1. 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

2. Outline Background on the issue – spatial and temporal variability is important Objectives of Research Approach Results Limitations Next Steps

3. Spatial Variability

4. Temporal Variability Spring Summer

5. 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

6. Field Sheet Development March 2010August 2010

7. Analysis Compare classifications between visits. Combine up and downstream assessments Attribute class 123 1500 2050 3005 Simple Question: “Can two crews agree on a class between visits?” If not, what do we need to fix! Visit 1 Visit 2

8. Feature Type (spring/summer) definedchannelbraided no channeltiledwetlandswaleditch defined81 3 12 channel2 1 braided2 1 no channel1 31 3 tiled1 2 wetland2 1 1 3 swale2 1 2 ditch 9 Spring: crews identified many more defined channels Summer: more features had disappeared (no channel) Summer: tendency to classify as ditches

9. Flow condition (spring/summer) Spring: much more common to be flowing! drystandinginterstitialminimalsubstantial dry92 standing15 interstitial minimal114 substantial23 3

10. Sediment Transport (spring/summer) Spring:much more likely to identify evidence of sediment transport agreement where not observed nonerills rills& gully outlet none712 1 rills3 rills&gully gully10 1 1 outlet2 11

11. Sediment Volume 1 (spring/summer) Conclusion: not surprisingly, there is a poor correlation between classification of sediment volume seasonally! 1 Criteria changed, compare depth of material to more exploratory noneminimalmoderatesubstantialextensive none712862 minimal 2343 moderate111 substantial11 extensive 1 2

12. Riparian Vegetation (spring/summer) In general good agreement, but room for improvement! nonelawncropspasturemeadowscrubforest none 412 1 lawn 118 2 2 crops 3515441 pasture 117151 meadow 2 2 2 scrub 1 forest 1 4

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

14. Feature Type (summer) definedchannelbraided no channeltiledwetlandswaleditch defined 61111 channel braided no channel 1 tiled wetland 1 swale 1 ditch 13 Too many problems with classifying defined channels!

15. Flow condition (summer) Classification dependent on local rain events drystandinginterstitialminimalsubstantial dry62 standing23 interstitial minimal1 substantial2

16. Sediment Transport (summer) More difficult to observe these features in summer, unless we chose really good sites.... nonerills rills& gully outlet none311 rills rills&gully gully outlet

17. Sediment Volume 1 (summer) Conclusions: poor correlation in the summer between classification of sediment volume between crews summer classification is not good for this attribute Crew 2 tended to classify in higher categories noneminimalmoderatesubstantialextensive none244 minimal123 moderate3122 substantial4228 extensive11

18. Riparian Vegetation (summer) Conclusions: good agreement, but too many categories nonelawncropspasturemeadowscrubforest none 24 lawn 34112 crops 4 pasture 1 meadow 2221 scrub 1 forest 22

19. Bankfull width (summer) Conclusions: often one crew saw a defined channel; and the other did not! < 22-55-1010-40>40 < 2 1 2 2-5 72 2 5-10 33 2 10-40 43 >40 1 2

20. 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! lowmediumhigh low776 medium551 high

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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