1 / 7

Stream Restoration Monitoring

Stream Restoration Monitoring. The (Mostly) Missing Ingredient. Is Stream Restoration Worthwhile. What are the benefits? Can we quantify them? What approaches yield the greatest benefits? What approaches don’t work? How can we reach agreement? What needs to be monitored?

bly
Download Presentation

Stream Restoration Monitoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stream Restoration Monitoring The (Mostly) Missing Ingredient

  2. Is Stream Restoration Worthwhile • What are the benefits? • Can we quantify them? • What approaches yield the greatest benefits? • What approaches don’t work? • How can we reach agreement? • What needs to be monitored? • How can it be paid for? • How can the information be made available to all stakeholders?

  3. Is Stream Restoration Worthwhile? • Although stream restoration as we know it has been conducted in Maryland since 1987, there is no general agreement on the answer to the above questions. • A major reason for this is the lack of monitoring data on the effectiveness of restoration projects. • In October 2008 the MSRA and MWMC jointly organized and conducted a charrette on monitoring. A consensus was developed on what should be monitored in the following categories: Water Quality, Geomorphology, Biological Community, and Aesthetics/Recreation • We also concluded that a monitoring institute would have great value.

  4. Monitoring Institute • A Monitoring Institute would provide • A repository for monitoring data that would be available to the public • Researchers could access the data and analyze the date to publish useful scientific papers on stream restoration • The institute would need to be funded and staffed • Its directors should represent the diverse mix of stakeholders • Environmental regulators • Practitioners • Capital Program Managers • Academicians • Resource Managers • A panel of diverse stakeholders could identify and prioritize monitoring research needs on an annual basis

  5. Funding and Responsibilities • The permitting agency (MDE) could assess a small percentage of each project to be set aside for finding the monitoring institute. • The directors would have an oversight role over the annual budget and would prioritize activities for the institute. • The directors would identify the kinds of monitoring that is needed to answer open questions about the effectiveness of stream restoration approaches.

  6. Funding and Responsibilities • MS4permit holders may be spending tens of millions of dollars for restoration over the next five years. • A one or two percent assessment could easily fund the monitoring institute including the staff, facilities as well as a healthy fund for contracting the annual research needs identified by the directors.

  7. Possible Next Steps • Outreach for support from stakeholders • County governments/Capital program managers • NGO’s • SHA • MDE • DNR • Practitioners • Regulators • Refine details based upon stakeholder input • Seek legislative sponsors • Get bill drafted • Support with lobbying effort

More Related