Identifying Linkages between Headwater Drainage Feature Condition and Nutrient Transport

Transcription

1 Identifying Linkages between Headwater Drainage Feature Condition and Nutrient Transport Final Report to Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund By The Headwater Monitoring Working Group March 2011

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was generously funded by Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund, and was a collaborative effort between the following organizations: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Upper Thames Region Conservation Authority Credit Valley Conservation This project has received assistance under Environment Canada s Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund /Environnement Canada, à travers le Fonds d assainissement du lac Simcoe, a contribué au financement de ce projet. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page ii

3 PUBLICATION INFORMATION Reports conducted under TRCA s Headwater Study are available at For more information about the study, please contact: Laura Del Giudice Senior Planning Ecologist Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Tel: , Ext Fax: ldelgiudice@trca.on.ca The views expressed herein are solely those of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Les opinions exprimées dans ce document sont celles de Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4. All rights reserved. The Living City is a trademark of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). All other brands, logos, products or company names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, TRCA assumes no liability for errors or omissions. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page iii

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Deliverables Summary 1 1 Introduction 4 2 Field Data Collection and Final Protocol Summary 5 3 Repeatability Analysis Results Temporal Comparison Crew Comparison 21 4 The State of Headwaters within Priority Watersheds 24 5 Restoration Opportunities Restoration Prioritization Examples of Subwatershed Restoration Priorities Maskinonge Subwatershed Site Priority Ranking High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Schomberg Subwatershed Site Priority Ranking High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority 39 6 Conclusions and Next Steps 40 7 References 41 APPENDIX A Headwater Monitoring Protocol 43 APPENDIX B Preliminary Field Sheet Spring Survey 59 The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page iv

5 Table of Figures Figure 1: Photos demonstrating seasonal differences in sediment transport between spring (left) and summer (right). The majority of sediment will erode from fields during the springtime when flows are high and prior to green up Figure 2: Photos demonstrating the diversity in feature form Figure 3: This photo demonstrates the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between a swale and a wetland Figure 4: These photos demonstrate the difficulty when two features converge downstream of the flow constriction (i.e. road)... 8 Figure 5: Flow chart describing the number of sites sampled in total, in the spring/summer comparison, and in the summer/summer comparison Figure 6: Map of all sampled subwatersheds within the Lake Simcoe Basin Figure 7: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Schomberg Subwatershed Figure 8: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Maskinonge Subwatershed Figure 9: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Kettleby Subwatershed Figure 10: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Lover s Creek Subwatershed Figure 11: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the East Holland Subwatershed Figure 12: Photos illustrating examples of the temporal change in riparian vegetation between spring (Panel Ai) and summer (Panel Aii) and feature type for spring (Panel Bi) and summer (Panel Bii) Figure 13: Headwater site restoration priority ranks for Maskinonge Subwatershed Figure 14: Headwater site restoration priority ranks for Schomberg Subwatershed Figure 15: Photos of MAS0006 on the upstream side of the culvert Figure 16: Photos of MAS0006 on the downstream side of the culvert Figure 17: Photos of MAS0027, left and centre photo depicts a sod farm, which has replaced the HDF, right photo shows measurements being taken on the downstream side of the culvert Figure 18: Photos of MAS0024 depicting roadside ditch erosion on the upstream (left) side of the culvert, and a vegetated swale running through an agricultural field on the downstream (right) side. Standing water within the swale had an odour smelling of manure Figure 19: Photos of MAS0001 on the upstream (left) and downstream (right) side of the culvert. Wetland communities (marsh) exist on both sides Figure 20: Photos of SCH0001on the upstream side of the culvert, showing spring erosion and water quality issues due to rills generated within the agricultural field Figure 21: Photos of SCH0004 showing erosion from the agricultural field in spring (left) draining directly to a roadside ditch (centre photo) Figure 22: Photos of SCH0009 depicting restricting access by horses to HDF by fence installation on the upstream (left) side Figure 23: Photos of SCH0013 depicting wetland features on the upstream (left - swamp) and downstream (right marsh) side of the culvert Figure 24: Sample Site survey areas and feature designations Figure 25: Using a clinometer to measure slope The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page v

6 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of headwater attributes, attribute descriptions, methods of measurement, and required equipment for data collection... 9 Table 2: Feature type comparison for spring and summer Table 3: Flow condition comparison for spring and summer seasons, Table 4: Sediment transport comparison for headwater streams in spring and summer Table 5: Sediment volume comparison for spring and summer Table 6: Bankfull width comparison of headwater streams for the spring and summer of Table 7: A comparison of riparian vegetation at a distance of 10 m from the shore of headwater streams in spring and summer Table 8: A comparison of feature type for headwater streams in summer Table 9: Flow condition comparison for summer Table 10: Sediment transport comparison for headwater streams in summer Table 11: Sediment volume comparison for the summer season of Table 12: A comparison of riparian vegetation at a distance of 10 m from the shore of headwater streams in the summer of Table 13: Bankfull width comparison for the summer of Table 14: Steam slope comparison for the summer of Table 15: Headwater site and catchment attributes derived from a desktop analysis (ArcHydro) Table 16: Headwater Condition Metrics for Maskinonge and Schomberg Subwatersheds based on data collected using the new protocol Table 17: High, medium and low priority criteria and rationales Table 18: Summary of catchment statistics for both Maskinonge and Schomberg headwater sites combined Table 19: Summary of catchment statistics for Maskinonge headwater sites Table 20: Summary of catchment statistics for Schomberg headwater sites The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page vi

7 Executive Summary Headwater drainage features (HDFs) are defined as small zero or first-order perennial streams, springs, wetlands, and intermittent and ephemeral streams and swales. Many become nearly unrecognizable once they have been buried, channelized, realigned, tiled or dredged. The purpose of this project was to develop a monitoring protocol for characterizing the relative amount of water and sediment transport and storage occurring within headwater drainage features. The goal was to fill a current gap that prevents these features from being surveyed and classified across a landscape so that their influence on overall watershed health can be established. The project was conducted in tributaries of Lake Simcoe (Schomberg, Maskinonge, Kettleby, East Holland, and Lover s Creek) in order to support efforts to identify where excessive sediment transport, and thus phosphorus contamination to Lake Simcoe, may be problematic and could be a focus for remediation or restoration. In developing the protocol, the Project Team and field staff, assessed 115 sites and compared findings from spring and summer, and between crews in the summer to test the repeatability of the methods. Results showed that the protocols were more easily applied in the spring and that by mid-summer, many of the rills and gullies and large sediment deposits so evident in the spring were less obvious in later in the growing season. In some instances, crops and plowing had removed all evidence of sediment movement or deposition. Detailed analyses of headwaters of the Schomberg and Maskinonge Creeks demonstrated that both of these subwatersheds are in need of significant effort to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land uses (largely agricultural) within headwater catchments. The revised protocol will be put forth for consideration as an Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) module for use by all practitioners across southern Ontario and the project team will now consider how to integrate these methods into the interim guidelines for headwater stream management that Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have developed. Next steps include, further testing and modifying the protocol and field sheet based on these findings and developing training materials for implementation. The Project Team recommends that the new protocol be used to collect headwater data across the entire Lake Simcoe Basin to characterize the state of headwaters within the watershed. The data collected would be instrumental in developing a similar prioritization strategy to identify sites with the highest potential for erosion and nutrient inputs to Lake Simcoe. While the sites we have identified in this report have been categorized according to restoration priority for those watersheds where data have been collected thus far, there may be other sites within the basin that have a higher priority and would result in a greater overall benefit to the protection of downstream aquatic resources. This holistic prioritization would make the best use of limited funds. Deliverables Summary The following is a summary of the project deliverables, findings and where pertinent information about the deliverable can be found: The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 1

8 1. A new, tested, scientifically defensible, and standardized method for collecting data on headwater attributes. The Study Team developed a protocol that provides a means of characterizing the flow, form, connectivity, and unique attributes associated with each HDF. When data are collected across the entire watershed, the data will provide an indication of overall headwater health. It will also provide an insight into where excessive sediment transport may be problematic within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, or any other watershed, and identify areas requiring remediation or restoration. It is a rapid assessment method that directs the collection of critical headwater data at accessible locations within a watershed (i.e. at crossing locations). The intent is that this protocol will become a module in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol to facilitate the collection of headwater information by practitioners for both monitoring stream health and in assessing proposed land use changes. A summary of the protocol and its details are discussed below, and the protocol itself can be found in Appendix A of this report. 2. A dataset of headwater site locations identified through the ArcHydro analysis. This will be made available to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for use in plan review to ensure adequate identification and protection of headwater features through land use planning and permitting processes. All of the headwater site locations identified through the ArcHydro analysis where field truthed for the entirety of two priority subwatersheds (Maskinonge and Schomberg Creeks). Limited data were also collected for a number of other subwatersheds where data gaps existed in stream data. The locations of the sites are indicated on maps provided in this report. Photos of each of the sites were taken at various sampling periods throughout the field season and will be provided to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for reference. It is our hope that this information, in conjunction with the data collected on headwater condition will provide valuable information for Conservation Authority staff both through the review of land use planning and permit applications, as well as restoration planning and stewardship purposes. 3. A technical report or manuscript describing the repeatability of the methods used. In developing the protocol, the Project Team and field staff, assessed 115 sites and compared findings from spring and summer, and between crews in the summer to test the repeatability of the methods. Results showed that the protocols were more easily applied in the spring, and that by mid-summer, many of the rills and gullies and large sediment deposits so evident in the spring were less obvious later in the growing season. In some instances, crops and ploughing had removed all evidence of sediment movement or deposition. Next steps include, further modifying the protocol and field sheet based on these findings and developing training materials for implementation. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 2

9 4. A dataset of headwater conditions for priority Lake Simcoe Watersheds. The data will be uploaded to the FWIS (Flowing Waters Information System). Data were collected for a total of 115 sites Schomberg Creek, Maskinonge Creek, Kettleby Creek, East Holland River, and Lover s Creek for this project, including spring, summer, and repeatability surveys. Data on flow, form, riparian cover, evidence of erosion and other data were collected for these sites. All of the data will be added to FWIS (Flowing Water information System), which is the Provincial database for stream data. The data will also be made available to LSRCA. Hundreds of photographs have been taken of the sites during spring and summer, which will also be made available to LSRCA. Maps of all the sites, including ArcHydro analyses and the drainage lines are depicted in the following report. 5. A report summarizing the findings of the field data, including a map of priority headwater areas where stewardship activities are recommended to improve phosphorus storage and cycling capabilities based on the results of field surveys. The following report summarizes the findings of the field data, and provides summary statistics that identify headwater condition metrics describing the state of the headwaters of two priority subwatersheds, Maskinonge and Schomberg Creeks. All headwater sites within these subwatersheds observed during spring surveys were categorized as high, medium, or low with regard to priority for restoration. The Project Team has also provided some examples of restoration initiatives recommended to remediate the erosion and nutrient transport problems for a number of sites within each subwatershed. 6. A headwater website that Conservation Authority staff, consultants, developers, farmers, stewardship groups, and other agencies can access to find information on the importance of headwaters in maintaining and improving the condition of Lake Simcoe. This website will include the final report of this study, as well as the reports from previous headwater research studies, workshops and guidelines to ensure all stakeholders have access to available tools. The headwater webpage was completed in June Since then, the development of this headwater monitoring protocol has been listed on the webpage as a current project in partnership with Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund, the Ministry of Natural Resources and a number of other Conservation Authorities. All of the previously completed headwater literature reviews, research studies, guidelines, and workshop presentations are now posted. Now that the final protocol and reporting is complete, this information will also be added to the webpage. We have included links to the websites of all past and current funding partners and contributors, including LSCUF. The website link can be found at The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 3

10 7. A workshop or presentation at Latornell or American Fisheries Society Conferences to disseminate the final Headwater Monitoring Protocol to stakeholders. The results of this study were disseminated as part of headwater presentations given at the Natural Channel Design Symposium held in Mississauga in August 2010, and the Latornell Conference held in Alliston in November 17, The monitoring protocol was also discussed at the February 2011 Fisheries and Oceans Partnership Workshop held in Barrie, Ontario. The presentations were well received, generated good discussion, and opened the door for new partnerships and possible uses of the protocol. Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund was acknowledged as a major contributor to this important work. In addition, as a result of networking at the Latornell Conference, the project team members became involved in organizing and presenting at a Headwater Workshop that took place in February 2011 in Ottawa. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss emerging headwater research, policy, monitoring and restoration opportunities, including the monitoring protocol developed through this project. Many Eastern Ontario agencies, municipalities, and consultants participated in the knowledge transfer, and some Conservation Authorities (e.g. Toronto Region and Rideau Valley) hope to apply the protocol in their watersheds in Introduction HDFs include small zero or first-order perennial streams, springs, wetlands, and intermittent or ephemeral streams and swales. Further, many become nearly unrecognizable once they have been buried, channelized, realigned, tiled or dredged. Regardless of the form of the HDF, new science is suggesting that they provide important roles as the interface between land and water, for water and sediment transport, and as corridors for the migration of biota. They can be conduits for the transport of sediment generated from landuses within their catchments, which are then delivered to downstream aquatic systems. However, while biologists may be beginning to think of these features as the origins of streams, some landowners may view them as being wet spots in fields, or simply unimportant. HDFs have not traditionally been a component of monitoring efforts, and as such, little is known about their form and function in the landscape. These features may provide direct, both permanent and seasonal, habitat for fish by the presence of refuge pools, seasonal flow, or groundwater discharge. They may also provide indirect habitat through the contribution of exported food and energy sources (detritus/invertebrates) to fish-bearing reaches downstream. These features may be important sources, conveyors or stores of sediment, nutrients and flow, and may have an important role for terrestrial species, such as amphibians. The main purpose of this project was to develop a monitoring protocol for characterizing the relative amount of water and sediment transport and storage occurring within headwater drainage features (HDFs). The protocol that we developed provides a means of characterizing the flow, form, connectivity, and unique features associated with each HDF. When data are collected across the entire watershed, the data will provide an indication of overall headwater health. It will also provide an insight into where The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 4

11 excessive sediment transport may be problematic within the Lake Simcoe Watershed and identify areas requiring remediation or restoration. The objective of this protocol is to describe a methodology that will provide standardized datasets to support science development and enable effectiveness monitoring of current headwater management practices in both urbanizing (TRCA and CVC, 2009) and agricultural landscapes. 2 Field Data Collection and Final Protocol Summary The monitoring protocol that we developed describes a rapid assessment method for characterizing the amount of water and sediment transport and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (HDFs). The intent was to develop a rapid assessment tool (requiring minutes per site) in order to capture key information about the feature, including the relative amount of sediment transport occurring at the site. These data would allow the identification of problematic sites that could be further studied at a later date. At the start of the project, the Project Team identified a number of initial tasks that needed to be completed prior to the development and testing of a headwater monitoring protocol. One of those tasks was to consult with soil scientists and geomorphic experts on potential methods for collecting sediment transport data within headwater drainage features. During a teleconference on February 23, 2010, the experts advised that sampling during and immediately after the spring freshet, prior to the emergence of vegetation, was the critical time to conduct field observations. In consideration of this advice, the Project Team decided to commence field observations earlier than originally planned. We decided that, instead of hiring a field crew to collect information in the summer, members of the Project Team would collect field data in the spring. The decision to use team members instead of a crew was made because the field protocol had not yet been written and it was felt that a less experienced crew would be less likely to know what information to collect and how to devise an effective protocol. Prior to field investigations, the Project Team developed a rudimentary field sheet (see Appendix B) based on our experience with headwater features and the study objectives. This field sheet was to be used as the basis for collecting preliminary data and further refining of the field sheet. In addition to a rudimentary field sheet, we also discussed an initial sampling protocol that would be used for the initial field observations. We decided it would be best to apply the protocol at stream crossings (road, railway, trail etc.) where a feature is present for at least the period during the freshet when the crossing structure (e.g. culvert) causes a constriction in flows (thereby encouraging deposition of sediment), and where access is possible. Over a period of two 3-day field assessments (April and May 4-6, 2010), team members collected headwater information in two Lake Simcoe subwatersheds using the first draft of the headwater field sheet. This proved to be a very valuable and critical exercise since it was important to observe headwater features while flow, and hence sediment transport, was actively occurring. The two subwatersheds selected were Schomberg Creek and Maskinonge Creek, as these watersheds were The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 5

12 expected to represent a range and contrast of conditions, having both highly impaired and less impaired conditions. Development of the field sheet required extensive iterative revisions, as creating one standard template for highly variable systems proved to be very challenging. A number of the challenges included: Every feature was different with respect to form, flow, slope, riparian cover, etc., so devising a standard method for categorizing features was very challenging at first; There was often more than one headwater feature at the upstream side of the culvert; Developing a reliable rapid method for identifying post-event sediment transport given that observed deposition likely represents only a portion of the total transport volume; The features were often inconspicuous due to vegetation, plowing and tiling, particularly later in the growing season; Devising definitions to distinguish between wetland (storage function) and swale (conveyance function) was difficult given the often similar vegetation communities; A way of treating multiple channels, with separate culverts merging to form one feature downstream; It was not always possible to visually determine flow directions due to flat topography; Headwater conditions changed throughout the field season (i.e. spring versus summer). The following photo series demonstrate some of the challenges we experienced as outlined above. Figure 1: Photos demonstrating seasonal differences in sediment transport between spring (left) and summer (right). The majority of sediment will erode from fields during the springtime when flows are high and prior to green up. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 6

13 Figure 2: Photos demonstrating the diversity in feature form. From left to right, top to bottom: Pond outlet, roadside ditch, wetland, tile drain outlet, defined channel, and swale. Figure 3: This photo demonstrates the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between a swale and a wetland. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 7

14 Figure 4: These photos demonstrate the difficulty when two features converge downstream of the flow constriction (i.e. road). Two features exist upstream (left photo shows two culverts), and only one feature downstream (right photo shows flow convergence in for foreground, flowing towards the background as a single feature). Given that timing is paramount for data collection within HDFs, the final protocol strongly recommends that data be collected in spring (March to June), however summer or autumn surveys can be conducted to supplement spring data, for example to confirm HDF hydroperiods (ephemeral, intermittent, perennial). Site boundaries include 40 m upstream and downstream of the culvert. The final field sheet is a scanable form (i.e. data do not need to be manually entered into a database) with the upstream data on the front page and downstream data on the back of the sheet. One field sheet will be completed for each site (i.e. each culvert). Date, stream name, site name and site location are recorded at the top of the front page. There is also space to record photo number and optional water quality parameters, including water temperature, ph, conductivity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 8

15 Because multiple HDFs can occur on the upstream side of the culvert, data are recorded for each feature; up to four features. Upstream data fields include the following attributes, attribute descriptions, methods of measurement, and required equipment: Table 1: Summary of headwater attributes, attribute descriptions, methods of measurement, and required equipment for data collection Headwater Attribute Feature Type Flow Conditions Evidence of Sediment Transport Evidence of Sediment Deposition Bankfull Width Riparian Vegetation Feature Roughness Longitudinal Gradient Upstream Channel Features Attribute Descriptions Methods of Measurement Equipment Required Defined channel; Channelized; Braided; No Visual None defined channel; Swale; Wetland; Tiled; Roadside ditch; On-line pond outlet No surface water; Standing water; Surface flow minimal; Surface flow substantial Visual; if flow is substantial, it is measured using methods outlined in OSAP module S4.M8 (Volume/Time, Hydraulic Head, or Distance/Time methods) None; Rills; Gullies; Outlet deposit Visual None None; Minimal; Moderate; Substantial; Extensive Quantitative measurement None; Lawn; Cropped land; Pasture; Meadow; Scrubland; Forest (on each bank within m, m, m) Minimal; Moderate; High; Extreme Flat; Moderate; High Potential contaminant sources; Major nutrient sources; Channel hardening; Channel dredging; Seeps/spring; Barriers and dams; Online ponds upstream Average of three depth measurements taken in sediment deposits on banks Measured using methods outlined in OSAP module S4.M3 Visual estimate based on dominant aerial coverage Visual estimate based on aerial coverage within hydrologically active area Measured using various methods Visual Bucket, stopwatch, wooden metre stick, floating object Metal metre stick Tape measure, metre stick None None Visual, Clinometer, Laser level, or Survey level None Similar information is collected on the downstream side of the culvert with a few exceptions. Only one feature will be possible on the downstream side, hence only one row for data collection is provided. In addition, channel connectivity has been added to the downstream in order to record whether/how flowing water would reach downstream areas. This is described visually using the following categories: connected, unconnected, subsurface connection. Please refer to the protocol in Appendix A for further details on the methods employed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 9

16 Extensive revisions were made to the field sheet following the spring surveys to reflect required changes based on field observations (see Appendix B). The field sheet was reorganized, additions and deletions were made, and different information was added for data collection on the upstream versus downstream sides of the culverts. Team members conducted follow-up surveys on August to resurvey a subset of the sites using the revised field sheet. During these surveys it became apparent that the timing of the surveys was critical. Upon returning to the same sites observed in spring, it was clear that the vegetation growth had obscured many of the features observed earlier in the year, and that flow and sediment transport processes were much less apparent. However, the revised field sheet was much improved over the earlier versions and seemed to work well in the field to document conditions. Minor revisions were made to the field sheet following the August field work and the protocol was written based on the final field sheet. With the protocol ready, the study team was now in a position to hire field crews to undertake the repeatability surveys. The purpose of the repeatability surveys was to test whether trained crews would independently generate similar results using the new protocol. Since the intent for this protocol is to eventually become a module in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), which are Provincial standard protocols for instream data collection, this is a critical step to ensure reliable data are collected. Two field crews were hired and worked for several weeks in August and September to collect these data. The results of the repeatability work are described below. In total, 115 sites were visited between the spring and summer seasons of A subset of these sites (41) were sampled in the spring of 2010, and a subset of those sites (16) were sampled in the summer of 2010 (See Figure 1). All Sites (115) Spring/Summer (41) Summer (16) Figure 5: Flow chart describing the number of sites sampled in total, in the spring/summer comparison, and in the summer/summer comparison. Considering all of the field work conducted for this project, including spring, summer, and repeatability surveys, data were collected for a total of 115 sites in Schomberg Creek, Maskinonge Creek, Kettleby Creek, East Holland River, and Lover s Creek. Data on flow, form, riparian cover, evidence of erosion and other data were collected for these sites. Maps of all the sites, including ArcHydro analyses and the drainage lines are depicted in the Figure 6. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 10

17 Figure 6: Map of all sampled subwatersheds within the Lake Simcoe Basin. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 11

18 Figure 7: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Schomberg Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 12

19 Figure 8: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Maskinonge Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 13

20 Figure 9: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Kettleby Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 14

21 Figure 10: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the Lover s Creek Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 15

22 Figure 11: Map of all sampled headwater drainage features within the East Holland Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 16

23 3 Repeatability Analysis Results In order to control for temporal changes of headwater stream characteristics, and conduct a crew comparison to assess repeatability of the study design, agreement tables were used. For preliminary analyses, data for upstream and downstream were separated, however to create concise results, up/downstream data were lumped due to the lack of a consistent difference in trends between the two reach types. 3.1 Temporal Comparison Since there is a large gradient of variation in many aspects of headwater streams across the spring and summer months, temporal variation was controlled for by sampling in the high-flow spring season and then again in the lower-flow summer season of Separate comparisons for all metrics used in this study (feature type, flow condition, bankfull width, riparian vegetation, sediment transport and volume) were made for the spring/summer comparison. Conclusions were drawn using agreement tables as to which variables were most likely to yield trustworthy results given the temporal variation. Spring survey results are presented in rows, while summer surveys are presented in columns in the tables below. The tables represent the number of times the crews categorized a metric one way in spring versus another way in summer at the same site. Where they agreed, for instance, both crews identified the feature type at a site as no channel. For example in Table 2, in the spring, 15 sites (yellow row) were classified as defined ( ), however the summer crew only identified 8 sites (green) as defined. The other sites classified by the spring crews as defined were categorized as channelized (1), no channel (3), swale (1), and roadside ditch (2) by the summer crew. However, where the summer crew identified defined channels (blue column: ), the spring crew classified these same features very differently, as defined (8), channelized (2), braided (2), no channel (1), tiled (1), wetland (2) and swale (2). Table 2: Feature type comparison for spring and summer Defined Channelized Braided No Channel Tiled Wetland Swale Ditch Defined Channel 2 1 Braided 2 1 No Channel Tiled 1 2 Wetland Swale Ditch 9 Not surprisingly, feature type varied greatly between spring and summer seasons. For example, three sites categorized as defined channels in the high-flow spring season, were classed as no channel in the summer. Similarly, one defined channel in the spring was categorized as swale in the summer. This is not to be discounted as merely sampling error. In headwater streams, extreme variation can occur The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 17

24 between the high flow spring season and low flow summer months (Figure 1, panels Bi and Bii). The results in Table 1 are, in general, to be expected. Table 3: Flow condition comparison for spring and summer seasons, Dry Standing Interstitial Minimal Substantial Dry 9 2 Standing 15 Interstitial Minimal 11 4 Substantial Flow condition was moderately variable. Again, this is to be expected in headwater streams where flow is highest in the spring months, and streams often dry completely by mid-summer. Eleven streams characterized as minimal flow in the spring, were dry by summer. Similarly, two substantially flowing streams were dry by the sampling period in summer. Again, this is a natural occurrence in headwater streams. Table 4: Sediment transport comparison for headwater streams in spring and summer None Rills Rills & Gully Gully Outlet None 29 1 Rills 2 Rills & Gully Gully 8 1 Outlet There were clearly some discrepancies over sediment transport between spring and summer sampling. The spring crew was able to distinguish rills and gullies fairly consistently, while the summer crew had difficulty identifying either. This issue could simply be that the summer team did not have a clear idea of what to look for. Additionally, this result could be a case of increased vegetation growth and reduced flow in the summer months making it difficult to locate rills and gullies. Further training could potentially improve this type of characterization. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 18

25 Table 5: Sediment volume comparison for spring and summer None Minimal Moderate Substantial Extensive None Minimal Moderate Substantial Extensive 1 1 Sediment volume was one of the poorest characterization types of headwater streams. The results are extremely variable between spring and summer, which is not unexpected. Perhaps, another method of measurement for sediment volume is necessary to obtain reliable results. Bi Ai Aii Bii Figure 12: Photos illustrating examples of the temporal change in riparian vegetation between spring (Panel Ai) and summer (Panel Aii) and feature type for spring (Panel Bi) and summer (Panel Bii). The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 19

26 Table 6: Bankfull width comparison of headwater streams for the spring and summer of < >40 < >40 Bankfull width in headwater streams is often hard to measure and can be highly variable depending on the time of year it is measured. This is clearly showcased in Table 5 where in one case the spring team selected a bankfull width of less than two meters to be appropriate while the summer crew labeled this same stream as having a bankfull width of over 40 meters. Due to this inconsistency, bankfull width may not be a good indicator of stream extent in headwater streams, or possibly more training is required to ensure crews are applying the method consistently, particularly in ill-defined features. Table 7: A comparison of riparian vegetation at a distance of 10 m from the shore of headwater streams in spring and summer None Lawn Crops Pasture Meadow Scrub Forest None Lawn Crops Pasture Meadow Scrub 1 Forest 1 4 Although, riparian vegetation proved to be one of the most consistent measurements for headwater streams, there were still unexplainable inconsistencies in the data collection. Although it is expected that riparian vegetation will vary between spring and summer months (Figure 12, panels Ai and Aii), some of the variation seen in the riparian vegetation observed between the spring and summer crews is not possible over one growing season. For example, the spring team, in one case, designated riparian vegetation as lawn, while the summer team labeled the same stream as forest. There was also some confusion surrounding the difference between meadow and pasture. It could be beneficial to lump some of the variables in this table to reduce the noise in the results. Results from the repeatability study showed that the protocols were more easily applied in the spring. By mid-summer, many of the rills and gullies and large sediment deposits so evident in the spring were less obvious in later in the growing season. In some instances, crops and plowing had removed all evidence of sediment movement or deposition. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 20

27 3.2 Crew Comparison Since the temporal variation was controlled for, a crew comparison was carried out to test which metrics were most consistently measured between two crews. Conclusions were drawn, taking into account the results from the temporal comparison aspect of the study, as to which variables yielded the best results and what improvements needed to be made for future studies of this nature. The two crews sampling in the summer had difficulty distinguishing channel definition. The variation in the temporal part of this study was to be expected, however the variation in the crew aspect of this study was not. Channel definition may not be an appropriate measure of stream extent as was shown in both the spring-summer comparison and the summer crew comparison. Table 8: A comparison of feature type for headwater streams in summer Defined Channel Braided No Channel Tiled Wetland Swale Ditch Defined Channel Braided No Channel 1 Tiled Wetland 1 Swale 1 Ditch 1 3 Table 9: Flow condition comparison for summer Dry Standing Interstitial Minimal Substantial Dry 6 2 Standing 2 3 Interstitial Minimal 1 Substantial 2 Flow condition in headwater streams is highly dependent on the time of year (high-flow spring months or low-flow summer months) and on local rain events. Although the results from the spring-summer comparison were clearly an artifact of the season, the results in Table 8, could be attributed to heavy rain fall events between sampling dates. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 21

28 Table 10: Sediment transport comparison for headwater streams in summer None Rills Rills & Gully Gully Outlet None 31 1 Rills Rills & Gully Gully Outlet Due to channels drying in the summer and vegetation growth increasing, it is difficult to observe these aspects (rills and gullies) of headwater streams in the summer months. Although, both rills and gullies were observed in the spring, most sites were denoted as having neither in the summer. If this variable is to remain in future studies on headwater streams, appropriate sites will need to be chosen to maximize trustworthy results. Perhaps better training is necessary to help crews recognize signs of rills and gullies in the summer months. Table 11: Sediment volume comparison for the summer season of None Minimal Moderate Substantial Extensive None Minimal Moderate Substantial Extensive 1 1 The summer comparison for sediment volume proved to be highly variable; even more so than the spring-summer comparison. Crew Two tended to classify sediments in higher categories than did crew one. It would appear from both the spring-summer and summer comparisons that sediment volume, as measured in this study, does not produce reliable results. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 22

29 Table 12: A comparison of riparian vegetation at a distance of 10 m from the shore of headwater streams in the summer of None Lawn Crops Pasture Meadow Scrub Forest None 2 4 Lawn Crops 4 Pasture 1 Meadow Scrub 1 2 Forest 2 As was shown in Table 6 for the temporal comparison, riparian vegetation was the most consistent variable in this study for the crew comparison. However, in future studies, it may be beneficial to group categories, such as pasture and meadow, to simplify results and reduce noise. Better training may also improve results. Table 13: Bankfull width comparison for the summer of < >40 < > There was a large amount of variation in bankfull width measurements between the two crews. While the first crew did a satisfactory job designating channels as defined or not, the second crew clearly had difficulty doing so in many cases. Because of the lack of consistency in the two crews findings, bankfull width was not a good indicator of stream extent. Table 14: Steam slope comparison for the summer of Low Medium High Low Medium High Stream slope was one of the most highly varied metrics in this study. It is unclear why a headwater stream designated as having a low (<15 cm over a 40 m site) slope by one crew would be designated as having a high (>60 cm over a 40 m site) slope by a second crew two weeks later (Appendix B). There was The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 23

30 either confusion as to how to measure this variable (i.e. more training is necessary), or this is one variable that needs to be measured instead of estimated visually. The results of the crew comparison indicate that some of the categories need to be lumped to reduce subjectivity, or further training should be provided to ensure that the data are more repeatable. 4 The State of Headwaters within Priority Watersheds Since the findings of the repeatability work suggested that spring is the best time to survey features to understand sediment and flow transport and storage, we present the summary statistics for Schomberg and Maskinonge Subwatersheds in Table 14 below using spring data only. We caution that because the field protocol was still being developed in the spring that the data are limited by the quality of the information collected at that time. However, the information is useful for demonstrating the general comparisons between the two subwatersheds. We do not include information on Kettleby, Lover s Creek or East Holland sites as only portions of these watersheds were sampled. Table 15: Headwater site and catchment attributes derived from a desktop analysis (ArcHydro) Headwater Site Attributes Maskinonge Subwatershed Schomberg Subwatershed Number of headwater sites Number of headwater features* Average site catchment size 27 ha 35 ha Headwater feature hydroperiods confirmed Average catchment land use/land cover breakdown Average catchment surficial geology (primary material) Ephemeral = 18 Intermittent = 1 Perennial = 2 Urban 4% Agricultural 93% Natural** 3 % Golf Course 0% Sand 28% Silt 7% Till 65% Ephemeral = 3 Intermittent = 3 Perennial = 8 Urban 5% Agricultural 76% Natural** 18% Golf Course 1% Sand 18% Silt 33% Till 49% Average catchment slope 4% 7% *It was possible to have multiple features at a given site on the upstream side. In this analysis, we also consider upstream and downstream features to be separate features. Hydroperiods are defined as the seasonal duration of flow within the HDFs (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral). These were estimated based on comparisons between spring and summer flow conditions (where available) **Natural is defined as forest, wetland, successional, or meadow habitat The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 24

31 Table 16: Headwater Condition Metrics for Maskinonge and Schomberg Subwatersheds based on data collected using the new protocol. Red text depicts the subwatershed with the higher potential for erosion issues for the metric indicated. Headwater Condition Metrics Maskinonge Subwatershed Schomberg Subwatershed Percentage of features within each slope gradient category Flat = 80 % Moderate = 20% High = 0% Number of sites by restoration priority HIGH = 8 (30%) category MEDIUM = 16 (59%) LOW = 3 (11%) Percentage of headwater features with altered drainage or form Percentage of headwater features with natural form Percentage of headwater features with flowing water 47%: pond 0%, tiled 4%, channelized 14%, no defined channel 19%*, roadside ditch 10% 52%: defined channel 18%, braided 2%, wetland 10%, swale 22% 30%: surface flow minimal 22%, surface flow substantial 8% Flat = 62 % Moderate = 30% High = 8% HIGH = 6 (26%) MEDIUM = 9 (39%) LOW = 8 (35%) 39%: pond 7%, tiled 2%, channelized 20%, no defined channel 5%*, roadside ditch 5% 61%: defined channel 27%, braided 2%, wetland 10%, swale 22% 26%: surface flow minimal 20%, surface flow substantial 6% Number of features with evidence of erosion 9 11 Number of features with evidence of deposition Number of features with non-point source pollution 16 Average estimated sediment volume observed = 0.42 m 3 20 Average estimated sediment volume observed = 1.15 m Percentage of sites with dominant landuse within 100 m of features asphalt = 0%, crop = 29% hay/pasture = 31% manicured = 16% meadow = 10% scrubland = 0% forest = 4% wetland = 0% sod farm = 8% asphalt = 3% crop = 32% hay/pasture = 22% manicured = 11% meadow = 24% scrubland = 5% forest = 8% wetland = 5% * no defined channel was considered to be altered because these features were often associated with tilled farmland. The feature had likely been ploughed through and exposed soils leave them vulnerable to erosion. Refer to Section 8.0 for more information on how restoration priority categories were assigned. Table 15 above depicts the headwater metrics that indicate a higher potential for erosion issues for both Maskinonge and Schomberg Subwatersheds. The red text suggests that Maskinonge may be slightly more impaired than Schomberg, having 6 higher metrics with regard to erosion compared to 3 for Schomberg, however, both are in need of significant effort to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land uses within headwater catchments. One of the most important metrics, number of sites by restoration priority category, was much worse for Maskinonge than for Schomberg. Almost 90% of Maskinonge sites require some level of restoration (high and medium categories), compared with only The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 25

32 65% for Schomberg subwatershed. Maskinonge headwaters were also more altered, there were more sources of non-point source contamination, there was more flow, and there were poorer riparian conditions compared to Schomberg. On the other hand, Schomberg headwaters had generally higher slopes (and hence more potential for erosion), and more evidence of erosion and deposition than Maskinonge subwatershed. 5 Restoration Opportunities An important opportunity for reducing phosphorus loads within the Lake Simcoe Basin is the application of best management practices to lands where headwater drainage features are identified as conveying substantial amounts of sediment to downstream systems from land use activities (agricultural and urban) within the basin. The two subwatersheds selected by the Project Team and Collaborators included Maskinonge Creek and Schomberg Creek. Table 15 above demonstrates that there is the potential for sediment transport to occur within these two subwatersheds via HDFs. Previous studies have indicated that these two subwatersheds have water quality issues within the Lake Simcoe basin. Table 3.1 of the Lake Simcoe Watershed 2007 Environmental Monitoring Report (Lake Simcoe and Region Conservation Authority, 2007) depicts the number and percentage of Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) exceedences recorded during The PWQO levels for phosphorus at the Maskinonge station were exceeded 91% of the time, and was the fourth-highest when compared to all other sampling stations within the Lake Simcoe basin. Phosphorus levels were exceeded even more often at the Schomberg station, with 98%, and total suspended solids exceedences were second worst with 24% (second only to the Holland Landing station). The Maskinonge River Remediation Strategy (Lake Simcoe and Region Conservation Authority, 1998), identifies problem areas within the subwatershed and a number of best management practices (BMPs) that would help to reduce nutrients and sediment from entering the river system. The largest contributor to phosphorus loadings within the subwatershed is soil erosion from cultivated lands (43%). Other sources include livestock manure and urban outfalls. The Strategy recommends a number of Best Manangement Practices (BMPs), including the construction of stilling ponds and grassed waterways to control soil erosion from agricultural fields. Some of these BMPs recognize the importance of considering headwaters in the remediation strategy, as sources of phosphorus are generated in and are transported from these areas. Our study builds on and complements this remediation strategy by developing a standard protocol for identifying the location and nature of problem areas within a watershed. This protocol can now be used in other watersheds within the basin that do not currently have a remediation strategy (e.g. East Holland Creek) to identify other high priority sites for restoration and remediation. 5.1 Restoration Prioritization Headwater sites were prioritized within the two subwatersheds according to the relative contribution of phosphorus loads to downstream systems according to the categories shown in Table 16. Figures 13 The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 26

33 and 14 maps the locations and priority level for headwater sites within Maskinonge and Schomberg Creek subwatersheds. These maps only show prioritization for sites observed in the spring surveys, when active flow and erosion was occurring. Table 17: High, medium and low priority criteria and rationales. Priority Level High Medium Low Criteria Rill or gully erosion was evident, sediment deposition occurred, tile drained outlets, hickenbottoms, or sites where cultivated fields drained directly to the culvert Cultivated fields with grassed waterways or vegetated swales, or areas where livestock had access to the HDF No evidence of sediment transport or deposition, little intensive agriculture or urbanization within the catchment, and headwater features consisted of wetland or forest vegetation Rationale Evidence that soil erosion and tile drainage are the main problems contributing to phosphorus loading within river systems (e.g. the Maskinonge River Remediation Strategy). Evidence that livestock manure is problematic, but less-so than soil erosion. Grassed waterways are only 50% effective. Priority should be on reducing soil erosion or restricting livestock access. Wetland and forest vegetation are sources of phosphorus, but these are natural sources. These features are also known to store sediments and water as well as cycle nutrients. They also support other functions such as habitat provision. Tables 18 and 19 summarize the catchment attributes for Maskinonge and Schomberg sites, respectively, including catchment size, land use, surficial geology and catchment slope. Site restoration priority is also indicated. When catchment statistics are pooled by restoration priority for both subwatersheds (Table 17), it is clear that the catchment attribute driving the headwater impairment is land use. The average percentage of agricultural landuses for high and medium priority site catchments was very high (92%). In comparison, agricultural landuse within low priority catchments was relatively low (52%), while natural cover was relatively high (40%). High and medium priority sites also had surficial geology within their catchments with a higher percentage of silt (23% and 29%, respectively) and lower percentage of sand (21% and 18%, respectively). In comparison, surficial geology within low priority site catchments had no silt and 33% sand. Surprisingly, slope did not seem to be an important factor. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 27

34 Table 18: Summary of catchment statistics for both Maskinonge and Schomberg headwater sites combined. Data were derived from desktop analysis (including ArcHydro). Site restoration priority is indicated with coloured site codes: high = red, medium = orange, low = green. Restoration Priority Land Cover % Surficial Geology % (Single Primary Material) Area (ha) Natural Agricultural Urban Golf Course Till Gravel Silt Sand Slope% High Medium Low Table 19: Summary of catchment statistics for Maskinonge headwater sites. Data were derived from desktop analysis (including ArcHydro). Site restoration priority is indicated with coloured site codes: high = red, medium = orange, low = green. Maskinonge Land Cover % Surficial Geology % Primary Material) (Single Site Code Area (ha) Natural Agricultural Urban Till Gravel Silt Sand Slope% MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 28

35 Table 20: Summary of catchment statistics for Schomberg headwater sites. Data were derived from desktop analysis (including ArcHydro). Site restoration priority is indicated with coloured site codes: high = red, medium = orange, low = green. Shomberg Land Cover % Surficial Geology % Primary Material) (Single Site Code Area (ha) Natural Agricultural Urban Golf Course Diamicton Gravel Silt Sand Slope% SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH SCH Figures 13 and 14 depict the locations of all sites categorized according to restoration priority for these two subwatersheds. For Maskinonge sites, high, medium and low priority sites tended to be evenly distributed throughout the subwatershed. However, low priority Schomberg sites tended to be located on the Oak Ridges Moraine, with medium and high priority sites located downstream of the moraine. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 29

36 Figure 13: Headwater site restoration priority ranks for Maskinonge Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 30

37 Figure 14: Headwater site restoration priority ranks for Schomberg Subwatershed. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 31

38 5.2 Examples of Subwatershed Restoration Priorities Below we present a series of examples of high, medium and low priority headwater sites within each subwatershed. Opportunities for remediation/restoration are also suggested for high and medium priority sites. We note that in all cases, the focus should be on preventing delivery of sediment and nutrients from fields into headwater features. While headwater features are capable of temporarily storing and cycling nutrients and sediments, some of these features may have limited attenuation capacities once nutrients are delivered (Ahiablame, 2010). This is the current thinking with regard to erosion and sediment control for construction practices as well: control erosion first, and then control sediment that is transported (Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2006). It is much easier to prevent erosion from occurring than try to remove it from flowing water once it is entrained. However, because management practices that focus on preventing delivery of sediments and nutrients to streams can have significant implications on the amount of arable land available to the farmer, the successful implementation of these practices could be limited. Landowners may be unwilling to accept these practices, in the absence of adequate financial incentives, because of the negative impacts on crop yields. As such, alternative practices that have the capacity to attenuate water and sediments, and cycle nutrients, may also be beneficial in reducing sediment and nutrient loads within waterbodies. Providing naturally vegetated features, such as wetlands and grassed swales can assist in the removal of sediments and nutrients from flow. Gerhels and Mulamoottil (1990) found that a headwater wetland was capable of reducing the total annual phosphate output from Kg to only Kg (50% removal). Similarly, sediment retention by the wetland was approximately 95%, including high values in spring (94%) when the majority of water and sediment transport occurs. The high and medium priority examples provided below tended to have high percentages of agricultural landuses within the catchments (92%), and some had a higher percentage of silty soils, while others had a high percentage of sand. 5.3 Maskinonge Subwatershed Site Priority Ranking High Priority SITE MAS0006 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 16 ha Land use/land cover = natural 8%, agricultural 92% Surficial geology (primary material) = sand 100% Catchment slope = 1.3% The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 32

39 Upstream Figure 15: Photos of MAS0006 on the upstream side of the culvert. Left photo shows overland flow from a manicured area, right depicts one of two tile drain outlets immediately to the south that drains the majority of the catchment. Downstream Figure 16: Photos of MAS0006 on the downstream side of the culvert. Left photo depicts the perched culvert conveying flows from upstream, right photo depicts the erosion problems caused by tile drainage within the headwater catchment. This Project Team recognized MAS0006 as one of the most highly impaired headwater sites observed during the entire study. It appears that tile drains have replaced the HDFs on the upstream side of the road. The water observed discharging from one of the tiles on the upstream side was murky and had an odour. There was also severe erosion on the downstream side of the culvert. The culvert is also perched creating a barrier to fish movement. Restoration/remediation options include the following: The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 33

40 working with the landowner on the upstream side for options to create a stilling pond, wetland, natural channel, or vegetated swale within the grassed area. This feature would accept and slow flows, and settle out nutrients prior to discharging downstream; implementing streambank stabilization on the downstream side; mitigating the barrier (i.e. the culvert), which may be a source of the erosion problems; removing garbage in channel on the downstream side educating landowners around the impacts of land use on the health of downstream systems, and/or include headwater management in environmental farm planning. SITE - MAS0027 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 21 ha Land use/land cover = agricultural 100% Surficial geology (primary material) = sand 100% Catchment slope = 1.2% Upstream and Downstream Figure 17: Photos of MAS0027, left and centre photo depicts a sod farm, which has replaced the HDF, right photo shows measurements being taken on the downstream side of the culvert MAS0027 was also highly impaired because of the extensive sod farming occurring within the headwater drainage feature. The Project Team observed a tile outlet at the field boundary, and there was a substantial deposit of sediment at this location. We also observed considerable amount of erosion, i.e. several metres of downcutting, between the tile outlet and the road culvert. A substantial amount of sediment has been transported downstream from this site. The channel on the downstream side of the culvert was channelized and ran parallel with the road. Restoration/remediation options include the following: exploring options for mitigating the effects of tile drainage at the downstream end, where possible, and provide incentives to farmers for loss of arable land; The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 34

41 installing a stilling pond immediately upstream of the culvert and encourage the reuse of pond water for irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide purposes; educating landowners around the impacts of land use on the health of downstream systems Medium Priority SITE MAS0024 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 21 ha Land use/land cover = natural 2%, agricultural 98% Surficial geology (primary material) = diamicton 100% Catchment slope = 3.2% Upstream and Downstream Figure 18: Photos of MAS0024 depicting roadside ditch erosion on the upstream (left) side of the culvert, and a vegetated swale running through an agricultural field on the downstream (right) side. Standing water within the swale had an odour smelling of manure. The upstream side of MAS0024 had evidence of soil erosion, with bare cultivated fields and moderate amounts of sediment deposition observed within the channel. The downstream side exhibited a vegetated swale (common reed Phragmites australis), which likely attenuates some of the excess flow and sediment being contributed from upstream. There was also a manure smell coming from the standing water on the downstream side. Restoration/remediation options include the following: working with the farmers to practice conservation tillage both upstream and downstream of the culvert; working with the farmer to provide a grassed waterway on the upstream side or a wetland or stilling pond upstream of the culvert; investigating the source of the manure odour and addressing this issue. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 35

42 5.3.3 Low Priority SITE MAS0001 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 36 ha Land use/land cover = natural 47%, agricultural 53% Surficial geology (primary material) = diamicton 35%, sand 65% Catchment slope = 3.2% Upstream and Downstream Figure 19: Photos of MAS0001 on the upstream (left) and downstream (right) side of the culvert. Wetland communities (marsh) exist on both sides This site exhibited wetland (cattail Typha sp.) communities on the upstream and downstream sides of the culvert. These wetlands likely assist in some attenuation of flow and nutrients, and protection of these features should be encouraged through stewardship, or if necessary, regulatory tools (e.g. Conservation Authorities Act). 5.4 Schomberg Subwatershed Site Priority Ranking The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 36

43 5.4.1 High Priority SITE - SCH0001 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 10 ha Land use/land cover = agricultural 100% Surficial geology (primary material) = sand 100% Catchment slope = 4.4% Upstream Figure 20: Photos of SCH0001on the upstream side of the culvert, showing spring erosion and water quality issues due to rills generated within the agricultural field. SCH0001 was one of the worst sites for rill erosion within the entire study. Large amounts of sediment transport and deposition were evident throughout the spring. A number of rills entered the stream laterally from the adjacent fields. A wide shallow floodplain wetland existed on the downstream side of the road culvert, which may be helping to attenuate and trap sediment and flow. However, the amount of sediment moving through this system is likely overwhelming the wetland. Restoration/remediation options include the following: working with the farmer on the upstream side to implement conservation tillage practices; providing grassed waterways along rills on the upstream side; working with the landowner on the downstream side to improve the capacity of the wetland to store and attenuate flow and sediment (i.e. create a deeper section). This option would require maintenance and is less preferred than the above options. SITE SCH0004 The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 37

44 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 32 ha Land use/land cover = natural 8%, agricultural 92% Surficial geology (primary material) = silt 100% Catchment slope = 3.5% Upstream Figure 21: Photos of SCH0004 showing erosion from the agricultural field in spring (left) draining directly to a roadside ditch (centre photo). Sediment deposition and algae problems are evident in the ditch at the culvert (right). This site exhibited soil erosion (rilling) from a cultivated field draining directly to a roadside ditch. The roadside ditch was full of deposited sediment and algae were noted throughout. On the downstream side, the headwater feature was a wetland, which may, in addition to the roadside ditch, be helping to trap some of the excess flow and sediment. However, it is likely that the amount of sediment moving through the system is overwhelming the capacity to trap all of this material, particularly during high flow events (i.e. the ditch is a source of P and sediment in spring and as sink in summer [Ahiablame et al., 2010]). Restoration/remediation options include the following: working with the farmer to implement conservation tillage practices and/or implement grassed waterways; dredging of the roadside ditch to increase the sediment storage capacity; creating a small berm across the drainage route between the field and the ditch to attenuate flow and sediment. This would slightly decrease the amount of available arable land Medium Priority SITE SCH0009 The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 38

45 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 82 ha Land use/land cover = natural 7%, agricultural 57%, golf course 36% Surficial geology (primary material) = diamicton 93%, silt 7% Catchment slope = 6% Upstream and Downstream Figure 22: Photos of SCH0009 depicting restricting access by horses to HDF by fence installation on the upstream (left) side. A pipe outlet is also evident in the photo foreground (left). High slope has created a scour pool (centre) and culvert perching on downstream side (right). Site SCH0009 already demonstrated some BMPs to help limit the amount of nutrients entering the waterway. On the upstream side, was a hobby farm with a large stream buffer with fencing that restricts horses from entering the stream. The buffer area appeared to be manicured. There was also a pipe outlet entering the stream (this is visible in the left photo). On the downstream side, the steep grades are contributing to scouring and streambank erosion. There is also a perched culvert. Restoration/remediation options include the following: working with the landowner on the upstream side to limit the maintenance of vegetation within the buffer; investigating the source of the pipe and address any issues with this; mitigating the barrier on the downstream side of the culvert and implement streambank erosion controls and scour protection Low Priority SITE SCH0013 The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 39

46 Catchment attributes: Catchment size = 33 ha Land use/land cover = natural 100% Surficial geology (primary material) = diamicton 11%, sand 89% Catchment slope = 14.9% Upstream and Downstream Figure 23: Photos of SCH0013 depicting wetland features on the upstream (left - swamp) and downstream (right marsh) side of the culvert. SCH0013 exhibited wetland vegetation communities on both the upstream and downstream sides of the culvert. These features are likely assisting in the attenuation of flow and nutrients, and should be protected from agricultural or new urban developments through stewardship or, if necessary, regulatory tools. 6 Conclusions and Next Steps Headwater drainage features (HDFs) are the conduits of flow and materials (including sediment) generated within the uppermost catchments of watersheds. These materials can have benefits (food/energy, coarse sediment supply), but can also contribute excessive sediment and nutrients in terms of their influence on the health of downstream waters. These materials are transported via the linked hydrogeomorphic processes occurring within HDFs. HDFs are clearly important to downstream aquatic functioning, but they are rarely monitored by resource management agencies. The protocol that the Project Team developed through this work is effective for monitoring the state of headwater condition within the Lake Simcoe basin. Although field staff needs to be adequately trained prior to initiating data collection, the data can be effectively used to characterize the flow, form, and sediment transport processes occurring within watershed headwaters. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 40

47 From the protocol testing, it is clear that for routine sampling of headwater conditions spring sampling provides a more reliable assessment of the sites. However, sites that were found to be the highest contributors of sediment were able to be identified regardless of when the sampling occurred and there was good agreement amongst all the crews that these sites were high priority areas for further investigation. We also discovered that more effort must be expended in crew training to ensure repeatability of observations, particularly for attributes that vary along a gradient. Changes have already been made to the protocol to clarify definitions and provide more guidance on addressing atypical sampling situations and future efforts will develop videos and presentation materials to assist with better training. The Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund (LSCUF) requested that a number of key environmental indicators be developed by funded projects that would be useful for LSCUF to quantify benefits of applying the project to subwatersheds in the Lake Simcoe Basin. Through the development of the headwater monitoring protocol, and associated data collection, the Project Team was able to identify a number of key environmental indicators including: Identified 115 headwater sites and their condition within the Lake Simcoe basin Identified 39 headwater drainage features requiring restoration based on spring surveys within the Lake Simcoe basin (14 high priority, and 25 medium priority) Identified 26 headwater features with rill or gully erosion, and 201 headwater features with evidence of sediment deposition (minimal = 54, moderate = 55, substantial = 53, extensive = 39). Identified 42 headwater features with non-point sources of pollution, including field erosion, pesticide application, and livestock access Identified 68 altered headwater features, including 4 tile drained, 17 channelized, 45 roadside ditches, and 2 online ponds The Project Team recommends that the new protocol be used to collect headwater data across the entire Lake Simcoe basin to characterize the state of headwaters within the watershed. The data would be instrumental in developing a similar prioritization strategy as outlined in this report to identify sites with the highest potential for erosion and nutrient inputs to Lake Simcoe. While the sites we have identified in this report have been categorized according to restoration priority for those subwatersheds, there may be other sites within the basin that have a higher priority where restoration would result in a greater overall benefit to the protection and rehabilitation of downstream aquatic resources. 7 References The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 41

48 Ahiablame, L. I. Chaubey, and D. Smith Nutrient content at the sediment-water interface of tilefed agricultural drainage ditches. Water 2: Gehrels, J. and G. Mulamoottil Hydrologic processes in a southern Ontario wetland. Hydrobiologia 208: Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction. Lake Simcoe and Region Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe Watershed 2007 Environmental Monitoring Report. Lake Simcoe and Region Conservation Authority, The Maskinonge River Remediation Strategy. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features: An Interim Guideline. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 42

49 APPENDIX A Headwater Monitoring Protocol ONTARIO STREAM ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL SECTION 4: MODULE 10 Assessing Headwater Drainage Features for flow, morphology and sediment deposition 1 1 Authors: Laura Del Giudice, L. W. Stanfield The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 43

50 1.0 INTRODUCTION This module describes a rapid assessment method for characterizing the amount of water and sediment transport and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (HDFs). For the purposes of this module a headwater drainage feature has a defined catchment upstream of an outlet. That is, there is an upslope area that can be clearly defined. Additionally, this module provides a means of characterizing the connectivity, form and unique features associated with each HDF. When data are collected across the entire watershed, the data will provide an indication of overall headwater condition. It will also provide an insight into where excessive sediment transport may be problematic within the watershed and identify areas to focus follow up surveys or potential restoration. The objective of this module is to describe a methodology that will provide standardized datasets to support science development and monitoring on both the interim guidelines for headwater drainage features (TRCA and CVC 2009) and existing mitigation strategies. This module is best applied at stream crossings where the crossing structure (road, railway, trail beaver dam, etc.) causes a constriction in flows and access is possible. Study designs will dictate the process to be followed to identify specifically where field crews will sample (e.g., road layer intersection with water layer or Arc-Hydro) which should be documented using the Study Design Meta-Data Documentation Module (S1.M4). As a rapid assessment module, data provide a coarse measure of HDF sediment and water transport and provide no measure of drift. Techniques generally rely on classification using broad categories (e.g., sediment transport) that are intended to facilitate prioritization of HDFs as to potential influence of each feature on downstream reaches. Project managers should consider the cost/benefit of using these approaches and might consider at minimum nesting these methods with a subset of sites where more rigorous, e.g., continuous sampling methods are applied to capture these data. 1.1 BACKGROUND ON HDF S HDFs have not traditionally been a component of monitoring efforts, and as such, little is known about their form and function in the landscape. Williams (2006) refers to these features as variable habitats in recognition of the natural variability they exhibit in form and function and in their response to perturbations. These features may provide direct, both permanent and seasonal, habitat for fish by the presence of refuge pools, seasonal flow, or groundwater discharge. They may also provide indirect habitat through the contribution of exported food (detritus/invertebrates). These features may be important sources, conveyors or storers of sediment, nutrients and flow, and may have an important role for terrestrial species, such as amphibians. HDFs include small first-order perennial streams, springs, wetlands, and intermittent or ephemeral streams, swales and roadside ditches. Generally, these features are zero-order or first-order features. Further, many become nearly unrecognizable once they have been buried, realigned, moved, tiled or dredged. Regardless of the form of the HDF, new science is suggesting that they provide important roles as the interface between land and water for The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 44

51 water and sediment transport and as corridors for the migration of biota. These features also provide valuable habitat for both plants and animals but it is assumed that these components of HDFs will be evaluated using other protocols. For an extensive review and more details on HDF importance, study design considerations and sampling methods see Fritz et al. (2006) PRE-FIELD ACTIVITES This module requires a crew of two people (a surveyor and a recorder). Survey time varies with the precision required but typically takes anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes to complete per site. Pre-field activities should include: Development of a sampling site map with appropriate site identifiers (see Section 1) Landowner contact where appropriate The following equipment list is required: 1. Headwater sampling field sheet (on waterproof paper if possible) 2. Pencils 3. One Wooden and one metal metre stick 4. Camera 5. Tape measure (30 m or longer) 6. Stopwatch and bucket Optional Equipment 7. GPS unit 8. Clinometer 9. Turbidity meter and/or YSI meter 3.0 FIELD PROCEDURES Site conditions will dictate the type and amount of information collected. For example, there is tremendous variability in the current condition of HDF that will dictate whether surface transport of water or sediment is occurring and can be measured at a site. This variability occurs geospatially, but also temporally. It may or may not be possible to collect all the information on the field sheet at the The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 45

52 time of sampling. In the event that any attribute cannot be measured at a site, record a ``0`` in the corresponding box 2. One field sheet will be filled out for each site sampled, and information will be collected for the upstream (front page of field sheet) and downstream (back page of field sheet) side of each HDF constriction. In developed areas, these measures will most often be collected at culverts. It is possible that there will be two culverts in close proximity conveying flows under the road for only one feature. In this instance, treat the culverts as one site, taking the measurements at the structure that transmits the larger portion of flows. The number of features and attributes for HDFs may change from upstream to downstream, so separate information is collected for each side of the constriction. The site will be defined by a set distance of 40 m upstream and 40 m downstream of the outlet of the HDF (Figure 1). Figure 24: Sample Site survey areas and feature designations. Note: site lengths are determined from the outlet of the main feature. Secondary features are included if they are connected to a drainage area not a roadway. 4.0 TIMING OF FIELD SAMPLING This module is best applied in the short period of time following a major freshet event,which in Ontario generally occurs during late winter and spring, and before new vegetative growth covers and disrupts any newly deposited sediment. However, the module may be useful at other times of the year as well. Generally, this means that sampling should occur between March and the middle of June in southern Ontario. After this time, vegetation growth may also obscure some headwater features that would otherwise be visible in spring. Data collected at other times of the year provides insight into vegetative growth and low flow conditions and can complement the spring survey data. It may be important to understand headwater conditions at other times of the year and intense summer storms can mimic the 2 A blank box indicates that the crew forgot to measure an attribute. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 46

53 effects observed from spring freshets. Indicate on the field sheet whether the sampling is being conducted at a time that provides a ``measure of freshet influences`` or not, on the headwater drainage feature field sheet..components of this module, such as site characterization and flow condition can be completed at any time. 5.0 SITE DESCRIPTORS AND SITE IDENTIFIERS The top portion of the field sheet must be completed when collecting either upstream or downstream observations according to S1.M3. At each site, fill out the site descriptors (i.e., Stream Name, Stream Code, Site Code, Sample #, Date and Time ) assuming that even wetlands fall within a watershed of a stream. Record the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates as determined from either a GIS or using a Global Positioning System (GPS) according to S1.M2. Ensure that the datum is NAD83 and record the Zone Easting and Northing. At least one photo should be taken for the upstream side and one photo for the downstream side for future reference. Record a photo number under Photo # and any additional information about the photo (i.e. upstream vs. downstream, etc.) under Photo Name. It is a good practice to rename the files after downloading the pictures to correspond to the site name and description (e.g.: streamcodesitenameup or streamcodesitenamedn for the up and downstream photos). Depending on whether there is water present within the sampled feature and whether it meets sampling objectives, water quality information may be collected as monitoring objectives dictate. Options available on the field sheet include: Water temperature, Air temperature, ph, Conductivity, Turbidity and Dissolved Oxygen.. Also record if the discharge approximates baseflow. Check Yes if water levels are not elevated due to recent precipitation or snow melt, or No if recent rain or snow melt has likely resulted in increased flows. At the bottom of the field sheet, record the crew leader s initial and last name, the crew member s initials, and the recorder s initials. On the back of the page (downstream side) of the field sheet, describe the Site Descriptions/Access Route following the guidelines provided in S1.M3. Record the street name, emergency access number (if available) of the nearest dwelling, and the approximate distance to the next major intersection. 5.1 Upstream Section There may be more than one headwater drainage feature entering the culvert on the upstream side. For example, you may have more than one defined channel upstream, or a tile outlet may enter the HDF The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 47

54 within the site boundaries (see Figure 1). You may need to do a walk-about to locate and identify all the features within the site. Roadside ditches that only convey local drainage from the roadway should not be included as features for the purposes of this module. Record the number of features found within the site boundaries in the box provided and describe the relative location of each feature in the comments (e.g. distance and direction from the culvert). Record any additional information in the Upstream Comments box at the bottom of the sheet. Record the feature number sequentially according to the distance from the outlet that they originate (e.g., closest feature is number 1) Upstream Longitudinal Gradient Estimate the longitudinal gradient of the site and mark an x in the most appropriate category. Flat is considered to have a gradient of less than 15 cm over 40 m, moderate is between 15 and 60 cm over 40 m, and high is greater than 60 cm over 40 m. A clinometer can be used to provide a more reliable measure of gradient at a site. To measure longitudinal slope, using a percent scale clinometer, sight parallel with the ground (upslope or downslope) to a target, aiming at a point on the target that is equal to the height of your eye above the ground (Figure 2). Record the slope observed using the clinometer. Hint: You can calibrate your eye level by standing on level ground with another crew member. Then sight this point on the crew member s body when measuring slope (e.g. top of head). Figure 25: Using a clinometer to measure slope Feature Type The form of the HDF is a key factor in assessing its function. Categorize the feature type according to the following definitions and record the appropriate feature type under Type : Table 1: Definitions of Types of Headwater Drainage Features The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 48

55 Feature Number Feature Type Feature Definition 1 Defined natural channel Channel banks are visible; there is no evidence that the stream has been historically straightened. 2 Channelized Channel banks are visible; there is evidence that the stream has been historically straightened. 3 Braided Multiple channels for one flow source; braided channels are subdivided at low-water stages by multiple midstream bars of sand or gravel. At high water, many or all bars are submerged. 4 No defined channel Only overland sheet flow occurs; a defined or ill-defined feature is not present. 5 Tiled An outlet from a buried stream or tile drain is visible. There may be a defined channel downstream of the outlet caused by scouring. 6 Wetland Feature with no defined banks and lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case, the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. Obligate wetland species will likely be dominant (e.g. cattails). Water storage is the primary function for the purposes of this definition. 7 Swale An ill-defined shallow trough-like depression that carries water flow during rainstorms or snowmelt. May contain facultative wetland plants (e.g. reed canary grass). Water conveyance is the primary function for the purposes of this definition. 8 Roadside ditch A historically natural stream that has been redirected to run parallel with a roadway through at least the length of the site. Does not include roadside ditches conveying local drainage (i.e. drainage from the immediate area only). 9 On-line pond outlet Flow is interrupted by an irrigation, stormwater or aesthetic pond. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 49

56 5.1.3 Flow Conditions Classify the amount of water flowing within each upstream HDF according to the following table: Table 2: Definitions of Flow Conditions Flow Conditions Code Description Observation 1 No surface water The feature is dry. 2 Standing water The feature has water, but there is no visible flow. 3 Interstitial flow Flow is observed in the pavement layer of substrates only. 4 Surface flow minimal 5 Surface flow substantial There is flow within the HDF that is estimated to be less than 0.5 litres per second. There is flow within the HDF that is estimated to be more than 0.5 litres per second. If surface flows are classified as substantial (category 5), complete the Upstream Flow Measures section on the field sheet following the procedures outlined in S4.M8. Record the wetted width to the nearest tenth of a metre for each feature number at a representative location or, if observable, at a crossover Sediment Transport to Feature from Adjacent Lands Examine the areas in the vicinity of the HDF and note whether there is evidence of sediment transport moving into the feature laterally from the adjacent lands. This information will assist in determining whether there is evidence that soil is being eroded from adjacent lands and being conveyed by the HDF. Use the definitions below to assist in the assessment. If no rills or gullies are present, record a 1 for none. If you observe one or more rills, record a 2. If you observe both rills and gullies record a 3. If you observe only gullies, record a 4. Rill - a narrow and shallow incision into soil resulting from erosion by overland flow or surface runoff that has been focused into a 'thin thread' by the soil surface texture of roughness. Generally, rills are less than 0.2 m deep. Gully - a landform created by running water eroding sharply into soil, typically on a hillside. Gullies resemble large ditches or small valleys. They are greater than 0.2 m deep, but can be metres to The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 50

57 tens of metres in depth and width. When the gully formation is in process, the water flow rate can be substantial, which causes the significant deep cutting action into soil and lack of vegetation growth Evidence of Sediment Deposition Volume Examine the hydrologically active area (i.e. where higher flows occurred) of the HDF and note if a fresh (i.e. this year) layer of sediment has been deposited over the substrate or previous year s vegetation. The volume of new sediment deposits are an indicator of the amount of sediment transported by the HDF. If sediment deposits are evident, lightly push a metal ruler or metre stick into the ground until resistance is met by either old vegetative material or compacted soils. Measure this depth in at least three different locations and record the category that represents the average depth of new sediment according to Table 3. Table 3: Definitions of Sediment volume categories Sediment Volume Code Description Observation 1 None No evidence of sediment deposition 2 Minimal Thin deposits less than 5 mm on point bars and vegetation 3 Moderate Average deposits of 5 to 30 mm of new sediment in hydrologically active area and on point bars 4 Substantial Average deposits of 31 to 80 mm of new sediment in hydrologically active area and in the low flow channel 5 Extensive More than 80 mm average deposits of new sediment has been observed in the hydrologically active area and in the low flow channel. Hint: The extent of hydrologically active areas may be determined by observing where vegetation has been bent over by flow, or where debris, such as grass or twigs, has been deposited by high flow Bankfull Width Stretch a tape measure from the top of the bank on the left side to the top of bank on the right side of the stream (Figure 3). The specific location to place the tape measure is at the point where the stream channel begins to spill into the stream bank under high flow conditions. At this location the bank will The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 51

58 change angles from steep to flatter and it is at the inflection point where the tape measure is placed. Record the bankfull width to the nearest tenth of a metre according to S4.M3 (3.1.2 Identifying the Bankfull Level). It will not be possible to record a measurement of bankfull width for certain ill-defined features, such as wetlands, swales, no defined channel, and on-line ponds. In these instances, record a zero. At the deepest part of the channel (generally the middle of the stream) measure the height from the stream bed to the tape measure (depth to top of bank) (Figure 3). Figure 3. Measuring bankfull width and depth Feature Width In instances where bankfull width cannot be measured, record the feature width to the nearest tenth of a metre parallel with the road according to the following procedures. If the width is greater than 40 metres, record >40. Table 4: Guidance for how to define boundaries of various HDFs Feature Type Feature Width Wetland Swale The wetland boundary will be where vegetation is 50% wetland species (e.g. cattails, willows, etc.) and 50% terrestrial species. Transitions to upland vegetation will usually be evident. The swale boundary will be where a depression is no longer evident, or by a transition to more upland vegetation species. No Defined Channel Not possible to measure. Record 0. On-line Pond Measure the width of the pond at its widest point Feature Roughness Feature roughness will provide a measure of the amount of materials that could slow down the velocity of water flowing within the HDF. Examine the extent of aerial coverage of materials that could obstruct or diffuse flow through the HDF channel. Materials that provide roughness include: vegetation and sticks >20 cm long, boulders rocks and debris (> 10 cm median diameter axis). Record the roughness of the channel according to the following categories: The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 52

59 Table 5: Definitions of Feature Roughness Categories Feature Roughness Description Observation Code 1 Minimal Less than 10% of the aerial coverage of the channel substrates contains materials that diffuse flows. 2 Moderate 10-40% of the aerial coverage of the channel substrates contains materials that diffuse flows. 3 High 40-60% of the aerial coverage of the channel substrates contains materials that diffuse flows. 4 Extreme More than 60% of the aerial coverage of the channel substrates contains materials that diffuse flows Riparian Vegetation Visually examine the vegetation communities occurring along each bank of the main HDF. Characterize the dominant vegetation type of the riparian zone on the right bank and left banks, using the following assessment zones: m, m, and m. Remember, the right and left bank are always assigned looking upstream. Measurements begin at the edge of the feature (e.g. top of bank or at the edge of a wetland or swale). Dominant is the most commonly observed type by aerial coverage. If it is not obvious which type is dominant, use a measuring tape to sort out conflicts. Note that the classification is hierarchical, ensuring that all riparian zones meet one criterion, only. Table 6: Definitions of Riparian Vegetation Categories Riparian Description Observation Vegetation Code 1 None Over 75% of the soil has no vegetation; includes hard surfaces such as roads and buildings 2 Lawn Grasses that are not allowed to reach a mature state due to mowing 3 Cropped Land Planted in agricultural crops; plants typically arranged in rows (due to machine-planting); may be subject to periodic tillage 4 Pasture/Forage Crops Grasses and forbs that are not allowed to reach a mature state due to grazing by livestock. 5 Meadow Less than 25% tree/shrub cover; characterized by grasses and forbs 6 Scrubland More than 25% and less than 60% trees and shrubs interspersed with grasses and forbs (a transitional area between meadow and forest, with trees generally less than 10 cm in diameter at breast The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 53

60 height) 7 Forest More than 60% of the canopy is covered by the crowns of trees 5.2 Upstream Site Features Document the site features or landuse activities that could influence the HDF condition, both within and beyond the 40 m site boundaries, by marking an x in the appropriate box for each feature. More details of this approach are provided in S1.M3. This section represents a subset of features described in the parent module in recognition of factors deemed particularly important to HDFs 3. Table 7: Definitions of Site Feature Attributes Site feature Diagnostic Indicators Potential Contaminant Sources (Point or Non-point) Major Nutrient Sources Upstream Channel Hardening Dredging of Channel (Straightening) Barriers and Dams in the Vicinity of the Site On-line ponds upstream Point or non-point sources: Look for outlets from storm sewers, tile drains, or industrial discharge pipes. Note any obvious signs of discharge at the site (odour, staining, sheen, etc.). Algal blooms or dense growth of aquatic macrophytes are indicators of upstream nutrient sources. If present, look for potential sources such as sewage treatment plants, processing plants, intensive agricultural operations (e.g., chicken ranches, livestock, feed lots) upstream of the site. Hardening is indicated by rip-rap, armourstone, or gabion baskets. Straightened channels will often have dredged material piled adjacent to the stream, or will be atypically straight relative to the valley gradient. Often visible from roads or air photos; historical evidence includes elevated floodplains with an atypically flat gradient throughout the reach. There may also be evidence along the banks (e.g., elevated culverts, fallen timbers or old bridges that have been buried). Any pond with an outlet to a channel that does not have a bypass channel around the feature. This includes those in headwater areas that are groundwater fed with an outlet. 3 Channel hardening and straightening has been split; presence of on-line ponds and evidence of channel scouring and erosion have been added. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 54

61 Site feature Springs or Seeps at the Site Evidence of channel scouring/erosion Diagnostic Indicators Abundant watercress in the stream; differences in stream temperature between sections (record temperatures in comments); a rust-coloured deposit on sediments surrounding the groundwater discharge zones in areas with high mineral content. Presence of undercut banks, entrenched or encised channel, bare or slumped banks 5.3 Downstream Section The downstream section will contain many of the same components as upstream, including Feature Type, Flow Conditions, Evidence of Sediment Transport, Evidence of Sediment Deposition Volume Feature Roughness Bankfull Width, Feature Width, Riparian Vegetation and Longitudinal Gradient. Refer to the Upstream Section above when completing these parts of the downstream field sheet as the procedures are the same. Also include any relevant comments for the downstream side under Downstream Comments. However, there are several attributes of HDFs that are only relevant on the downstream side of a constriction. First, only one feature can be present on the downstream side. If for example, there are two culverts with two features that merge to form one feature downstream within the 40 m distance, then treat both features as distinct. The fact that the feature length is < 40 m will be recorded on the field sheet (see below). Second, connectivity to downstream segments of the watershed are integral to providing insight into the contribution of this feature to downstream areas. Third, constrictions often result in downcutting that result in barriers to upstream fish migration being present. The following subsections describe how to assess channel connectivity and whether the feature is potentially a fish barrier Channel Connectivity Describe the nature of the hydrologic connection between the HDF and the downstream aquatic system using the definitions in Table 8. Mark an x in the most appropriate box: Table 8: Definitions for Channel Connectivity Channel Connectivity Categories Surface Definitions A surface water flow connection is apparent from the donating feature to the downstream watercourse with an overland flow or flow that is above the substrates. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 55

62 Subsurface Unconnected A subsurface water flow connection is present and closed surface drains or tiles were confirmed with drainage superintendents or landowners, and/or catch basins, buried pipe or tile outlets are visible. A water flow connection from a donating watercourse/waterbody to a receiving watercourse does not exist. Subsurface water flow would occur naturally; however, for the purpose of this protocol the process of natural subsurface water flow is negligible when compared to subsurface flow of drains and tiles (i.e. the area is internally draining). Record whether the channel is connected to its floodplain by assessing whether the channel is entrenched either visually or, if unsure, according to S4.M3. A stream is considered entrenched if the width to the floodplain at 2 times the maximum depth of the stream at bankfull level is < 2 times greater than the bankfull width Downstream Feature Length In some cases, it will not be possible to assess the entire 40 m section downstream because the feature may merge with another stream or feature (pond, tile, etc.). In these instances, mark an x in the box that indicates that the site is < 40 m long Presence of a Fish Barrier to Migration A perched culvert occurs when the bottom of the culvert is raised above the stream bed and results either from improper installation (rare) or stream erosion. Perched culverts may prevent fish from accessing upstream waters. Fish barriers can also occur at other constrictions such as dams,which are treated as though they were culverts for field measurements (e.g. the lip of the dam). For sites where perched culverts exist, measure the distance from the bottom of the culvert to the stream bed and record as the Perched Height (mm) on the field sheet. Also measure the distance from the lowest part of the culvert (its center) to the water surface and record this as the Jumping Height (mm) (Figure 6). The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 56

63 Jumping Height distance from the bottom of the culvert to the water surface Perched Height distance from the bottom of the culvert to the stream bed Figure 6. Measuring depth to bed of perched culvert and jumping height for fish. If the feature is dry, record a 0 in the jumping height box.. Record these measurements to the nearest 5 mm. 6.0 Tips for Applying this Module For safety reasons, learn to identify giant hogweed, stinging nettles, water hemlock, and poison ivy. On every data form, record the standard site identification data and the sample number. Make sure that all fields have data recorded before leaving the site. Record -99 ( -999 for depth) to indicate that a measurement could not be performed. Finally, record any irregularities in the way the data were collected in the Comments field. The Headwater Monitoring Working Group, March 2011 Page 57