Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s
Restoration Research Award Program

The Chesapeake Bay Trust, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and other partners announce a Request for Proposals for its Restoration Research award program. The goal of this research program is to answer several key restoration questions that are a barrier to watershed restoration project implementation. Funding partners hope that answering these questions will ultimately lead to increased confidence in proposed restoration project outcomes, clarification of the optimal site conditions in which to apply particular restoration techniques, information useful to regulatory agencies in project permitting, and information that will help guide monitoring programs. This program supports the Pooled Monitoring Initiative that is designed to connect key stormwater and stream restoration questions posed by the regulatory and practitioner communities with researchers.

What this funds: Research to address one or more of the key restoration questions listed in the Request for Proposals (RFP).

Who can apply: Both not-for-profit entities (academic institutions, non-profit organizations) and for-profit entities are permitted to apply.

How much can be awarded: Funding partners have allocated approximately $1,000,000 for this research program. Literature reviews will be funded at up to $50,000 and there is no cap for research projects.

Is match required? Match is encouraged but is not required.

Application Process: The Chesapeake Bay Trust’s applications are all submitted though an online system. If you have questions regarding the application process, please contact this program’s manager, Sadie Drescher at 410-974-2941, ext. 105.

Program Status: CLOSED

To view the most recent RFP, click here.

Deadline: was February 21, 2019, at 4pm

Application Unavailable

Currently closed. Check back for updates.

Manage an Existing Grant

Manage an existing grant or continue an application

Questions & Technical Support

Sadie Drescher
sdrescher@cbtrust.org
(410) 974-2941 x 105

Additional Information

YearAward AmountOrganizationProject TitleProject DescriptionResearch Question(s)Final ProductsPrimary Contact(s)
2019$134,000Exponent, Inc.The effect of best management practices on water quality: Optimizing monitoring to reduce uncertainty and maximize scientific valueThis project will test whether existing data collected by regulatory agencies in Maryland can detect the cumulative effect of BMP on watershed pollutant export, determine the minimum sampling frequency required to detect this cumulative effect, and establish optimal sampling strategies which can be implemented in contrasting watersheds with varying degrees of impervious surface cover. In addressing these issues, this project will deliver a software tool to guide monitoring agencies on optimal sampling strategies, able to detect anticipated water quality improvements for the least effort and cost.FY 19 Q1 + Q3: Watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? + Level of monitoring effort: Monitoring can be costly and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. What degree of representative sampling is required to determine levels of pollutant discharge at a county scale? What sample size is needed to capture variability? What is the cost of such a monitoring program?TBADr. William Goodfellow & Dr. Joshua Thompson
2019$125,098Tetra Tech, Inc.Climate Impacts to Restoration PracticesClimate models predict frequency and intensity of rain events in MD will change. Future climate is likely to increase the intensity of rain events. We hypothesize that current rules on design of BMPs and stream restoration may be inadequate to ensure success. We will implement a comprehensive analysis across the state of MD on the range of event intensity and duration under mid- and late-century climate and implications for BMP and restoration designFY 19 Q5 CC/SW: Climate impacts to restoration practice: Climate change models predict that frequency and intensity of rain events will increase, that growing season will lengthen, and that other processes related to the Chesapeake community’s approved set of BMPs will change. As a result, some suggest that standards for stormwater practices, stream restoration, and other BMPs should change (e.g., plan to treat a two-inch rain event versus a one-inch rain event; design stream restoration practices for more frequent storms).TBADr. Jon Butcher
2019$150,079University of Maryland College ParkEvaluating impacts of freshwater salinization on mobilization of nutrients and metals from stormwater best management practicesEvaluating impacts of road salts on stormwater BMPs and mobilization of associated salts, nutrients, and metals remains a challenge. We propose new experiments in the Baltimore-Washington, DC metro area to quantify the effects of different road salts on water quality across stormwater BMPs. We hypothesize that potential for contaminant retention and mobilization is based on the different types of road salts, threshold concentration levels, and stormwater BMP characteristics. We will evaluate effects of different road salts on mobilizing contaminants across stormwater BMPs and monitor salts, nutrients, and metals in nearby stream outfalls in response to deicing events.FY 19 Q6 – Emerging Pollutants: Temperature and salt have been identified as “emerging pollutants” of concern by the restoration community, beyond the “traditional” pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that have been the focus of much of the restoration community to date. Salt – Which techniques of salt application to roadways will result in less loading to streams? Which BMPs can be used to reduce salt loading to streams? TBADr. Sujay Kaushal
2019$46,550Center for Watershed Protection, Inc.Literature Review on Techniques to Reduce Salt Loading to StreamsElevated chloride concentrations in surface and groundwater from road salt is a national concern due to chloride’s numerous negative effects. Existing studies indicate that strategies to prevent chloride loading by reducing salt application are most effective to address this problem; yet, the extent to which these techniques are applied in Maryland is unknown. The team will conduct a literature review and surveys to test the following hypothesis: “Significant potential exists to reduce chloride inputs to surface and groundwater through adoption of salt reduction strategies in Maryland.” and evaluate which salt reduction techniques are the most effective.FY 19 Q6 – Emerging Pollutants: Temperature and salt have been identified as “emerging pollutants” of concern by the restoration community, beyond the “traditional” pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that have been the focus of much of the restoration community to date. Salt – Which techniques of salt application to roadways will result in less loading to streams? Which BMPs can be used to reduce salt loading to streams? TBADr. Neely Law
2019$251,729University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Assessing the effectiveness of ESD for achieving stormwater management objectives in the Upper Little Patuxent River Watershed, Howard County, MDThe primary objective of the project is to assess the spatially-aggregated effectiveness of ESD BMP’s in addressing four stormwater management goals at the watershed scale through a comparative experimental study to be conducted within the Upper Little Patuxent River watershed over a three-year period. Effectiveness of ESD implementation in a currently developing watershed will be assessed relative to a “control” watershed that was mostly developed prior to inclusion of ESD BMP’s into development plans. A secondary project objective is to determine how aggregated ESD effectiveness scales as a function of rainstorm magnitude for storms that occur during the project.FY 19 Q1 + Q2: Watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? + Level of monitoring effort: Monitoring can be costly and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. What degree of representative sampling is required to determine levels of pollutant discharge at a county scale? What sample size is needed to capture variability? What is the cost of such a monitoring program? + Stormwater management assessment: What is the effectiveness of stormwater management practices (implemented, for example, at a level required under the latest stormwater management regulations) on stream channel protection? What percentage of a catchment needs to be treated with ESD practices to reduce water flow enough to protect stream channels? Does the location of ESD practices within the catchment make a difference in protecting the stream banks? TBADr. Keith Eshleman
2019$195,692EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBCImpacts of Regenerative Streamwater Conveyance on Iron in Restored Streams and Potential Effects on Aquatic OrganismsIron occurrence is likely a result of dissolved iron in groundwater infiltration, disturbed soils at lower depths and the combination of the RSC conditions. Using a mesocosm will allow for a controlled experimental environment to directly address the question: Are there direct or indirect effects of iron to the stream macro-invertebrate community? A field study and experiment will complement the mesocosm study by identifying temporal shifts in stream chemistry/hydrology and iron presence at RSC locations (TBD) while monitoring and conducting caged field experiments on representative benthic macroinvertebrate species.FY 19 Q10 - iron/stream: Resource trade-offs in different types of restoration projects. The decision to install a restoration project at any given site by definition implies that an existing condition at that site will be modified, replaced, and/or improved. With certain kinds of restoration projects or practices, do the net benefits (nutrients, sediment, habitat, hydrology, biological resources) outweigh the net impacts (persistent and excessive iron floc mats, tree loss and resulting habitat loss, etc.)? TBADr. Jamie Suski
2018$289,903University of Maryland Baltimore County Quantifying the cumulative effects of stream restoration and environmental site design on nitrate loads in nested urban watersheds using a high-frequency sensor networkAnalyze high-frequency nitrate and streamflow data from nested watersheds in suburban Baltimore to test how well the treatment train works, how much connectivity between the stream and riparian area will reduce nitrogen, and how impervious area and infiltration practices impact the results.FY 18 RFP Q1: A1:
Question 1 on watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed?
TBADr. Claire Welty
2018$177,555Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Effectiveness of stormwater management practices in protecting stream channel stabilityTo evaluate the impacts of traditional and stormwater management practices on channel stability, using two extreme development watersheds with high quality data that will be modeled using a watershed model (SWMM) and a channel evolution model (CONCEPTS). Study results will compare the impact of traditional and practices on channel stability to provide insight into the causes of and potential solutions to channel degradation.FY 18 RFP Q2: A2:
Question #2 Stormwater Management Assessment, under Theme A: Effectiveness of restoration programs at the watershed/catchment scale.
TBADr. Theresa Thompson
2018$62,459University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Determining realistic expectations for ecological uplift in urban stream restorationsThis research will identify realistic ecological outcomes in urban stream restorations by developing a benthic macroinvertebrate tool to that can be used for planning to determine better successful factors and ultimately better success at the sites selected. FY 18 RFP Q1, 2, 7, 4 & 5: A1, A2, D7 & B4, B5:
My proposed research links to Key Research Questions 1, 2, and 7, and is related to questions 4 and 5. The research addresses so many questions because it is cross-cutting and focused on tool development that can be used more broadly to answer practitioner and regulatory key restoration questions. The results from the methods developed will provide a valuable tool for use in predicting the achievable ecological benefits (Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity), which can be placed in the context of the fiscal and physical costs of a restoration (Key Research Question 7). Planners and Regulators will be able to compare the relative ecological return of restoring a site against other sites. The entire restoration community will benefit from determining the ecological boundaries of what is achievable and from assessing the ability of out-of-channel activities and nearby source streams to promote the presence of taxa not predicted to occur under existing conditions (Research Questions 1 & 2).
TBADr. Robert Hilderbrand
2017$199,990South River FederationAssessing Watershed-scale Restoration Effectiveness: Treatment Impacts and Monitoring RequirementsThe South River Federation and Smithsonian Environmental Research Center will evaluate the cumulative performance of multiple Best Management Practices (BMPs) at a subwatershed scale. The research team will compare watershed-level discharges of sediment and nutrient pollutants from seven interconnected, restored subwatersheds of Church Creek. FY 17 RFP Q1 & 3: 1-Watershed Restoration Assessment & 3- Level of monitoring effort (related to stormwater)

Effectiveness of restoration programs at the watershed/catchment-scale

RFP FY 18 Q1: Watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed?

RFP FY 18 Q3: Level of monitoring effort: Monitoring is expensive and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. Can a reduced monitoring regime, either in terms of number of sampling stations or parameters measured at a station, or a factor such as % impervious surface treated in the region be used as a proxy?

Research application stated:
Specifically, we will address: Do BMPs perform as rated for the impervious area being treated? Are the effects of multiple BMPs along a channel simply additive, or could their effects be interactive (could a BMP enhance the effectiveness of a downstream BMP)?
While addressing question A.1 we will also address question A.3 concerning the effort needed to efficiently measure stormwater management at watershed scales. Our proposed monitoring will
use a combination of automated flow-paced stream-water sampling and high frequency measurements of turbidity, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. We will test whether high frequency measurements of flow and turbidity can be used to estimate the fluxes of total suspended solids (TSS), and particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. If this is possible, it could eliminate some monitoring costs.
TBAJennifer Carr
2017$200,000Center for Watershed Protection, Inc.Using a Novel Research Framework to Assess Water Quality Impacts of Urban TreesThis research team will quantify the stormwater treatment value of trees across urban forest types. The project will identify urban forest characteristics that influence the water and ecosystems and determine whether more complex urban forest types result in greater runoff volume reduction. FY 17 RFP Q7: Water quality of an urban tree: Although there are several guidance documents and recommendations for urban tree benefits, the empirical data to determine the stormwater benefits of urban trees of a variety of species are needed in the Mid-Atlantic region. Projects will be expected to fully quantify the stormwater treatment value (volume, TN, TP, and TSS) for an urban tree or stand of trees, with tree species, tree size, tree age, and soil volume as factors. The stormwater treatment value derived from empirical data will be compared to modeled stormwater treatment value (e.g., iTree, Maryland Assessment Scenario Tool, etc.). This study can be a combination of literature review, empirical data collection, and models.TBADr. Neely Law
2017$199,314University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Long-term impacts of living shorelines to Sub Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitats in the Chesapeake BayThis project will assess the long-term performance of living shorelines, a practice of using natural shoreline habitat to prevent erosion rather than hard shoreline armor, as well as their potential impacts to adjacent seagrass beds.FY 17 RFP Q8c -Resource trade-off of SAV for living shorelines:

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) trade-offs in living shoreline projects: Living shoreline projects, by definition, require more cross-shore space than shoreline armor projects, given that the creation of a platform for intertidal wetland vegetation and potentially an associated sill, must extend either into the subtidal zone or into the riparian zone. Such extension means that existing condition in either neighboring zone will be replaced with emergent wetland. With the resurgence of SAV in the Chesapeake, more living shoreline locations will have SAV habitat. How does impacting SAV compare to the benefit of creating intertidal wetland? Under what conditions (e.g., SAV coverage in an embayment) is an SAV impact tolerable? In addition, research shows that the sill can indirectly cause SAV loss to a nearby bed due to the sediment dropping out channelward of the sill and covering the SAV. How can indirect impacts of the sill on SAV loss be better predicted?
TBADr. Cindy Palinkas
2017$198,332University of Maryland College ParkTree Trade-Offs in Stream Restoration Projects: Impact on Riparian Groundwater QualityPredicting the impact of tree removal associated with stream restoration on riparian water quality remains a challenge. This project will quantify the effects of riparian deforestation on groundwater quality across urban restored, degraded, and forested reference sites. FY 17 RFP Q8a -Resource trade-off of stream restoration for trees

Tree trade-offs in stream restoration projects: Certain stream restoration practices by necessity can result in removal of trees: 1) trees may need to be removed on a short-term basis for construction site access; 2) trees may be removed for various methods of stream restoration in nontidal forested wetlands; 3) trees may be removed to accomplish legacy sediment removal in which the stream banks are forested; and 4) trees, even when remaining after restoration, may experience mortality due to changes in hydrology leading to higher water levels/inundation. What is the water quality and habitat cost of tree removal of certain practices compared to the benefit of the other elements of the restoration practice?
TBADr. Sujay Kaushal
2017$180,408Versar, Inc.An Evaluation of Forest Impacts as Compared to Benefits Associated with Stream RestorationThe goal of this project is to better understand the impacts of stream restoration on forest resources. The research team will inventory trees, understory vegetation, and reptiles and amphibians to determine whether there are any potentially negative impacts as a result of positive stream restoration practices.FY 17 RFP Q8a -Resource trade-off for trees

Tree trade-offs in stream restoration projects: Certain stream restoration practices by necessity can result in removal of trees: 1) trees may need to be removed on a short-term basis for construction site access; 2) trees may be removed for various methods of stream restoration in nontidal forested wetlands; 3) trees may be removed to accomplish legacy sediment removal in which the stream banks are forested; and 4) trees, even when remaining after restoration, may experience mortality due to changes in hydrology leading to higher water levels/inundation. What is the water quality and habitat cost of tree removal of certain practices compared to the benefit of the other elements of the restoration practice?
TBAGinny Rogers
2016$217,322Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityImproving Success of Stream Restoration Practices – Revised and ExpandedThis project will improve our understanding of the conditions under which stream restoration practices “fail,” with the long term goal of improving the overall application, design, and review of stream restoration projects. Information from this study will provide guidance on factors that indicate the risk of project failure, such as watershed size or impervious land use or channel specific stream power or relative floodplain width. Stability of stream restoration practices and elements of practices

FY 16 RFP Q8: How well can various modelling approaches predict the structural “success” or “failure” for the various stream restoration techniques and structures? What variables must be included in the models to make accurate predictions for stream restoration “success” or “failure” at the site?

FY 16 RFP Q9: What are the flow conditions under which different in-stream channel structures (e.g., vanes, step pools, constructed riffles, large woody debris) or approaches (e.g., RSC, NCD, stream valley restoration/legacy sediment removal) function and remain stable? What are the energy tolerances beyond which the structures or approaches begin to fail?
TBADr. Theresa Thompson
2016$177,329University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Evaluating the Effectiveness and Sustainability of Novel Stream Restoration Designs for Coastal Plain Streams in Maryland: Integrating Existing and New Data from Stream Restoration MonitoringWe propose to synthesize an extensive hydrochemical database from stream restoration sites in MD and DC to answer key questions pertaining to restoration effectiveness, sustainability, and ecological habitat condition. Stream restoration types include regenerative stream conveyance, step-pool conveyances, and valley restorations /stream-wetland complexes. We will address several questions and hypotheses. Our primary focus will be to determine the impact on nutrient and sediment loads of different stream restoration approaches. We hypothesize that results will be highly variable among restoration techniques, but that most designs will result in quantifiable reductions in nutrient loads.Q4 Effectiveness of stream restoration practices accomplishing water quality goals, differences among stream restoration techniquesTBADr. Solange Filoso
2016$199,992Towson UniversityDetermining the effects of legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection on ecosystem function and nutrient exportLegacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection projects decrease floodplain elevations and increase groundwater levels, potentially increasing nitrogen cycling and habitat for native wetland plant species and decreasing erosion of phosphorus laden sediments. The proposed study assesses the efficacy of four legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection projects that range in impervious cover and vary in length by a factor of 4.5. By sampling within longer projects at several locations, we can determine the relationship between project length and degree of mitigation and whether this relationship varies with the amount of impervious surface in the watershed.Q 6 Effectiveness of stream restoration to accomplish water quality and habitat goals – Effects of site condition on outcomes of stream restoration technique(s)

RFP 16 Q6: What is the impact of site condition (such as land use, % impervious cover, watershed condition, existing habitat, and/or valley type) and/or watershed position (headwaters vs. downstream near the receiving waters) on the nutrient, sediment, habitat, and/or biological impacts of stream restoration approaches that aim for different function (e.g., floodplain reconnection, frequency of inundation, bank stabilization, etc.) or that use different techniques (e.g., RSC, NCD, stream valley restoration/legacy sediment removal)?
TBADr. Vanessa Beauchamp
2016$43,949University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Optimizing sampling frequency and monitoring design to assess the effects of storm water best management practices (BMPs) on water restorationOur project will target the design of adequate monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs). Using representative streams from the Baltimore LTER watersheds (and others as available and applicable), we will develop sampling strategies for watersheds with variable percentage of impervious cover, accounting for the episodic nature of high and low flow. First, the project results will benefit existing monitoring programs by providing guidance for sampling strategies capable of producing reliable estimates of comparable precision and thresholds for detecting restoration activities. Second, the project will guide water quality monitoring related to MS-4 permitting and other BMP monitoring efforts.Effectiveness at accomplishing water quality and habitat goals – Watershed/catchment-scale effects of restoration practices:

RFP 16 Q 3: Monitoring is expensive and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. What degree of representative sampling is required to determine levels of pollutant discharge at a county scale? What sample size is needed to capture variability? What is the cost of such a monitoring program? Can a reduced monitoring regime, either in terms of number of sampling stations or parameters measured at a station or a factor such as % impervious surface treated in the region be used as a proxy?

RFP 16 Q 1: Watershed Restoration Assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? Of interest in the restoration community is whether, given the high temporal and spatial variability of nutrient concentrations and flows, a signal from the restoration activities even in a highly targeted, small watershed can be measured relative to a control site (before vs. after restoration activities). A related question: What percentage of the impervious surface in a watershed must be treated with best management practices (BMPs) before a difference can be measured at the outfall? Does BMP type (e.g., stream restoration, environmental site design (ESD) practices, and stormwater wetlands) influence that percentage?

Researcher’s application stated the following:
The overarching goal of this project is a statistical and modeling analysis to determine optimal sampling frequency and monitoring design for representative sampling of pollutant loads at a local, e.g., county, level (Question #3). The developed sampling strategy will account for pollutant variability due to storm or low flow events and differences in impervious cover. The power analysis of the suggested approach will allow us to tell what should be the scale of storm water restoration efforts, or BMPs, for this signal in water quality improvement to be detectable by the monitoring program (Question #1).
DownloadDr. Viacheslav Lyubchich
2016$175,730Carroll County GovernmentThe self-recovery of stream channel stability in urban watersheds due to BMP implementationA paired-watershed approach is proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs on stream channel protection. The research will evaluate the hydrogeomorphic response of BMP implementation in headwater stream drainage areas to determine if reductions in stream energy facilitate self-recovery of stream channel stability. Results will inform recommendations to credit BMPs as a hydrogeomorphic stream stabilization technique for sediment reductions as part of the Bay TMDL. It is expected that implementation of BMPs will reduce excessive stream channel and bed erosion by reducing stream energy resulting in the cessation of erosive flows that lead to the self-recovery of channel stability.Stormwater Management Assessment, Effectiveness at accomplishing water quality and habitat goals – Watershed/catchment-scale effects of restoration practices:

FY 16 RFP Q2: Stormwater Management Assessment: What is the effectiveness of stormwater management practices (implemented, for example, at a level required under the latest stormwater management regulations) on stream channel protection? What percentage of a catchment needs to be treated with ESD practices to reduce water flow enough to protect stream channels? Does location of ESD practices within the catchment make a difference in protecting the stream banks?

The specific hypotheses this research seeks to address include:
H1: The implementation of BMPs as retrofits will modify the runoff response from the watershed (hydrograph) resulting in a reduction of the magnitude, duration and frequency of erosive flow rates that meet and or exceed Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) performance standards for stream channel protection.
H2: The implementation of BMPs as retrofits will create hydraulic conditions that lead to self-recovery of channel stability.
H3: The implementation of BMP will decrease sediment loadings downstream as a result of reduced bank erosion rates.
TBAMs. Gale J. Engles
2016$50,000AKRF, Inc.Meta-Analysis of Biological Monitoring Data to Determine the Limits on Biological Uplift from Stream Restoration Imposed by the Proximity of Source PopulationsThis study will compile the biological monitoring data at stream restoration sites in the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Frederick, Howard, and Montgomery. Additional data from the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) and Maryland Stream Waders, as well as the five countywide biological monitoring programs, in adjacent stream networks will be evaluated as a predictor of biological condition at restoration sites. The hypothesis is that biological uplift (using benthic macroinvertebrate IBIs and metrics, and fish where available) at comparable stream restoration sites will be lower in stream networks in poorer biological condition, with implications for restoration potential and watershed planning.Stream Effectiveness for habitat – Effects of site condition on outcomes of stream restoration technique(s): Effectiveness at accomplishing habitat goals

FY 16 RFP Q6: What is the impact of site condition (such as land use, % impervious cover, watershed condition, existing habitat, and/or valley type) and/or watershed position (headwaters vs. downstream near the receiving waters) on the habitat, and/or biological impacts of stream restoration approaches that aim for different function (e.g., floodplain reconnection, frequency of inundation, bank stabilization, etc.) or that use different techniques (e.g., RSC, NCD, stream valley restoration/legacy sediment removal)?
DownloadDr. Mark Southerland
2015$292,606University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Quantifying the ecological uplift and effectiveness of differing stream restoration approaches in MarylandThis proposal focuses on how different restoration approaches (floodplain, channel, and instream habitat modifications), restoration age, and their landscape context affect ecological uplift via structure (benthic macroinvertebrates) and function (whole-stream metabolism) and if uplift is detected downstream of restorations. Our partners (Montgomery and Anne Arundel Counties) will help to identify at least 40 existing restorations for our triplet (upstream, restored, downstream) sampling design in a rigorous statistical framework with sufficient power to detect differences among approaches. We anticipate quantifying maximal, potential, and realized uplift in order to identify realistic goals and expectations for differing restoration approaches.FY 15 RFP Q2: What is the impact on habitat and biological factors of different stream restoration techniques?DownloadDr. Robert Hilderbrand
2015$299,034Smithsonian InstitutionEvaluating the Performance of Regenerative Stormwater Conveyances in Urban Versus Rural WatershedsWe will measure removal of nutrients and suspended sediments by Regenerative Stormwater Conveyances (RSCs) and relate removal efficiencies to impervious surface in the watershed and the rate and variability of water inflow. Using continuous monitoring and automated sampling we will accurately measure RSC performance under a range of flow conditions in watersheds with contrasting impervious cover. We hypothesize that RSCs reduce flow variability and remove nutrients and suspended sediments with decreasing efficiency as inflow rate and variability increase. Groundwater studies at one RSC will investigate sources of dissolved iron and transfers of nutrients from surface to groundwater flow.FY 15 RFP Q1: What is the impact on nutrient and sediment loads (flow and concentration) of different stream restoration techniques (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance, natural channel design, valley restoration/legacy removal, other), keeping site conditions constant?

FY 15 RFP Q2: What is the impact on habitat and biological factors of different stream restoration techniques (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance, natural channel design, valley restoration/legacy removal, other), keeping site conditions constant?

Questions 1 and 2: How do different stream restoration techniques compare in their abilities to improve aquatic habitats and to remove suspended sediment and nutrients from runoff? -from the researcher’s application

FY 15 RFP Q4: What is the impact of land use on the nutrient, sediment, habitat, and/or biological impacts of a restoration practice of a particular type (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance, natural channel design, stream valley restoration/legacy removal, other)? How does site condition, such as the land use, watershed condition, and/or valley type, determine water quality, habitat, and/or biological benefit?

Question 4: What is the impact of land use on the nutrient, sediment, habitat and/or biological impacts of a restoration practice of a particular type? -from the researcher’s application

FY 15 RFP Q7: Iron can occur naturally in the soil and the groundwater. What restoration techniques are associated with increases in iron concentration in the surface water or sediment and for how long do any increases persist? What is the impact of the iron on biological resources? Does the iron originate from the materials brought on site for restoration or does the iron originate from natural sources (e.g., materials brought to the site for restoration may add to the natural background levels, may exacerbate the iron concentrations that occur naturally, may oxidize the iron during construction activity, and/or other factors)?

Question 7: How does RSC construction affect iron oxide precipitation downstream of RSCs? -from the researcher’s application.
DownloadDr. Thomas Jordan
2015$145,284Straughan Environmental, Inc.Biological and Suspended Sediment Disturbance: Wet and Dry ConstructionThis study will quantify how sediment load, biological impairment, and riparian disturbance are related to wet or dry construction techniques. Three stream stabilization projects in Howard County, Maryland will be divided into wet and dry construction areas (treatments), and discharge and suspended sediment will be monitored at each site. Repeated measures ANOVAs will be performed to compare wet and dry construction treatments and the upstream control with respect to suspended sediment load and benthic index of biologic integrity.Construction Techniques –
FY 15 RFP Q6: What is the difference in effects on water quality (turbidity), riparian habitat, and other biological effects between stream restoration work “in the wet” (construction without diverting the stream) vs. work “in the dry?”
DownloadJustin Haynes
2015$88,076Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityImproving the success of in-stream structuresThe overall project goal is to improve the application, design, and success of stream restoration structures. A literature review of design recommendations and the physical, chemical, and biological impacts of instream structures will be conducted. Additionally, a field-based hydraulics study on a new instream structure, regenerative stormwater conveyance, will test the hypothesis that relative bedform submergence provides better flow velocity predictions than traditional roughness coefficients. This information will be summarized in a series of design guidance fact sheets, reviewed by practicing stream restoration professionals, a peer-reviewed journal article, a project web site, and at conferences and workshops.Stability-
FY 15 RFP Q8: What design and construction factors, such as construction material type, material size, and/or extent of keying a structure into the bank, are correlated with structural instability for certain site conditions, such as soil type, hydrology, slope, flow, vegetation, and/or contributing drainage area?
Visit the webpage: Virginia Tech In-stream Structures

Download fact sheets:
J-Hook Vane
Cross Vane
W-Weir
SPSC
Single-Arm Vane
Dr. Theresa Thompson

The Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s Restoration Research Forum is an annual forum in which the most recent restoration research is presented and discussed. At the forum, regulatory staff and practitioners will have an opportunity to ask new questions and clarify the current state of scientific knowledge. Topics include efficacy of research practices for water quality and biological resources, potential chemical impacts, and physical/geomorphic stability of stream restoration.

Save the date! The 2020 Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s Restoration Research Forum will be on Tuesday June 9, 2020. Check back to learn how to register.


2019 Forum


Pooled Monitoring Forum June 12, 2019

Opening Remarks

Combined Presentations with Translation Slides




2016 Forum

2016 Forum (6/8/16)
  1. Keehner presentation and all of the presentation Translation Slides that include take-home points of the presentation and summary of “What this means for me” if I’m a regulator or if I’m a practitioner
  2. Hilderbrand-experimental design
  3. Wilcox
  4. Filoso
  5. Williams
  6. Penrose
  7. Hilderbrand-fish
  8. Agenda


We are interested in pursuing question 9 as a potential research topic but we are interested in how the previous study was able to work in the wet during the instream work. Would you be able to give us more information on how the previous research team was able to get around the typical permit requirements to work in the wet?

MDE is supportive of this research question and has helped in the past and agreed to do this again to work with any successful research team to make sure they conduct work in the wet for research. In addition, MDE said it would make it easier to allow work in the wet if the streams are use I as opposed to use III natural trout waters.​ Let me know if you have any other questions. Also, MDE is part of the Pooled Monitoring Advisory Committee but not one of the funding partners (i.e., would put funding toward a successful award).

Is there a list of project sites for potential study?

This year the MD DNR has provided sites listed in the DNR Trust Fund Restoration Mapper website which is online at https://geodata.md.gov/imapwab/?appid=bcf8a3f28efe40d498402025a88d482f (contact ari.engelberg@maryland.gov for more details about the DNR sites)

In addition, previous lists have been provided which are located under the “Additional Resources” tab and are listed under the “Potential Project Lists” of this Restoration Research website.

Finally, we will add any other project lists to this website while the RFP is open.

Are federal agencies allowed to apply as the prime applicant?

Yes, this RFP is open to all types of organizations.

My organization is outside Maryland and outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Can I apply?

Yes. Several of the funding partners can support organizations outside Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We are looking for the best applications that will address/answer the research questions posed in the RFP.

The research team includes partners vs subcontractors, so how do we address question 8 for contractual work?

If awarded with federal funds the project must demonstrate “good faith efforts” in selecting subcontractors as outlined in the RFP. However, we recognize that these research projects may include partnerships that are outlined in the application and who were identified in order to robustly answer the research question(s).