantifying the Potential Water Quality Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Practices for Stream Fish Conservation in the Western Lake Erie Basin 29 July 2016 http://lakeerieceap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Final_Report_with_Appendices.pdf
- Journal of Journal of Great Lakes ResearchVolume 42, Issue 6, December 2016, Pages 1322–1331: Thinking outside of the lake: Can controls on nutrient inputs into Lake Erie benefit stream conservation in its watershed? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133016300958
or abstract here: http://lakeerieceap.com/blog/2016/07/26/journal-article-thinking-outside-of-the-lake-can-controls-on-nutrient-inputs-into-lake-erie-benefit-stream-conservation-in-its-watershed/
- Ohio EPA 2017 State of Ohio’s Western Lake Erie Basin Collaborative Implementation Framework: A Pathway for Transitioning Ohio to a Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Domestic Action Plan: http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/33/documents/wlebcollaborative.pdf
- Linking Minnesota Land Cover Changes to Drinking Water Treatment – Soil and Water Assessment Tool to assess how land use change affects water quality in the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The modeled relationships between land cover change and water quality can be used by drinking water treatment plant managers to adjust treatment options and anticipate previously unforeseen changes. The forests in the source watershed can also be “valued” in terms of their ability to reduce chemical treatment costs at the drinking water facility. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/linking-minnesota-land-cover-changes-drinking-water-treatment
Federal Documents to Support Save Maumee’s Projects
- Urban Watershed Forestry Manuals support increasing riparian buffers.
Part 1: https://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/uf/watershed1/urban_watershed_forestry_manual_part1.pdf
- Part 2: http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/uf/watershed2/urban_watershed_forestry_manual_part2.pdf
- Part 3: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/uf/watershed3/urban_watershed_forestry_manual_part3.pdf
◦National Resources Conservation Service & DNR, Buffer Strips: Common Sense Conservation https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/home/?cid=nrcs143_023568
◦National Conservation Buffer Initiative Questions and Answers, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/16/nrcs143_025577.pdf
◦A whole list of links from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding water policy Guidence and Publications https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/water-enforcement-policyguidance-and-publications
◦ National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification, US EPA 2007 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/references_web.pdf
▪Sediment and Nutrient Removal in an Established Multi-Species Riparian Buffer, Iowa State University, 2003 https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/For460-560/Managing%20AFS_hydrological%20functions/Lee%20et%20al_2003.pdf
▪Harmful algal blooms are a concern for all water managers but can be a particularly tough issue to tackle for managers of small systems. Responding to these blooms in a timely and efficient manner can make all the difference in the treatment process. Learn more about this issue, as well as some important takeaways from a recent EPA webinar geared to help small systems managers. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/small-systems-big-problem-harmful-algal-blooms
◦USDA released, Effects of Conservation Practice Adoption on Cultivated Cropland Acres in Western Lake Erie Basin, 2003-06 and 2012 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd889806.pdf
◦Fine root dynamics, coarse root biomass, root distribution, and soil respiration in a multispecies riparian buffer in Central Iowa, USA . Article discusses roots provide important variables influencing the effectiveness of riparian buffer systems in immobilizing and processing soil water pollutants and improving soil quality.
◦Lag time in water quality response to land treatment. Tech Notes 4, September 2008. Developed for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Tetra Tech, Inc. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/tech_notes_4_dec2013_lag.pdf
State Research on Riparian Buffers that mirror Save Maumee’s projects
▪Fact Sheet, Water Quality Buffer Initiative 2015 – new laws that require buffers on all public waters and public drainage systems. The DNR will establish and maintain a map of each county that shows the waters that are subject to the buffer requirements. http://mn.gov/gov-stat/images/2015_buffers_fact_sheet.pdf
▪Riparian forest buffers are being planted around Maryland with the intent of improving water quality and habitat for living resources, spurred by the State’s commitment in 1996 to plant 600 miles of new buffers by 2010. Article also discusses tree survival rates of their trees in riparian buffers. http://dnr.maryland.gov/forests/Documents/rfb_survival.pdf
▪Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources, Streamside forests are complex ecosystems vital to the protection of our streams and rivers. Maryland DNR http://dnr.maryland.gov/forests/Pages/publications/buffers.aspx
▪Trees take up great amounts of water through their roots and evaporate it into the air. This usage and retention of water reduces flooding. Forest soils act as high reservoirs for ground water, releasing it slowly, even during periods of low rainfall, The forest floor acts as a natural sponge because of the large soil pore spaces, thus keeping soils or contaminants from entering streams. When soil filled water reaches the forest, water is quickly absorbed and the soil particles are deposited there. This effective infiltration system reduces overland flow leaving little chance of erosion. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. http://dnr.maryland.gov/forests/Pages/programapps/treesforsheds.aspx
▪Chesapeake Bay has launched their own Riparian Forest Buffer projects and they keep close track of how much has been increased! We want to see all the protections around Allen County too! Success stories from across the State of Virginia. http://chesapeakeforestbuffers.net
◦Riparian Buffer Acquisition Program can likely be designed to satisfy water quality protection objectives in concert with municipal recreation goals, landowner satisfaction, and – critically – the many external rules imposed upon the subject program. Review of several riparian buffer programs from around the country suggests that significant water quality protection can be achieved by acquiring real property interests on riparian lands. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”) and is intended to provide permanent land protection to riparian buffers in order to promote water quality in New York City’s West-of-Hudson Watershed. It includes recommended program methods and procedures, policy recommendations, and landowner incentives for implementation.
Contributing Factors to Drainage Problems
July 2017 Report on Indiana blue-green algae report from IDEM for high bacteria count in State’s surface water. http://www.in.gov/idem/algae/…