e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

Ecological restoration design of a stream on a college

campus in central Ohio

Jung Chen Huang, William J. Mitsch ∗ , Li Zhang

Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, School of Environment and Natural Resources,
The Ohio State University, 352 W Dodridge Street, Columbus, OH 43202, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Straightened stream channels and altered and drained wetlands have adversely impacted
Received 21 January 2008 streams and rivers throughout Midwestern USA, where some of the most dense drainage
Received in revised form and riparian ecosystem alteration in the world have occurred. A segment of Grave Creek
14 July 2008 on The Ohio State University’s Marion (OSU Marion) campus in Ohio, USA, with its lack
Accepted 14 July 2008 of riparian ecosystems, illustrates the transformation of a natural fluvial ecosystem to
an unstable and “simplified” aquatic environment that requires continued maintenance
and provides little value to the surrounding landscape or to the university. However, the
Keywords: straight ditch, available adjacent riparian land and existing hydric soil give OSU Mar-
River restoration ion a great opportunity to demonstrate a project of stream and wetland restoration on
Self-design a college campus. To restore the natural ecological stability of OSU Marion’s “back yard”
Wetland restoration and to provide habitat improvement to Grave Creek and its surrounding landscape on
Restoration costs the OSU Marion campus, we have designed a restoration of 1.1 km of Grave Creek mean-
Riparian restoration dering to the east of the existing sewer, using the two-stage channel techniques, and
Floodplain restoration about 0.6–0.8 ha of adjacent wetland. We estimate that restoration on this scale will
Stream channel cost about US$ 200,000–300,000, not including monitoring of the results. To fulfill this
project, it is likely that an opportunity for using this restoration in a stream/wetland
loss mitigation will present itself in this region of Ohio while a long-term pre- and post-
construction monitoring plan and more detailed design would be expected as the next
step.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2002). However, river channelization and floodplain wetland

In a natural or undisturbed state, rivers can be recognized
as linear corridors in which water flows play a key role
in connecting various landscape patches (Junk et al., 1989;
Malanson, 1993; Ward, 1998), which is emphasized as ‘hydro-
logical connectivity’ that operates on the four dimensions of
fluvial hydrosystems: longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and tem-
poral (Amoros et al., 1987; Ward, 1989; Amoros and Bornette,
drainage have been widely practiced throughout the Midwest
in the U.S. to create a deepened and straightened chan-
nel to maximize conveyance, eliminating lateral connections
between river channels and riparian/floodplain systems. The
Flood Pulse Concept (FPC) (Junk et al., 1989; Junk, 1999; Tockner
et al., 2000) emphasizes exchange between a river and its
floodplain as the key factor determining the function of both
the river and its adjacent riparian ecosystems. Strategies for

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 614 292-9774; fax: +1 614 292-9773.
E-mail addresses: mitsch.1@osu.edu, ecoeng@osu.edu (W.J. Mitsch).
0925-8574/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.07.018
330 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340

stream restoration usually involve promoting higher levels of

physical dynamism in streams that have been dammed, lev-
eed, or channelized (Schmidt et al., 1998; Shields et al., 2003b)
and more recently are beginning to emphasize reconnecting
streams to their floodplains.
There are many illustrations of stream and river restora-
tion design at different scales, including small streams in
northwestern Mississippi (Shields et al., 1997) and central Ohio
(Ward et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2005), riparian and water
quality restoration of streams in South Carolina (Paller et al.,
2000) and southwestern Spain (Garcia-Novo et al., 2007), dam
removal impacts in Ohio (Gillenwater et al., 2006; Tomsic et
al., 2007), and major river channel and riparian restorations of
the Kissimmee River in Florida (Mitsch and Jørgensen, 2004)
and the Stensbaek and Skern Rivers, Denmark (Brookes, 1987;
Pedersen et al., 2007a, b). Shields et al. (2003a) describe stream
corridor restoration research and practices as applications of
ecology and engineering that, while “beset by problems that
lead to poorly controlled or uncontrolled experiments,” are
opportunities for combining “the rigor of the ecologist and the
judgment and pragmatism of the engineer.”
This paper describes a stream and riparian wetland
restoration design based on ecological engineering principles
(Mitsch and Jørgensen, 2004) for a channelized ditch on a col-
lege campus in central Ohio, USA. The ditched segment of
Grave Creek on The Ohio State University at Marion (OSU Mar-
ion) campus with its lack of riparian ecosystems illustrate the
transformation of a natural fluvial ecosystem to an unstable
and “simplified” aquatic environment that requires contin-
ued maintenance and provides little value to the surrounding
landscape or to the university. The objective of our study was
to identify an ecological restoration strategy for the creek that
could improve water quality and biological integrity of the
creek and provide an outdoor aquatic laboratory for students
and classes at Ohio State Marion in concert with the master
Fig. 1 – Grave Creek watershed with The Ohio State
plan of OSU Marion campus.
University Marion campus study area and reference stream
locations indicated.

2. Site description

Grave Creek, located on the eastern edge of the OSU Marion
campus in Marion, Ohio, USA is a first order stream arising in
northeastern Marion County (Fig. 1). It was first channelized
decades ago and is maintained by the Marion County Engi-
neer’s Office, which mows the creek every year but dredges
the channel only on request. Mowing impedes the recovery
of any riparian forest along the creek, while dredging dis-
turbs the stream habitat of fish and invertebrates. Grave Creek
joins with Riffle Creek just before flowing into the Olentangy
River near Waldo. The total area in the Grave Creek watershed
(including Riffle Creek) is 73.8 km2 , composed mainly of agri-
culture and a low-density residential area with a high-density
commercial area just upstream of the study site. The segment
of Grave Creek that runs through the OSU Marion campus
(1.1 km) begins as the creek enters the north under State Route
95 (SR95) and leaves the campus at Marion-Edison Road (Fig. 1).
Approximately 15.5 km2 of land are within the Grave Creek
watershed upstream of the OSU Marion campus. To the north
of the study site, the creek is channelized and runs through
both low-density commercial, low-density residential and
agricultural land use areas. Outside the channel at the site,
nonexistent to narrow (<3 m wide) riparian buffers are found
within a mixture of land uses including farmland and the Ohio
State Marion campus. To involve the design with characteris-
tics of natural rivers in the same watershed, a reference site
was selected site downstream between Richland Pike Road
and Columbus-Sandusky Road (Fig. 1), which was referred to
as the segment with better biological stream health by Ohio
EPA (1998) with an IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity) value (40–23)
and QHEI (Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index) score (70–27).
There are at least seven darter species present at the reference
site, while a large population of pollution-tolerant creek chubs
is found at the study site (OEPA, 1998)
The main soil types at the site are Pewamo silty clay loam
(Pm) along the creek and in depressional areas, and a mix of
Glynwood silt loam (GwB) and Blount silt loam (BoA and BoB)
along both sides of the creek (Fig. 2), indicating slow infiltration
rates when thoroughly wet, and also identified by the National
Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that
formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340 331

Fig. 2 – Soil-type distribution in the project site on the OSU Marion campus. Dotted line indicates campus boundary. See
text and table for names of soils related to abbreviations shown here.

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions in the upper part (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). This
is especially the case for the Pewamo soil type . This makes
the area susceptible to flooding or ponding of holding water
while receiving runoff with tiles or drainage systems under-
ground. The fact that hydric soils dominate here suggests that
almost the entire study area was once wetland. It also pro-
vides evidence that there is good potential on the site for the
restoration of wetlands.
3. Restoration analyses and strategies
Our restoration design is divided into two parts: stream
restoration and wetland restoration, both of which will face
the same limiting factors, such as land availability, and exist-
ing facilities. Land availability is related to the master plan
of OSU Marion campus while the only existing structure of
concern is the sewer along the right bank of the creek.
3.1. Stream restoration
3.1.1. Two-stage channel design
To restore natural alluvial processes and to create a more self-
sustaining system, two-stage channel design techniques can
be applied by creating floodplains along the creek. A two-
stage channel can improve drainage function and ecological
function at the same time. The lower stage of the two-stage
channel is narrower than a conventional ditch and can poten-
tially transport sediment more effectively and provide greater
332 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340

water depth for aquatic species at the base flow. Meanwhile,

Table 1 – Parameters for three options of stream
the wider and vegetated upper stage serves as a floodplain restoration of Grave Creek
and can reduce the flow velocity at the high flow rates to sta-
Option A Option B Option C
bilize stream banks and also improve exchanges between the
channel and riparian area. Except for larger storm events, flow Bench (in multiples of channel width)
depths are lower in the two-stage design. Depths of more fre- Bench width ratio (bench 5 6 7
quent events are deeper with the narrower channel (the lower width/bankfull channel
width)
stage), which transports the sediment more effectively instead
Bench width (m) 20.3 24.3 28.4
of accumulating it on the bed as it would in a conventionally
constructed system. Therefore, substrate in the channel will Channel (in multiples of regional)
Width (m) 4.1 4.1 4.1
be coarser, benefiting habitat quality because finer materials
Channel cross-section 2.2 2.2 2.2
deposited on the floodplain trap more pollutants and smother
area (m2 )
habitat. Width to depth 7.6 7.6 7.6
Implementation of the two-stage channel design can be proportions ratio
divided into two steps. First the dimensions of the bankfull Channel side slope (x:1) 1:1 1:1 1:1
channel must be determined based on a regional pattern of Channel mean depth (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5
stream morphology versus drainage area. A regional curve is Channel max depth (m) 0.6 0.6 0.6

developed by conducting numerous profile and cross-section
surveys at locations with different drainage rates. These
selected locations should have characteristics similar to the
project site and be located in similar physiographical basins.
The regional curve shows the relation of channel dimensions,
including bankfull discharge, width and depth, to drainage
area. With the drainage area of the project site, we can deter-
mine the dimensions of the appropriate bankfull channel. For
this project, a reference reach spreadsheet v. 4.3 from the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR, 2007) was applied
for two-stage channel design, and a Northwest Ohio regional
curve (Fig. 3) was chosen for the design. The Northwest Ohio
regional curve was developed from data from at least 19 study
streams in Ohio that are predominantly on low-gradient chan-
nels dominated by herbaceous vegetation (Ward et al., 2004).
Using the Northwest Ohio regional curve, the dimensions of
the channel in the creek were calculated using a drainage area
of 15.5 km2 upstream of the OSU Marion campus study area.
The second step is to design the floodplain to the width
that fluvial processes would form under natural conditions. In
Ditch (in multiples of regional)
Ditch depth (m) 2.7 2.7 2.7
Ditch side slope 2:1 2:1 2:1
Ditch top width (m) 30.5 34.4 38.4
a two-stage channel, the elevation of the floodplain is depen-
dent on the bankfull channel while the width is determined
by the width ratio, defined as the flooded width divided by
the top width of the bankfull channel. OEPA (2000) observed
that the lower reach of Grave Creek, including the reference
site with moderate riparian buffers (10–50 m) has a high QHEI
score with moderate riparian buffers. Therefore, to enhance
the potential of the creek to develop more like a naturally
sustainable river with high habitat diversity, a width ratio
ranging from 5 to 7 (bench width/bankfull channel width) was
applied to Grave Creek to determine the size of the flood-
plain (Table 1; Fig. 4a). From this it was determined that the
bench width should be 21–29 m and the top width should be
31–39 m.
The cross-sections surveyed in our study showed the bot-
tom of the current channel is oversized (Fig. 4b). To calibrate
the dimensions drawn from the Northwest Ohio regional
curve, we compared the design to the detailed cross-section
survey and found the new bankfull channel to be similar to
certain sections of the current channel with slightly devel-
oped benches over time. Using the Northwest Ohio regional
curve with a drainage area of 15.5 km2 is appropriate and pro-
vides reasonable accuracy for the dimensions of the bankfull
channel design of the section on Marion campus.

3.1.2. Channel design options

Fig. 3 – Northwest Ohio regional curve (ODNR, 2007) for
estimating preliminary dimensions for stream restoration.
This curve was used for estimating stream depth, channel
width, and cross-sectional area for Grave Creek stream
restoration.
Two alternatives for restoring the channel itself are provided
here: (a) floodplain expansion design; (b) self-design (Fig. 4c).
Both designs are based on the two-stage design. Self-design,
a concept developed by Mitsch (1993, 1998), starts with a flat
bottom channel without a floodplain. In the beginning, the
floodplain expansion design can help a meandering channel
form more quickly. The constructed channel, however, might
not always follow the way natural channels develop, leading
to the failure of the design. The flat bottom of the self-design
allows the stream to build up the channel and floodplains
by itself. Though the self-design stream will initially require
more earthwork than the floodplain expansion design, the
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340 333

Fig. 4 – Cross-sectional diagrams for stream restoration of Grave Creek at the OSU Marion campus: (a) dimensions of the
Grave Creek design at bench width ratio of 5:1; (b) comparison of the new designed channel and current channel of Grave
Creek at bench width ratio of 5:1; (c) self-design option will require more earthwork than floodplain expansion design; and
(d) cross-sections of floodplain expansion and self-design of stream channels.

self-forming design will ensure that a new channel will form
more naturally, providing a more sustainable landscape (Fig. 4c
and d).
3.1.3. Earthwork and substrate
The cost of earthwork removal plays an important role in
channel design selection, as it is by far the highest cost of
stream restoration such as that described here. Because the
self-design approach involves construction of a deeper chan-
nel with a flat bottom, it will involve more earthwork than will
the floodplain expansion design.
The substrate in and adjacent to the existing channel
is dominated by clay, possibly due to the movement of
coarse substrates by channel maintenance and high sediment
concentration from upstream agricultural fields. The accumu-
lation of fine particles damages the quality of habitat and
threatens aquatic life. Therefore, we also suggest as an option
that clay should be replaced by fine gravel (4–6 mm in dimen-
sion) as the dominant substrate in the stream. Also, more
cobbles and boulders (25–50 cm in dimension) could be put in
locations where high energy flow occurs, like outer banks, to
increase the stability of the banks and at the same time create
different flows to improve habitat diversity.
3.1.4. Pattern design
Grave Creek on the OSU Marion campus will be widened to
form new floodplains. There are two pattern designs for the
creek on campus: a straight pattern and a meandering pat-
tern. The straight pattern would follow the original channel
line and expand the width by moving the east bank eastward
(Fig. 5 left). The meandering pattern will make a more sinuous
creek without crossing the sewer (Fig. 5 right). Both patterns
will leave the sewer and most of the west bank intact to allow
future expansion of the prairie and routine maintenance of
the sewer. The meandering pattern may require more earth-
work, but it will enhance the sinuosity of the channel inside
the creek to create a more natural channel.
3.1.5. Vegetation
For reasons of cost and quick and successful adaptation to
the local environment, we suggest taking advantage of cur-
rent vegetation on the site instead of extensive planting.
We expect that if the current vegetation cannot cover all
the area left unplanted, vegetation will recover from exist-
ing seed banks and adjacent forests. There are currently
two strips of vegetation growing along the two banks. No
matter which channel or pattern design option is chosen,
some vegetation will be removed and should be kept near
the site as a temporary nursery on campus for future re-
planting, while other vegetation should be preserved as stable
locations on site and used as seed sources and bird attrac-
tors in their original locations. With the meandering pattern
design, vegetation will take turns being removed and pre-
served on both banks (Fig. 6a right). The straight pattern will
keep west bank vegetation untouched; vegetation is removed
at the east bank and preserved (Fig. 6a left). In terms of
channel design, removed vegetation can be replanted on the
bank slopes and new floodplains (benches) in the floodplain
expansion option, while tree planting might be necessary on
the banks of self-design option, leaving the floodplain forest
and vegetation to develop naturally as sediments accumulate
(Fig. 6b).
334 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340
Fig. 5 – Choice of patterns of the creek meandering on the OSU Marion campus. Left: straight pattern; right: meandering
pattern.
3.2. Wetland restoration
3.2.1. Site selection
According to the 1987 wetlands delineation manual by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1987) (see Mitsch and Gosselink,
2007), hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology are three main indicators of jurisdictional wet-
lands in the United States. The project site, except for Grave
Creek itself, is now mostly created prairie and farmland on
former wetlands or poorly drained land. The farm fields are
artificially drained, and thus inundation during the growing
season is avoided except for short-term flooding due to runoff
and snowmelt. There has also been some drainage tile fail-
ure observed at the site that has led to surface flooding. The
existence and distribution of hydric soils on site is the most
important indicator to determine sites for successful wet-
land creation or restoration. Hydric soils are one of the most
important diagnostic features of wetlands and are used to
delineate jurisdictional wetlands in the United States (Mitsch
and Gosselink, 2007; USDA, 2007).
Even though most soils on the project site have been modi-
fied or disturbed for agricultural purposes for years, we traced
evidence of riparian wetlands before changes in land use.
Comparing aerial photography from 1994 with the USDA soil
survey (USDA, 1989), the distribution of different colors of the
photo fit closely with soil types (Fig. 2). The darker colors in the
aerial photography usually suggest lower areas with higher
moisture or saturation. Pewamo soils in the same location
from the soil maps confirm the same areas as a very poorly
drained area.
To compare and verify their potential after a long-term
disturbance from farming, soil sampling was conducted on
1 May, 2007. A total of eight sites were sampled from two
soils types, Pewamo and Glynwood, in the farmland at both
southern sides of the creek (Fig. 7; Table 2), using a 2-cm
diameter stainless steel handheld soil probe. A Munsell soil
color chart was used to estimate soil color (hue, value and
chroma). Samples were also analyzed for bulk density and per-
cent organic matter. Wetland type hydric soils are defined as
having a chroma less than or equal to 2 (Mitsch and Gosselink,
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340 335

Fig. 6 – Patterns of site vegetation preservation and planting: (a) preservation and removal of vegetation in two pattern
designs and (b) planting methods in two channels designs.

2007). Based on the results (Table 2), all PM samples had even after several years of disturbance from farming. Any
chromas of 1, while their organic matter content is higher future wetlands should be located in the Pewamo soils on
and bulk density is lower than samples from the GwB soil. the site (Fig. 7) to optimize the hydric characteristics of this
The site Pm soil has kept its characteristics of hydric soil soil.

Table 2 – Field study of soil color, bulk density and percent organic matter in the potential area for wetland creation as
determined May 2007
ID Soil typea Depth (cm) Hue value/chroma Bulk density (g/cm3 ) Organic matter percent (%)

A-1 GwB 10–20 10YR 4/3 1.35 3.74

A-2 GwB 20–30 10YR 4/3 1.40 4.19
B-1 GwB 10–20 10YR 3/2 1.63 3.87
B-2 GwB 20–30 10YR 5/3 1.68 7.16
C-1 Pm 10–20 10YR 2/1 1.26 7.48
C-2 Pm 20–30 10YR 2/1 1.42 7.09
D-1 Pm 10–20 10YR 2/1 1.29 5.67
D-2 Pm 20–30 10YR 2/1 1.49 4.90
E-1 Pm 10–20 10YR 3/1 1.30 6.69
E-2 Pm 20–30 10YR 3/1 1.38 6.90
F-1 GwB 10–20 10YR 4/1 1.37 4.36
F-2 GwB 20–30 10YR 4/1 1.54 4.42
G-1 GwB 10–20 10YR 4/2 1.59 4.01
G-2 GwB 20–30 10YR 4/2 1.69 3.16
H-1 Pm 10–20 10YR 3/1 1.34 6.94
H-2 Pm 20–30 10YR 3/1 1.51 6.48

a
GwB: Glynwood silt loam; Pm: Pewamo silty clay loam.
336 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340
Fig. 7 – Selection of the location of a riparian wetland adjacent to Grave Creek at the OSU Marion campus based on soil type.
Proposed wetland area is indicated with a “W.”
Other design elements for riparian wetland creation are
elevation, size, and specific location. According to the USGS
topographic survey, the project site has two depression areas
along the southern edge, which can easily receive runoff from
the surrounding area and would require less earthwork. Fur-
thermore, the southwestern bottom is bigger and will connect
to more different land uses of forest, grassland and prairie
in the future to form a more functional ecosystem. There-
fore, based on hydric soil, elevation, size and location above,
we suggest a wetland creation in Pm soil type along the west
bank of the stream (indicated by a W in Fig. 7). We suggest the
creation of a 0.6 ha wetland, stretching from north to south
along the west bank of the creek, as a billabong/oxbow-type.
To ensure the success of the new wetland, hydrology, vege-
tation and soil should be considered carefully to insure the
presence of the three basic components of a wetland.
3.2.2. Hydrologic design
The water source of the wetland will come from both the
flow in the creek and runoff from surrounding area. There
are three ways to connect the northern end of the wetland
to the creek at three different flows, including two PVC or
concrete pipes under the west bank that can support the
weight of the soil and a vehicle above (Fig. 8a). One pipe would
be between the bottom of the channel and the floodplain
(bankfull elevation) to collect the base flow, while a second
pipe between the floodplain and the top of the bar could
receive flows larger than bankfull discharge. These two pipes
could have check valves to prevent the water from flowing
back to the channel and control valves to shut the water off
for maintenance or planting. A storm larger than a decided
recurrence interval, e.g. 100-year flood, would allow larger
storm flows in the creek to spill into the wetlands. Further-
more, the drainage system of underground tiles should be
removed or rearranged to ensure the capability of the wet-
land to hold sufficient water and receive additional flow from
uplands. A water level control structure or weir and a small
open channel should be installed at the southern end of
the wetland, directing the extra water back to the channel
(Fig. 8a).
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340
Fig. 8 – Selected cross-sections of land below the proposed wetland and its inlet and outlet: (a) wetland profile, including
inlet and outlet designs between the wetland and the creek; and (b) channel design for inlet and outlet of the wetland
crossing the sewer line.
The pipes at the inlet and the open channel at the outlet
will be the only parts of the wetland that cross the sewer line
and will be located above the sewer without causing any dam-
age (Fig. 8b). To prevent downcutting, rocks are recommended
in the open channel.
3.2.3. Vegetation
The project will allow new vegetation to be introduced by
the inflows from the creek and from seed banks in the soil.
Aggressive alien species should be prevented from invading
or removed during post-construction monitoring. We recom-
mend planting the wetland; this could be done as part of a
spring or fall environmental event on campus.
3.2.4. Soils and earthwork
The hydric soil at the project site will enhance wetland func-
tion well without any further modification. To keep more
organic matter and seed banks in the site, roughly 20 cm of
surface soil will be excavated first and kept at an adjacent site
on campus to be put back in the wetland as its topsoil.
The elevation of bottom of the wetland can be as low as
the bottom of the channel, descending from north to south.
However, now there is a difference of about 2.1 m in elevation
between the bottom of the channel and the selected site for
the wetland. Since the wetland will cover an area of 0.6 ha
with the maximum slope of 1:1 (vertical:horizontal), the aver-
age depth of the soil that should be removed should be about
2.1 m.
337
4. Cost estimates
Earthwork will be the main cost during construction. Other
costs include planting, and drain tile and pipe rearrangement.
Here we will focus on main costs of earthwork and planting.
4.1. Stream restoration
Excavation costs for 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of stream restoration are
estimated to range from US$ 109,000 to 226,000, depending on
the width of the floodplain (bench width ratio) and the channel
design option chosen (Table 3). Because stream restoration will
replant the plants removed for the construction, there could
be a minimal cost for purchase of plants from off-campus
nurseries. However, if new plant material is desired to give
the riparian trees a quick start, then US$ 20,000 for tree and
understory planting should be budgeted. Though the flood-
plain expansion design requires less soil to be moved, the
difficulty of construction could increase other construction
fees.
4.2. Wetland restoration
With the area of 0.6 ha and an average excavation depth of
2.1 m, we estimate the total earthwork for the wetland to
involve about 13,000 m3 (16,900 yard3 ) of soil, which should
cost about US$ 59,000 to excavate. Cost of wetland plants for
338 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340
Table 3 – Costs of earthwork for three different cases of stream restoration for Grave Creek at OSU Marion campus in US$
Bench width ratio Floodplain expansion
5 6
Ave top width (m) 30.5 34.4
Earthwork (m3 ) 23,800 31,100
Cost ($)a $ 109,000 $ 142,000
Cost ($) per lineal mb $ 99 $ 129
This cost does not include wetland earthwork.
a
$ 3.5 per yd3 = $ 4.6 per m3 .
b
1.1 km stream restoration.
such a small wetland should not exceed US$ 3000–5000. Vol-
unteers and students can be enlisted to do the planting, either
in the fall or spring seasons to minimize any personnel costs.
4.3. Monitoring and long-term maintenance
Initial sampling has already begun by The Ohio State Univer-
sity’s Olentangy River Wetland Research Park (ORWRP) while
at least another 5 years monitoring will be needed after con-
struction is completed, a legal requirement for mitigation
projects. We estimate that the annual cost of monitoring
from pre-restoration through a 5-year period after the restora-
tion project is completed will be about US$ 20,000 per year
or US$ 100,000 total. This generally includes vegetation sur-
veys (sometimes by aerial photography), soil and hydrology
measurements, and wildlife observations such as macroinver-
tebrate and fish surveys and related biological indicators.
In the long run, the restored creek and wetland should
develop sustainable ecosystems naturally without inter-
ruption. Routine maintenance should be minimal after
construction. That is, the creek and wetland will maintain
and sustain a natural status by themselves in a process we
call self-design (Mitsch and Jørgensen, 2004). To deal with rare
events such as large storm debris or sediment accumulation in
pipes, university landscape help will be needed. We estimate
annual maintenance to require about 250–450 person-hours
annually or an annual maintenance budget of US$ 5000–9000.
We recommend that an endowment be set up as a condition
of any mitigation to allow cash flow to accommodate minor
site maintenance, replacement of pipes, weirs, etc.
4.4. Construction and post-construction effects
The most obvious effects on the upstream and downstream
area by the wetland/stream project will be the change in
Table 4 – Hydrologic conditions for storm events (1-year, 5-year, and 100-year flooding events) of Grave Creek at an
elevation of 294.7 m (966.7 ft) above sea level
Storm event (year) Water depth (m) Discharge (m3 /s)
1 0.7 3.7
5 8.8
100 2.2 17.9
Source: CEC (2007)
Self-design
7 5 6 7
38.4 30.5 34.4 38.4
38,400 31,100 40,300 49,400
$ 176,000 $ 143,000 $ 184,000 $ 226,000
$ 160 $ 130 $ 167 $ 205
hydrology. According to hydrology data for Grave Creek, based
on a consulting report provided by CEC (2007), the current
channel can hold hydrologic conditions for 1-year, 5-year, and
100-year storms without overbank flooding (Table 4). During
construction of the channel, we recommend the old channel
be left unfilled to keep water running through as usual until
the new channel is finished. This will not change upstream
or downstream drainage but could raise concentrations of
suspended sediments. After construction, the cross-section
of the new channel will be bigger than that of the cur-
rent channel due to excavation, while the restored wetland
will receive and hold extra water. Therefore, the project will
not increase the risk of downstream flooding. On the con-
trary, the capability of holding water will postpone peak flow
and help prevent downstream flooding. The hydrology of
the upstream area will not be influenced by or suffer from
any backwater effect from the channel, as it will be wide
enough to transfer the same or more amount of water as
before.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Because of the severely degraded and ditched Grave Creek
and because of the abundance of hydric soils on the study
site, the “backyard” of The Ohio State University Marion cam-
pus is the ideal place for a demonstration project of stream
and wetland restoration on a college campus. Based on the
investigation and ecological analyses, we recommend that
the best options should be a meandering pattern with a self-
design channel east of the sewer, between the campus bridge
and Marion-Edison Road, and a wetland of 0.6–0.8 ha on the
hydric soil to the west (Fig. 9). This restoration, if done prop-
erly, will be expected to enhance the ecological balance of the
stream and its riparian area, improve downstream water qual-
ity, provide good aquatic and terrestrial habitat on campus,
Flow area (m2 ) Water velocity (m/s) Width of water surface (m)
5.7 0.7 9.1
22.9 0.8 14.2
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340 339

Fig. 9 – Recommended master plan for stream and wetland restoration at the OSU Marion campus, including stream and
riparian restoration, created wetlands, bike path, recreation area, and pedestrian corridor. The site is shown to fit with the
existing prairie nature center on the campus.

and most important, provide a living laboratory for the OSU

Marion campus. We estimate that restoration on this scale
(0.8 km of stream and 0.6 ha wetland) will cost about US$
275,000–410,000, including 5-year monitoring of the results.
If the stream and wetland projects need to be phased in time,
it is preferable that the stream restoration be done first. The
ideal situation is for the stream and wetland restoration to be
done at the same time as there are economies of scale and sim-
ilar equipment would be used for both projects. To ensure the
ecological functions can be restored, post-construction moni-
toring for water quality and vegetation success will need to be
conducted for at least 5 years after construction, and prefer-
ably longer.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Corey Morris, Planning and Real Estate
Office, Kim Moss, OSU Senior Campus Planner, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, and Dean Greg Rose, from The Ohio
State University for the opportunity, resources, and encour-
agement to do this study. Ron Turner, Ohio State Marion
campus, provided good advice at our meetings. Rich Bradley
and Bob Klips, associate professors at OSU Marion campus,
provided collaboration and help that make this study possi-
ble. We thank Bill Acton, Lori Zella, Jennifer Blue, Jayme Fuller,
and Tom Flippo from Civil and Environmental Consultants,
340 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 329–340
Inc., Columbus, OH, for providing survey and engineering
information vital for this report. Brad Irons, Marion County
Engineer, Roger Dietrich, Marion County Sanitary Engineer,
and Bruce Ennen and Steve Volkmann, OSU Columbus, pro-
vided useful feedback at meetings and on an early draft.
Andy Ward, Jon Witter, and Brian Slater of The Ohio State
University, Dan Mecklenburg of Ohio Department of Natu-
ral Resources, James Spence, Huntington District of The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and Mark DeBrock from U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service contributed important advice
for this paper. Ryan Younge, Sherr Vue, Angela Adams, Kyle
Chambers, Keunyea Song, Blanca Bernal, and Jillian Bertram
from the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park assisted
with field sampling and lab analyses. Thanks to School of
Environment and Natural Resources, especially Director Jerry
Bigham, for fronting this project while we figured out how to
transfer funds. Olentangy River Wetland Research Publication
09-002.
references
Amoros, C., Bornette, G., 2002. Connectivity and biocomplexity in
waterbodies of riverine floodplains. Freshwater Biology 47,
761–776.
Amoros, C., Roux, A.L., Reygrobellet, J.L., Bravard, J.P., Pautou, G.,
1987. A method for applied ecological studies of fluvial
hydrosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management
1, 17–36.
Brookes, A., 1987. Restoring the sinuosity of artificially
straightened stream channels. Environmental Geology and
Water Sciences 10, 33–41.
Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2007. Preliminary
Feasibility Report, Marion Campus Wetland Mitigation Study
to Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, The Ohio State
University. available at http://swamp.osu.edu/research/
Marion OSU/index.html.
Garcia-Novo, F., Garcia, J.C.E., Carotenuto, L., Sevilla, D.G., Lo Faso,
R.P.F., 2007. The restoration of El Partido stream watershed
(Donana Natural Park): a multiscale, interdisciplinary
approach. Ecol. Eng. 30, 122–130.
Gillenwater, D., Granata, T., Zika, U., 2006. GIS-based modeling of
spawning habitat suitability for walleye in the Sandusky River,
Ohio, and implications for dam removal and river restoration.
Ecol. Eng. 28, 311–323.
Junk, W.J., 1999. The flood pulse concept of large rivers: Learning
from the tropics. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 115 (Suppl),
261–280.
Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B., Sparks, R.E., Special Issue 1989. The flood
pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In: Dodge, D.P. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. J.
Can. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106, 11–127.
Mitsch, W.J., 1993. Ecological engineering—a cooperative role
with the planetary life–support systems. Environmental
Science & Technology 27, 438–445.
Mitsch, W.J., 1998. Ecological engineering—the seven-year itch.
Ecol. Eng. 10, 119–138.
Mitsch, W.J., Jørgensen, S.E., 2004. Ecological Engineering and
Ecosystem Restoration. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Mitsch, W.J., Gosselink, J.G., 2007. Wetlands, 4th ed. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), 2007. Stream
modules: spreadsheet tools for river evaluation, assessment,
and monitoring http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/soilandwater/
streammorphology.htm.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Biological and
Water Quality of Marion Area Streams 1998. OEPA Technical
Report MAS/1999-12-6 (May, 5 2000), Columbus, Ohio.
Paller, M.H., Reichert, M.J.M., Dean, J.M., Seigle, J.C., 2000. Use of
fish community data to evaluate restoration success of a
riparian stream. Ecol. Eng. 15, 171–187.
Pedersen, M.L., Andersen, J.M., Nielsen, K., Linnemann, M., 2007a.
Restoration of Skjern River and its valley: project description
and general ecological changes in the project area. Ecol. Eng.
30, 131–144.
Pedersen, M.L., Friberg, N., Skriver, J., Baattrup-Pedersen, A.,
Larsen, S.E., 2007b. Restoration of Skjern River and its
valley—short-term effects on river habitats, macrophytes and
macroinvertebrates. Ecol. Eng. 30, 145–156.
Schmidt, J.C., Webb, R.H., Valdez, R.A., Marzolf, G.R., Stevens, L.E.,
1998. Science and values in river restoration in the Grand
Canyon. BioScience 48, 735–747.
Shields, F.D., Knight, S.S., Cooper, C.M., 1997. Rehabilitation of
warmwater stream ecosystems following channel incision.
Ecol. Eng. 8, 93–116.
Shields, F.D., Cooper, C.M., Knight, S.S., Moore, M.T., 2003a.
Stream corridor restoration research: a long and winding
road. Ecol. Eng. 20, 441–454.
Shields, F.D., Copeland, R.R., Klingeman, P.C., Doyle, M.W., Simon,
A., 2003b. Design for Stream Restoration. Hydraulic
Engineering 129, 575–584.
Tockner, K., Malard, F., Ward, J.V., 2000. An extension of the flood
pulse concept. Hydrologic Processes 14, 2861–2883.
Tomsic, C.A., Granata, T.C., Murphy, R.P., Livchak, C.J., 2007. Using
a coupled eco-hydrodynamic model to predict habitat for
target species following dam removal. Ecol. Eng. 30, 215–230.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Corps of engineers wetlands
delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
100 pp. + appen.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989. Soil survey of Marion
County, USDA Ohio. Soil Conservation Service in cooperation
with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation, and Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center, Ohio State University, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 2007. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI
[online]. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/
handbook/.
Ward, A.D., Mecklenburg, D.E., Powell, G.E., Brown, L.C.,
Jayakaran, A.C., September 2004. Two-stage channel design
procedures. In: Proceedings of the Self-Sustaining Solutions
for Streams, Wetlands, and Watersheds Conference.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Ward, J.V., 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems.
J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8, 2–8.
Ward, Ward, J.V., 1998. Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns,
disturbance regimes, and aquatic conservation. Biol. Conserv.
83, 269–278.
Zhang, L., Mitsch, W.J., Fink, D.F., 2005. Hydrology, water quality,
and restoration potential for the Upper Big Darby Creek,
Central Ohio, Ohio. J. Sci. 105, 46–56.