NCDENR Science Advisory Panel on Aquatic Resource Restoration

Summary of Meeting Held on November 2nd, 2011 in Raleigh, NC

Members in Attendance / Other Attendees
Jerry Miller / Michael Ellison
Will Harman / Cyndi Karoly
Dave Penrose
Mike Vepraskas
Martin Doyle / Todd Tugwell
Scott McLendon
Suzanne Klimek
Mac Haupt
Linda Fitzpatrick

Discussion Summary

The webinar started with a review of priority issues identified by EEP for SAP member consideration for incorporation into the group’s work plan. (EEP prepared a document entitled “Considerations for SAP Work Plan” as requested during the webinar held in October.) It was noted that the work plan can include commenting on the stream mitigation guidelines when public input is invited, but that won’t be till the latter part of next year.

There was discussion about providing guidance on channel assessment methods as described in the ‘Considerations…’ document. The importance of evaluating the watershed within which a project is located in addition to assessing the stream channel was mentioned. An analysis of this subject could go further than as described and even speak to treatment options. It was observed that the more focused the group is with a particular issue, the better able it will be to produce results within a reasonable time frame. In May of 2010 a publication was issued that provided a fairly comprehensive look at assessment methods (by Eric Somerville – see: and uploaded on SAP intranet page under technical documents). The panel could build off of the Somerville document and weigh in on what’s most appropriate for North Carolina.

There is currently a gap between assessment and design – can be called restoration potential. It would be good to give some consideration to this subject. There is disagreement about what the most appropriate assessment tools are. The group could identify or develop tools that could be shared with restoration practitioners through EEP. The product could have utility for other divisions within the department as well.

EEP is interested in increasing the overlap between what constitutes good restoration and good mitigation. (Michael drew a Venn diagram with two circles, each representing those two subjects.)

The panel needs to consider what can be accomplished by a group of busy volunteers. The product could be a framework for how others could carry out a detailed evaluation or analysis, instead of the panel taking on such a big job themselves.

There was dialogue about steering clear of how to assign mitigation credit to projects. One member noted that credit generation is something the panel should address. For example, there should be a way for mitigation providers to get credit for improving dissolved oxygen. USACE indicated that ultimately it was their responsibility to do that. The panel could make statements about the importance of certain water quality improvements or restoration outcomes, but regulatory agencies have to determine how mitigation credits are generated. There are inherent difficulties associated with tying mitigation credit to natural responses such as improvements in D.O. or the benthic macroinvertebrate community. But, it was asked whether there would be any utility to looking at projects that had yielded biological success and evaluate their attributes. A comment was made about weaknesses in sample size and analysis time frame in studies that have already been conducted. EEP does intend to go back to the projects evaluated by Penrose for characteristics of benthic macroinvertebrate communities after a restoration project has been implemented. EEP is also developing some ideas for long-term monitoring studies and will share those with the SAP. There is a need for research that informs better restoration.

The discussion migrated back to assessment methods. Some thought could be given to how practitioners can develop a ‘restoration potential’ component to mitigation plans – build a bridge between assessment and design. The group can specify assessment tools that yield useful results and use the Somerville paper as a starting point. Will will develop an action plan for this issue. Dave and Martin volunteered to help.

It was suggested that the SAP can also weigh in on the sediment transport issue. A flow chart could be designed to help practitioners ask the right questions and apply the right assessment tools. It could also get at questions of risk assessment and appropriate restoration methods. Jerry will develop an action plan for this issue. Will said he had some thoughts to provide on the subject.

A subcommittee can address the issue of what hydroperiods to target for wetland mitigation. Mike Vepraskas will be the lead and will involve others at NC State as well as Mac Haupt of EEP. USACE suggested that Dave Lekson also should be a part of this subcommittee. It was also noted that it would be good to involve Curt Richardson.

It was suggested that each subcommittee seek to address the watershed context in their product.

The group decided to work toward having a draft work plan by the end of the year which would go out to members for review. Then, a webinar will be held in January of 2012 to discuss it.

The following is a summary of the issues that the group has decided to take up and who will be involved in developing the action plan and assisting with the effort. Refer to the issues document provided for the meeting for a more detailed description of the proposed issues.

Issue / Lead Member / Others to be involved
Develop guidance on stream channel assessment methods / Will Harman / Dave Penrose, Martin Doyle
Recommended tools for analyzing sediment regimes for NC stream restoration projects / Jerry Miller / Will Harman
Recommended assessment tools improve hydrologic predictions for restoration projects given different soil types and landscape positions / Mike Vepraskas / Mac Haupt, Dave Lekson, others at NCSU

For each issue, the SAP lead will provide the following information:

  • Issue description
  • Why it’s important
  • Who will be involved in working on the issue
  • Approach addressing issue
  • Description of the product
  • Timeline for sharing product with the SAP

Information on each issue will be provided to Suzanne by January 6th, 2012.

Suzanne will compile the information into one document that will be the Panel’s draft work plan. This will be distributed to members by January 10, 2012.

Suzanne will set up a date/time using Doodle for a webinar during the week of Jan 16th.