Developing a rapid assessment protocol for

headwater drainage features

Les Stanfield,Southern Science Information Section, MNR

and Mari Veliz,

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority

A presentation to: The Eastern Ontario Headwater Workshop,

February 25, 2011

Outline

• Background on the issue – spatial and temporal variability is important

• Objectives of Research • Approach • Results• Limitations• Next Steps

Spatial Variability

Temporal Variability

Spring

Summer

Research Objectives

• Develop and test a new protocol for evaluating headwater drainage features (HDFs)

• Identify HDFs that contribute significant sediment and related nutrients to downstream

Field Sheet Development

March 2010 August 2010

Analysis

• Compare classifications between visits.• Combine up and downstream assessments

Attribute class

1 2 3

1 5 0 0

2 0 5 0

3 0 0 5

Simple Question: “Can two crews agree on a class between visits?”

If not, what do we need to fix!

Visit 1

Visit 2

Feature Type (spring/summer)

  defined chann

el braidedno

channel tiled wetland swale ditch

defined 8 1   3     1 2

channel 2     1        

braided 2             1

no channel 1   3 1       3

tiled 1     2        

wetland 2     1   1   3

swale 2     1       2

ditch               9

Spring: crews identified many more defined channels Summer: more features had disappeared (no channel)Summer: tendency to classify as ditches

Flow condition(spring/summer)

Spring: much more common to be flowing!

dry standing interstitial minimalsubstanti

al

dry 9 2      

standing 15        

interstitial          

minimal 11 4      

substantial 2 3   3  

Sediment Transport (spring/summer)

Spring: much more likely to identify evidence of sediment transport

agreement where not observed

none rillsrills&gully gully outlet

none 71 2  1    

rills 3        

rills&gully          

gully 10   1  1  

outlet 2   1 1  

Sediment Volume1

(spring/summer)

Conclusion: not surprisingly, there is a poor correlation between classification of sediment volume seasonally!

1Criteria changed, compare depth of material to more exploratory

none minimal moderatesubstanti

alextensiv

e

none 7 12 8 6 2

minimal   2 3 4 3

moderate 1 1 1    

substantial 1 1      

extensive   1     2

Riparian Vegetation (spring/summer)

In general good agreement, but room for improvement!

none lawn crops pasture meadow scrub forest

none 4 1 2     1  

lawn 1 18     2   2

crops 3 5 15 4 4 1  

pasture 1 1 7 15 1    meadow 2   2   2    

scrub     1        

forest   1         4

Summer comparison

• Fewer sites (16)• TRCA verses SSIS • Minimal (i.e., 2 hours training), • Written protocol ... But didn’t read it!

Feature Type (summer)

  defined channe

l braided

no channe

l tiledwetlan

d swale ditch

defined 6 1 1 1 1

channel

braided

no channel 1

tiled

wetland 1

swale 1

ditch 1 3Too many problems with classifying defined channels!

Flow condition (summer)

Classification dependent on local rain events

dry standing interstitial minimalsubstanti

al

dry 6 2

standing 2 3

interstitial

minimal 1

substantial 2

Sediment Transport (summer)

More difficult to observe these features in summer, unless we chose really good sites ....

none rillsrills&gully gully outlet

none 31 1

rills

rills&gully

gully

outlet

Sediment Volume1 (summer)

Conclusions: poor correlation in the summer between classification of sediment volume

between crewssummer classification is not good for this attributeCrew 2 tended to classify in higher categories

none minimal moderate substantial extensive

none 2 4 4

minimal 1 2 3

moderate 3 1 2 2

substantial 4 2 2 8

extensive 1 1

Riparian Vegetation(summer)

Conclusions:good agreement, but too many categories

none lawn crops pasture

meadow scrub forest

none 2 4

lawn 3 4 1 1 2

crops 4

pasture 1meadow 2 2 2 1

scrub 1

forest 2 2

Bankfull width(summer)

Conclusions:often one crew saw a defined channel; and the other did not!

< 2 2-5 5-10 10-40 >40

< 2   1     2

2-5   7 2   2

5-10   3 3   2

10-40       4 3

>40   1     2

Other Indicators

• Site Features: agreed 91% of time • but too many (20) times one crew observed a

feature and the other did not • Number of features: where multiple

features existed – not well documented• Gradient: highly variable!

low medium high

low 7 7 6

medium 5 5 1

high      

Priority Problem Sites• 4 sites identified in spring (high loads of

sediment)

Summer survey• All 4 categorized as no evidence of sediment

transport (gullies rills etc.,)• Sediment volume:

– Upstream: • 1-moderate; 3 extensive

– Downstream:• 1-moderate; 2- substantial, 1 extensive

Conclusions• HDFs continue to be challenging to classify• Relearned the difficulties associated with

visually based surveys – Crews (and trainers!) tend to underestimate

the difficulty• Sediment transport and deposition easier to see

in spring ..... too many categories • Need better training and more time at each site

to ensure all attributes observed (too much assuming!)

• Some things shouldn’t try to visually classify (re gradient)

Next Steps

• Need clearer protocol with warnings in each section, photos to ensure followed

• Better training (i.e., OSAP videos, full day course)

• Re-test repeatability against as yet unknown methods for measuring characteristics

Thanks!

Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Municipality of York University of Waterloo Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, Upper Thames Region Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation, Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe and Region Conservation Authority, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority,Ministry of Natural Resources , Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Toronto Remedial Action Plan Headwater Steering Committee Southern Ontario Stream Monitoring and Research Team

Many dedicated field crews and volunteers