REVIEW OF THE SUCCESS OF STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT FISHERIES

REVIEW OF THE SUCCESS OF STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT FISHERIES
REVIEW OF THE SUCCESS OF STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT
PROJECTS AUTHORIZED IN ONTARIO BY FISHERIES AND
OCEANS CANADA UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE FISHERIES
ACT
K.D. Trimble1, M. Prent-Pushkar2, and D. Ming3
1
Golder Associates Ltd.
2390 Argentia Road
Mississauga, Ontario L5N 5Z7
2
Aquafor-Beech Ltd.
8177 Torbram Road
Brampton, Ontario L6T 5C5
3
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ontario Great Lakes Area
867 Lakeshore Rd.
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
2007
Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2781
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Manuscript reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to
existing knowledge but which deals with national or regional problems. Distribution is
restricted to institutions or individuals located in particular regions of Canada. However,
no restriction is placed on subject matter, and the series reflects the broad interests and
policies of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences.
Manuscript reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears
above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in the data base Aquatic
Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts.
Manuscript reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests
for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover
and title page.
Numbers 1-900 in this series were issued as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series)
of the Biological Board of Canada, and subsequent to 1937 when the name of the Board
was changed by Act of Parliament, as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 901-1425 were issued as Manuscript
Reports of the Fisheries Board of Canada. Numbers 1426 -1550 were issued as
Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Manuscript
Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 1551.
Rapport manuscrit canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques
Les rapports manuscrits contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et
techniques qui constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais qui
traitent de problèmes nationaux ou régionaux. La distribution en est limitée aux
organismes et aux personnes de régions particulières du Canada. II n'y a aucune
restriction quant au sujet; de fait, la série reflète la vaste gamme des intérêts et des
politiques de Pêches et Océans Canada, c'est-à-dire les sciences halieutiques et
aquatiques.
Les rapports manuscrits peuvent être cités comme des publications à part entière.
Le titre exact figure au-dessus du résumé de chaque rapport. Les rapports manuscrits
sont résumés dans la base de données Résumés des sciences aquatiques et
halieutiques.
Les rapports manuscrits sont produits à l'échelon régional, mais numérotés à
l'échelon national. Les demandes de rapports seront satisfaites par l'établissement
auteur dont le nom figure sur la couverture et la page du titre.
Les numéros 1 à 900 de cette série ont été publiés à titre de Manuscrits (série
biologique) de l'Office de biologie du Canada, et après le changement de la désignation
de cet organisme par décret du Parlement, en 1937, ont été classés comme Manuscrits
(série biologique) de l'Office des recherches sur les pêcheries du Canada. Les numéros
901 à 1425 ont été publiés à titre de Rapports manuscrits de l'Office des recherches sur
les pêcheries du Canada. Les numéros 1426 à 1550 sont parus à titre de Rapports
manuscrits du Service des pêches et de la mer, ministère des Pêches et de
l'Environnement. Le nom actuel de la série a été établi lors de la parution du numéro
1551.
Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2781
2007
REVIEW OF THE SUCCESS OF STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECTS
AUTHORIZED IN ONTARIO BY FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA UNDER
SECTION 35 OF THE FISHERIES ACT
by
K.D. Trimble1, M. Prent-Pushkar2, and D. Ming3
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ontario Great Lakes Area
PO Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Rd.
Burlington, Ontario
L7R 4A6
1
Golder Associates Ltd., 2390 Argentia Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 5Z7. Fax 905-567-6561. Phone 905-567-4444 (ext 1200).
Email: [email protected]
Aquafor-Beech Ltd., 8177 Torbram Road, Brampton, Ontario, L6T 5C5. Fax 905-790-4090. Phone 905-790-3885 (ext 294). Email:
[email protected]
3
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Fish Habitat Management, Ontario-Great Lakes Area, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario,
L7R 4A6. Fax 905-336-6285. Phone 905-336-4592. Email: [email protected]
2
ii
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2007.
Cat. No. Fs 97-4/2781E ISSN 0706-6473
Correct citation for this publication:
Trimble, K.D., Prent-Pushkar, M., and Ming, D. 2007. Review of the success of stream
re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
2781:vi + 43 p.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ IV
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. V
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
2.0
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................2
3.0
APPROACH ........................................................................................................3
4.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................5
4.1
4.2
4.3
INITIAL SCREENING .................................................................................5
FILE SUMMARIES .....................................................................................5
4.2.1
Project Magnitude and Net Gains in Stream Length .....................7
4.2.2
File Data Quality............................................................................7
4.2.3
Design Team Composition..........................................................10
4.2.4
File Review Summary .................................................................12
POST-CONSTRUCTION FIELD COMPARISONS...................................12
5.0
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................15
6.0
RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................16
7.0
REFERENCES..................................................................................................16
APPENDIX A: RATIONALE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION.........................................19
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT
INFORMATION CHECKLIST ..............................................................25
APPENDIX C: PHASE 1 CHECKLIST TO INVENTORY FILES AND CONTENTS
FOR SELECTION ...............................................................................29
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS .....33
APPENDIX E: INDICATORS OF PROJECT SUCCESS............................................39
APPENDIX F: MASTER DATABASE OF DETAILED SUMMARIES FOR ALL
PROJECTS .........................................................................................43
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Percentage of DFO- Ontario Great Lakes Area (OGLA) referral files
reviewed for re-alignment data distributed by District between1997 and
2001. ........................................................................................................6
Figure 2.
Number of stream re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario between
1996 and 2002. ........................................................................................6
Figure 3.
Rationale for channel re-alignment projects in Ontario between 1997
and 2001. .................................................................................................7
Figure 4.
Channel length classes for authorized stream re-alignment projects
reviewed in Ontario between 1997 and 2001. ..........................................8
Figure 5.
Quality of data assessed based on information in the files relating to
habitat, biology, and physical resources for channel re-alignment
projects authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001. ..........................9
Figure 6.
Percent of files in each file information quality ranking (low, medium, and
high) based on increasing project scales (channel length) for channel
re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001. .....9
Figure 7.
Project team composition. ......................................................................10
Figure 8.
Number of disciplines, shown as a percentage, involved in re-alignment
projects. .................................................................................................11
Figure 9.
Disciplines represented on stream re-alignment project design teams for
re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001. ...11
Figure 10.
Disciplines involved in different sized stream re-alignment projects that
were authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001..............................12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Comparison of features between selected channel re-alignment
projects. .................................................................................................14
v
ABSTRACT
Trimble, K.D., Prent-Pushkar, M., and Ming, D. 2007. Review of the success of stream
re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
2781:vi + 43 p.
A review of stream re-alignment projects was undertaken to determine the extent to
which approved and completed stream re-alignment projects meet the “no net loss of
the productive capacity of fish habitat” principle of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The
role of the environmental assessment process was assessed for its ability to produce
compensation plans that meet federal fish habitat objectives. Forty-four authorized
project files were reviewed, with a further detailed field assessment of ten of these files.
Results indicate that, overall, the principal of “no net loss” was met for the selected case
studies. There was found to be a general improvement in habitat quantity and quality in
post-construction conditions. Standard information was lacking in the project files.
Recommendations include developing standard protocols for rapid assessment in preconstruction conditions, as a baseline for post-construction monitoring, as well as
standard design considerations.
RÉSUMÉ
On a entrepris un examen des projets de réalignement de cours d’eau afin de
déterminer la mesure dans laquelle les projets approuvés et menés à bonne fin
respectent le principe d’« aucune perte nette de la capacité de production de l’habitat
du poisson » de Pêches et Océans Canada. On a évalué le rôle du processus
d’évaluation environnementale pour sa capacité de produire des plans de compensation
qui répondent aux objectifs fédéraux relativement à l’habitat du poisson. On a procédé à
l’examen de 44 dossiers de projets autorisés ainsi qu’à une évaluation sur le terrain
détaillée de 10 de ces dossiers.
Les résultats indiquent que dans l’ensemble, le principe d’« aucune perte nette » a été
respecté pour les études de cas choisies. On a constaté une amélioration générale de
la quantité et de la qualité d’habitat dans les conditions post-construction. Il manquait
des renseignements normalisés dans les dossiers de projet. Les recommandations
comprennent l’élaboration de protocoles normalisés aux fins d’une évaluation rapide
dans les conditions pré-construction, à titre de condition de base pour la surveillance
post-construction, ainsi que des considérations relatives à la conception normalisée.
vi
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in Ontario reviews a large number of proposals
each year requesting the re-alignment of streams. Most of these projects occur in
southern Ontario and involve physically manipulating the location of watercourses or
their dimensions, bank characteristics, and meander geometry. A wide range of
projects require stream re-alignment, including culvert installation or removal, drainage
and stormwater management, land use change (urban or agricultural development), and
erosion control, among others. Between 1997 and 2001, DFO in Ontario reviewed
approximately 8,569 projects; 11% (943) were authorized and 12% (117) of those
projects were stream re-alignments (DFO Referrals Database 2002).
Most stream re-alignment projects result in a “harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction” (HADD) of fish habitat, as defined in Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries
Act, and are authorized under Subsection 35(2) by DFO. Any project requiring such
authorization must also undergo an environmental assessment under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) before the authorization is issued. Collectively,
this process involves detailed impact analysis, and where mitigation fails to alleviate
potential adverse effects through planning and design, compensation is required to
replace the habitat and productive capacity lost through the project. To off-set habitat
losses, and to meet DFO’s guiding principal of “no net loss (NNL) of the productive
capacity of fish habitat” as outlined in the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat
(DFO 1986), fish habitat biologists ensure that the new channel incorporates natural
channel design principles, which typically improve fish habitat.
The compensation measures authorized and implemented in stream re-alignment
projects often involve, to varying degrees, the creation of stream reaches that mimic or
replace the natural characteristics of fish habitat altered. Principles of aquatic ecology,
geomorphology, hydraulics, and landscape architecture are incorporated into the study
design to ensure that the final construction will be safe, dynamically stable, and
productive. Ideally, these designs either replace the habitat functions that were
compromised by the in-stream works, and/or contribute to related habitat functions that
improve the productivity of the principal fish assemblages present (e.g., localized
nursery habitat creation for a trout population that migrates through a stream system).
The final design is assessed upon completion, using a number of criteria including
erosion risk, stability, dynamic geomorphic stability, habitat quality and quantity, project
survival, riparian plantings, and whether or not the new channel achieves the targets set
out in design.
However, follow-up assessment to determine the success of compensation is not
undertaken consistently, and relatively little is known about the effectiveness of various
compensation techniques for stream re-alignments. With an increasing demand for
land use change and infrastructure retrofits, there is an urgent need to review the followup component of the federal approvals process. The follow-up assessment is required
to evaluate the success of the channel re-alignment designs and to provide insight into
the most appropriate design methods for various locations and conditions (e.g.,
Canadian Shield, sand/clay areas, rural/urban settings, etc.).
2
Several researchers have completed large-scale follow-up site visits to gain insight into
relative success and failure of channel restoration and enhancement projects. Kondolf
and Micheli (1995) reported on various studies completed by other investigators. These
studies showed that out of 100 enhancement projects completed in the United Kingdom,
only 5% had been re-evaluated. When 400 projects had been monitored and evaluated
in southwestern Alberta, 69% were structurally stable, whereas 33% were of low or zero
effectiveness in achieving habitat enhancement goals. In Oregon and Washington, 161
projects were examined and 18% had failed and 60% were damaged or ineffective.
Brown (2002) examined 24 different types of stream restoration practices at 450 sites
and found that less than 60% of the practices fully achieved even limited objectives for
habitat enhancement.
Results such as those presented by Kondolf and Micheli, and Brown emphasize the
importance of follow up monitoring and project evaluation. Insight gained from the
monitoring of completed projects provides an opportunity not only to evaluate project
success, but to identify which aspects of a setting, design approach, or design team
may signify increased potential for the success or failure of a project. To assess
whether or not a project has satisfied the “no net loss” guiding principal as outlined in
the Habitat Policy, monitoring objectives need to clearly define project success or
project failure (e.g., monitoring results in the presence of target species).
In 2002, DFO retained Golder Associates Limited, Aquafor Beech Limited, and ESG
International Incorporated to work on a joint project to review stream re-alignment
projects.
Case studies were used to determine the extent to which approved and completed
stream re-alignment projects have met DFO’s guiding principal of “no net loss of the
productive capacity of fish habitat”. More specific project objectives included:
1) assessing the interrelationships between predicted fish and fish habitat impacts and
predicted outcomes of compensation plans (i.e., stream re-alignment designs and
techniques);
2) recommending methods for improving the approvals process in achieving expected
results; and
3) providing recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of monitoring practices
in measuring project success. Furthermore, by examining a range of implemented
plans, the role of the environmental assessment process was assessed for its ability
to produce compensation plans that meet federal fish habitat objectives.
2.0
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
There were two main objectives for the overall project:
•
Determine the extent to which approved and completed stream re-alignment
projects have met DFO’s guiding principal of “no net loss of the productive
3
•
capacity of fish habitat”, using qualitative measurements of habitat quality and
quantity as surrogates for productive capacity; and
Assess the ability of stream re-alignment technology to improve the dynamic
stability and ecological productivity of stream systems.
Other goals for the project included:
•
•
•
Comparison of as-built stream re-alignments to project design and approvals
requirements;
Analysis of parameters that influence project success;
Recommendations on methods for improving the effectiveness of the approvals
process in achieving expected results.
The general intent of this study was to determine whether stream re-alignments benefit
aquatic ecosystems. If projects do not consistently accomplish this, the approvals
process should be reviewed to determine if the correct design was used. Further
rationale for the evaluation, including objectives, physical and biological indicators, and
the evaluation framework, is found in Appendix A.
3.0
APPROACH
This project was broken into two phases: 1) an office review of 44 files and 2) a detailed
field assessment of ten of these files.
For the office review, the primary sources of information that were used to fulfil the
study objectives were:
1. Information contained in previously authorized project files, including the types
and detail of analysis undertaken and the information requested by DFO on
which authorizations were based; and
2. Direct comparisons between as-built site conditions and file information of pre-realignment conditions and design.
To identify representative projects with sufficient information to warrant review, a
stepwise procedure was developed to screen existing project files for information that
would be consistently available. Projects with as-built drawings were selected for field
review and these drawings were compared against the approved design and project
rationale. The master list of project file data was assessed for trends such as project
team composition, level of analysis utilized, rationale for fish habitat objectives in
designs, etc. The general stepwise procedure is summarized below:
•
•
•
Initial review of the DFO referrals database and project files;
Compilation of key project data summaries;
Development of screening rationale and selection criteria;
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Selection of representative candidate projects and documentation of the selection
process;
Development of an information request form that DFO staff may distribute to
future project proponents;
Development of study design for selected case study projects;
Field assessment of selected case study projects;
Comparative analysis of field data against information upon which design and
approvals were based;
Review of master project file summaries for additional trends in re-alignment
projects; and
Interpretation of results in order to derive recommendations to improve the DFO
authorization process for consistently achieving the NNL principle in stream realignment projects.
As part of this project, a literature review was undertaken to review recent experience
with rapid assessment indicators as well as indicators of project success and relevant
project evaluation frameworks. Through this review, both the “Rehabilitation Manual for
Australian Streams” (Rutherfurd et al. 1999) and the “Adaptive Management of Stream
Corridors in Ontario” (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Watershed Science
Centre 2002) provided a valuable framework for the development of a stream realignment monitoring program. The monitoring strategy that has been developed for the
present study was largely derived from information contained within those two reports.
Rutherfurd et al. (1999) defined five groupings of project outcomes that may define the
framework of post-construction project evaluation ( Appendix A).
Ontario’s Burlington District was chosen as the geographic area for evaluation since
there was a high occurrence of the stream re-alignment projects in the area (Figure 1).
Selection criteria were developed to facilitate an initial file screening and short-listing of
projects for inclusion in the study. An electronic database was searched for projects
involving DFO authorized stream re-alignment projects between 1996 and 2002 (Figure
2).
During the review of the selected stream re-alignment files, it became apparent that the
amount of background information contained within the files was variable in quality and
quantity. As a result, the project team developed a generic “Stream Re-alignment
Information Checklist” (Appendix B) that could be used by DFO for dealing with the
proponents of future re-alignment projects to ensure complete files, full project rationale,
and a baseline for performance monitoring after construction.
A file inventory checklist was developed to assist with the file review and selection
(Appendix C). Qualitative and comparative reviews of file information on physical
project elements, biological data, habitat conditions, design rationale, and design data
were all considered. Other key information was collected on project impetus and
objectives, location and scale of projects, discipline involvement, and quality of file data
to review post-construction success.
5
A data sheet was developed to address both the biological and geomorphologic
components of a Rapid Assessment Data Collection regime (Appendix D). Key
parameters focused around indicators of immediate and long term dynamic stability,
morphology, habitat conditions and riparian connectedness. Descriptions of the data
collection parameters are also provided in Appendix D. Data collected from the site
assessments for ten selected projects were synthesized and used in comparisons
between pre-construction conditions, design elements and post-construction conditions.
Summary information from each project analysis was then further synthesized to assess
trends across the reviewed projects.
The ten projects selected for site assessment and pre-post construction comparisons
were generally the projects with relatively high quality file information (pertaining to preconstruction conditions and design rationale). The comparisons and assessments of
stability from these projects could potentially be a biased representation of the nature
and types of projects that DFO staff receives for review and authorization. Therefore,
the project team conducted additional analyses on the master project database from
which the shortlist of ten projects was selected. These analyses focused primarily on
pre- and post- construction channel length (as an indicator of the range of project size
and complexity in the overall database), project team composition, information
completeness and quality, and presence of approval and post-construction reports.
Criteria of how project success was determined are included in Appendix E.
4.0
4.1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
INITIAL SCREENING
Seventy-eight files were opened for review; however after an initial screening of these
projects, it became apparent that some did not involve a DFO authorization for a HADD
or were not stream re-alignments. As a result, 34 files were eliminated and detailed
checklists were completed for the remaining 44 files. The largest proportion of stream
re-alignment projects identified in the DFO referrals system queries and assessed in
this study were located within the Burlington District (Figure 1).
4.2
FILE SUMMARIES
Detailed project summaries were synthesized for 44 projects and tabulated in a master
database for review and comparisons (Appendix F).
Courses in geomorphology and natural channel design for practitioners were first
offered in 1991. While some re-alignment projects were implemented soon thereafter, a
time lag most likely occurred while approval agencies and proponents adapted to the
new approach to traditional erosion control and diversion projects. As a result,
proponents conducting stream re-alignments in the early to mid nineties were less likely
to have incorporated geomorphology and natural channel design elements into their
projects.
6
100
80
60
40
20
ry
Su
db
u
Pr
es
co
tt
Sa
rn
ia
,
Bu
rli
ng
to
n
Pa
rry
So
un
d
Th
un
de
rB
Sa
ay
ul
tS
te
M
ar
ie
0
Pe
te
rb
or
ou
gh
Percentage of Files
Distribution of Files by District
District
.
Figure 1. Percentage of DFO- Ontario Great Lakes Area (OGLA) referral files reviewed for realignment data distributed by District between1997 and 2001.
Channel Re-alignment Files Per Year
15
Number of Files
16
14
12
12
10
7
8
5
6
3
4
2
1
0
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Figure 2. Number of stream re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario between 1996 and
2002.
Other summary statistics on project files were based primarily on design and approval
information, as opposed to post-construction conditions on project sites. This was due
to the fact that only 30% of project files contained evidence of as-built drawings or postconstruction monitoring.
File summaries provided information on the impetus for proposed stream re-alignments.
According to the results of this assessment, re-alignment projects are completed for a
variety of reasons ranging from land development to bridge or culvert work (Figure 3).
7
Each of the 44 projects was examined for stream length (pre-existing stream conditions
compared to the design stream), file data quality, and project design team composition.
The results of these finding are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Impetus for Channel Realignment
s)
ip
e
gg
re
ga
te
,p
pe
om
(t r
ai
n
,a
C
O
th
er
od
C
ns
at
io
n
on
t ro
l
n
Fl
o
st
ab
i
/b
an
k
sio
n
Er
o
liz
at
io
ul
ve
rt
/C
t
/B
rid
ge
ge
m
en
oa
d
R
at
er
M
an
a
w
St
or
m
La
nd
D
ev
e
lo
pm
en
t
Percentage of Files
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Reason for Channel Realignment
Figure 3. Rationale for channel re-alignment projects in Ontario between 1997 and 2001.
4.2.1
Project Magnitude and Net Gains in Stream Length
Based on site length comparisons of pre-existing stream conditions to the design
systems in the 44 files examined, overall channel length has increased from 19.7 km to
21.9 km. Assuming that all projects were constructed as designed in the authorization,
this suggests an overall gain in habitat quantity. However, this indicator should not be
taken exclusively, since net gain in productive capacity is a function of designed habitat
quantity and quality (which includes considerations such as the specific habitat
elements in the design, net channel stability resulting from the project, and the
compatibility of proposed habitat with larger scale reach characteristics or objectives).
From the outset, we hypothesized that reach length may relate to project complexity
and therefore may affect project team composition, data quality, or project success.
These factors may also affect fiscal resources, public profile, or accountability.
Therefore, we grouped projects into length classes and found that relatively few were
less than 100 m, and that most project reaches were between 100 and 500 m in length
(Figure 4).
4.2.2
File Data Quality
Recognizing that 34 files were omitted from the preliminary review, partially due to lack
of information, the quality of information contained in the remaining 44 files was
assessed to select files with sufficient information for site assessments. We have
already documented a relatively poor level of as-built and post-construction file
8
information. The established criteria allowed a qualitative ranking based on presence
and quantity of information relating to the physical, habitat, and biotic components of
Breakdown of Files by Designed Channel Length
Percentage of Files
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
<100 m
100 - 500 m
>500 m
unknown
Length of Channel Submitted to DFO for Review
Figure 4. Channel length classes for authorized stream re-alignment projects reviewed in
Ontario between 1997 and 2001.
the re-alignment projects. For example, to be ranked as having relatively high quality
file data, the file would be required to contain the following information:
•
•
•
a biological design rationale addressing key environmental and NNL
considerations;
geomorphologic analyses supporting the design; and
key site and reach-level data on biological communities, habitat types and
quality, and physical resource data emphasizing geomorphology and hydraulics.
Files with little information were ranked as low quality, while files containing most or all
of the parameters were ranked as high, and all others were ranked as medium. Given
three qualitative rankings, approximately the same proportion of files (1/3) were of low,
medium, and high quality.
With respect to physical resource data, 42% of files were ranked as relatively high
quality and 28% were of medium quality (Figure 5). Only 7% of files contained high
quality biological data and 44% contained an obvious lack of information on which a
channel design could be based. Approximately half of the files contained a medium
quality of habitat information.
Results based on our assessment demonstrated that physical channel conditions are
described reasonably well, while biological and habitat data are generally of medium or
low quality.
9
Quality of Data in Files
Percentage of Files
60
50
40
High
30
Medium
Low
20
10
0
Habitat
Biology
Physical
Type of Data
Figure 5. Quality of data assessed based on information in the files relating to habitat, biology,
and physical resources for channel re-alignment projects authorized in Ontario
between 1997 and 2001.
Low
Medium
Bio >500
Hab >500
Phys >500
Bio 100 - 500
Hab 100 - 500
Phys 100 - 500
Bio <100
High
Hab <100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Phys <10 0
Percent of Files
Quality of Data by Channel Length
(in metres)
Figure 6. Percent of files in each file information quality ranking (low, medium, and high)
based on increasing project scales (channel length) for channel re-alignment projects
authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001.
10
Trends in the quality of data based on the scale of projects revealed that good quality
file information was generally lacking in smaller scale projects (<100 m). This outcome
was visible in all small project files based on physical resource information (Figure 6).
The proportion of files with poor biological information did not decrease as project size
increased, in contrast to the physical resource data which did improve with project size.
4.2.3
Design Team Composition
External design teams were generally comprised of various combinations of
engineering, biological, geomorphologic, and landscape architectural disciplines (Figure
7). This review emphasized the supporting technical components (hydraulics, biology,
and geomorphology) more than the design disciplines which may involve varying
degrees of landscape architecture, engineering, and other disciplines, depending on
project scale.
Project Team Composition
Percentage of Files
25
20
15
10
5
L
Un A
cle
ar
o
Bi
E
En ng
g,
G
e
En o
g,
Bi
o
En Eng
,
g,
Bi L A
En o, G
g,
eo
G
eo
En
,L
g,
A
Bi
o,
LA
Bi
o,
LA
Bi
o,
G
eo
G
eo
,L
A
0
Team Core
Note: Eng – Engineer; Geo – Geomorphologist; Bio – Biologist; LA – Landscape Architect
Figure 7. Project team composition.
A relatively large proportion of files (35%) were authorized by DFO that had only one
discipline involved in the external design team (Figure 8). Forty-four percent of the
projects involved two disciplines and 21% involved three disciplines.
All of the projects involving three disciplines had engineers (Figure 9).
Geomorphologists and landscape architects were the least represented on design
teams. Geomorphologists were represented on about 65% of three discipline teams.
Biologists were represented on approximately 70% and 80% of two and three discipline
projects respectively.
11
Number of Disciplines Typically Involved in Design
21%
35%
1 Discipline
2 Disciplines
3 Disciplines
44%
Figure 8. Number of disciplines, shown as a percentage, involved in re-alignment projects.
Percentage of Files
Disciplines Represented in Design Teams
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Biologist
Engineer
Geomorphologist
Landsc. Archit.
1 Discipline
2 Disciplines
3 Disciplines
Design Team
.
Figure 9. Disciplines represented on stream re-alignment project design teams for realignment projects authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001.
Most of the small projects were conducted with one discipline, whereas moderate and
large scale projects had two and three discipline design teams.
Engineering
involvement was consistent at 70-75% of small, moderate, and large scale projects.
Other disciplines were represented in increasing proportions as project size increased
(Figure 10).
12
Percentage of Files by Design Length
Disciplines Involved in Varying Channel Design
Lengths
100
Eng
90
Bio
80
Geom
70
LA
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
<100 m
100 - 500 m
>500 m
Note: Eng – Engineer; Geom – Geomorphologist; Bio – Biologist; LA – Landscape Architect
Figure 10. Disciplines involved in different sized stream re-alignment projects that were
authorized in Ontario between 1997 and 2001.
4.2.4
File Review Summary
For the 44 project files that were examined as part of this study, there were significant
inequalities between small and large projects. More quantitative habitat gains were
achieved in larger projects, which may simply relate to the space and stream length
available for re-alignments. Both the quality of data and the mix of disciplines were
poorer in smaller and moderate sized projects. However, since the majority of projects
were in the moderate size class and have more potential for increases in both quantity
and quality of habitat, consideration should be given to criteria for ensuring appropriate
interdisciplinary involvement is represented on specific projects. In addition, most files
had a lack of documented or rationalized objectives. Therefore, the value and type of
improvements to be realized, and the post-construction measurement of success, are
not well understood.
4.3
POST-CONSTRUCTION FIELD COMPARISONS
Ten projects were selected for case study analyses which included both a detailed
paper file review as well as a field assessment. One of these projects was never
implemented in the field (Table 1, Project 10), leaving nine projects for post-construction
field comparison. The field program was undertaken during the fall of 2003 using a
modified rapid assessment technique combining geomorphologic and ecological
parameters. After each individual project was assessed and compared to its respective
design, approval, and pre-construction conditions, summaries of each assessment were
synthesized so general trends across all nine projects could be reviewed (Table 1).
13
Projects were selected based on a level of file information amenable to postconstruction comparisons. The post-construction time of projects ranged between 2 to
4 years since authorization. Although the project teams generally had engineering
involvement (8 of 10), the other team disciplines were variable in their participation.
Biologists were involved in seven projects, geomorphologists were included in three,
and landscape architects in four projects (Table 1).
Qualitative assessments were made of the static, or existing, stability of each site, as
well as long term, dynamic stability and erosion risk. Project sites were generally stable
at the time of field observations. Parameters related to erosion risk and dynamic
geomorphic stability deal more with interpretations of longer term trends in each project
reach. Erosion risk reflects a combination of visible evidence and interpretation of other
geomorphic variables, to predict future channel adjustments toward an unstable
situation, or away from intended project outcomes. Dynamic geomorphic stability is
associated partially with erosion risk and relates to long term stability with natural levels
of channel adjustment within project objectives. Most projects were assessed as having
relatively low erosion risk (two projects ranked in the ‘moderate-high’ category). With
respect to dynamic stability, one project ranked ‘moderate-poor’, but all other projects
ranked relatively well (Table 1).
Execution is a reflection of whether project components were all installed in accordance
with the authorized design with consideration of seven specific project elements as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stream configuration/geometry;
Pools/riffles/instream structures;
General dimension;
Riparian plantings;
Substrate in pools/riffles;
Erosion control measures; and
Bank structures.
One project fully executed all seven elements, and all projects executed at least four
elements successfully (Table 1). While it is possible that some omissions resulted from
projects not giving design consideration to specific elements, the analysis still assessed
execution as seven elements of a complete design.
Project Survival refers to the survival of executed project features up to the point of field
assessment. Project Survival was observed to be good in seven of the projects. One
project was defined as moderate-poor in Project Survival and one project was classified
as good-moderate. As would be expected, the project with higher erosion risk ranked
lowest for project survival.
Table 1. Comparison of features between selected channel re-alignment projects.
Age
(Years)
Design
Erosion Risk (Post
Construction)
Stability
Dynamic Geomorphic
Stability
Project
Execution
Project
Survival
Habitat Quality
Team
Habitat
Quantity
1
2.5
Eng
Low
Good
Good
5 out of 7
Good
Improvement
Improvement
2
~3.5
Eng
Moderate-high
Good
Good-moderate
4 out of 7
Good
Improvement
Improvement
3
4
Eng, Bio,
Geo, LA
Low
Good
Good
7 out of 7
Good
Improvement
Improvement
4
~3.4-4
Eng, LA
Low-moderate
Good
Good
4 out of 7
Good
Potential
Improvement
Improvement
5
4
Eng, Bio
Moderate-high
Moderate
Moderate-poor
5 out of 7
Moderatepoor
Improvement
Improvement
6
2-3
Eng, Bio
Low
Good
Good
6 out of 7
Good
Improvement
Improvement
7
Unknown
Eng, Geo,
Bio
Low-moderate
Good
Good
6 out of 7
Good
Improvement
Improvement
8
2.5
Bio, Eng
Low-moderate
Good
Good
Unable to
Assess
Good
Potential
Improvement
Improvement
9
2.7
Bio, LA, Geo
Moderate
Good
Good
5 out of 7
Goodmoderate
Improvement
Improvement
10
2
Bio, LA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project not implemented in field
Design Team = Eng – Engineer; Geo – Geomorphologist; Bio – Biologist; LA – Landscape Architect
Erosion Risk = an overall view of the risk of erosion for the whole length of the study area. Several parameters are looked at to come up with a ranking. For
example overall erosion extent, severity, bank stability and riparian vegetation robustness. Bank structures and general dimensions are also considered for the
entire study area (low/moderate/high)
Stability = a combination of several factors including bank stability (vegetation on banks or actual bank stabilization structures), stability of prior channel,
straightness of channel, low average energy grade, erosional resistance of bed and bank material, minimal channel shortening, presence of bedrock on channel
bed or banks that control channel form, instream structures that control channel grade, management of flows (good/moderate/poor)
Dynamic Geomorphic Stability = associated partially with erosion risk and related to long term stability with natural levels of channel adjustment within project
objectives.
Project Execution = number of elements accomplished. Seven specific elements were considered: stream configuration/geometry; pools/riffles/instream structures;
general dimensions; riparian plantings; substrates in pools/riffles; erosion control measures; bank structures
Project Survival = refers to survival of executed project features up to the point of field assessment (good/moderate/poor)
Habitat Quality = includes an assessment of post construction substrate diversity, morphologic diversity and instream cover (improvement/no improvement)
Habitat Quantity = increase in length of stream after construction, increase in habitat volume (improvement/no improvement)
14
Case
Number
15
Habitat Quality was derived from the post construction assessment of substrate
diversity, morphologic diversity, connectivity, and instream cover features. Habitat
Quantity was derived from the assessment of changes in habitat volume and length of
stream channel after construction. Changes in habitat volume reflect interpreted
movements in channel cross-sections. For example, an improvement was considered
when the stream profile of the re-alignment was altered from wide and shallow to deep
and narrow with a more concentrated low flow channel. This newly constructed low flow
channel would likely remain inundated for a longer period annually and provide better
instream habitat than a relatively wide, shallow channel.
Improvements in Habitat Quantity were observed in all of the case studies, while
improvements in Habitat Quality were observed in seven of the projects with potential
improvements seen in two. The degree and direction of change could, however, not be
definitively assessed. Pre-construction ecological conditions were documented to
varying degrees, and ecological objectives for project reaches were generally poorly
rationalized or documented. Additionally, all of the selected projects were in relatively
disturbed or modified streams, and therefore, were more likely to exhibit improvements
through the re-alignments.
5.0
CONCLUSIONS
The following general conclusions and recommendations were derived from a
combination of the detailed DFO file review and the field comparison of pre- and postconstruction conditions for ten case studies:
•
Few projects contained design objectives or rationale for habitat improvement;
•
Approximately 30% of project files contained as-built or follow-up information
(monitoring reports);
•
There was a general improvement in habitat quantity and quality in postconstruction conditions for 10 case studies selected for relatively good quality of
file information;
•
Results indicate that overall DFO’s guiding principal of “no net loss” of the
productive capacity of fish habitat” was met for the 10 selected case studies ;
•
Selected projects do not likely represent a cross-section of projects authorized
and larger projects tended to contain multi-disciplinary involvement;
•
Relatively few files contained good quality biological information for fisheries
review despite a relatively high proportion of project teams with biologists;
•
Approximately 1/3 of projects that were authorized by DFO involved a single
discipline on the design team, as represented in the file information;
•
The level of involvement of geomorphologists in projects was relatively low; and
•
Standard information is lacking in project files, regardless of the level of detail.
16
6.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
•
Ecosystem or fish habitat targets and rationale are necessary to direct design
options and measure success in monitoring post-construction conditions;
•
Consideration should be given to developing strategies to consistently monitor
compliance of authorized and constructed projects, provide performance
monitoring data, and contribute to the adaptive management cycle in stream
management;
•
Standard protocols are needed for rapid assessment in pre-construction
conditions, synchronized as a baseline for post-construction monitoring, as well
as for standard design considerations;
•
Approval requirements should include consideration of the combination of habitat
quality and quantity of assessed habitat types to produce desired postconstruction conditions; and
•
Consideration should be given in the approvals process to enhance the balance
of disciplines required in channel re-alignment projects.
7.0
REFERENCES
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B. 1999. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton,
benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/
Brice, J.C. 1981. Stability of relocated channels. Technical Report No. FHWA/RD80/158. Federal Highways Administration, US Department of Transportation.
Washington, D.C. 177 p.
Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized rivers: perspectives for environmental management.
John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Ontario. 326 p.
Brown, K. 2002. Urban stream restoration practices: an initial assessment. The Center
for Watershed Protection. Elliot City, MD. 7 p.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1986. Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat.
Ottawa, Ontario. DFO/4486:iii + 28 p.
Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., and Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem
perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water.
Bioscience. 41 (8): 540-551.
17
Kondolf, G.M., and Micheli, E.R. 1995. Forum: evaluating stream restoration projects.
Environ. Manage. 19 (1): 1-15.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Watershed Science Center. 2002. Adaptive
management of stream corridors in Ontario: natural hazards technical guides.
Queen's Printer for Ontario. ISBN 0-9688196-0-5.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings
of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 1826, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV.
Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K.E., and Marsh, N. 1999. A rehabilitation manual for Australian
streams. Volumes 1 and 2. Land & Water Resources Development Corporation,
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Vol. 1: 189 p., Vol. 2:
400 p.
Stanfield, L., Jones, M., Stoneman, M., Kilgour, B., Parish, J., and Wichert, G. 2000.
Stream assessment protocol for Southern Ontario. V4.1. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Picton, Ontario.
Warner, R.F. 1995. Predicting and managing channel change in Southeast Australia.
Catena. 25: 403-418.
18
19
APPENDIX A: RATIONALE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION
OBJECTIVES
Many monitoring programs have been established around the world to evaluate the
success of channel restoration and enhancement works. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO) recognizes the importance of monitoring and always prescribes a
monitoring program as part of the Fisheries Act authorization for any proposed realignment. In general, although monitoring may be undertaken, when it lacks clear and
measurable objectives the information and data that are collected may be of limited
usefulness in defining whether or not the project has attained its intended objective. A
successful project evaluation program must therefore clearly identify measurable goals
that will determine whether or not a project has been successful. Due to the variable
nature of different re-alignment projects (e.g., setting, physical constraints, aquatic
habitat conditions, species diversity, target species) the measures of project success
will differ among projects.
In general, success of a stream re-alignment project should be measured against the
principle of “no net loss” of productive capacity. The evaluation program must therefore
rely on parameters that are measurable and which provide indications of ecological
function, integrity, habitat production potential, and the “no net loss” principle. In
addition, the intensity of the evaluation program should be designed taking into
consideration the project’s level of risk to impact fish and fish habitat. Factors such as
scale of negative effect of the project and sensitivity of fish and fish habitat should be
considered when determining the appropriate level of effort of the evaluation program.
Rutherfurd et al. (1999) and Kondolf and Micheli (1995) further discuss project
evaluation designs in which the objectives of individual projects are key determinants of
specific evaluation techniques. This project, however, will rely on more generally
applicable evaluation objectives:
1) Did they build what was approved?
2) Does the project promote dynamic stability or is it failing physically?
3) Is the project achieving “no net loss” and/or specific fisheries objectives?
If projects are not consistently built according to the approvals, then there are
mechanisms needed to monitor or enforce the implementation of projects. If projects
were built to the requirements of the DFO authorization, but are unstable or
unproductive, there are likely improvements in approval requirements (e.g., project team
disciplines, levels of analytical detail, establishment of targets) that are needed.
Indicators of whether or not a re-aligned channel has resulted in a “no net loss” of
productive habitat condition will be identified differently among the study disciplines
represented in the project. For example, a biologist may identify the presence of target
species in the re-aligned channel as indicative of project success, a geomorphologist
may focus on the balance of erosion and deposition within the channel, a terrestrial
20
APPENDIX A: RATIONALE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION (Continued)
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
ecologist might evaluate the rate of vegetative species survival, and an engineer might
evaluate project success based on structure survival.
Reliance on physical indicators alone in determining the extent to which productive
capacity has been achieved is inadequate. A recent manual, “Adaptive Management of
Stream Corridors in Ontario” (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Watershed
Science Centre 2002), stresses the need for inclusion of biological indicators of success
in project evaluations and monitoring through the following excerpt of discipline-specific
indicators of success:
•
•
Geomorphology – channel has achieved some form of equilibrium with
appropriate movement, storage, and sorting of materials (modified or based on
constraints that were inherent to the location and to the design);
Ecology/Biology – protected or enhanced biological functions including fish
habitat, species-specific habitat or specific life stage habitat.
Kondolf and Micheli (1995) have found that the success criteria applied during postproject evaluations have historically focused on biological more than geomorphological
factors. They point out, however, that the interaction between a stream channel,
floodplain, and stream flows provide the framework supporting aquatic and riparian
structures and functions. Gregory et al. (1991) also indicate that geomorphological
factors are primary determinants of the spatial and successional patterns of biological
communities. For these reasons, determination of project success/failure with respect
to evaluating whether a channel re-alignment has resulted in a “no net loss” of
productive capacity condition should be based on both biological and geomorphological
evaluations of the post-construction channel condition.
While not always the case, riverine aquatic communities likely have the greatest
potential to achieve optimum productivity in a dynamically stable stream system/reach.
Stream systems/reaches that are unstable may support more productive aquatic
communities in the short term. However, such communities are typically not
representative of indigenous or optimum community functions. A stable reach is also
typically a prerequisite for constructing habitat enhancement measures. Subsequent
failure of such measures is often the result of reach level instability (Rosgen 2001).
A key lesson from the development of the “Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors
in Ontario” (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Watershed Science Centre 2002)
as well as the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Stream Assessment Protocol
(Stanfield et al. 2000) is that parameters measured in the field may serve to interpret
both the geomorphic stability and the biological integrity of a reach. Therefore,
coordination between these two disciplines is required to establish data collection
21
APPENDIX A: RATIONALE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION (Continued)
protocols. For instance, geomorphologists may measure the size and spacing of pools
and riffles in the reach as part of an assessment of stability and sediment transport
efficiency. Biologists often require information on the relative extent of these features,
along with percent cover, in order to assess morphologic diversity or quality of a life
history micro-habitat for biotic integrity.
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Both the “Rehabilitation Manual for Australian Streams” (Rutherfurd et al. 1999) and the
“Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors in Ontario” (Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and Watershed Science Centre 2002) provide a valuable framework for
development of a monitoring program. The monitoring strategy that has been
developed for this study is largely derived from the information contained within these
two reports. Rutherfurd et al. defined five groupings of project outcomes that may define
the framework of post-construction project evaluation (Table A-1).
Table A-1. Project Evaluation Groupings (from Rutherfurd et al. 1999).
Determine if works have been completed as designed.
Execution
– Is constructed channel as shown on the design drawings?
Determine if works withstand the expected natural events (e.g.,
Survival
structure, vegetation).
– Are in-channel habitat features in intended locations?
– Are bank protection and bio-engineering structures intact or at
risk of failure (e.g., through undermining, outflanking)?
– Is vegetation establishing on the floodplain?
Assess whether works produce a more attractive natural environment
Aesthetic
especially in park-like settings.
Physical/
Structural
Outcomes
Ecological
Outcomes
Examine if project improves habitat by increasing physical and
hydraulic diversity.
– Have substrates and structures remained in intended
locations?
– Is sediment transport (deposition or scour) efficient and stable?
– Are lateral migration and bank erosion occurring as expected?
– Is the project reach dynamically stable?
Improve population size, diversity, and sustainability of plant and
animal communities.
– Is the physical habitat functioning to support target species or
processes?
– Does the project reach contribute to improved biological
stability?
– Do biological production, presence of target species, life history
stages, and ecological processes indicate that the “no net loss”
principle has been achieved?
22
APPENDIX A: RATIONALE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION (Continued)
Confidence in the results of a post-construction project evaluation depends on the
design of the evaluation program. Rutherfurd et al. (1999) identified five monitoring
designs which provide varying levels of reliability and confidence for detecting actual
change. They, and others, suggest that the choice of monitoring design should be
sufficient to evaluate the success or failure of a project for the intended audience and
for fulfilling objectives of the study (Table A-2). In general, the weakest evaluation
program consists only of visual observations. Confidence in whether the evaluation
detects actual success/failure increases when incorporating replication (i.e., multiple
samples both spatially in the channel and in time), controls (e.g., reference reach
upstream, downstream, or nearby), and baseline data (i.e., prior to alteration).
Observations of aquatic habitat and channel conditions within a re-aligned channel do
not identify whether the observations are due to the re-aligned channel or are a result of
system wide/watercourse characteristics (e.g., abundance and diversity of fish species,
sedimentation in channel). For this reason, confidence in results of an evaluation
program increases when a similar assessment is completed in a control reach.
Table A-2. Different Levels of Monitoring Design (from Rutherfurd et al. 1999).
anecdotal, no sampling, only observations
Plastic
Tin
unreplicated - uncontrolled, sampling only after rehabilitation
Bronze
unreplicated - uncontrolled, sampling before and after rehabilitation
OR unreplicated - controlled, sampling only after rehabilitation
Silver
unreplicated – controlled, sampling before and after intervention
Gold
replicated sampling – replicated sampling both before and after
REFERENCES
Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., and Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem
perspective of riparian zones: Focus on links between land and water.
Bioscience. 41(8): 540-551.
Kondolf, G.M., and Micheli, E.R. 1995. Forum: evaluating stream restoration projects.
Environ. Manage. 19(1): 1-15.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Watershed Science Centre. 2002. Adaptive
management of stream corridors in Ontario: Natural Hazards Technical Guides.
Queen’s Printer for Ontario. ISBN 0-9688196-0-5.
23
APPENDIX A: RATIONALE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION (Continued)
REFERENCES (cont’d)
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings
of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. March 25-29,
2001, Reno, NV. Vol. 2: pp. II-18-26.
Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K.E., and Marsh, N. 1999. A rehabilitation manual for Australian
streams. Volumes 1 and 2. Land & Water Resources Development Corporation,
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Vol. 1: 189 p., Vol. 2:
400 p.
Stanfield, L., Jones, M., Stoneman, M., Kilgour, B., Parish, J., and Wichert, G. 2000.
Stream assessment protocol for Southern Ontario. V4.1. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Picton, Ontario.
24
25
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT INFORMATION
CHECKLIST
RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT INFORMATION CHECKLIST- PRELIMINARY
Please insure that you complete this checklist to the best of your ability. A detailed
initial application will assist in the file review process. Please fill in the appropriate
blanks and check the relevant boxes.
1.0
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
1.1
Physical condition
Grain size: Bed_____ Sub pavement ______
Soil type: (Circle 1): Bedrock Fine soils Clay/silt Alluvium
Channel Dimensions:
Channel width (m): Bankfull _____ Baseflow______
Channel depth (m): Bankfull _____ Baseflow ______
Channel length (m) ________
Cross-sectional configurations
Average bank slope _____ Average bank height _____
Flow Regime (Circle 1): Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial
Flow Velocity: _____ (cm/s, cfs, l/s). Please fill in and circle unit of measure
Photographic inventory of the channel (before construction) provided:
1.2
Biological Condition
Presence of natural riparian vegetation _____ Pictures provided:
Please provide a list of the fish community present in the watercourse:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
Species information acquired through:
Electro fishing survey
Date: ________________
Historical MNR records
Other documents
Reference for documented information: _______________________________
Average stream temperature: ________ ºC
Use of impacted area as spawning, nursery, rearing, food supply or migration route
26
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT INFORMATION
CHECKLIST (Continued)
2.0
PROPOSED DESIGN
2.1
Design Rationale
Please state the design rationale for this project:
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2.2
Design Approach
Method(s) used to determine channel dimensions and parameters. Circle 1 or more of
the following:
Reference
Reach
2.3
Rosgen
Hydraulic
Analysis
Geomorphologic
Considerations
Design Parameters
Design discharge: _________ (Units?)
Design velocity: _________ (Units?)
Channel Slope: ___________
Channel length (m) _________
Channel width (m): Bankfull _____ Baseflow______
Channel depth (m): Bankfull _____ Baseflow ______
Please specify new substrate materials:
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Bank treatments proposed (Please circle)
Boulder clusters
Root wads Fascines
Amour stone
Other
Other (Please specify):
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
27
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY STREAM RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT INFORMATION
CHECKLIST (Continued)
2.4
Design Drawings
Locations of the pools, riffles and runs are shown
Planform configuration drawing is included
• Bank stabilization – temporary protection
• Revegetation plan
3.0
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Please complete the following table:
Channel Length
(m)
Channel Width (m)
(Bankfull)
Habitat units
(Units?)
Pre-construction:
Post- construction:
Change:
4.0
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
As-built drawings to include: (Please check the following boxes)
• planform drawing
• detailed profile drawing
Positions of pools, riffles and other instream features are documented
Typical channel section drawing is provided
Photographs of as-built features included:
The photographic inventory of the as-built channel must be catalogued to correspond to
the as-built drawings
5.0
PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM
• Outline recommended monitoring strategy that will evaluate channel stability
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
28
29
APPENDIX C: PHASE 1 CHECKLIST TO INVENTORY FILES AND CONTENTS
FOR SELECTION
DFO Channel Re-alignment StudyPhase 1 checklist
G2353/64114
Phase 1: Checklist to inventory files and contents for selection
•
•
•
DFO Project Number:
Date of approval:
Date of construction:
•
•
Channel length
Width
•
Design flow: bankfull, 2-year, 5-year, 10 – year, 25 year, 100 year, regional
Pre-construction: ___ m Post-construction: ___ m
Pre-construction: ___ m Bkfl, Bot W, Base flow
Post-construction: ___ m Bkfl, Bot W, Base flow
Impetus for re-alignment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New road crossing ___
Road widening ___
Culvert replacement ___
Drainage/stormwater management ___
Land Development ___
Wetland/pond creation ___
Stability/erosion control ___
Channel bed lowering ___
Pipeline crossing ___
In-channel works ___
Study Team Disciplines
•
•
•
Biologist ___ Geomorphologist ___ Engineer ___ Landscape Architect ___
unknown ___
Landscape Architect for riparian and floodplain vegetation ___
What discipline was the manager? _________
Project Constraints
• Documented Y/N ___
• Valley constriction ___
• Vertical barriers or control points ___
• Structures (e.g. pipes, private property, roads, culverts, etc.) ___
30
APPENDIX C: PHASE 1 CHECKLIST TO INVENTORY FILES AND CONTENTS FOR
SELECTION (Continued)
Pre-construction channel conditions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geology:
Bedrock ___ Fine Soils (e.g., clays/silts) ___ Alluvium ___
Physical channel characteristics:
o Channel dimensions (e.g., width, depth, substrate)
o Grade ______ % m/m other unit: ___
Type of land use
Rate of change of land use
Degraded Y/N
Natural or unnatural
Rosgen Type ___
Flow Regime? intermittent, ephemeral, perennial
Bankfull flow?
Grade?
Channel defined, undefined, poorly defined, swale
Habitat:
o Presence of natural riparian/bank habitat Y/N ___
o Warmwater or Coldwater system _____
o Barriers Y/N ___
o Is there information on aquatic habitat through study reach (e.g., stream
morphology)? ___
o Is there information on aquatic habitat at larger scale? ___
o Information on habitat or water quality (e.g., temperature data) ___
Biology:
o Fish species information Y/N ___
o Fish sampling done for this project Y/N ___
o Are there target species Y/N ___
o What species if listed ______________________
o Benthic invertebrates Y/N ___
Design Rationale
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Documented Y/N ___
Approach: reference reach, Rosgen, hydraulic
Geomorphological or Biological Calculations Y/N ___
Engineering calculations Y/N ___
Awareness of biology?
Awareness of geomorphology?
Fisheries Design Targets _____________________________
Information on scale Y/N __
31
APPENDIX C: PHASE 1 CHECKLIST TO INVENTORY FILES AND CONTENTS FOR
SELECTION (Continued)
Channel Design
•
•
•
Design Flow ______ cms, cfs, l/s
Channel dimensions (e.g., width, depth, substrate)
o Bankfull indicated?
Bank treatments:
o Concrete ___
armourstone ___ rip-rap ___
o Gabions ___ bio-engineering ___ none ___
Bed treatments:
o Armourstone ___ rip-rap ___
natural materials ___
o Riverstone ___
Post construction grade? ___
•
•
Fisheries Habitat Design Targets Y/N? ___ and specifics _________________
Riparian Habitat Considerations Y/N? ___
•
•
Monitoring Recommended by design team ___
Compensation type – list to be created as the files are searched
•
•
Project Approval Documents
♦
Copy of authorization in file Y/N ___
Copy of application ____
Design drawings ____
Monitoring reports ____
# requested (in authorization document) ____ and received (in file) ____
CEAA reports ___
EIS or fisheries analysis report ___
•
As-built sign off? ___
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Comments:
Construction Supervision Compliance report
32
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
RAPID STREAM ASSESMENT
Date
Location
Photo #
Site #
Name:
Project No:
Length
Reach or X-Section
Weather
Location
Pre
Reach Characteristics
length ___________
gradient _____________
instream cover:
pool ___ boulder ___
veg ___ lg woody debris ___ overhang ___
% pool ____ % riffle ____ % run ____ % flat ____
map?
Channel Dimensions
Bankfull depth
Bankfull width
Baseflow depth
Baseflow width
Entrenchment
run
Post
flat
Ref
pool
riffle
Evidence of floodplain connection:
Substrates
Pool
Riffle
% fines sands gravels cobbles boulders organic litter bedrock other
____ _____ ______ ______ _______ _____ ____ ______ ____
____ _____ ______ ______ _______ _____ ____ ______ ____
% of reach disturbed by fines
_________
Embeddedness % _____
Coarser in riffles than pools? _________
Native material exposed? ____________
Substrate Habitat Quality = G M P
Comments _____________________________________________
Biota
benthos _____ algae % _______
macrophyte % _____
types __________ __________ __________
fish present? _________ source __________
Banks
pool
% undercut
________
slump
________
bare
________
rock
________
wood
________
vegetated
________
riffle
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
time_______
Bank Stability
G
M
P
Bank Height:_____________
Bank Material:____________
Y/N
Project Execution Data
Comments
Water Quality
temp.______
parameter
Project Data
Stream configuration / geometry?
Pools / riffles / instream structures?
General dimensions?
Riparian plantings?
Substrates in pools / riffles?
Erosion control measures?
Bank Structures?
none
seldom
consistent
Thalweg
follows planform:
flow diversity
directed at bank:
no
low
low
mod
mod
mod
yes
high
high
clarity ___
measurement
Riparian Vegetation
% overhead cover ____
Robustness G M P
Dominant types ____________________
% of each
____________________
Y/N
Roots
shallow _______
deep _______
sparse _______
dense _______
Survival Comments:
(e.g., structures in place and intact)
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
33
Erosion
downcut ___ widening ___ headcut ___ bedscour ___ sloughing ___ planform __
Location
meander bend _____ straight ______ valley wall _______ structure _______
Erosion Severity:
Erosion Extent:
Bars
medial
lateral
point
34
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
(Continued)
Data Collection Parameters/Rapid Stream Assessment (RSA) Parameters
Banks – The condition of the banks provide insight into channel stability, future
potential stability, and channel processes (e.g., widening, migration).
Observations that are indicative of stability and processes include: undercutting,
condition of bank face (e.g., unvegetated, rock, woody debris), and the
role/potential of vegetation to enhance the structural strength of the bank
materials (e.g., relative rooting depth, rooting density, presence of
grasses/herbs/forbs on the bank face). Wherever appropriate, a percentage of
the banks with the above-noted characteristics will be quantified.
Bank Height and Bank Material – The height of the bank from the toe of the slope to
the inflection point will be measured only if it is greater than the bankfull depth.
In general, the greater the bank height, the greater the susceptibility to erosional
problems. The material that comprises the bank is important in the assessment
of stability as some types (e.g., silt, sand) are more prone to erosion than others
(e.g., clay, bedrock). Therefore, all bank materials should be recorded in the
space provided.
Bank Stability – The overall stability of channel banks will be rated as Good (stable),
Moderate (local incidence of instability), or Poor (generally unstable).
Bars – Depositional features will be documented with respect to location in the channel
(point, medial, lateral) and relative abundance (none; seldom – 1 or 2 per 100
m; consistent – throughout the re-aligned channel). The presence and location
provide insight into the sediment transport capacity of the re-aligned channel,
sediment supply, and hydraulic conditions through the cross-sections. This
information will be used to identify discontinuity in sediment transport processes
between adjoining channel sections and/or pre-existing channel conditions.
Biota – The presence or absence of certain types of aquatic organisms are often used
as indicators of stream health. Benthos (benthic invertebrates) are commonly
used in stream assessments. The presence/absence of certain taxa can be
indicative of a healthy stream (e.g., mayflies, stoneflies present) or unhealthy
systems (e.g., these taxa not present). If benthic invertebrate data exists for the
relevant section of stream, then a check mark should be put in the appropriate
space on the data sheet. Macrophyte percent cover and types (submerged,
emergent, floating) should be recorded, as instream aquatic vegetation provides
habitat for both benthic invertebrates and fish. The percent cover of algae within
a stream can often be an indicator of nutrient enrichment and temperature.
Abundant algae growth is often the result of increased nutrient loadings and
high temperatures. The presence/absence of fish within the stream should be
35
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
(Continued)
Data Collection Parameters/Rapid Stream Assessment (RSA) Parameters
(cont’d)
Biota (cont’d) – recorded, as the provision of functional fish habitat is usually one
objective of DFO authorizations for stream alterations. An indication of whether
the fish presence/absence was a field observation or based on existing data
should also be recorded.
Channel Dimensions – Channel dimensions are a product of the interaction between
hydrologic regime and boundary materials. Bankfull and low-flow (baseflow)
width and depth will be measured using a tape or ruler and compared to the
design drawing to detect general infilling or section enlargement. Change in
cross-section dimensions may have occurred during channel construction or
may be a result of channel adjustments due to improper design. Other
information gathered during the RSA will provide insight into the cause of
changes in channel dimensions. Entrenchment refers to the relationship
between a channel and its valley, and is a measure of the vertical containment
of a watercourse. Entrenchment is quantified as the ratio of the flood-prone
area at twice the maximum bankfull depth to the width of the bankfull channel.
Measurements will be taken at riffle sections along the re-aligned channel.
Erosion – Erosion can occur anywhere along a channel (banks, bed, meander bends)
and is a process that occurs in all natural watercourses. Excessive erosion may
be indicative of larger scale adjustment processes. Erosion along the re-aligned
channel will be classified (with check marks) with respect to dominant modes of
channel change (e.g., downcutting, widening, headcutting, bed scouring, bank
sloughing, and planform adjustment). The location will be marked on a copy of
the design drawing and identified as meander bend, straight section, valley wall,
or at a structure (e.g., culvert). Observations of erosion, along with other
observations made during the RSA (e.g., substrate, thalweg), will provide insight
into the processes at work in the re-aligned channel, its present stability, and its
future stability.
Erosion Severity and Extent – Erosion severity and extent enables the field reviewer to
document additional notes pertaining to observed erosion (e.g., if incidence was
local and associated with thalweg orientation, meander migration/extension,
meander cut-off processes, etc.). This information will provide further insight
into the processes that are occurring in the re-aligned channel and can be used
to assess channel stability.
36
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
(Continued)
Data Collection Parameters/Rapid Stream Assessment (RSA) Parameters
(cont’d)
Floodplain Connection – The floodplain connection ensures that the energy of larger
than bankfull flows will be dissipated on the floodplain and therefore not be
available for erosion and/or sediment transport. Connectivity will be assessed
in the field through a visual examination and an estimate of entrenchment. The
connectivity may account for observed instability and/or excessive erosion
within the channel.
Photos – Photos will be taken to document channel and floodplain characteristics and
specific indicators of instability/erosion. Photo locations will be marked onto a
design drawing that shows the planform configuration.
Project Data – During the rapid reconnaissance visit, elements of the designed
channel will be checked to determine if they were constructed (i.e., execution)
as per the design drawings (e.g., presence and location of features) and if/how
they have survived.
Specific observations will include: stream
configuration/geometry (e.g., planform), pools/riffles/in-stream structures (e.g.,
boulders, rock vanes), cross-section dimensions, riparian plantings, relative
substrate distribution (pools/riffles), erosion control measures (in
place/removed, functioning), bank structures (e.g., bio-engineering, rock). All
observations will be made with reference to the design drawings. The condition
of the features or any deviation from the design would be documented on the
design drawings or noted on the RSA data sheet.
Reach Characteristics – Reach characteristics provide an overview of reach
characteristics that are useful for comparison to the pre-existing reach
conditions and are descriptive of the re-aligned channel.
Relevant
characteristics will be documented (checked) with respect to presence within
the reach (large woody debris, pools, boulders, overhangs, vegetation).
Percent presence of pools, riffles, runs and flat channel sections provides an
indicator of hydraulic diversity and flow energy dissipation mechanisms within
the channel.
Riparian Vegetation – Riparian vegetation provides stream shading (temperature
moderation), a trophic link between the terrestrial and aquatic environments,
and bank stability. An estimate of the percent of shading (overhead cover) will
be taken.
The dominant types of vegetation (trees, shrubs, grasses,
emergents) will be noted along with the percent contribution of each to the
reach being assessed. The general robustness, or condition, of the riparian
vegetation should be recorded as good (plants appear healthy with new growth
evident), moderate (stress evident, minimal growth) or poor (plants clearly
37
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
(Continued)
Data Collection Parameters/Rapid Stream Assessment (RSA) Parameters
(cont’d)
Riparian Vegetation (cont’d) –stressed or dead). If possible, the root characteristics
along the banks should be described as shallow or deep and sparse or dense.
This can aid in the assessment of bank stability.
Substrates - Variability in grain size naturally occurs between riffles and pools due to
changes in hydraulic condition (substrates should be coarser in riffles than in
pools). Estimating grain size distributions (as % composition by grain size)
provides insight into design survival, channel stability and channel processes.
Exposure of bedrock or underlying native materials will also be documented and
may be indicative of downcutting and/or adjustments in the configuration of bed
morphology. Presence of organic material, (leaf litter, small woody debris, other
detrital material) will noted in comments. Percent of reach disturbed by fines
refers to the abundance of fine-grained sediment throughout the reach which
may be representative of natural conditions or of an excess of sediment
loading/insufficient sediment transport capacity. Information on substrate
conditions in a reference reach or pre-existing channel conditions is necessary
for a comparative evaluation. Embeddedness is an indicator of abundant fine
sediment supply and/or of insufficient sediment transport capacity (e.g., due to
an over-wide channel). Embeddedness will be documented as a relative
percentage based on visual estimates. Comparison to pre-existing data or
reference reach data can provide an indication of whether the present substrate
condition is natural for the reach or has been altered as a result of the realigned channel.
Substrate Habitat Quality – Substrate habitat quality will be recorded in the
“substrates” section of the data sheet., marked as good, moderate, or poor for
aquatic organisms (benthic invertebrates and fish), based on an assessment of
the parameters discussed above. Good habitat quality refers to that which can
be used by organisms for shelter, spawning, foraging, etc. This rating is
dependent upon target species, or the organisms that are expected to live in the
area of study. The degree of embeddedness, size, and composition of
substrates all often contribute to an area’s habitat quality. In riffle areas, good
substrate habitat quality refers to a low percentage of fines, low embeddedness,
and a diversity of grain sizes. Poor quality substrates are dominated by fines or
have coarser materials embedded within the fines. Moderate quality substrates
contain a mixture of good and poor characteristics. In contrast, in slow flowing
areas, fine sediment with abundant vegetation growth may constitute good
habitat. Therefore, the substrate habitat quality rating should be based on both
38
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA SHEET AND DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
(Continued)
Data Collection Parameters/Rapid Stream Assessment (RSA) Parameters
(cont’d)
Substrate Habitat Quality (cont’d) – the existing substrate conditions and the target
species or those species expected to live there. This information should be
included in the comments section.
Thalweg – The position and orientation of the thalweg is indicative of the areas of flow
stress during high flows and may correspond to areas of erosion (e.g., meander
migration, channel adjustment). Specific observations include whether the
thalweg follows the planform, flow diversity (i.e., fast and slow moving sections),
and if flow is directed at the bank. The observations will be ranked into no/low
(never, or seldom), moderate (occurrences observed), and yes/high (always or
almost always). This information is used in conjunction with observations of
other parameters to gain insight into channel stability and potential for future
change.
Water quality – Water quality will be examined where appropriate (i.e., when baseline
data exists). At a minimum, water temperature should be measured, as well as
the time at which the measurement was taken. In addition, water clarity can be
described as clear, clear but stained or turbid, but weather conditions during the
previous week must also be noted since turbidity can be dependent upon runoff. The degree of turbidity can be visually estimated in the field and recorded in
the appropriate place on the data sheet. Additional parameters can be
measured if budgets allow (e.g., pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen).
39
APPENDIX E: INDICATORS OF PROJECT SUCCESS
DETERMINANTS OF STABILITY OF RELOCATED CHANNELS
Brown (2002), in his review of more than 400 projects, found that the key factor
contributing to the success of a restoration structure occurred when the design was
based on an understanding of stream processes and an accurate assessment of
current and future stream channel conditions. This finding confirms results reported by
other researchers who indicated that channel instability may result when a proposed
channel design does not account for processes operating in the channel (e.g.,
increasing discharge, current disequilibrium conditions) or consider appropriate long
term processes that are operative upstream and/or downstream of the proposed realignment.
Brice (1981) identified key factors that contribute to the stability of relocated channels
through completing a review of channel re-alignment projects (Table E-1). Review of
Table E-1 clearly shows that numerous factors contribute to channel stability and either
directly or indirectly to the productive capacity of a re-aligned stream channel.
Awareness of these factors is important as they may be used to explain project
success and/or failure. Isolating factors during project evaluation can be accomplished
by grouping projects with similar characteristics (e.g., similar flow regime, slope,
length, etc.).
Table E-1. Factors Important to the Stability of Relocated Channels (from Brookes
(1988) based on Brice (1981)).
stream flow, habitat, drainage area, water discharge, channel
Site Factors
width, bank height, sinuosity, stream type, valley relief,
channel boundary material, incision of channel, vegetation
cover along banks, prior channel stability, human works
Alteration
Factors
length of relocation, slope and cross-sections of relocated
channels, aspects of channel alignment, measures for erosion
control and environmental purposes
Post-alteration
Factors
length of performance period, streamflow during performance
period, post-construction maintenance and addition of
countermeasures, growth of vegetation along the channel
The productive capacity of a watercourse is, in part, determined by channel stability,
although some instability and channel change may be beneficial to the aquatic
community.
An understanding of the factors that contribute to the stability and
instability of relocated channels is beneficial when determining parameters that should
be included in the post-construction project evaluation. Brookes (1988) summarized
these factors, based on a review of Brice’s (1981) work (Table E-2).
40
APPENDIX E: INDICATORS OF PROJECT SUCCESS (Continued)
Table E-2. Critical Factors Contributing to the Stability and Instability of Relocated
Channels (from Brookes (1988) based on Brice (1981)).
Stability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Growth of vegetation on banks
Bank stabilization structures
(e.g., rock, bio-engineering,
erosion control blankets)
Stability of prior channel
Straightness of channel
Low average energy grade (i.e.,
bankfull slope of channel)
Erosional resistance of bed or
bank materials
Minimal channel shortening in
the relocation
Presence of bedrock on channel
bed or banks that controls
channel form
In-stream structures that control
channel grade (e.g., check dam
or drop structure)
Management of flows (e.g.,
storm water management,
dams) both within and diverted
to the channel
Few floods in first few years
after construction
Preservation of original channel
Instability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Incorporation of bends in relocated
channels
Floods of large recurrence interval
soon after construction
Erodibility of bed or bank materials
High channel side, susceptible to
slumping
Instability of prior channel
Sharp decrease in channel length
Failure of revetment
Abrupt change in channel width
(e.g., increase or decrease)
Absence of vegetation along bank
Flood soon after construction
Lack of continuity in vegetation cover
along banks
Turbulence at check dam or drop
structure
Flow constriction at bridge
Non-linear junction with natural
channel
Steep average energy grade of
channel (e.g., bankfull grade; a
channel is considered relatively
steep at grades exceeding 1% for
southern Ontario watercourses)
DETERMINANTS OF BIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND STABILITY
Using the general monitoring program objective framework recommended by
Rutherfurd et al. (1999), the following example questions were identified as indicators
to assess project success:
• Were objectives for execution, survival and physical conditions met?
• Has the ecological function of the stream been maintained or improved?
• Has the species richness increased?
• Is there a connection to a robust riparian system with increased potential of
nutrient/energy conversion?
• Has the potential for benthic/forage production increased?
• Has the riparian wildlife community been enhanced?
41
APPENDIX E: INDICATORS OF PROJECT SUCCESS (Continued)
Kondolf and Micheli (1995) summarized critical aquatic habitat variables for project
evaluations as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Habitat depth;
Stream velocity;
Percent overhang/cover/shading;
Pool/riffle composition;
Fish population changes;
Invertebrate community changes; and
Macrophytes.
These authors also related relevant riparian measures. Most of the water quality and
habitat metrics could be measured with appropriate benthic community assessments.
Ecological success may be measured by a combination of indicators of habitat
creation, as well as indicators of biological production.
REFERENCES
Brice, J.C. 1981. Stability of relocated channels. Technical Report No. FHWA/RD80/158, Federal Highways Administration, US Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC. 177 p.
Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management.
Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 326 p.
Brown, K. 2002. Urban stream restoration practices: an initial assessment. The Center
for Watershed Protection, Elliot City, MD. 8p.
Kondolf, G.M., and Micheli, E.R. 1995. Forum: evaluating stream restoration projects.
Environmental Management, 19 (1): 1-15.
Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K.E., and Marsh, N. 1999. A rehabilitation manual for Australian
streams Volume 1 and 2. Land & Water Resources Development Corporation,
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Vol. 1: 189 p., Vol. 2:
400 p.
42
APPENDIX F: MASTER DATABASE OF DETAILED SUMMARIES FOR ALL PROJECTS
File
Location
Date of
approval
Amendment
Yes
Date of construction
Channel
width type
Channel length (m)
Sept. 30 2002 - Nov. 30, 2002
PRE
POST
1327
1480
Bkfl
Channel width (m)
PRE
POST
2
4.4
2.6, 1.3, 0.7
Harvester
21-Jun-01
Harvester
26-Mar-01
Yes - 2
Aug 28 2001 - Dec. 31, 2005
190
193
Bkfl
1
Harvester
10-Jul-02
No
July 10, 2002 - Dec. 31, 2005
760
818
Bkfl
0.5
Harvester
29-Jun-00
No
June 29, 2002 - Dec. 31, 2007
1350
1700
Average
?
35
Harvester
08-Nov-01
No
Nov.8, 2001 - March 31, 2002
810, 270, 750
847, 371, 1005
?
1
1.3, 1.6, 1.1
Harvester
30-Jun-00
No
June 30, 2000 - Nov. 30, 2002
39
39
----
?
Harvester
02-Aug-00
No
Aug 2 2000 - Dec. 31, 2001
305
335
----
?
Harvester
Complicated project, review incomplete, need to talk to assessor
H
4 of 6
0 of 4
M
6 of 6
0 of 3
No
?
0.7
Land Dev
Bio, Eng, Geo P.Eng
M
M
M
No
H
4 of 6
0 of 3
No
2 sections of channel
- 2.8 Q2, 0.21 B 0.18 - 0.47
Land Dev
Bio, LA
Bio
M
L
H
Yes
H
4 of 6
0 of 3
No
V. Detailed designs in this file. Good info on the built
design
?
?
?
Culv. Replace
Eng
P.Eng
L
L
L
No
L
4 of 6
0 of 3
No
Has had a complaint form HRCA, plantings not
complete, to much armourstone
?
?
?
Land Dev
Eng
P.Eng
L
L
L
No
L
4 of 6
0 of 1
No
Yes - 1
Aug 22, 2000 - Dec. 31, 2003
106
106
bfl
36682
No
36678
Harvester
15-Mar-01
No
Mar-01
Harvester
07-Sep-00
Yes - 1
Sept. 7 2000 - Dec 31 2003
247
275
Active
2-4
0.5 - 2
Harvester
13-Jun-02
No
June 13 2002 - March 31, 2003
850
850
Bkfl
24-35
25
3.1
0.29-0.31
3
7 - 12
1
?
gabion
8
0.24
0.3
M
Yes
L
4 of 6
0 of 3
L
L
No
M
3 of 6
2 of 2
No
Erosion control
LA
LA
L
M
M
Yes
H
5 of 6
2 of 3
No
1.2
1.136
1.3 - 1.8
45.6
0.42
0.32
Bkfl
5
1.1
1
----
adding pool segment
50 yr
0.08
Harvester
30-Apr-01
No
April 30, 2001 - Dec. 31, 2002
98
102
2.6, 1.9
2.09
Harvester
18-Jun-01
Yes-1
Nov.8, 2001 - Jan 1 2004
1832
1760
1.87
1.2
-----
?
?
Bkfl
22 - 32
12.5
Harvester
30-Aug-01
Yes-1
Nov-02
200
217
Bkfl
1.7
1.7
Harvester
01-Jul-98
Yes-2
31-Aug-01
100
150
Width is available
Harvester
20-Jul-00
Yes-1
Oct-01
150
150
Bkfl
CCIW
13-Dec-96
No
Mid January 1997
1000
1000
Multiple sections; unclear
CCIW
28-May-98
No
30-Jun-98
35
30
?
CCIW
28-May-98
No
?
69
40
-----
CCIW
23-Jun-98
No
15-Jun-98
280
280
Bkfl
CCIW
29-May-02
No
?
198
160
Bkfl
2.5
CCIW
26-Oct-99
No
?
232
232
Bkfl
?
6
CCIW
03-Aug-99
No
Dec, 1999
100
100
Bkfl
12.71
16.65
CCIW
25-Jul-00
No
July 25, 2000 - Nov. 30, 2002
280
?
?
Sept, 11 2000
No
CCIW
Feb 1 2001
No
CCIW
Feb. 18, 2000
No
CCIW
04-Jun-01
CCIW
Nov 1 2000
? Of 2
No
0 of 3
No
0.59
Bio
Bio
M
H
M
No
M
4 of 6
0 of 3
No
0.2
Aggregate expansion
Bio, Geo, Eng P.Eng
M
M
M
No
M
6 of 6
1 of 7
No
1.56, 1.35
0.4/0.6, 2.8,/4.40.46, 0.8
3.6
Geo, Eng, LA
P.Eng
H
L
L
Yes
H
4 of 6
0 of 3
Yes
Bio, Eng
P.Eng
H
H
H
Yes
M
6 of 6
1 of 3
No
being replaced now. 1022 m2 impacted, 1198 m2
compensated
Eng
P.Eng
H
M
L
Yes
L
5 of 6
1 of 2
No
Post construction is 217 m of new channel and 329 m of
wet meadow habitat
Bio, Eng, LA
P.Eng
M
L
M
No
L
5 of 6
2 of 3
No
7 creek crossings, only Tributary D was redesigned
Bio, P.Eng
P.Eng
H
M
L
Yes
M
6 of 6
2 of 3
No
Final mon. report not due yet.
2 stream reaches
Eng
P.Eng
L
L
L
Yes
L
3 of 6
?
No
Land Dev
Eng, Bio
P.Eng
L
M
L
No
M
6 of 6
1 of 2
No
New road crossing
Eng
P.Eng
L
L
M
No
L
4 of 6
1 of 2
No
New road crossing and
Culvert replacement
Bio, Eng
?
M
M
H
Yes
L
5 of 6
0 of 1
Yes
Initial work unsatisfactory, More work had to be done,
nat channel
Land Dev
Bio, LA
?
M
H
M
Yes
H
3 of 6
0 of 2
Yes
Net gain of habitat due to off site compensation, nat
channel
Pipe replace, and loweringBio, Geo, Eng P.Eng, Bio H
H
M
Yes
H
5 of 6
0 of 2
No
H
M
Yes
L
5 of 6
1 of 3
No
2
low
Contaminant
decommissioning
Bio, Eng
P.Eng
L
M
L
Yes
L
4 of 6
0 of 2
No
19.8
0.72, 1.08
Erosion control
Bio,LA
Bio
L
M
M
Yes
M
4 of 6
1 of 3
No
?
0.7
?
Bf
?
3
?
dwg
0.53 - 0.73
1 or 10 m10 yr 19.26 - 10 yr
1-3
4-6
1.3
Eng, LA
P. Eng
M
Culvert replacement
Bio, Geo, Eng P. Eng
L
M
L
Yes
L
5 of 6
Bio, Geo, Eng Bio
H
M
L
Yes
H
4 of 6
0 of 2
Found 1999
and 2001
photographic
No
development
Culvert replacement
Eng
L
M
M
No
M
4 of 6
0 of 1
No
P.Eng
No
1.26, 0.37, 0.5 Land Dev
Eng
P.Eng
H
M
L
Yes
M
4 of 6
0 of 2
No
dwg
Eng
P.Eng
L
M
M
No
M
3 of 6
0 of 2
No
Bridge replacement
250
230
Mar-02 120
120
Bkfl
0.3
?
200
180
Bkfl
3
3
3
Apr-00
300
300
Average
8.81
11
7
No
June 4 2001 - Nov 1 2003
560
700
Bkfl
?
4
1 m/s
0.16
No
June - Sept 2000
120
120
?
15-20
?
?
?
Land Dev
Stormwater mangem
6
File still active
Land Dev
Eng, LA
P.Eng
H
M
M
Yes
M
3 of 6
0 of 3
No
Flood control
Bio
Bio
H
M
L
Yes
M
4 of 6
2 of 4
Yes
Bank stabilization project along Whisky Creek
compensates for loss on Sophie's Creek, 42 m
?
Road crossing
Bio, Eng, LA
P.Eng
H
M
M
Yes
H
3 of 6
0 of 3
No
No profile drawing of the stream
1, 1.5
Erosion control
Geo, Eng
P.Eng
H
H
L
Yes
M
4 of 6
0 of 3
No
Very detailed pre construction fluvial geo. Report done
Erosion control
Bio, LA
Bio
H
M
L
Yes
H
4 of 6
0 of 1
No
Elsie Ck - same
Bank stabilization
eng
Township
M
L
L
No
L
4 of 6
0 of 4
No
2 of the monitoring reports are not due yet
?
?
1 pool segment added to existing
Compensation project
0.25
?
Bankfull grade is 0.15 - 0.25 %
Bridge replacement
regional
?
Train derailment, federal project
Most mon. reports not due yet. Destruction of 1832 m.
Compensation is creation of 1760 m of habitat and 2
ponds totalling 2321 m2
2 streams will be made into 1. Compensation for
construction of Parkway. Rosgen used with some
limitations
2.19 Erosion control
1.3
1.9
Feb 8 2000
4 of 6
5 of 6
5 yr
1.1
CCIW
M
H
0.27, 10.5
1
1.8-3.0
?
CCIW
No
Yes
1.28
Bkfl
Bkfl
M
M
? No change
Bkfl
60
H
0.0019 - 0.013
173
220
No
M
?
800
60
No
0 of 3
H
?
178
220
unclear
5 of 6
H
?
800
Sept. 22 1999 - Dec. 31, 2001
4 of 6
P.Eng
?
Oct-98
Aug 5, 1999 to Dec 31, 2002
H
M
P.Eng
0.5-1
1999-2000
No
Yes
Yes
Eng
?
No
No
L
M
Bio, P.Eng
2 - 4 m/s??
No
Sept, 1999
M
M
Flood control
19.93 (2 yr - 10
03-Sep-98
Aug 5 1999
H
H
Bridge reconstruction
Culvert, Stormwater,
Land Dev.
2
16-Jul-99
CCIW
Bio
LA
0.8 Road widening
CCIW
CCIW
Bio, Geo
Geo, LA
ow flow, 18.81 cu 0.64, 2.1, 1.4 Road widening
2
CCIW
Bkfl
6.86, 14.68
Road widening
Erosion control
2 sections of a creek being realigned
43
980
No
M
L
250
400
No
No
M
120
797
0 of 2
0 of 1
P.Eng
250
400
4 of 6
4 of 6
Bio
100
March 6, 2001 - Nov. 30, 2003
M
L
Bio, Eng
Nov-01
Jul-02
Yes
Yes
Bio
Jul 6, 2001 - Oct. 30, 2002
No
L
M
Train derailment
Yes-1
Yes-1
H
M
Runway extension
No
06-Mar-01
H
L
?
10-May-01
03-Aug-01
P.Eng
?
?
06-Jul-01
Harvester
Geo, Eng, LA
Bio
?
Harvester
Harvester
SW mang., New road
Culv. Instillation
?
Harvester
107
No
This project is still on-going; works still need to be
completed
Yes
36760
107
No
Yes
Harvester
?
0 of 3
M
Harvester
?
4 of 6
L
Varies with reach
1999
H
L
2.5 - 4
CCIW
Yes
M
----
Bkl
M
M
Bfl, low flow
1005 low-flow
H
M
1400
385
H
P.Eng
2022
650
P.Eng
Bio
1400
May 18 1999 - Dec 31 2004
Geo, Eng
Eng, LA
1523
18-May-99 Yes - 2
Land Dev
Notes
Bio, Eng
Jul. 10, 2000 - Dec 31, 2002
Harvester
Off Site
compensation
Land Dev
Jul. 24, 2000 - Nov. 30, 2002
1
Biology
Monitoring
reports
SW mang.
No
1
Habitat
Approval
documents
1.1
No
Variable
Physical
Design
Channel
rationale Design
0.43
10-Jul-00
?
File Data Quality- Preconstruction channel
conditions
Manager
0.35
26-Jul-00
?
0.77, 0.25
Study team
0.13
Harvester
110
Design slope Impetus for re(%)
alignment
1.48, 1.69
1-2
Harvester
110
Design flow
(cms)
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement