Process Based Restoration Approaches and Engineering Design Criteria · 2018. 10. 22. · Process...

Process Based Restoration Approaches and Engineering Design Criteria

Tuesday October 23rd 2018

Jared McKee Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Hydrologist

Objectives

• Learn Ecological Standards for restoration projects

• Learn why it matters • Learn quantitative design criteria to ensure

ecological standards are met

Outline

• Background – Odum – Ecological Engineering and Self Design – Palmer and Beechie – Ecological Standards and

Process Based Principles

• Simplified Design Criteria for Ecological Process Based Engineering

• Comparison to other approaches

Howard T. Odum As sometimes attributed to past cultures, people may again find glory in

being an agent of the earth

• American Ecologist (b. 1924, d. 2002) • Developed concept of “self design” • Defined Ecological Engineering

– those cases where the energy supplied by man is small relative to the natural sources but sufficient to produce large effects in the resulting patterns and processes (Odum 1962)

Self Design

• Integral to ecological engineering theory • Using Ecological Self Design is

– Low energy – Sustainable – Composed of self regulating processes – Inexpensive – Different

Example – Port Aransas, Texas Wastewater Treatment

• 1954 – 500 residents – Sewage plant with primary and secondary treatment released its

nutritive waste waters on flat bare sands – Pond and freshwater marsh developed with salt adapted vegetation

around outfall • 2000

– 5000 residents – Outfall marsh spread and attracted wildlife including alligators,

turtles, and waterfowl – Area adopted as an Audubon Wildlife sanctuary with boardwalk

and observation tower

Ecological engineering meant letting nature self organize a suitable tertiary treatment ecosystem and fitting human

society to nature in a way that both prospered

Port Aransas Texas 1956

Time Lapse

1956

1956

2017

Ecological Standards – Palmer et al. 2005

Five Standards for Ecologically Success River Restoration 1. Guiding image of a dynamic state 2. Ecosystems are improved 3. Resilience is increased 4. No lasting harm 5. Ecological assessment is completed

Process Based Principles – Beechie et al. 2010

Four Process-based Principles for Restoring River Ecosystems 1. Target root causes of habitat and ecosystem

change 2. Tailor restoration actions to local potential 3. Match the scale of restoration to the scale of the

problem 4. Be explicit about expected outcomes

Simplified Design Criteria

• Space • Energy • Time

• Matter

Space

Fluvial process space is a widespread concept also known as: • Process Domain • Functional Process Zone • Freedom Space (Espace d’ Liberte) • Room for the River (Ruimte voor de Rivier) • Erodible Corridor

We call it the Steam Evolution Corridor (SEC)

Space • Providing greater space for fluvial dynamics

capitalizes on the ecosystem service of self system recovery (Bergen 2001)

• Practitioners indirectly restore habitat by removing anthropogenic system disconnectivity, allowing for natural food disturbance and greater biodiversity (Junk 1989)

• Criterion requires a project result in a net gain of dynamic fluvial process space where flooding, channel mobility, sediment conveyance

Space Process Space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃) Stream Evolution Corridor (𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) Initial Process Space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖) Final Process Space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓)

Pre Anthropogenic Influence 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ≤ 𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 Post Anthropogenic Influence 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 ≪ 𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 Process Based Restoration Criteria 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓 > 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖

Space

1. Map pre-disturbance extent of fluvial process space or SEC

2. Map anthropogenic disconnections within the fluvial process space

3. Map post-restoration extent of fluvial process space

Restoration project meets the Space Criterion when the Final Process Space is greater than Initial Process Space

Space Process Space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃) Stream Evolution Corridor (𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) Initial Process Space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖) Final Process Space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓)

Pre Anthropogenic Influence 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ≤ 𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 Post Anthropogenic Influence 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 ≪ 𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 Process Based Restoration Criteria 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓 > 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖

Space

• Think about how this ties in with Stage 0, Stream Evolution Model, and beaver assisted restoration

• Can Stage 0 conditions be met with a limited space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖)?

• Can beaver persist in a limited space (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖)?

• Process based approach takes time and flows • Restoration doesn’t occur during

implementation • Restoration occurs through self design with

inherent stream energy and biologic inputs • Requires patience • Guarantees long term success

Time

data

StreamStats Output Report

State/Region IDCA

Workspace IDCA20180323205919842000

Latitude38.93808

Longitude-121.29271

Time3/23/18 1:59:35 PM

Basin Characteristics

Parameter CodeParameter DescriptionValueUnit

DRNAREAArea that drains to a point on a stream22.9square miles

ELEVMean Basin Elevation596feet

PRECIPMean Annual Precipitation28.4inches

Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters100 Percent 2012 5113 Region 3 Sierra Nevada

Parameter CodeParameter NameValueUnitsMin LimitMax Limit

DRNAREADrainage Area22.9square miles0.072000

ELEVMean Basin Elevation596feet9011000

PRECIPMean Annual Precipitation28.4inches15100

Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report100 Percent 2012 5113 Region 3 Sierra Nevada

PIl: Prediction Interval- Lower, PIu: Prediction Interval- Upper, SEp: Standard Error of Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other-- see report)

StatisticValueUnitPIlPIuSEp

2 Year Peak Flood697ft^3/s232210074.4





100 Year Peak Flood4080ft^3/s1670994058



Time

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000

Aug-10 Feb-11 Sep-11 Apr-12 Oct-12 May-13 Nov-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jul-15 Jan-16 Aug-16 Mar-17 Sep-17 Apr-18

Levee Breach at beaver dam

Beaver depredation ceased

25 acre floodplain tree planting

Beaver dam failure

Levee removal and BDAs

Beaver reactivate 25 acre floodplain Channel avulsion and formation

3,200 cy sediment deposition on floodplain

Lateral channel migration

Levee removal and BDA

0.2 acre mitigation pond constructed

Habitat Creation Habitat Restoration

2008 2018

Matter • Use geomorphically appropriate material for

instream actions • Practitioners ask what would naturally occur,

form habitat, or create base level control for the project reach

• Boulder riffles rarely end up in low gradient reaches

If projects are using material to form habitat that is not

geomorphically appropriate then they are asking for trouble

Do we want anthropogenic habitat or naturally formed habitat?

If we construct in this space we take away space for natural process formation (self design) and again we lower the return on our investment and risk further degrading to natural processes.

“Rosgen” channel vs Stage Zero channel

Matter

Examples and Economics

• Log Jams and Woody Debris • Rock where appropriate

• Sediment • Water

• Common highest cost for implementation?

Moving material (sediment) or importing rock

Energy

Instream and floodplain restoration actions continue to use heavy machinery to achieve form-based goals in fluvial waterways, even the smallest streams and

sensitive wet meadow habitats (Bernhardt 2005)

Uvas Creek, California

Energy In A View of the River, Luna Leopold describes the

river as a machine because like any machine it involves “the transformation of potential energy into kinetic form that accomplishes work in the

process” (Leopold, 1994)

Remember H.T. Odum and Ecological Engineering those cases where the energy supplied by man is small relative to the natural sources but sufficient to produce large effects in the resulting patterns and processes (Odum 1962)

Energy Prescriptive Based Tells practitioner HOW they have to implement project and ensures ecological approach

1. “Net Zero Energy” Maximize use of stream energy for meeting form objective (aim for C neutral) unless you are modifying infrastructure

2. Use geomorphically appropriate material (Pollock et al 2003, 2007, 2012; Manga and Kirchner 2000)

This criteria is well established in Green Architecture

Ecological Design is strongly rooted in Architecture

Ecological design – “any form of design that minimizes environmentally destructive impacts by integrating itself with living processes”

Sim Van der Ryn Architect/Ecologist

Energy Borrowing from Eco Architectural Design Eco Architecture Eco stream design

1. Focus on energy available (solar and wind) to meet heating, cooling and space objectives over time

2. Design optimizes passive strategies 3. Situate house to maximize energy need

1. Focus on Stream energy hillslope/channel gradients, discharge and sediment supply to meet form and habitat objectives over time

2. Design should optimize passive strategies 3. Modify infrastructure to maximize stream

energy need

Concept models on Energy Flow Home vs SEC

Do we want anthropogenic habitat or naturally formed habitat?

If we construct in this space we take away space for natural process formation (self design) and again we lower the return on our investment and risk further degrading to natural processes.

“Rosgen” channel vs Stage Zero channel

Energy

This criteria is right out of Green Architecture Design

Successional stages

Maximize Stream Energy Minimize Fossil Fuel Input When working in the stream channel this prescriptive criteria places bounds on how the

practitioner can work and requires them to:

Exhaust all stream energy before using diesel energy • Doesn’t apply to infrastructure modification • Reduces habitat disturbance • Requires practitioner to build habitat using prevailing sediment and energy • Retain and encourage a shifting habitat mosiac • Very low risk of constructing forms that are overwhelmed or non compatible with

system dynamic or scale

Energy

Reduce Risk using Space and Energy Design Criteria

1. Opening dynamic fluvial space is low risk

2. Using stream energy to meet form objective is low risk

Energy

Energy We will relate inherent stream energy through comparing energy in a flood event to energy in

diesel fuel or,

Inherent stream energy vs. fossil fuel energy

• The common unit of energy is the joule, so we will compare joules in diesel fuel and days of heavy equipment usage to joules in a flood event of a specific flow and duration.

• Joule in SI base units 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘⋅𝑚𝑚2

𝑠𝑠2

Energy

Energy

Bagnold (1966) defines stream power as “the available power supply, or time rate of energy supply, to unit length of a stream is clearly the time rate liberation in kinetic form of the liquid’s potential energy as it descends the gravity slope 𝑃𝑃. Denoting this power by 𝛺𝛺,

𝛺𝛺 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑃𝑃 Where 𝜌𝜌 is the whole discharge of the stream”, 𝜌𝜌 is density of water, and 𝜌𝜌 is gravity.

Energy By taking this available stream power and integrating over the length of the project (m) and the duration of a flow event (s), a total flow event energy can be estimated.

Total flow event energy = available stream power * reach length * flow

duration

Units analysis of the available stream power equation multiplied by project length and flow duration is as follows

((𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑚𝑚3

) ∗ (𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠2

) ∗ (𝑚𝑚3

𝑠𝑠) ∗ (𝑚𝑚

𝑚𝑚)) * (𝑚𝑚) * (𝑠𝑠) =𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘⋅𝑚𝑚

2

𝑠𝑠2

Thus,

Total flow event energy =𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘⋅𝑚𝑚2

𝑠𝑠2 and

Joule =𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘⋅𝑚𝑚2

𝑠𝑠2

Which leads to

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠 𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝑜𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝐺𝐺 𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒 =

(𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒𝐺𝐺𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑎𝑎𝐺𝐺𝑑𝑑 𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝𝐺𝐺𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐺𝐺𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑑𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺)

𝑗𝑗𝐺𝐺𝑓𝑓𝐺𝐺𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝜌𝜌𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝑜𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺

𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒𝐻𝐻 𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑝𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠 = 𝜌𝜌𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠 𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝐺𝐺 𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒

𝑜𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺 𝑟𝑟𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝐻𝐻

Energy

• Doty Ravine Project Reach Length – 2333m Slope – 0.0024 Flows from USGS Streamstats

Estimates of fuel consumption (3 𝑘𝑘𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔ℎ𝑟𝑟

) and length of work days (10 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑

)

Energy

Statistic Flow Rate (m3/s) Liters of Diesel Heavy Equipment Days

2 Year Peak Flood 21 2604 22





100 Year Peak Flood 122 15103 126

200 Year Peak Flood 138 17066 142

500 Year Peak Flood 158 19554 163

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Heav

y Eq

upm

ent D

ays

Lite

rs o

f Die

sel

x Year Peak Flood Statistic

Intrinsic Stream Energy

Equivalent Liters of Diesel Equivalent Heavy Equipment Days

Statistic

Flow Rate (m3/s)

Liters of Diesel

Heavy Equipment Days

2 Year Peak Flood

21

2604

22

5 Year Peak Flood

48

5887

49

10 Year Peak Flood

67

8235

69

25 Year Peak Flood

88

10933

91

50 Year Peak Flood

106

13071

109

100 Year Peak Flood

122

15103

126

200 Year Peak Flood

138

17066

142

500 Year Peak Flood

158

19554

163

Energy

Summary of Approaches Process Based Riverine Restoration

Beechie et al., 2010; Palmer et al., 2005; Cluer and Thorne (2014); Pollock et al., 2014; Kondolf (2011)

Design Standards Basis for Design

Criteria Design Considerations Practices ● Address source ecological

problems at appropriate spacio-temporal scale

● Articulated and measurable outcomes for restoring ecosystem dynamics

● Results in no lasting harm inflicted on ecosystem

● Increase space and connectivity for fluvial process

● Maximize site inherent energy to meet objectives

● Utilize ecologically appropriate material and structure to meet objectives

Stability tolerance (High) Self-system design and organization (High) Data and analysis need (Low) Construction disturbance (Low) Energy efficiency (High) Public cost (Low) Adaptability (High) Dynamic outcome

Wood placement, Beaver dam analogues Modifying land management practices e.g. adapt agriculture, urban parks or infrastructure to accommodate fluvial dynamics *Infrastructure criteria qualifies if net gain in dynamic space attained

Infrastructure and Property Protection Seiweke (2013); DWR (2013); Sholtes et al., 2017; Copeland et al., 2001; Shields et. al., 2003


Criteria Design Considerations Practices ● Protect life, infrastructure, and

property ● Consider impacts to amenities,

economics, and ecosystem

● Space limit allowable for lateral spread and vertical fluctuation of flooding

● Space limit allowable for erosion and sedimentation process

Stability tolerance (Low) Self-system design and organization (Low) Data and analysis need (High) Construction disturbance (High) Energy efficiency (Low) Public cost (High) Adaptability (Low) Static outcome

Install, modify, or remove, culverts, bridges, levees, walls, channel bank or bed hardening, increasing channel capacity.

Habitat Construction and Channel Design Copeland et al., 2001; Rosgen D.L. (2001); Shields et al., 2003


Criteria Design Considerations Example Practice ● Satisfy compensatory mitigation

requirements ● Satisfy habitat structural

components for focal species ● Applied when source problems

cannot be addressed

● Channel geometry ● Vertical and lateral channel

stability ● Floodplain geometry,

elevation and form ● Stability of habitat

structures

Stability tolerance (Low) Self-system design and organization (Low) Data and analysis need (High) Construction disturbance (High) Energy efficiency (Low) Public cost (High) Adaptability (Low) Static outcome

Filling of natural channels, channel reconstruction, riffle augmentation, grade controls and bank hardening (e.g. cross vanes, j-hooks, and toe wood)

Process Based Riverine Restoration

Beechie et al., 2010; Palmer et al., 2005; Cluer and Thorne (2014); Pollock et al., 2014; Kondolf (2011)

Design Standards

Basis for Design Criteria

Design Considerations

Practices

· Address source ecological problems at appropriate spacio-temporal scale

· Articulated and measurable outcomes for restoring ecosystem dynamics

· Results in no lasting harm inflicted on ecosystem

· Increase space and connectivity for fluvial process

· Maximize site inherent energy to meet objectives

· Utilize ecologically appropriate material and structure to meet objectives

Stability tolerance (High)

Self-system design and organization (High)

Data and analysis need (Low)

Construction disturbance (Low)

Energy efficiency (High)

Public cost (Low)

Adaptability (High)

Dynamic outcome

Wood placement,

Beaver dam analogues

Modifying land management practices e.g. adapt agriculture, urban parks or infrastructure to accommodate fluvial dynamics *Infrastructure criteria qualifies if net gain in dynamic space attained

Infrastructure and Property Protection

Seiweke (2013); DWR (2013); Sholtes et al., 2017; Copeland et al., 2001; Shields et. al., 2003

Design Standards



Practices

· Protect life, infrastructure, and property

· Consider impacts to amenities, economics, and ecosystem

· Space limit allowable for lateral spread and vertical fluctuation of flooding

· Space limit allowable for erosion and sedimentation process

Stability tolerance (Low)

Self-system design and organization (Low)

Data and analysis need (High)

Construction disturbance (High)

Energy efficiency (Low)

Public cost (High)

Adaptability (Low)

Static outcome

Install, modify, or remove, culverts, bridges, levees, walls, channel bank or bed hardening, increasing channel capacity.

Habitat Construction and Channel Design

Copeland et al., 2001; Rosgen D.L. (2001); Shields et al., 2003

Design Standards



Example Practice

· Satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements

· Satisfy habitat structural components for focal species

· Applied when source problems cannot be addressed

· Channel geometry

· Vertical and lateral channel stability

· Floodplain geometry, elevation and form

· Stability of habitat structures

Stability tolerance (Low)

Self-system design and organization (Low)

Data and analysis need (High)

Construction disturbance (High)

Energy efficiency (Low)

Public cost (High)

Adaptability (Low)

Static outcome

Filling of natural channels, channel reconstruction, riffle augmentation, grade controls and bank hardening (e.g. cross vanes, j-hooks, and toe wood)

Design Pathways

adapted from Fryirs et al., 2016 Assessing the Geomorphic Recovery Potential Rivers

Ecological Design Criteria

• Matter • Energy • Time • Space

Slide Number 1ObjectivesOutlineHoward T. Odum�As sometimes attributed to past cultures, people may again find glory in being an agent of the earthSelf DesignExample – Port Aransas, Texas Wastewater TreatmentSlide Number 7Time LapseSlide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Ecological Standards – Palmer et al. 2005Process Based Principles – Beechie et al. 2010Simplified Design CriteriaSpaceSpaceSpaceSpaceSlide Number 21SpaceSpaceTimeTimeMatterMatterExamples and EconomicsEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergySlide Number 37EnergyEnergySlide Number 40Slide Number 41Slide Number 42Slide Number 43Summary of ApproachesDesign PathwaysEcological Design Criteria

Process Based Restoration Approaches and Engineering Design Criteria · 2018. 10. 22. · Process...

Documents

Transcript of Process Based Restoration Approaches and Engineering Design Criteria · 2018. 10. 22. · Process...