1. Interim Headwater Drainage Feature Guideline: Protecting HDFs through Urbanization Laura C.R. Del Giudice, B.Sc., M.F.C., Senior Planning Ecologist

2. Development of the guideline occurred over a long period of time The Guidelines were adapted from CVC work on the Gateway West Subwatershed Study, 1999 - Functional Assessment of Drainage Channels (FADC) Document has been modified to reflect needs of TRCA and CVC “Interim” document to be used until research gaps are addressed – updated 2009 Eventually, the guideline will be finalized – 2013? Interim Headwater Guidelines

3. Pre-screening Evaluation Criteria Data requirements Protocols Classification Categories 1.Permanent3. Contributing5. Recharge zone 2.Seasonal4. Not fish habitat Management Options 1.Protection3. Mitigation5. Protect Recharge 2.Conservation4. No Management Requirements -maintain open features where functions are identified -need to ensure catchment drainage is maintained – i.e. water balance Interim Headwater Guidelines Photo Credit: Geomorphic Solutions

4. Evaluation Criteria Pre-Screening Field Work Flow Fish Habitat Vegetation Linkage Channel Form

5. Classification Categories 1. Permanent - direct habitat onsite 2. Seasonal - limited direct habitat onsite 3. Contributing - provides indirect habitat to downstream reaches - complex contributing – organic drift and - simple contributing habitat 4.Not Fish Habitat - no fish habitat and/or hydrological functions associated with feature is identified 5.Recharge Zone - Coarse-textured soils described as sand and/or gravel have been confirmed through field verification; majority of potential flow will be infiltrated.

6. Management Recommendations 1. Protection - permanent fish habitat, critical fish habitat and SAR habitat Protection 1 - critical habitat - permanent groundwater discharge or wetland surface flows -preserve feature and flow sources - incorporate shallow groundwater and baseflow protection techniques - feature must connect to downstream watercourse/habitat Protection 2 - permanent habitat - surface storage flows - preference is to maintain surface water source and/or replicate - natural channel design to replace/enhance existing fish habitat - feature must connect to downstream watercourse/habitat

7. Management Recommendations 2. Conservation - seasonal fish habitat Conservation 1 - seasonal habitat supported by extended groundwater flows or from surface storage areas - may include some permanent refuge habitat in reach - maintain or replicate groundwater/surface contributions - natural channel design to replace existing habitat - feature must connect to downstream habitat Conservation 2 - seasonal habitat supported by surface storage areas - replicate surface flows – natural channel design to replace existing habitat - feature must connect to downstream habitat

8. Management Recommendations 3.Mitigation - contributing habitat Mitigation 1 - Complex Contributing Habitat - hydrologic functions, plus water quality/sediment, foods, organic/nutrient inputs - replicate functions with Low Impact Development measures or constructed wetland - prefer a feature that connects to downstream habitat, if feasible - flows must be conveyed directly to downstream habitat

9. Management Recommendations 3.Mitigation - contributing habitat Mitigation 2 - Simple Contributing Habitat - hydrologic functions (flow conveyance, storage and timing) - replicate functions with Low Impact Development measures (bioswales, enhanced swales, etc.) - may be connected to SWM system

10. Management Recommendations 4. No Management Recommendation Required - not considered fish habitat 5.Recharge Protection - No direct habitat or indirect habitat providing surface flow, sediment transport, or allochthonous contribution to downstream fish habitat. Maintain overall water balance by providing mitigation measures to infiltrate clean stormwater

11. Existing Headwater Conditions: Minimal riparian cover Ploughed through Ephemeral flow Piped downstream Simple contributing habitat  Mitigation– replicate functions by swales, wetland or LID Case Study Taunton-Westney Commercial, Town of Ajax Existing grades would not allow in- situ protection Implementing the Guideline

12. Design Techniques: Constructed wetland for amphibians Accepts flows from external lands and on- site SWM pond Over-excavate substrate and replace with sand to enhance recharge - soakaway Vegetated Filtersoxx for water quality improvement Green gabions where grades too steep Monitoring water quality Source: Geomorphic Solutions

13. DURING CONSTRUCTION

14. Photo Credit: Geomorphic Solutions POST- CONSTRUCTION

15. 2011 Guideline Update More on data collection protocols Less “fish-focused” – include more on: – Hydrologic, water quality, geomorphic, linkage functions Address cumulative effects from losses – is there a threshold? Distinguishing simple contributing and not fish habitat Please submit your comments!

16. Top 3 Priorities 1.Research Gap – Cumulative effects – what are the thresholds for downstream impacts Replicate historic headwater functions? 2.Monitoring Gap – Standard Protocol and Inventory/Audit Inventory of available information (e.g. maps) 3.Policy Gap – PPS Policies and Need for Subwatershed Studies OP policies to protect these features May 2009 Workshop Summary

17. Top 3 Strategies for Addressing Gaps 1.Cumulative effects: need more robust models that include headwater attributes 2.Monitoring protocol: identify leader, develop protocol, database, training, and auditing 3. PPS Policy: raise awareness within public/private sector, provide comments to Province and garner support from CA boards May 2009 Workshop Summary