Best Management Practices for
of Shorelines Based on a Binational Conference Sponsored by the Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative and Partners 0 . 0 . 0 . 2 Our tie to history. Our tie to prosperity. Our tie to each other.
Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative
The Detroit River was designated as an American Heritage River by President Clinton in July 1998. In Greater Detroit, a multi-stakeholder, action-oriented approach is used to select and implement projects intended to enhance the environmental, economic development, and historic/cultural potential of the 32-mile Detroit riverfront. Program oversight is provided by an Executive Committee composed of: • Mr. Peter Stroh, Director of The Stroh Companies, Inc. and Chairman of the Executive Committee; • Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer (Alternate: Ms. Nettie Seabrooks, Chief of Staff to Mayor Archer); • Wayne County Executive Edward McNamara (Alternate: Mr. Dewitt Henry, Assistant County Executive); and • Supervisor W. Curt Boller, Supervisor of Brownstown Township and member of the Downriver Community Conference. A steering committee, chaired by Mr. Mark Breederland of Michigan Sea Grant, and composed of governmental, business, community, and environ- mental representatives provides advice on project activities to the Executive Committee. Efforts are also coordinated with Canada since the Detroit River is an international boundary. Metropolitan Affairs Coalition (MAC), a public-private partnership of business, labor, and governmental leaders that facilitates solutions to regional issues affecting Southeast Michigan, serves as the project manager and facilitator of the Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative. Dr. John Hartig is the initiative’s River Navigator. Dr. Hartig is a federal employee who works with communities to help identify resources to implement high-priority projects. Support for the River Navigator position comes from U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT partners include the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Federal Highway Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines
Based on a Binational Conference held November 23, 1999 Sponsored by the Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative and Partners
© Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative, 2000
Edited by: Andrew D. Caulk, Wayne State University John E. Gannon, United States Geological Survey John R. Shaw, Environment Canada John H. Hartig, Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative
Abstract Historically, many river shorelines were stabilized and hardened with concrete and steel to protect developments from flooding and erosion, or to accommodate commercial navigation or industry. Typically shorelines were developed for a single purpose. Today, there is growing interest in developing shorelines for multiple purposes so that additional benefits can be accrued. Soft engineering is the use of ecological principles and practices to reduce erosion and achieve the stabilization and safety of shorelines, while enhancing habitat, improving aesthetics, and saving money. The purpose of this best management practices manual is to provide insights and technical advice to local governments, developers, planners, consultants, and industries on when, where, why, and how to incorporate soft engineering of shorelines into shoreline redevelopment projects and reap subsequent benefits. More specific technical advice and contact information can be found in the soft engineering case studies presented in this manual.
Our tie to history. Our tie to prosperity. Our tie to each other.
Citation for this report: Caulk, A.D., J.E. Gannon, J.R. Shaw, and J.H. Hartig. 2000. Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines. Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative, Detroit, Michigan. Permission is granted to site portions of this report with proper citation. Conference Sponsor: The Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative
Conference Partners: Canadian Cleanup Committee for the Detroit River RAP Canadian Consulate General Citizen Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario City of Detroit City of Windsor Downriver Community Conference Downriver Waterfront Revitalization Task Force DTE Energy Environment Canada, Restoration Programs Division Essex Region Conservation Authority Friends of Detroit River Government of Canada, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund (Formerly Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund) Habitat Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission Habitat and Headwaters Subcommittee of Rouge RAP Advisory Council Metropolitan Affairs Coalition Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Sea Grant Michigan State University Extension Smith Group JJR United States Army Corps of Engineers-Detroit District United States Coast Guard-Marine Safety Office Detroit United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey-Great Lakes Science Center University of Michigan University of Windsor-Great Lakes Institute of Environmental Research Wayne County Wayne State University
Cover Photos Top: Goose Bay along the Detroit River (Chapter 6) Bottom: LaSalle Park along Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario (Chapter 8)
This report is also available electronically at www.tellusnews.com/ahr/report_cover.html. ii Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Table of Contents
Page Summary and Overviewa ...... 1 Theory and Process Chapter 1: Recommendations from the Incidental Habitat and Access Workshop ...... 10 Chapter 2: Multiple Objective Soil Bioengineering for Riverbank Restoration ...... 16 Economics Chapter 3: Comparison of Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for Shore Erosion Control: Costs and Effectiveness ...... 21 Large River Systems Chapter 4: MacDonald Park Wetland and Prairie Restoration Project, St. Clair River...... 25 Chapter 5: Constructing Islands for Habitat Rehabilitation in the Upper Mississippi River ...... 28 Streams, Harbors, Waterfronts Chapter 6: Goose Bay Shoreline Stabilization and Habitat Enhancement ...... 35 Chapter 7: Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Shoreline Treatments Along the Toronto Waterfront ...... 38 Chapter 8: Restoring Habitat Using Soft Engineering Techniques at LaSalle Park, Hamilton Harbour ...... 43 Chapter 9: Enhancing Habitat Using Soft Engineering Techniques at the Northeastern Shoreline of Hamilton Harbour ...... 46 Chapter 10: Bioengineering for Erosion Control and Environmental Improvements, Carson River ...... 49 Chapter 11: Ford Field Park Streambank Stabilization Project, Rouge River ...... 55 Chapter 12: Soil Bioengineering for Streambank Protection and Fish Habitat Enhancement, Black Ash Creek ...... 62 Chapter 13: Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives, Lake Superior ...... 66 Chapter 14: Battle Creek River, Bringing Back the Banks...... 71 Appendices Appendix A: Program from November 23, 1999...... 74 Appendix B: List of Participants ...... 75
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines iii Acknowledgements
The November 23, 1999 technology transfer session for soft engineering of shorelines and this report were made possible by financial and in-kind support from a number of organizations and agencies. We gratefully acknowledge such support from: • Metropolitan Affairs Coalition; • City of Detroit; • Habitat Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission; • DTE Energy; • Smith Group JJR; • Michigan Sea Grant; • Michigan State University; • U.S. Geological Survey-Great Lakes Science Center; • Government of Canada, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund (Formerly Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund); and • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We would also like to extend our gratitude to: • Ms. Marilyn Murphy of U.S. Geological Survey-Great Lakes Science Center and Ms. Linda Hamilton of Metropolitan Affairs Coalition for administrative support in organizing the technology transfer session and handling registrations; • Ms. Sue Stetler and Ms. Susan Phillips of Metropolitan Affairs Coalition for help in issuing news releases and to Glenda Marks for graphic design assistance; • Drs. Thomas Heidtke and Mumtaz Usmen for assistance in awarding the first American Heritage River Fellowship to a Wayne State University student (Andrew Caulk) to help prepare this report; • Ms. Joanne Wotherspoon of Environment Canada for designing the cover of this report; and • Mr. Joseph Kubinski of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, for providing the technical information included in Figures 7 through 9.
Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the authors of the soft engineering case studies presented in this report for sharing their practical knowledge and thoughtful advice. Without their contributions, this report would not have been possible.
iv Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Summary and Overview
The Problem of Single Purpose The Promenade stretching east from Shoreline Development the Renaissance Center will further Historically, many river shorelines showcase our river for businesses and were stabilized and hardened with residents. In Windsor, another three concrete and steel to protect develop- miles of continuous riverfront greenway ments from flooding and erosion, or to were opened in 1999 to promote our Our Detroit River accommodate commercial navigation river and help create an exciting venue or industry. Typically shorelines were for people to work, play, and socialize has been developed for a single purpose. Today, downtown. In Wyandotte, a new golf rediscovered as there is growing support for develop- course, rowing club, and greenways ment of shorelines for multiple have directed attention to our river and an incredible purposes so that additional benefits can have resulted in considerable spin-off asset and a key be accrued. benefits. People want to increase access Up and down our Detroit River, to our river, incorporate trails and ingredient in efforts are underway to reshape the walkways to it, improve the aesthetic achieving quality riverfront from being concealed in our appearance of the shoreline, and reap backyard to becoming the focal point recreational, ecological, and economic of life. of our attention. General Motors is benefits from it. Our Detroit River has switching the front door of the Renais- been rediscovered as an incredible asset sance Center from Jefferson Avenue to and a key ingredient in achieving the Detroit River with the building of a quality of life. five-story Wintergarden (Figure 1).
Figure 1 General Motors Corporation’s Wintergarden at the Renaissance Center facing the Detroit River.
Rendering courtesy of Hines Development and Skidmore Owings & Merrill, LLP Master Architects.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 1 Hard vs. Soft Engineering renowned sport fishery. For example, of Shorelines the City of Trenton, located on the Trenton Channel at the lower end of On November 23, 1999, the Greater the Detroit River, hosted a major Detroit American Heritage River walleye fishing tournament called Initiative held its first major stake- “Walleye Week” in 1999. “Walleye holder event to look at options on how Week” attracted people from all over to reshape the Detroit River shoreline North America to compete in the In- Hard engineering using techniques of soft engineering. Fisherman Professional Walleye Hard engineering of shorelines is typically has no Tournament, the Team Walleye Tourna- generally defined as the use of concrete ment, and the Michigan Walleye habitat value for breakwalls or steel sheet piling to Tournament offering $240,000 in prize stabilize shorelines and achieve safety. fish or wildlife. money. It is estimated that walleye There are many places along our fishing alone brings in $1,000,000 to Soft engineering working river where hard engineering is the economy of communities along the required for navigational or industrial incorporates lower Detroit River each spring. purposes. Much of the Detroit River Another reason why soft engineering habitat for fish shoreline is already hardened. How- practices should be encouraged is ever, there is growing interest in using and wildlife. because it is well recognized that there soft engineering of shorelines in is limited public access to the Detroit appropriate locations. Soft engineering River, particularly on the United States is the use of ecological principles and side. Use of multiple-objective soft practices to reduce erosion and achieve engineering of shorelines will increase the stabilization and safety of shore- public access to the river. lines, while enhancing habitat, There are also economic benefits improving aesthetics, and saving associated with use of soft engineering. money. Soft engineering is achieved by In general, soft engineering of shore- using vegetation and other materials to lines is less expensive than hard soften the land-water interface, thereby engineering of shorelines. Additionally, improving ecological features without long-term maintenance costs of soft compromising the engineered integrity engineering are generally lower because of the shoreline. soft engineering uses living structures, Rationale for which tend to mature and stabilize Soft Engineering with time. Hard engineering typically has no Technology Transfer habitat value for fish or wildlife. Soft Over 200 people attended the engineering incorporates habitat for It is critically November 23rd conference to: fish and wildlife. The Detroit River is • learn from case studies of soft important that the one of the most biologically diverse engineering of shorelines from places areas in the Great Lakes Basin. In right people get like Toronto, Hamilton Harbour, 1998, the U.S.-Canada State of the and Thunder Bay, Ontario, the involved up-front in Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) Upper Mississippi River in Minne- identified the Detroit River-Lake St. redevelopment sota, and the Kenai River in Alaska; Clair ecosystem as one of 20 • hear about recent work on cost- projects to be able Biodiversity Investment Areas in the benefit analysis of soft vs. hard entire Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem to incorporate engineering of shorelines; and with exceptional diversity of plants, • discuss where and how soft engineer- principles of soft fish, and birds, and the requisite ing might be used along the habitats to support them (Reid et al. engineering into Detroit River (see Appendix A for 1999). The State of the Lakes Ecosys- the program and Appendix B for a future waterfront tem Conference went on to call for list of participants). designs. special efforts to protect these unique ecological features. Many people who The soft engineering case studies appreciate the outdoors know that the presented at the conference and Detroit River supports a nationally additional ones contributed for this
2 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines best management practices manual are ing into future waterfront designs. The listed in Table 1. design process must identify opportuni- Participants in the November 23rd ties and establish partnerships early in soft engineering conference learned that the process which achieve integrated it is important to redevelop and ecological, economic, and societal redesign our shorelines for multiple objectives. objectives. Shorelines can be stabilized Integrated Approach and achieve safety, while increasing public access, enhancing habitat, to Design, Implementation, improving aesthetics, and saving and Evaluation of money. Hard engineering of shore- Effectiveness A multi-disciplinary lines, in the form of steel sheet piling, Figure 2 presents one potential team should be can cost as much as $1,000 per linear design and implementation framework formed to reach foot. We cannot afford to use hard which encourages incorporating soft engineering along the entire length of engineering practices into shoreline agreement on the Detroit River shoreline, nor do we developments. As noted above, it is goals and multiple want fully hard engineered shorelines critically important that the right because they have no habitat value and people get involved up-front in shore- objectives for the will not support the diversity of fish line redevelopment projects to be able waterfront and its and wildlife found in our river. Partici- to incorporate principles of soft engi- pants also learned that hard and soft neering into future waterfront designs. shoreline. engineering are not mutually exclusive, However, project leaders must first there are places where attributes of hard perform a preliminary assessment and soft engineering can be used which: together. This makes sense in a high- • defines the geographic extent of the flow river like the Detroit River project or study area; through which the entire upper Great • inventories existing shoreline uses Lakes pass. (habitat, public access, etc.); and It is critically important that the • evaluates existing uses against right people get involved up-front in historical conditions and desired redevelopment projects to be able to future uses. incorporate principles of soft engineer-
Table 1 A list of soft engineering case studies presented. Soft Engineering Case Study Chapter Page Recommendations from the Incidental Habitat and Access Workshop 1 10 Multiple Objective Soil Bioengineering for Riverbank Restoration 2 16 Comparison of Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for Shore Erosion Control: Costs and Effectiveness 3 21 MacDonald Park Wetland and Prairie Restoration Project, St. Clair River 4 25 Constructing Islands for Habitat Rehabilitation in the Upper Mississippi River 5 28 Goose Bay Shoreline Stabilization and Habitat Enhancement 6 35 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Shoreline Treatments Along the Toronto Waterfront 7 38 Restoring Habitat Ssing Soft Engineering Techniques at LaSalle Park, Hamilton Harbour 8 43 Enhancing Habitat Using Soft Engineering Techniques at the Northeastern Shoreline of Hamilton Harbour 9 46 Bioengineering for Erosion Control and Environmental Improvements, Carson River 10 49 Ford Field Park Streambank Stabilization Project, Rouge River 11 55 Soil Bioengineering for Streambank Protection and Fish Habitat Enhancement, Black Ash Creek 12 62 Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives, Lake Superior 13 66 Battle Creek River, Bringing Back the Banks 14 71
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 3 Project leaders must then make a lish partnerships early in the process determination of whether or not soft which achieve integrated ecological, engineering is appropriate. If it is not, economic, and societal objectives. Once agreement on resource managers continue with Once agreement on goals and ongoing preservation and conservation multiple objectives has been reached, the goals and multiple efforts. There may also be an opportu- multidisciplinary team must set quanti- objectives has been nity to incorporate habitat in the form tative targets to measure progress. of rock rubble at the tow of the hard The team next evaluates management reached, the structure. If soft engineering is appropri- alternatives and sets priorities. The multi-disciplinary ate, an inclusive multidisciplinary preferred management practices are then process will be required to reap the implemented. Following the implemen- team must set desired benefits. A multidisciplinary tation of these actions, monitoring is quantitative targets team should be formed to reach agree- performed to evaluate effectiveness. ment on goals and multiple objectives If objectives are met, project success and to measure progress. for the waterfront and its shoreline. For its benefits are communicated and the design process to be successful, it management agencies continue with must identify opportunities and estab- preservation and conservation efforts.
Figure 2 A framework to help incorporate soft engineering practices into shoreline developments.
Start
v Define geographic extent of study area v Inventory existing uses (habitat, public access, etc.) v Evaluate existing uses against historical conditions and desired future uses v N Continue preservation and
Soft engineering appropriate? v conservation efforts Y v v Indentify stakeholders and establish partnerships
v Reach agreement on goals and mulitple objectives
v Set quantitative targets
v v Evaluate management alternatives and set priorities v
v Take action
v Monitor and evaluate effectiveness v Communicate project v N Y Objectives and targets met? v success and benefits
4 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines If objectives and targets are not met, the key elements are addressed in the shore- team evaluates further management line design and implementation process. alternatives, sets priorities, and takes Table 2 presents a checklist of key additional actions in a continuous elements to consider in the decision- improvement fashion until objectives making process and selected references and targets are met. Other frameworks (i.e., case studies, web sites, literature) for may also be as useful to achieve the further information. This checklist is multiple benefits that soft engineering of designed to help developers, municipal shorelines can provide. planners, consultants, resource mangers, Another way of furthering the use of and others to consider using soft engi- soft engineering practices along shore- neering practices in shoreline lines is to make sure that a number of development projects.
Table 2 A checklist of key elements to consider in evaluating soft engineering practices for shorelines and related references for further information.
Key Element Selected References for Further Information Stakeholder involvement Chapter 4 (p. 25); Chapter 9 (p. 46); Tulen et al. (1998)
Forming a multidisciplinary technical team Chapter 9 (p. 46); Chapter 11 (p. 55); Chapter 13 (p. 66)
Hydraulic constraints and concerns Chapter 7 (p. 38); Chapter 10 (p. 49); Chapter 14 (p. 71); Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) (Chapter 2)
Setting goals and multiple objectives Chapter 2 (p. 16); Chapter 13 (p. 66); Chapter 14 (p. 71); North Shore of Lake for shoreline use Superior Remedial Action Plans and Scollen and Company, Inc. (1998)
Setting quantitative targets Hartig et al. (1997); Smokorowski et al. (1998); Environmental Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment (1998)
Evaluating alternative designs Chapter 1 (p. 10); Chapter 2 (p. 16); Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Writing Team (1992); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997); Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) (Chapter 5); Fuller (1997); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1984); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000); Waldron (1997); Environment Canada (1996)
Monitoring and assessing effectiveness Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) (Chapter 6); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997); Jones (1999); Kelso and Hartig (1995); Environment Canada (1999b)
Ecological benefits Hartig et al. (1997); Jones (1999)
Economic and societal benefits Chapter 3 (p. 21); Environment Canada (1999a); Environment Canada (2000)
Maintenance Chapter 1 (p. 10); Henderson et al. (1999); Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) (Chapter 9)
Safety/ Liability Schacht (1995); Schueler (1992)
Technical Consultants U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1999); Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green Plan (1996); Land and Water, Inc. (2000); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997); Leonard (2000); Society for Ecological Restoration-Ontario Chapter (2000); Canada Centre for Inland Waters (2000); Ontario Streams (1999); Society for Ecological Restoration (2000); Grillmayer (1995); Fuller (1997)
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 5 Concluding Remarks ture” in sustaining our communities, Urban infrastructure is generally environments, and economies. Healthy understood to mean the substructure communities and economies require (i.e., roads, sewers) and underlying healthy environments and “green infrastructure.” “Green infrastructure” Healthy communities foundation that provides essential community services. For example, is a key element for: and economies communities need basic services • achieving community renewal; • increasing community awareness, require healthy provided by roads and sewers. Re- cently, the concept of “green participation, and pride; and environments infrastructure” has been used to • sustaining communities and econo- mies. and “green communicate importance of the natural resource foundation that provides It is the intent of the Greater Detroit infrastructure.” essential ecological services and related American Heritage River Initiative that social and economic benefits. Parks, the advantages of soft engineering conservation areas, ecological corridors, practices be recognized and incorpo- linked greenways, and open spaces rated into many shoreline projects under best management practices all along the Detroit River as a standard provide essential ecological services and for future development. Clearly, related social and economic benefits. greater emphasis must be placed on There are numerous examples project evaluation and communication around North America that demon- of lessons learned in order to expand strate that putting money into “green the use of soft engineering practices. infrastructure” and watershed rehabili- Participants at the November 23rd tation, enhancement, and protection is conference identified many places not merely a matter of paying for past where soft engineering practices might mistakes, but a sound investment that be used, including: pays immediate and long-term returns. • Belle Isle; For example, through the work of the • Windsor’s Goose Bay on its east Toronto Waterfront Remedial Action waterfront; Plan (RAP) and the Toronto Waterfront • Henderson Park and the promenade The time is right Regeneration Trust, full costs and in Detroit; to incorporate benefits of restoration projects in the • Hennepin Marsh on Grosse Ile; Lower Don River Valley have been • Wayne County’s Elizabeth Park and soft engineering estimated. Capital expenditure on Black Lagoon in Trenton; practices into our watershed restoration is estimated to be • the Gateway Project along the Rouge about $964 million (Canadian), along River within the Automobile efforts to redevelop with $1.4 million (Canadian) in annual National Heritage Area (Figure 3); and improve operating costs. This will lead to • land owned by National Steel capital savings of approximately $42 Corporation; and our shorelines. million (Canadian), annual user • other projects. In addition, benefits of approximately $55 million The time is right to incorporate soft (Canadian), and annual savings of soft engineering engineering practices into our efforts to approximately $11 million (Canadian). redevelop and improve our shorelines. practices should be In addition, the direct economic In addition, soft engineering practices development benefits include province- incorporated in should be incorporated in municipal wide increases in income of about $3.6 operating manuals and day-to-day municipal operating billion (Canadian) associated with operations that affect shoreline use and capital investment and $5 billion manuals and day- management. Soft engineering projects (Canadian) per year associated with also lend themselves to volunteer to-day operations. expanded economic activity. Such participation. Let’s work together to estimates of full costs and benefits help showcase the use of multiple-objective to provide compelling rationale for soft engineering practices along the watershed management actions. Detroit River shoreline and proudly Further, there is growing recognition display our region’s new front door. of the importance of “green infrastruc-
6 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Figure 3 The concrete channel of the lower Rouge River as it exists today (right) and a graphic depiction of what this portion of the lower Rouge River might look like in the future (below). The vision for this area includes greenways, parks, soft engineering of the shoreline, and mixed use redevelopment.
Photo credit: Wayne County Department of Environment
Design credit: Hamilton Anderson Associates.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 7 References Canada Centre for Inland Waters. 2000. National Water Research Institute. Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green Plan. 1996. Best Management Practices-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Manage- ment.
Environment Canada. 1996. Planting the Seed, A Guide to Establishing Aquatic Plants.
Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment. 1998. A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee.
Environment Canada. 1999a. Soil Bioengineering-An Alternative to Concrete.
Environment Canada. 1999b. The Watershed Report Card. A volunteer-based monitoring program developed in partnership with Environment Canada.
Environment Canada. 2000. Cornwall: Cleaning up our Waterfront Makes Good $ense; Restoring Great Lakes Watersheds-Adding Up the Economic Benefits; Rising Property Values on Hamilton’s West Harbourfront; Thunder Bay: What’s the $ense in Cleaning up our Watershed? Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Government Printing Office Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0- 934213-59-3.
Fuller, D.R. 1997. Understanding, Living With, and Controlling Shoreline Erosion. A Guidebook for Shoreline Property Owners. 2nd ed. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Conway, Michigan.
Grillmayer, R.G. 1995. Soil Bioengineering Technical Report: Black Ash Creek Rehabilitation Project, 1992-1994. Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action Plan. Report #ISBN 0-7778-4080-4, Ontario Ministry of the Envi- ronment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Writing Team. 1992. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Goals, Options, and Recommendations. Vol. 2, Main Report. Stage II RAP. Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Hartig, J.H., M.A. Zarull, T.B. Reynoldson, G. Mikol, V.A. Harris, R.G. Randall, and V.W. Cairns. 1997. Quantifying Targets for Rehabilitating Degraded Areas of the Great Lakes. Environmental Management. 21(5): 713-723.
Henderson, C.L., C.J. Dindorf, and F.J. Rozumalski. 1999. Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality. Minnesota’s Bookstore, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Jones, C. 1999. Stream Restoration Monitoring Framework. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Ontario, Canada.
Kelso, J.R.M. and J.H. Hartig. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. Occasional Paper 1. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Land and Water, Inc. 2000. The Magazine of Natural Resource Management and Restoration. Fort Dodge, Iowa.
8 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Leonard, L. 2000. The Watershed Report Card. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans and Scollen and Company, Inc. 1998. Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives – A Technical Manual. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
Ontario Streams. 1999. Ontario’s Stream Rehabilitation Manual. Belfountain, Ontario, Canada.
Reid, R., K. Rodriguez, and A. Mysz. 1999. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998: Biodiversity Investment Areas – Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems.
Schacht, B. 1995. Urban stream stabilization efforts which increase instream habitat while controlling bank erosion, p. 149-153. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI (Can. Inst. Sci. Tech. Inf.) Occasional Paper. No. 1, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Schueler, T.R. 1992. Design of stormwater wetland systems: guidelines for creating diverse and effective stormwater wetlands in the mid-Atlantic Region. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, District of Columbia.
Smokorowski, K.E., M.G. Stoneman, V.W. Cairns, C.K. Minns, R.G. Randall, and B. Valere. 1998. Trends in the Nearshore Fish Community of Hamilton Harbour, 1988 to 1997, as Measured Using and Index of Biotic Integrity. Can. Tech. Rept. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2230, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Society for Ecological Restoration. 2000. Internet Resources Site. Tucson, Arizona.
Society for Ecological Restoration-Ontario Chapter. 2000. Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Tulen, L.A., J.H. Hartig, D.M. Dolan, and J.J.H. Ciborowski (eds.). 1998. Rehabilitating and Conserving Detroit River Habitats. Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research Occasional Publication No. 1. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, USCOE Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control. Technical Report EL-97-8, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000 (in review). Coastal Engineering Manual, Part VI. Department of the Army, Washington, District of Columbia.
Waldron, G.E. 1997. The Tree Book: Tree Species and Restoration Guide for the Windsor-Essex Region. Project Green, Inc., Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 9 Chapter 1 Recommendations from the Incidental Habitat and Access Workshop Philip Moy, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Introduction Workshop Synopsis Many structures have been built In preparation for the workshop, a along Great Lakes shorelines, harbors, questionnaire was sent to 138 Great tributaries, connecting channels, and Lakes resource managers in 1992. They embayments to serve primary engineer- were asked to characterize incidental ing functions of shoreline protection, habitat use in their region. The aid to navigation, and other economi- responses indicated that incidental cally related purposes. Such structures habitat at Great Lakes structures is an include breakwalls, marinas, jetties, important feature for humans, fish, and intake and discharge channels, con- wildlife. These structures attract and fined disposal facilities (CDFs), provide habitat for sport fish and navigation cells, and dredge spoil panfish. Incidental habitat also allows islands. They generally have not been anglers access to the fisheries. These designed to create or enhance habitat structures provide nesting and roosting or to provide public access, but “inci- sites for waterfowl, as well as support- dentally” serve such functions to ing many human recreational activities. various degrees. The structures are constructed of There was interest within the Great rock of varying sizes, construction and Lakes natural resources management demolition materials (concrete), and community to explore the ways and sheet pilings. Many structures use a means of modifying engineered combination of materials, often in structures in the Great Lakes to provide different segments. Some structures an economical and ecological “win- have features that facilitate access, while win”, and to purposefully improve the others are unimproved. Handicapped habitat and recreational value of the accessibility is increasingly common structures without adversely affecting with the inclusion of concrete walks, their primary engineered purpose. guardrails, and fishing piers as design Consequently, the Great Lakes Fishery features and additions to existing Commission’s Habitat Advisory Board facilities. Sport fishing, from shore and sponsored the Incidental Habitat and small boats, is the most common Access Workshop in March of 1994. human activity. These structures attract Participants, including engineers, fish, intercept seasonal movements, and regulators, biologists, planners, and provide shore anglers access to deeper economists, were challenged in a water. Other human activities associ- workshop setting to work together on ated with the structures include design features for improving inciden- swimming, boating, walking, camping, tal habitat and access associated with rowing, diving, picnicing, and sunbath- physical structures. Ideas developed in ing. Breakwaters that have paved the workshop are conducive to soft walkways allow anglers and strollers engineering concepts and principles. better access to the water than unim- A synopsis of the workshop is provided proved, rubble mound revetments. here along with basic information At the workshop, attendees were about breakwater, revetment compo- divided into inter-disciplinary teams. nents, and information on which Each team was given a diagram of a features can most easily be modified physical structure and assigned the for enhancing incidental habitat and task of creating incidental habitat public access. and improving public access. Results of one of the breakout sessions is included here.
10 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines This sub-group was given a sketch of breakwater (Figures 6) illustrates how a breakwater that provided protection traditional steel sheet piling, widely used for a harbor and that was used as a in hard engineering approaches, can be navigation aid for an entrance channel used in combination with cobble, (Figure 4). They were also told that a geotextile materials, and top soil to new marina was proposed to be devel- create a soft engineered structure that oped adjacent to the existing channel. achieves the necessary aid to navigation The results of their deliberations are and shoreline protection, while improv- illustrated in Figure 5. The economic ing incidental habitat and public access. value of the area has been improved by designing the marina as well as improv- Figure 4 Diagram of a Great Lakes breakwater with hard engineer- ing public access for fishing (boat ramp ing. Workshop participants were challenged to develop a marina at and fishing access from the breakwall) this site and include soft-engineered incidental habitat and public and hiking (observation platform, access features. footpath, and boardwalk). Concur- CONCRETE CAPPED 12’ WAVES BREAKWATER rently, the ecology of the area has been EXISTING greatly enhanced by creating a vegetated ENTRANCE CHANNEL breakwater between the existing channel 18’ DEEP and a littoral refuge that creates terres- trial, wetlands, and aquatic habitat. A cross-section through the vegetated PROPOSED MARINA AREA HARBOUR 4’ WAVES
18’ DEEP MAINTANINED CHANNEL
Figure 5 The same site as in Figure 4 with the soft engineered design features added by workshop participants. See Figure 6 for cross- section view at AA in the middle of Figure 5. SSP= steel sheet piling.
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 11 Figure 6 Cross-section view at AA on Figure 5, The main components are the armor showing combination of hard and soft engineered features. stone, core stone, and underlying SSP= steel sheet piling. bedding or mattress stone. The portion of the bottom-most layer that extends from the foot of the structure is toe stone. The armor stone is the largest and most visible stone of the structure, it is what breaks the waves to protect the harbor. The size or weight of the armor stone is determined by the wave or ice forces expected at the location of the structure. The armor stone weight determines the dimensions of the structure and the other material used in the structure. The core stone supports DRAWING NOT TO SCALE the armor stone, is relatively unexposed for use as either habitat or access, and Workshop participants concluded has little or no flexibility for habitat that it is highly possible to modify the modification. The bottom layer of the physical features of Great Lakes naviga- structure, the bedding stone, covers the tional structures to improve the habitat lake or river bottom to help support the and recreational value without adversely other components. Bedding stone is affecting the primary navigation or the smallest stone used in the construc- shoreline protection purposes. Encour- tion and has more flexibility in the agingly, existing manuals, such as the dimension used than the other compo- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore nents. Bedding stone extends out from Protection Manual (1984), can be used the foot of the structure and is exposed to create or modify physical structures for use as habitat. Based on informa- to enhance incidental habitat, usually tion from river and lake ecology, a wide with only minor adjustments. range of rock sizes in the bedding stone For example, Figure 7 illustrates a will provide a mosaic of micro-habitats cross-section of a rubble mound for fish food organisms, thereby breakwater; revetments are essentially a attracting fish for food and shelter half breakwater laying against the shore. (Gannon et al. 1985). Workshop participants also con- cluded that the primary hurdle to Figure 7 Typical cross-section of a rubble mound breakwater. overcome when enhancing incidental habitat and public access is improving communication between the agency that constructs or maintains the structure and the entity that desires to improve the habitat. Regulators at the workshop strongly emphasized the importance of including incidental habitat and public access features early in the application and design process. Experience has shown that early and effective communication about public access features and incidental habitat is DRAWING NOT TO SCALE essential to realize such benefits in waterfront designs.
12 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Including Incidental tion may follow during the feasibility phase, as the National Environmental Habitat and Public Access Policy Act (NEPA) document is in the Design Process prepared. This document is either an Environmental Assessment or an Technical information used in the Environmental Impact Statement. design of U.S. and Canadian Great Once the NEPA documentation is Lakes coastal structures is based largely complete, the project can operate for on the Shore Protection Manual up to 10 years without preparation of published by the U.S. Army Corps of new NEPA documents. New docu- Engineers (1984). When presented mentation during that period is with a project requiring breakwater or required if there is a significant change revetment construction/repair, the in the operation or dimensions of the design team will often use a standard structure. approach. On a lake shore, the design Harbor and shoreline protection condition may be the expected wave or structures may be operated by a federal, ice climate; in a riverine environment, state, municipal, or private entity. The the design condition may be the water primary federal agency in the United velocity depth associated with a 100- States is the U.S. Army Corps of year flood. Since the standard Engineers; in Canada it is the Depart- breakwater or revetment design does ment of Fisheries and Oceans. One not include incidental habitat as a should contact the appropriate agency component or consideration, ongoing as soon as possible regarding incidental coordination with the design team habitat possibilities; the earlier coordi- throughout the design process is nation begins prior to a maintenance required to ensure incorporation of activity, the greater the likelihood that incidental habitat features. incidental habitat can be incorporated. Interdisciplinary Teams: An interdisci- In addition, it is more cost effective to plinary design team of engineers, modify the structure for incidental biologists, planners, and, when appro- habitat during regular maintenance priate, regulators must be developed. activities than to mobilize equipment The team should identify potential specifically for incidental habitat areas of the structure for incidental modification. habitat improvement, possible means to It is easiest to incorporate incidental incorporate them, and engineering habitat at the reconnaissance or feasibil- constraints. Modification of the ity phase. It quickly becomes difficult to incidental habitat proposal may be insert incidental habitat modifications necessary for the project to remain once the project enters the design phase, feasible within the engineering con- and is extremely unlikely that incidental straints. The team should continue habitat modifications presented during coordination through the development construction will be incorporated. It is of plans and specifications to assure advised to maintain close coordination that the incidental habitat improve- with the project manager or design team ments are carried through design to ensure that recommended incidental to construction. habitat features are included throughout Regulatory Considerations: In the the design process and are included in United States, engineering projects have the plans and specifications for con- five basic phases: reconnaissance, struction. feasibility, design, construction, and Maintenance Opportunities: New operation and maintenance. Coordina- construction on the Great Lakes is tion for a new project begins at the increasingly rare, so maintenance reconnaissance phase, usually through activities offer more opportunities to interagency correspondence requesting modify an existing structure for inci- information on potential impacts to dental habitat. Stone must periodically natural resources. Additional coordina- be replaced at rubble mound breakwa-
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 13 ters and revetments. As the timbers placing it nearby to form a small reef begin to decay and the stone weathers, (Figure 9), or consider creating a timber crib breakwaters may be encap- central “disposal” location for the old sulated with either rubble mound or rock. With material from other steel sheet pile (Figures 8 and 9). In maintenance projects this location can this process, the old timber crib is become an artificial reef (Gannon surrounded by a new rubble mound or 1990). Determine whether there is any sheet pile structure. Generally the new flexibility in the size of new scour stone structure cannot be higher than the to be used at the project. In addition, original timber crib structure. Rubble sheet pile encapsulation can allow the mound encapsulation may not be addition of a concrete cap to provide a possible if the larger “footprint” smooth walkway. infringes upon the navigation channel Aesthetics and Biodiversity: It is or other harbor feature. advised to use a variety of textures and Sheet pile encapsulation can provide vegetation to make accessible areas a smaller cross-section at the base. Part aesthetically pleasing; use curves rather of sheet pile encapsulation involves than straight lines. Non-traditional clearing a driving line in the toe or materials can be incorporated into the scour stone for the sheet piles at the structure to diversify the habitat. base of the crib. Instead of removing Vegetation, stone, or wood can be this old stone from the site, consider combined to diversify habitat complex- ity and gradients to help maximize biodiversity. Woody material such as Figure 8 Typical cross-section of a rubble mound encapsulation. root-wads, brush piles, timbers, or native, endangered, or threatened plants should be used if possible. Water Encapsulation cannot exceed height of original structure velocity or depth should be varied. Other questions to consider include: • Is it possible to include wetlands or shallows? • Are there educational or research opportunities? One should consider optimal patch use and island biogeography in develop- DRAWING NOT TO SCALE ment of habitat at man-made structures. Assess Ecosystem Impacts: All projects produce many impacts on the ecosys- tem. Asking a few questions before the Figure 9 Typical cross-section of a sheet pile encapsulation. project starts can help to determine what type of projects should be used. Encapsulation cannot exceed height of original structure One should assess existing conditions and needs in a watershed, ecosystem, or regional context. What are the indirect and cumulative impacts of the project? Will the project have local or regional Old toe and scour stone impacts? Will there have to be a trade- off of resource impacts? How will the proposed project impact existing resources? By answering these and other questions, the project can pro- DRAWING NOT TO SCALE duce maximum benefits. Public Access Considerations: What types of access are desired? What kinds of opportunities will be created by
14 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines improved access? How much access is the project. Recognize that it may take desirable or acceptable? Should access years for algae, macroinvertebrates, and be restricted in some areas to create other forage organisms to colonize the refuges for fish or waterfowl? How will structure. Monitoring and research will people be managed to avoid conflicts help determine how to improve inci- between uses, privacy, and operation dental habitat and what habitat and and maintenance activities? One access features should be included at should develop project management new and existing facilities. plans that include human and wildlife Reporting: Once the success (or failure) users. Structures that attract fish also of the incidental habitat has been attract anglers. Fixed or floating fishing determined, the results should be platforms and boat ramps improve reported so that others may benefit angler access. Consider non-angling from the experience. A report should activities too; add parking, sanitary be distributed to all agencies involved facilities, and picnic areas. Providing and the results posted on the Internet access to the water and creating attrac- through the Great Lakes Information tive habitat can enhance urban Network (GLIN; http://www.great- recreation opportunities. Access should lakes.net). If the incidental habitat be barrier-free or barrier-reduced to modification was not successful, make the experience available to as consider how to modify the design and many users as possible. what operational changes to make. Operational changes may be imple- Project Evaluation mented relatively quickly; design Monitoring Plan: In order to improve changes may have to wait for funding future projects, one should develop a or until routine maintenance is re- monitoring plan to determine whether quired. An incidental habitat guidance the incidental habitat modification was manual describing successful projects beneficial or successful. The plan and suggested approaches should be should monitor fish, wildlife, and developed for planners, developers, human use of the area before and after and regulators.
References Gannon, J.E. (ed.). 1990. International position statement and evaluation guidelines for artificial reefs in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Spec. Publ. No. 90-2, page 22, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Gannon, J.E., R.J. Danehy, J.W. Anderson, G. Merritt, and A.P. Bader. 1985. The ecology of natural shoals in Lake Ontario and their importance to artificial reef development. p. 113-134, In: D’Itri, F. (ed.), Artificial Reefs – Marine and Freshwater Applications, Lewis Publ., Chelsea, Michigan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984. Shore Protection Manual, USCOE Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Contact Person: Philip B. Moy University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 705 Viebahn Street Manitowoc, WI 54220 [email protected]
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 15 Chapter 2 Multiple Objective Soil Bioengineering for Riverbank Restoration Alton Simms and Robbin Sotir, Robbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc.
Introduction Environmental Benefits of Today, stream and riverbank protec- Soil Bioengineering Systems tion efforts are expected to address issues such as habitat, aesthetics, and Soil bioengineering systems for water quality in addition to such needs stream and riverbank protection consist as flood control and erosion protection. of structural engineering components It is common knowledge that inte- and integrated ecological systems that grated streambank protection designs provide protection for the entire that include vegetation are likely to riverbank over a reach or an entire satisfy these multiple objectives. Soil system. There may be several soil bioengineering systems utilize vegeta- bioengineering components capable of tion as a principal component and can providing erosion protection for a given provide sound streambank protection site, depending on the type of erosion while maximizing ecological and water or failure problem that exists. The quality benefits. Streambank protec- specific design chosen may depend on tion designs that consist of riprap, several factors, including the level of concrete, or other inert structures alone risk that is acceptable, cost, and/or are being accepted less frequently environmental and aesthetic objectives. because of their lack of environmental Table 3 summarizes the flood and aesthetic benefits. Consequently, conveyance, habitat, water quality, there is greater interest in designs that recreation, and aesthetic benefits. Table combine vegetation and inert materials 4 summarizes the major environmental into living systems that can reduce benefits of the most common soil erosion while providing environmental bioengineering methods employed in and aesthetic benefits. This integratable streambank protection that utilize technology is therefore responsive to woody vegetation. Such tables can be these increasing concerns. useful in helping to select specific soil This case study describes soil bioengineering methods that can be bioengineering systems that have been incorporated into streambank protec- used to meet specific aquatic and tion designs to maximize specific riparian habitat objectives, such environmental requirements. For as providing overhanging cover for fish example, the branches that overhang and riparian habitat. Examples are the water along the riverbank provide presented to illustrate the use of shade and protection from predators these systems. making it an excellent choice as part of Information has been prepared in a bank protection system on streams tabular form that may be a useful guide where such habitat is scarce. There for evaluating alternative soil bioengi- may be other constraints that affect the neering streambank protection choice however. Some methods might measures and selecting those that best cause too much flow constriction or achieve the desired project objectives might cause erosion of the opposing (Table 3). This procedure has been bank if used on very small systems. developed and used on several projects However, this is not typical in the case where environmental objectives were of rivers. All of the soil bioengineering major concerns, including a major methods have a common geotechnical sport fishing stream in Alaska and the benefit of providing root reinforcement Ottawa River in Canada, which divides in the soil mantle. The more deeply the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. installed methods, such as brushlayer,
16 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines positively affect the direction of redirect flows. Soil bioengineering seepage. Hydrologically, these methods projects are typically considered serve as horizontal drains converting aesthetically pleasing and become more parallel flow to vertical flow. Hydrauli- so over time. cally, vegetation reduces velocities and Table 3 A matrix to help compare the benefits of different streambank protection measures. Method Flood Conveyance Aquatic Riparian Water Quality Recreation Aesthetic Habitat Habitat Live Staking negligible, except fair to good good negligible, except poor to fair good on small streams on small streams Live Fascines negligible, except good to good negligible, except fair to good good to on small streams very good on small streams very good Branch-Packing none negligible fair negligible negligible fair Vegetated negligible to high flows, good to fair to good good on small and good good to Geogrid depends on stream size excellent medium streams excellent and design Live Cribwall negligible to high flows, good to fair fair on small and negligible good to depends on stream size very good medium streams very good and design Joint Planting negligible, except fair to good good negligible, except fair good to on small streams on small streams very good Brush-Mattress negligible, except good very good fair to good fair to good good to on small streams to excellent excellent Live Bloom varies, negligible if length excellent negligible good fair to good fair to good 1 less than /4 channel width to fair 1 and height less than /2 bank height Conventional negligible, except on negligible fair negligible to fair fair good Vegetation small streams and none to good if maintained Tree none fair to negligible negligible none fair Reventment good
Table 4 Environmental benefits of soil bioengineering for streambank protection. Method Create or Preserve Scour Holes Shade and Overhang Riparian Habitat Vegetated Geogrid good excelent fair to good Live Cribwall very good excellent fair to good Live Boom(s) excellent very good not applicable Live Siltation not applicable excellent very good to excellent Construction Brush-Mattress not applicable good to very good excellent Live Fascine not applicable good good to very good
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 17 Figure 10 Soil preparation along the shoreline of Jacques Cartier Park. The species of woody vegetation selected for inclusion in soil bioengi- neering systems can have a significant effect on the habitat benefits. Various species of willow are the most common woody plants used in soil bioengineer- ing because of their excellent rooting ability. While willow can provide good overhanging cover and shade for streams, good nesting habitat for some species of birds, and some cover for mammals, it is not noted as an excellent food source for land animals. There are other plants that may be better choices for accomplishing specific habitat objectives. Such plants can be added to soil bioengineering designs to provide specific habitat benefits for target Figure 11 Placement of live fascines on contour with erosion species. Chapter 18 of the Natural control fabric along the Jacques Cartier Park. Resources Conservation Service Engi- neering Field Handbook (Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction) provides information about growth habits, habitat value, and rooting characteristics for a variety of plants adapted in the United States. Ottawa River In 1996, Public Works and Govern- ment Services Canada undertook the stabilizing and remediation of a bio- medical disposal site along the banks of the Ottawa River in Hull, Quebec, Canada. This site is situated adjacent to a highly visible, popular, and passive recreational green space known as Jacques Cartier Park. This area offers Figure 12 Vegetated shoreline resulting from the use spectacular views of the River and of bioengineering techniques in Jacques Cartier Park. Parliment Hill (Ottawa) on the oppo- site bank. As part of the remediation of the site, excavation of the contaminated soils and materials was replaced with a sand/clay subsoil mix (Figure 10). The resulting embankment was then topped off with an approved topsoil blend. Due to the steepness of the constructed slope and the river below, surface stability was of vital importance. This was accom- plished via the use of live fascines on the contour with erosion control fabric known as coir (Figure 11).
18 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Other project objectives included: Figure 13 Rapid streambank erosion preparing a foundation, where over time caused by heavy public use along the Kenai a natural community of indigenous River in Alaska. plant materials for upland and riverine habitat would evolve; improving aesthetics; and establishing a long-term, maintenance-free natural slope along the Ottawa River within its highly urbanized context. The success of this project to meet the desired goals enabled Public Works to designate the area as an extension of Jacques Cartier Park (Figure 12). Kenai River The Kenai River in Alaska is a world class sport fishing stream noted for its Figure 14 Overhanging cover was provided trophy Chinook salmon fishing. In by live siltation and live cribwall construc- heavily used public access areas, such as tions along the Kenai River. Soldotna Creek Park and Centennial Park, bank vegetation had been de- stroyed by foot traffic and the streambank was eroding rapidly (Figure 13). Because of the potential impacts on rearing habitat and movement of young Chinook, Alaska Fish and Game would not permit dikes of any kind or hard structures such as bulkheads. They also discouraged the use of riprap above the elevation of the ordinary high water-mark.
Figure 15 Large rocks placed in front of the live cribwalls provided additional fish cover.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 19 A 650 foot section of streambank at Summary Soldotna Creek Park was stabilized using Water resource projects, by their very soil bioengineering methods. Over- nature, involve multiple objectives, and hanging cover was provided by live streambank protection is no exception. siltation constructions and live cribwalls In addition to controlling erosion, we (Figure 14). In wet areas, native sod must meet water quality, habitat, rolls and live fascines were used to aesthetics, and other environmental stabilize the bank line and reestablish objectives. Integrated soil bioengineer- vegetation. Large rocks, placed ran- ing designs that employ woody domly in the shallow water in front of vegetation meet these environmental the live cribwalls, and small rootwads, objectives better than other types of anchored further out, were used to streambank protection alone. Maxi- create additional fish cover (Figure 15). mum benefits are derived by choosing The soil bioengineering installations soil bioengineering methods and survived the 1995 flood, the largest on selecting the vegetation to achieve record, with minimal damage. This specific environmental objectives. same flood ravaged banks protected with The success of soil bioengineering on riprap and other hard structures. the Ottawa River and the Kenai River indicates that this approach to riverbank protection and restoration is applicable to address multiple objective goals.
References Robbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc. unpublished files.
Sotir, R.B. 1997. Presentation on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Conference spon- sored by U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1992. Engineering Field Handbook: Chapter 18 - Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction.
Contact Person: Alton P. Simms Robbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc. 434 Villa Road Marietta, GA 30064-2732 [email protected]
20 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Comparison of Chapter 3 Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for Shore Erosion Control: Costs and Effectiveness Tim Patterson, Environment Canada Introduction A bioengineered site is considered The objective of this case study is to successful when there is little or no compare the costs and effectiveness evidence of human intervention, associated with both soil bioengineering usually several years after planting. and hard structures. Through research, The site should become better pro- the common principles and materials tected with time. For example, cuttings used in bioengineering were discovered. planted into a bank beside a water- An investigation of how these principles course can go through additional stages were applied to various sites across of erosion control for the bank. The Southern Ontario was then conducted. cuttings add a bit of protection against This included visitation of the sites, as soil sliding down the bank, immedi- well as interviews with people involved. ately after being planted. Roots from Manufactured “hard” structures the cuttings begin to hold the soil designed to prevent erosion will often together more as they grow and inter- become cracked and damaged as they connect with each other. Eventually, age. Since they are “dead” materials, some of these roots will likely extend they cannot maintain or repair them- out into the watercourse, slowing down selves as plant materials can. Hard flows and creating fish habitat. As the structures do, however, provide imme- trees mature more, the thicker roots in diate effective erosion control against the watercourse are able to partially severe elements that would wash away deflect flows away from the bank, newly placed plant materials. This is decreasing erosion. During flooding especially true for lake front lands. For conditions, these roots not only help this reason, some constructed protect against erosion, but can trap bioengineered sites incorporate hard soil, sand, and small stones which add structures. to the bank material. The main thrust of bioengineering For the majority of applications in involves the harvesting and planting of bioengineering, the only types of tree dormant cuttings or branches from tree cuttings that may be successfully used and plant species in order to provide a are those that can grow on their own natural basis for erosion control. These after being cut (when dormant). There cuttings are arranged into individual are three common types of trees in stakes (live stakes) and/or put into Ontario that can provide such cuttings: bundles. These bundles can be ar- willows, dogwoods, and poplars. ranged in a variety of ways. The most Willow and dogwood cuttings are the common arrangements are called most commonly used for bioengineer- fascines, brushlayers, and ing projects. Although these species are brushmattresses. Cuttings are usually used to establish a firm root structure taken from dogwoods and/or willows. in the soil, native plants tend to invade This is mainly because the cut branches a bioengineered site over time, mixing of these species are able to take root and in with the willows and dogwoods. grow on their own. As the cuttings These invading species usually do not grow and extend their root structure, harm the integrity of the bioengineered the soil becomes more stable. site and are often beneficial in aiding to Bioengineering is used as a natural, the root structure. long-term solution to erosion control. The technique of bioengineering is becoming more popular among
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 21 municipalities and Conservation theory behind bioengineered designs is Authorities (CAs) in Ontario. Where that they are living and self-repairing. most municipalities and CAs did not Once established with a good design, incorporate bioengineering techniques they increase in strength, and after a only 10 years ago, most do today for at period of 2 to 3 years they should be least some of their erosion control capable of resisting high stream flows. projects. They should also be capable of self- There are two main reasons munici- repair. Branches or roots that become palities and CAs choose bioengineering broken or die are gradually replaced over concrete and steel. The first with more growth. Since hard struc- reason is that it is considered to be tures cannot repair themselves, they more environmentally friendly. The require long-term maintenance. This second reason is financial. For most means that the gap in costs between a sites, it is actually cheaper to implement hard structure and a bioengineered site bioengineering than it is to create a will continually grow. hard structure, especially for the long Most of the case studies detailed term. Material, transportation, and have successfully achieved stable labor costs are generally more expensive erosion control using bioengineering. for hard structures. Proper planning and adaptation to site The main reason that some local conditions played a big role in these governments do not choose to utilize successes. This included knowing the bioengineering is because they are limitations to each type of planting or unsure of its effectiveness. Bioengineer- soft structure and deciding if and where ing principles are relatively unknown they should be used. Recognizing (although not unproven), and thus an where rip-rap or rocks should be used uncertain solution to erosion in the instead of, or in conjunction with, a minds of many. The limits of the soft structure was also very important. ability of bioengineered sites to resist Although careful planning went into erosion are even less certain and very most of the case studies, unforeseen or site specific. unanticipated problems have occurred Because municipalities typically have at some sites, resulting in partial or larger budgets than CAs, some of the complete failures in the bioengineering best combinations of bioengineering designs. There are many problems that techniques can be found at projects paid can occur due to the combined com- for by cities. Often, these techniques are plexities of factors such as the in combination with hard structures. characteristics of tree species used, soil Costs conditions, local climate, random storm events, immediate and surrounding Costs vary for different types of land use, area wildlife, pedestrian bioengineering techniques. There is traffic, skill of the laborers, and the often no cost for labor and/or materials. project design, among other things. Labor is often done by volunteers. The success of a bioengineered site Materials, such as cuttings for live can only be conclusively determined stakes, fascines, and brushlayers are after the first 2 or 3 years. Live stakes, sometimes found either on or off site, fascines, brushlayers, and or are donated. brushmattresses are very vulnerable to Hard structures have a specific poor site conditions, erosion, and design life to them, but bioengineering vandalism during this time, while their designs typically do not. This may be root structures are growing. It is partly because bioengineering was little essential that the required amount of used in North America 10 years ago sunlight and soil moisture, necessary compared to its use now, so there are for the species of cuttings used, be a few projects older than 10 years to part of the site conditions, as this was compare with (except for sites in the main reason for failed areas of sites Europe). While this may be true, the in the case studies.
22 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Natural channel design goes well sured, are an important factor. Wildlife with bioengineering. Because this habitat, green space, and aesthetic involves the removal or relocation of qualities are in high demand. This is soil, this adds to the cost considerably. apparent by the number of citizens’ and Bioengineering could still use more special interest groups that have made public and municipal support. Al- contributions to several case studies. though it is becoming a popular Lack of information and understand- alternative to hard structures, there are ing is a big obstacle to soft engineering still some municipalities that seldom or practices. Authoritative guidelines for never use bioengineering designs. This soft engineering are not nearly as support should come gradually, as the abundant, or as clear, as specifications overall effectiveness of bioengineering that exist for hard structures. Munici- projects become better known and palities and other government bodies understood. will be more likely to approve soft Bioengineering is much more widely engineering designs if specifications are used in riverine environments over lake known and carry the same weight as shores. This accounts for the fact that those for hard structures. few case studies involve lake shore sites. Where bioengineering is used at such Table 5 Unit costs of selected materials or components of sites, it is often in combination with bioengineering. hard structures such as armorstone or boulders. This is because the erosive Item Cost force of waves along a shoreline is Live stakes (each) $ 0.50 frequent and usually too overpowering Geotextile netting (per m2) $ 1.46 to allow tree cuttings to grow, even if Geotextile filter material 270R (per m2) $ 1.74 aided by geotextiles and cribwalls. For Aquatic plants (each) $ 2.00 adequate erosion control in many low Cuttings for brushlayers and brush- flow creeks, however, hard structures mattresses (bundle of 50, 1-3 m long) $ 8.50 may be limited or avoided altogether in Rip-rap (per ton) $ 14.40 favor of bioengineering. Cedar poles for cribwalls (3 m each) $ 20.00 Comparing costs taken from the case Fascines (5 m length) $ 35.00 studies, live stakes, fascines, Root wads (each) $ 35.00 brushlayers, brushmattresses, root wads, Coir logs (m) $ 80.00 and log jams are the lowest costing Constructed cribwall (m) $182.26 components of bioengineering, fol- lowed by geotextiles, rip-rap, and live Sources: City of Mississauga, Cooksville Creek Tender Contract; Environment cribwalls (Table 5). Natural channel Network; Grillmayer, 1995; Belton Industries, Inc.; Brad Glasman, personal communi- design is above these costs. Hard cation. structures cost even more (Table 6). Bioengineering in a riverine environ- Table 6 Sample costs per meter of hard structures. ment is usually significantly less Item Cost expensive than hard structures on a per meter basis (Figure 16). Comparing 1996 Rip-rap – 400-900 mm diameter $ 656 natural channel design case studies with 1997 Concrete storm sewer extension – 750 mm diameter $ 797 large concrete channels, the difference 1996 Armorstone wall on Binbrook Lake $ 984 is about threefold. Comparing case 1985 Armorstone average cost for Lake Ontario 20 year design $ 1,225 studies using basic bioengineering 1993 Armorstone wall on Lake Superior $ 1,500 designs with those using large concrete 1994 Shorewall on Lake Ontario $ 1,981 channels, the difference is even more, 1998 Shorewall on Lake Ontario $ 3,364 depending on site conditions. Sources: Ken Cullis & Jake Vander Wal, personal communication; Joe Hollick, personal communication; Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, Scott’s Plains Environmental Benefits Park Tender Contract; R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., 1992. In addition to the cost benefits of bioengineering, the environmental benefits, which are not as easily mea-
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 23 Figure 16 The cost for bioengineering compared to hard structures (cost/meter).
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500 Cost/Meter $1,000
$500
0 Basic Live Natural Boulder Armorstone Concrete Shorewall Bioeng. Cribwall Channel Bank Channel
References Belton Industries Inc. Anti-Wash/Geojute: Natural Erosion Control Fabric. Pamphlet. Atlanta, Georgia. City of Mississauga. 4 Nov. 1997. Tender Contract # 17 111 97-134. Cooksville Creek Channel Stabilization Works. Cullis, K. and Vander Wal. North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans. Personal communication. Environment Network. 1998. 1998 Bioengineering Material & Naturalized Products Price List. Collingwood, Ontario, Canada. Glasman, B. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Personal communication. Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund web site. 1998.
Contact Persons: Tim Patterson, Environment Canada John Shaw, Environment Canada Tom Muir, Environment Canada National Water Research Institute Great Lakes Cleanup Fund 2000 Atmospheric Environment Branch Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Branch 867 Lakeshore Road Water Issues Division 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 [email protected] Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 [email protected] [email protected]
24 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines MacDonald Park Chapter 4 Wetland and Prairie Restoration Project St. Clair River, Ontario, Canada Don Hector, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Introduction Project Description A wetland and prairie restoration The original site consisted of project was carried out in a day-use maintained grass, used mainly as a park area (MacDonald Park) along the picnic area. The wetland component St. Clair River (Chenal Ecarte) from consisted of the excavation of 4,588 September 1995 to July 1997. cubic meters (6,000 cubic yards) of MacDonald Park is one of 17 river-side material, treatment of the littoral areas park areas owned and managed by the with topsoil, and stabilization using a St. Clair Parkway Commission. Use of biodegradable coir mat. A variety of this network of parks includes picnick- wildlife and fisheries components were ing, camping, boat launching/ included; spawning mounds, sub- mooring, swimming, and associated merged habitat structures, aquatic passive recreational activities. This vegetation plantings, and basking logs. particular site was chosen due to its These components were placed in the high potential for a variety of aquatic newly created wetland area. The bank and upland restoration techniques, the areas of the wetland were planted with visibility and accessibility along a shrubs. commonly traveled roadway, and the Shoreline areas surrounding the site strong interest of the landowner (St. and bordering dredged canal areas were Clair Parkway Commission). The reshaped, gently sloped, and stabilized project involved the creation of 1 ha using live willow stakes and brush (2.5 acres) of wetland, 1 ha (2.5 acres) bundles to establish riparian cover and of Tallgrass Prairie complete with an as a means to reduce erosion. Planting interpretive trail, improvement of of aquatic vegetation in the nearshore 200 m (219 yards) of shoreline waters adjacent to these areas occurred riparian area, and interpretive signs in a subsequent phase. Experimental and brochures. biolog floating barriers and bogmat Project Goals islands were installed to establish in- water structure and provide erosion The work was initiated through the protection to local shoreline areas. St.Clair River Remedial Action Plan Approximately 200 m (219 yards) of (RAP) process in order to help restore shoreline area were rehabilitated using fish and wildlife habitat in the St. Clair these techniques. River watershed. This particular project In the 1 ha (2.5 acres) upland site, was one of 28 areas originally identified 22,000 Tallgrass Prairie plugs of 23 in an earlier report (Survey of Candidate different forb (flower) and grass species Sites on the St. Clair and Detroit River were planted. A slightly elevated horse- for Potential Habitat Rehabilitation/ shoe shaped trail system was Enhancement). Creation of wetlands, constructed using excavated material improvement of shoreline riparian areas, from the wetland area to allow trail and establishment of Tallgrass Prairie users an improved view of the prairie habitat were the main objectives. The plant species, at the height of their secondary objectives were to use this growing season. project as a key demonstration area for a variety of aquatic and riparian restoration techniques.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 25 Regulatory Considerations projects along their other waterfront The project was subject to both park properties. This site continues to provincial and federal environmental be of interest to new groups wishing to assessment act requirements. Through become involved in activities at this this process, including a series of public site. For example, a turtle nesting notices, no significant environmental habitat project was completed on site impacts were identified and the project and a prescribed burn was carried out proceeded with minor modifications. in 1999, with another one proposed for A number of positive suggestions and spring 2000. offers of volunteer help from local Funding and Partners landowners were also received. This initiative involved a wide Project Evaluation variety of non-governmental groups, A variety of qualitative and quantita- government agencies, and numerous tive monitoring has occurred on the funding partners in completing its site. A fish inventory was undertaken many components. Up to 20 different in the newly created wetland in late groups assisted in direct funding August 1996, one month following the support ($97,500), in-kind support completion of the wetland component. ($26,000), and volunteer labor. Dur- These results indicated four fish species ing the length of this project, over 75 present in the system: largemouth bass, individuals contributed 1,300 hours of bluegill, central mudminnow, and an hands-on work. Key groups in this esocid species. In 1997, young-of-the- volunteer effort included Wallaceburg year northern pike and largemouth bass District High School students, local were documented in the wetland area. naturalist groups, fish and game Visual monitoring of both the wetland organizations, local landowners, and and prairie components have indicated Scouts Canada. excellent establishment of plant com- The MacDonald Park Restoration munities. Informal records are being Project was supported by the following maintained for amphibians, birds, and funders and volunteers: reptiles that appear at the project site. Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; A butterfly count, through the North National Fish and Wildlife Foundations; American Butterfly Association, was Roy Investment Ltd.; also organized to monitor butterfly use of the prairie habitat. St. Clair Parkway Commission; Project Benefits Rural Lambton Stewardship Network; Although the total area of habitat Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; created was relatively small (2 ha or 5 Eastern Habitat Joint Venture; acres), the benefits of this project lie in Ontario Ministry of Environment its demonstration value, both visually and Energy; and as an example of how local com- munity groups can make a meaningful Shell Environmental Fund; contribution to the environment. It is St. Clair Region Conservation Authority; also an example of how some of the Aqua-Terre Environmental Consultants; traditional views of waterfront park design or usage can be broadened. Wallaceburg District Secondary School; These new concepts and techniques can Wallaceburg and District Boy Scouts; be transferred to many other shoreline Bluewater Anglers Association; park areas along the Great Lakes, particularly where artificial steel or Farmers and Friends Conservation Club concrete shorelines are predominant. of Lambton; The St. Clair Parkway Commission is St. Clair Binational Public Advisory extremely pleased with the results of Council; and this project and are interested in exploring further habitat restoration Lambton Wildlife Inc.
26 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines References MacDonald Park (Ontario) Restoration Project August 8, 1997
MacDonald Park, Fish and Wildlife Rehabilitation Report 1996/1997 Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund. 31 Mar. 1997. Year-End Financial Report.
MacDonald Park…Rehabilitating Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Brochure.
MacDonald Park Project.
Contact Persons: Ron Ludolph Rural Lambton Stewardship Network c/o Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P. O. Box 1168 Chatham, Ontario N7M 5L8 [email protected]
Don Hector Fish and Wildlife Biologist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P. O. Box 1168 Chatham, Ontario N7M 5L8 [email protected]
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 27 Chapter 5 Constructing Islands for Habitat Rehabilitation in the Upper Mississippi River Barry Johnson, U.S. Geological Survey and Jeff Janvrin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Introduction natural processes that build islands have Loss of habitat diversity is a common been constrained in most large rivers due problem in many large rivers of the to dams, flood control, and world (Ward and Stanford 1989). channelization. Islands can increase habitat diversity On the Upper Mississippi River, within large rivers because they provide managers, agencies, and industry have shallow-water habitats, they shelter areas worked together to restore habitat from wind and currents, and they trap diversity by building islands, often from sediments and organic matter (Thorp dredge spoils. In this case study, we 1992). They also provide terrestrial relate our experience with three island habitats for birds, reptiles, and small construction projects that illustrate mammals. In many large rivers, islands techniques and concepts that might be are being lost due to channel modifica- applied in other rivers. Two projects, tions, erosion from wave action, and the Channel-Border Islands project inundation after impoundment (Figure (also called the Pool 8 - Phase I Project; 17A; Funk and Robinson 1974; Sedell U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1989a) and Froggatt 1984). In addition, the and the Stoddard Bay Backwater
Figure 17 Section of the Upper Mississippi River near La Crosse, Wisconsin.
A. Map with white areas depicting islands existing in 1939; B. Aerial photo of the same area in summer 1999 showing constructed dark gray areas are islands remaining in 1998; cross- islands and aquatic vegetation. hatched areas are island construction projects described in the text. Dashed arrows show flow in the main channel.
28 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines project (also called the Pool 8 - Phase II representatives or through membership Project; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on planning committees. In addition, 1996), are near La Crosse, Wisconsin. the general public is involved through The third project, the McCartney Lake public meetings, providing written project (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments on planning documents, and 1989b), is near Cassville, Wisconsin, participating in tours of rehabilitation just north of Dubuque, Iowa. projects. Making Projects Happen: Coopera- With all these partners involved, planning for rehabilitation projects can tion, Partnerships, and Regulations be time consuming. However, in the These island construction projects, end a consensus is reached among like most other habitat rehabilitation participants so that project implementa- projects on the Upper Mississippi River, tion usually goes smoothly. are a cooperative effort among multiple stakeholders. These projects were Island Construction Techniques conducted mainly through the federally- The basic techniques for building funded Environmental Management two types of islands used in the Upper Program (EMP), which began in 1986 Mississippi River projects are described and is coordinated by a group of federal below. The design features incorpo- and state agencies. The U.S. Army rated into these islands were derived Corps of Engineers is responsible for from surveys of existing stable islands in maintaining navigation on the river, the the area and from analysis of hydraulic U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conditions at the project site. Thus far, responsibility for managing national all islands have been built in areas that trust species and for managing federal are 3-4 feet deep during low water refuges (which constitute much of the periods (usually summer and winter). river’s floodplain), the five border states Building islands in deeper areas may are responsible for managing other fish, require changes in the techniques wildlife, and lands, and the U.S. Geo- described here. logical Survey coordinates a Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program as part of Building Artificial Islands the Environmental Management Construction of an artificial island Program. These agencies work together begins by building a sand base (Figure to plan, prioritize, and coordinate 18). Sand is supplied by dredging rehabilitation projects through the EMP nearby main-channel or backwater and to assure that projects meet all state sites. This technique often provides a and federal environmental regulations. useful method for disposing of dredge Industry and citizen groups are involved material. Hydraulic dredging is in project planning through agency typically used because it is generally
Figure 18 Typical cross-section of a constructed island, Upper Mississippi River, near La Crosse, Wisconsin, in water 3 to 4 feet deep (not to scale).
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 29 cheaper than mechanical dredging for island, sediments are deposited in the large amounts of sand. Final shaping area of slower-moving water, which and contouring of the sand is accom- forms behind the rock pile. In addi- plished with the use of bulldozers. For tion, increased current velocity around safe operation of heavy equipment, the the sides of the seed island scours the top of the sand base should be at least river bottom and creates deeper areas. one foot above water level. The desired These processes occur primarily during shoreline slope of 20:1 is very difficult floods because high flows and current to build. Thus, a sacrificial berm, velocities are needed to mobilize and designed to erode naturally to a 20:1 transport the sand substrate that is slope, is placed along the shoreline deposited to form islands. The dimen- (Figure 18). On shorelines that may be sions of seed islands, especially their subject to severe erosion, protective elevation, should be based on an features are often added. This can be analysis of hydraulic conditions and limestone rip-rap applied around the sediment transport occurring at the upstream head and tips of islands, but project site during flooding. where possible, limestone groins (about Upper Mississippi River 30 feet long) are used instead. Building groins are cheaper than armoring the Island Projects entire shoreline with rip-rap and the The projects described below were beach areas between groins provide selected to illustrate specific features of better access to the island for shore- different types of island construction. birds, reptiles, and other animals. After the sand base is complete, a The Channel-Border Island Project cap of 1-4 feet of fine soil is applied In this project, conducted within an (Figure 18). The height of the island is impounded area of the Upper Missis- typically the elevation of a 10-year sippi River (Figure 17), existing islands flood event at that site. Higher were protected from erosion, while new mounds can be added to support plants barrier islands were built along the that require dryer habitats. Finally, the border of the main channel. The island is planted with willows along the objective was to shelter off-channel areas sandy shoreline and a mix of grasses, from currents and wakes to create better trees, and legumes in the fine soil. conditions for plant growth in shallow Using legumes in the mixture helps to water (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintain adequate nitrogen in the soil. 1989a). The project began in 1990 by To help reduce erosion during installing rip-rap on shorelines of flooding, islands are designed with existing islands to prevent further higher elevations at the upstream end. erosion. Then, downstream of the As water levels rise, the downstream existing islands, approximately 13,000 portion of the island floods first, which linear feet of barrier islands were built helps maintain similar water levels on (totaling 30 acres) using 320,000 cubic upstream and downstream sides. Thus, yards of dredge spoil. Groins were when the island is finally over-topped, installed to protect shorelines of the new the hydraulic head across the island is islands, which were completed in 1993. low, which reduces current velocity Seed islands were also constructed and erosion. near the Channel-Border islands (Figure 17A). Most seed islands were Constructing Seed Islands about 200 feet long, 30 feet wide at the A second type of island, called a seed base, and the tops 3-5 feet above the island, has also been used in the Upper water level at low flows. Two seed Mississippi River. A seed island is a islands near the Channel-Border project linear pile of rip-rap placed perpendicu- have been in place since 1995, with six lar to the current in areas of high additional islands built in 1998. sediment transport and uses the river’s Substrate monitoring around these natural processes to build a new island. islands has shown that scouring and As water is deflected around the seed deposition are occurring as expected.
30 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines The Channel-Border Islands Project bay occurs only through the notch in benefited an estimated 1,000 acres of the sill, which produces acceptable aquatic habitat. The islands have current velocities. However, if the sills weathered waves, wakes, and annual are overtopped, current velocities flooding, including the Great Flood of increase to undesirable levels. To 1993, with very little loss of material. reduce this possibility, we analyzed Lush vegetation has become established winter water elevations at the site and on the islands from the original seed- built the sills to an elevation that ing. In the shallow protected areas produced only a 10% chance of being behind the islands, water transparency overtopped for more than five consecu- has increased as has the abundance tive days during winter. That sill height of aquatic plants (Figure 17B), which also corresponded to a two-year spring is a key component for increasing flood elevation. fish abundance (Johnson and To help design the Stoddard Bay Jennings 1998). island complex, computer modeling was used (J.␣ Hendrickson, U.S. Army The Stoddard Bay Islands Project Corps of Engineers, St. Paul) to predict Stoddard Bay is a backwater area current velocities within the bay under along the town of Stoddard, Wisconsin alternative island configurations and (Figure 17) that was previously pro- various flow conditions (high flow, low tected by a line of barrier islands flow, and low flow with two feet of ice extending about 3,000 feet from the cover). The design objective was to east shore of the Mississippi River and produce a variety of current velocities curving downstream about 6,000 feet within the bay, with low velocities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1996). always available somewhere and high These islands enclosed an area of about velocities occurring in some areas 600 acres. By the 1970s, these islands during high water to scour the sub- had been lost to erosion and the site strate. Modeling helped determine the had become a relatively homogenous number of the sills to incorporate into open-water basin. The purpose of this the barrier islands and the number and project, begun in 1997, was to rebuild location of interior islands. those barrier islands. These islands For the Stoddard Bay Project, 27 would reduce wind fetch and improve acres of islands were constructed, which habitat conditions within the enclosed provided benefits to at least 600 acres area, including over-wintering habitat of aquatic habitat. Since this project for fishes. Sand for island construction was completed in 1999, there has been came from dredging 15 acres of nearby little time for evaluation. However, backwater habitat. during summer 1999, water transpar- To improve flow conditions within ency in the bay was much greater than Stoddard Bay, low rock sills were outside the bay and aquatic plants were incorporated into the barrier islands much more abundant than in previous (Figure 17). Sills were constructed of years (Figure 17B). Angling success limestone rip-rap and incorporated a was high within the backwater and fine-mesh barrier fabric to help reduce along the exterior of the barrier islands, water seepage through the sill. These causing the area to quickly gain a low sills are over-topped during floods, reputation as a great fishing spot. In which allows high flows to flush the addition, the project protects much of bay. However, to allow some inflow the shoreline along the town of during low-water periods, a notch was Stoddard from excessive wave action. placed into the upstream sill. Sill heights were determined based The McCartney Lake Project on concerns for winter habitat. Good McCartney Lake is an extensive over-winter habitat for backwater fishes backwater complex that has experi- should have current velocities less than enced considerable sedimentation, with 1 cm/sec (Knights et al. 1995). Under subsequent loss of deep water areas. normal winter conditions, inflow to the Rehabilitation of the lake was begun in
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 31 1989 and included stabilizing an inlet improved within the dredged areas. The channel to reduce sediment inflow to island was used almost immediately by the system and dredging 8,200 feet of waterfowl, shorebirds, turtles, amphib- connected channels, about 10 feet deep, ians, and small mammals. However, within the lake (Figure 19; U.S. Army increases in adult fish populations were Corps of Engineers 1989b). The not evident until six years after project resulting 400,000 cubic yards of dredge completion due to time lags in fish material were used to construct a single reproduction and growth. 22-acre island at the downstream end of the lake to reduce wind-generated Funding for Island Projects waves on McCartney Lake (Figure 19). Funding for habitat rehabilitation McCartney Island was constructed projects on the Upper Mississippi River using techniques similar to those typically comes from a variety of described above, but the design was sources. Funding for construction costs different. Rather than a barrier island, comes mostly from the Environmental this was a large island designed to Management Program and occasionally provide a variety of aquatic and terres- from operation and maintenance funds trial habitats. Thus, a 10-acre wetland of the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, was built on one end of the island and Fish and Wildlife Service, or state upland habitat at the other end (Figure agencies. Costs for project planning 19). In addition, because of the large and evaluation are typically shared size of the island no shoreline protec- among agencies with funds coming tion was used. from the Environmental Management The McCartney Lake project was Program (including the Long-Term completed in 1991 and since then, Resource Monitoring Program) and the island has remained stable. Imme- from in-kind contributions of labor, diately upon completion, dissolved equipment, and supplies from oxygen levels and water depth partner agencies.
Figure 19 McCartney Lake, on the Mississippi River near Cassville, Wisconsin, showing dredge cuts made to provide more deep-water habitat. The photo also shows a 22-acre island constructed from the dredged sediments. The dark area inside the island is a 10-acre wetland.
32 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines The islands constructed in the variables are relatively easy to measure projects described above have a life and often show improvement immedi- expectancy of 50 years. For all three ately after construction. However, projects the costs of island construction many biological changes are slower and were similar. Costs averaged about less obvious. $75,000 per acre (1995 U.S. dollars). Quantitative monitoring has shown This does not include costs for that islands can be very effective at planning or evaluation of the projects. modifying currents, wind, and waves, Evaluation Techniques which in turn affects water transpar- ency, plant growth, and sedimentation and Learning as You Go rates. In fact, the Channel-Border Evaluation of each island project has Island Project changed flow patterns produced more effective island designs enough that the design of new island and more efficient construction tech- projects downstream had to be modi- niques. The evaluation process has fied. Qualitative observation and typically involved pre- and post- photographs of islands over time, construction assessment of various especially in relation to on-site refer- features of islands and habitats includ- ence points, have provided useful ing physical (flow patterns, current evaluation of how shorelines and velocity, wave activity, water depth, vegetation are fairing. Detecting substrate erosion/deposition), water changes in invertebrates and fishes quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen, usually requires more intensive on-site transparency), and biological (aquatic sampling. In addition, long-term and terrestrial vegetation, invertebrates, quantitative monitoring will be needed fish, birds) components; relative to determine if projects have actually abundance and diversity of habitats; increased biological productivity in the and stability of island shorelines. system as a whole. Changes in physical and chemical
References Funk, J.L., and J. E. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the channel of the lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife. Aquatic Series 11, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Janvrin, Jeff. August/September 1998. Mississippi River Rehab. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, Wiscon- sin.
Johnson, B.L. and C.A. Jennings. 1998. Habitat associations of small fishes around islands in the Upper Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:327-336.
Knights, B.C., B.L. Johnson, and M.B. Sandheinrich. 1995. Responses of bluegills and black crappies to dissolved oxygen, temperature, and current in backwater lakes of the Upper Mississippi River during winter. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:390-399.
Sedell, J.R., and J.L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of stream-side vegetation to large rivers: the isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its floodplain by snagging and stream-side forest removal. Interna- tional Vereiningung fuer Theoretishche und Angewandte Limnologie Verhandlungen 22:1828-1834.
Thorp, J.H. 1992. Linkage between islands and benthos in the Ohio River, with implications for riverine manage- ment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1873-1882.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989a. Definitive project report/environmental assessment (SP-4), Pool 8 island construction - phase I. Upper Mississippi River, Vernon County, Wisconsin. Environmental Management Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. June 1989.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 33 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989b. Definitive project report with integrated environmental assessment (R-3), Bertom and McCartney lakes rehabilitation and enhancement. Pool 11, Upper Mississippi River, Grant County, Wisconsin. Environmental Management Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. March 1989.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Definitive project report/environmental assessment (SP-20), Pool 8 islands phase II. Upper Mississippi River, Vernon County, Wisconsin. Environmental Management Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Ward, J.V., and J.A. Stanford. 1989. Riverine ecosystems: the influence of man on catchment dynamics and fish ecology. Pages 55-64 in D. P. Dodge, editor, Proceedings of the international large rivers symposium. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106. Web Sites
Contact Persons: Barry Johnson U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54601 [email protected]
Jeff Janvrin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 [email protected]
Jon Hendrickson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 190 Fifth St. East St. Paul, MN 55101 [email protected]
Jim Nissen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 555 Lester Ave. Onalaska, WI 54650 [email protected]
34 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Goose Bay Shoreline Chapter 6 Stabilization and Habitat Enhancement Stan Taylor, Essex Region Conservation Authority
Introduction Figure 20 Goose Bay Park shoreline, prior to rehabilitation, The purpose of the Goose Bay was badly eroding. Shoreline Stabilization and Habitat Enhancement project was to restore and enhance the shoreline of the embayment. This included the con- struction of submerged fish habitat enhancements along the embayment’s littoral fringe and deeper water areas. Project Description Goose Bay Park is located on the Detroit River approximately 200 m west of the foot of Pillette Road, on Windsor’s near east side. The site is owned by the City of Windsor and is a passive use park approximately 0.9 ha (2.1 acres) in size with a shoreline frontage (east property line to west property line) of approximately 172 m. Goose Bay is one of the last remaining sheltered embayment habitats along the upper Detroit River shoreline. This area has been previously identified as Figure 21 Goose Bay Park shoreline, after rehabilitation, is pro- important for fish and wildlife habitat. tected from erosion and enhanced for fish and wildlife habitat. The restoration and stabilization work at Goose Bay involved the protec- tion of the shoreline with rip-rap and native materials, such as willows, dogwoods, and other hardwood species (Figure 20 and 21). Selected submerged enhancements, such as groyne and rock apron construction, were undertaken to improve fish spawning and refuge habitat (Figure 22). Two small sheltered wetland areas were created along with cobble stone beaches. In addition to contributing to progress toward delisting impaired beneficial uses in the Detroit River Area of Concern and meeting Canada- Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets, other highlights of the project include: • re-establishing the Goose Bay shoreline and riparian areas using native materials (native plant species and rock) to provide habitat for waterfowl and passerines;
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 35 Figure 22 Goose Bay Park enhancements, such as rock groynes, flow capacities. The “soft engineering” were undertaken to improve fish spawning and refuge habitat. approach which enhanced habitat was in harmony with other needs, such as navigation, river flows, and meeting the main objective of enhancing and protecting the Public Parkland. This balanced planning and design of the project avoided any obstacles. Cost, Funding, and Implementation Partners The total project cost was $161,000, with $50,000 being funded by Envi- ronment Canada’s Great Lakes Cleanup Fund. The remaining balance was paid for by funding from the City of Windsor. The project was carried out as a partnership between the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and the Essex Region Conservation Author- ity, with the assistance of BTS • enhancing submerged fish habitat Consulting (Windsor). It was under- features to increase fish use for taken as part of the Detroit River spawning and rearing/refuge; and Canadian Cleanup program. • improving submerged fish habitat features (i.e., groynes) to help Post Project Evaluation protect the embayment from swift A detailed monitoring program will current regimes and wave action. be undertaken at the site on an annual The project is nearing completion, basis for two years following construc- with final plantings of aquatic/wetland tion. The pre-construction vegetation to be done in 2000. In bio-inventory and habitat assessment, addition to pre-project site monitoring, with photographic records, will provide future monitoring activities will a baseline for the monitoring program. demonstrate the effectiveness of in- Annual post-construction monitoring water enhancement projects in creating will be undertaken during the late habitat in sheltered river embayments. spring/early summer, and will include Advice to Overcome Obstacles When at a minimum: • an assessment of bank stability; Using Soft Engineering Practices • an assessment of riparian plant All necessary permits and approvals mortality; (i.e., Department of Fisheries and • extent and composition of emergent Oceans, Canada Coast Guard) were vegetation communities in the obtained by the project proponent embayment; prior to construction. The approval • extent and composition (by dominant process involved a Federal Canadian size classes) of embayment substrates; Environmental Assessment Agency • a description of basic water quality screening co-ordinated by Environment parameters; Canada and was also facilitated by the • qualitative assessment of existing fish Essex Region Conservation Authority’s spawning and rearing/refuge habitats; ‘one-window’ review and permit • an assessment of fish use and relative process. The project will result in a net densities using snorkel or SCUBA improvement in the extent and quality techniques; and of fish habitat in the embayment, and • a description of upland characteris- therefore is self-compensating. This tics including a qualitative project also avoids any impacts on river assessment of wildlife habitat.
36 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Benefits of Project By restoring and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, the project will aid in delisting the impaired beneficial use of “loss of fish and wildlife habitat”. In addition, the project will aid in meeting Canadian-Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets. The project has also stabilized an eroding shoreline and provides an accessible and aesthetically pleasing public park setting which also provides an enhanced view of the Detroit River from Riverside Drive.
Contact Persons: Faye Langmaid City of Windsor, Parks and Recreation Department 2450 McDougall Street Windsor, Ontario N8X 3N6 [email protected]
Stan Taylor Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Avenue West Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6 [email protected]
Matthew Child Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Avenue West Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6 [email protected]
Dan Krutsch BTS Consulting Engineers 1725 North Talbot Road, RR #1 Windsor, Ontario N9A 6J3 [email protected]
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 37 Chapter 7 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Shoreline Treatments Along the Toronto Waterfront Gord MacPherson, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Introduction critical habitat; sheltered The Toronto and Region Conserva- embayments along the Toronto tion Authority (TRCA) is the agency waterfront are either natural geologic that is responsible for shoreline man- features like the Toronto Harbour/ agement initiatives within the Toronto Toronto Island Complex or man- Waterfront. Over the years, this has led made structures, including the many to the development of a series of waterfront parks and marinas); and regional parks, public marinas, erosion • coastal marshes (many of the rivers protection for shoreline residents, that drain into the Toronto water- acquisition of vulnerable properties, front reach Lake Ontario through a and development of significant coastal marsh complex; the size, shoreline parklands. Within the morphology, and thermal character- Conservation Authority, the Coastal istics of these habitat structures make Ecology Unit is a small group of them the most important habitat individuals that is charged with the features within the waterfront). responsibility of monitoring the Monitoring of these habitats has shoreline ecosystem, providing commu- provided meaningful insight into the nity outreach, and designing, design of habitat restoration projects developing, and implementing signifi- and principally, the best lesson learned cant shoreline restoration projects. to date, is the concept of critical Over the years, the collective efforts habitat. We design critical fish and toward monitoring the shoreline have wildlife habitat components at the led to the development of habitat shoreline to facilitate the creation of: classifications and a general philosophy • reproductive habitats; for the design of shoreline structures. • nursery habitat; Simply, within the north shore of Lake • foraging and resting areas; and Ontario, there are three major types of • over-wintering habitats. shoreline habitat: The conscious development of • open coasts (highly energetic exposed critical habitat features in a restoration shorelines that are typically beaches project guarantees that the appropriate and do not support diverse, or terrestrial and aquatic species are strong, resident populations of fish; attracted to your site and are capable of however, on a seasonal basis these colonizing the site successfully. Two shorelines are critical spawning areas newly created projects that exemplify the for pelagic forage species as well as a concept of integrating fish and wildlife connective corridor and staging area habitat creation into the shoreline are for a broad suite of species); the Humber Bay Shores and the Spadina • sheltered warm water embayments Quay Wetland projects. (Lake Ontario is a cold, deep, oligothrophic lake and therefore, the Humber Bay Shores isolated warm water shoreline Situated close to the mouth of the habitats attract/hold a variety of Humber River and adjacent to the species by providing significant Humber Bay Waterfront Park, the
38 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines former Motel Strip was the cause of features (Figure 24). The islands are many problems within the local vegetated with shrubs and have large lakeshore community (Figure 23). To clusters of anchored woody material provide a catalyst for redevelopment, attached to the back-shore. Also, a and clean up the problematic uses diversity of substrate types have been within the area, the Toronto and placed between the islands and shore- Region Conservation Authority line. The overall configuration of the (TRCA) led a partnership of agencies in shoreline was undulated to enhance the the development of a public amenity characteristics of the back-shore area of scheme for this waterfront area. The the islands. Back-shore conditions, TRCA proposed limited lake-filling to such as shoreline slope, crest height, facilitate a desirable building envelope, and habitat features, were altered to attract development, and avoid en- take into account the shadow effect of croaching on private property in an the islands. In selected locations we effort to create this important public provided areas of finer substrates by waterfront area. Our understanding of constructing a shelf within the shore- this shoreline ecosystem assisted in the line structure in the hope of development of a park plan that truly establishing emergent vegetation. integrated the needs of the community, The most challenging aspect of this allowed redevelopment, and created project was the development of a 3 ha significant habitat features. Our local wetland complex (Figure 24). Our knowledge provided valuable insight desired wetland shoreline consists of a that was utilized during the design of shrub buffer, sedge strand, and emer- shoreline structures, as well as the gent, submergent, and floating leaf development of habitat components, vegetation. To create this shoreline which were required for regulatory condition, we filled in the perimeter approval of the project. and closed off an existing embayment The design of the shoreline was with a rock-rubble berm that was dictated by the wave climate of the site. covered by a 1 m veneer of clean fill. In response, we developed habitat To ensure that we had the proper components that were suitable for the elevations for wetlands plants, we local wave conditions and included initially surveyed our coastal marshes to cobble beaches, offshore islands, determine the elevations of naturally sheltered shorelines, and a wetland occurring coastal wetlands. Using this complex (Figure 24). The beach information, we created a pilot project shoreline consists of a series of “T” at one of our earlier habitat creation shaped headlands that secure three projects to determine the critical cobble beach cells. The cobble beach elevations for plant material. We was considered the best treatment created a gradual shoreline slope that because it provided a shallow beach was planted with emergents and profile that is so important for spawn- monitored, over the course of five years, ing forage fish. In addition, it was to determine the exact elevations at determined to be the best shoreline which wetland plants would establish. treatment technique to attenuate the These elevation data have since been waves while still providing a significant used at all of our wetland project sites. habitat function. Additional features Our general philosophy, in creating such as shoals, reefs, and randomly coastal plant communities, is to create placed stones were attached to the the conditions suitable for the desired headlands in an effort to attract and community and inoculate the site, hold pelagic fish. rather than plant a plantation. To The islands were designed to pro- inoculate this wetland, we planted our vide, to a degree, sheltered back water emergent material in nodes to facilitate areas and to reduce the wave conditions colonization and connected these areas so that the site was suitable for habitat with perimeter plantings.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 39 One unique aspect of this project a rock ballast. They attract a variety of was the material we received from the fish in the area. We also deployed a TRCA initiative, the “Aquatic Plants number of brush bundles that were Program.” This program was started a anchored to cinder blocks and sunk in number of years ago and now involves the same vicinity of the log cribs. A more than seven hundred classrooms in variety of log stumps, whole trees, and the Toronto area growing a variety of logs were placed along the shoreline to aquatic and terrestrial plants for our mimic woody debris along the shore. rehabilitation projects. The TRCA To facilitate pike spawning, we created provides materials, equipment, and a braided network of shallow channels technical support to the classroom that were planted with slender emer- instructors and in return we receive gent wetland plants. During quality plant material at a fraction of construction, we noticed that the the cost, with the added benefit of an created island, when we closed off the effective community outreach program. embayment, was attracting a large Additional habitat features were also number of Caspian Terns. We altered detailed within the wetland complex. our original plans and left this island In an effort to diversify the deep water feature barren of vegetation and put a areas of the wetland, five log crib veneer of sand and gravel down to structures were sunk in the open water. mimic the back-shore beach feature The cribs were constructed of logs eight utilized by nesting Caspian Terns. foot long, five feet high, and filled with
Figure 23 The shoreline of Humber Bay prior to Figure 24 After rehabilitation of Humber Bay, a rehabilitation. The former hotel strip was a problem- desirable building envelope encourages develop- atic area for the lakeshore community. ment. This new interest in redevelopment has provided more, safer public access to the water.
40 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Spadina Quay Wetland Figure 25 The Spadina Quay Wetland, which was once a parking Over the past ten years the Toronto lot, is now a spawning habitat for northern pike. and Region Conservation Authority has monitored the fish communities along the Toronto Waterfront. About four years ago, we started to receive reports from anglers fishing at the foot of Spadina Avenue in the Inner Harbour. They called in stating that they were catching tagged northern pike during the spawning season. This was signifi- cant because we never tagged any fish along the north shore of the Inner Harbour of Toronto and we couldn’t believe that northern pike would be trying to utilize the marginal habitats of the Inner Harbour. We later verified, that indeed, many pike moving from the Toronto Islands were congregating in the Inner Harbour during the early spring spawning season. Two years ago, a colleague in the Toronto Parks Department asked if we had any ideas for the parking lot at the eastern portion of the existing Spadina Parklands in light of some major redevelopment within the area. Our immediate response was to suggest the creation of a spawning and wetland area for the pike we were seeing at that location. The challenge faced by us was to fit a viable wetland in such a small physical space in such a high profile area. To get water onto the site, we cut the in the spring, allowing for a permanent seawall in two locations and removed water feature during the tourist season, the top wall section down to the and allowing for complete draw-down waterline (Figure 25). A new wooden to ensure the viability of slender boardwalk bridged the gap and a set of emergents and ensure some dynamic gates were installed to separate any stability to the system. floating harbor debris from the wetland We focused on creating three plant and to control and exclude carp during communities within the Spadina Quay their spawning season. The openings Wetland: Eastern cottonwoods; stag- were designed to take advantage of the horn sumach; and a variety of shoreline Lake Ontario water level regime and grasses were planted in the upland strategically time the extent and riparian zone. The lowland riparian duration of inundating water. zone was planted with a variety of Essentially, we were hoping to allow sedges, grasses, and herbaceous plants. for shallow water in the spring, maxi- The wetland zone was planted with a mum water depth throughout the variety of slender emergents, including summer, gradual recession of the water hard and soft-stem bulrush, giant in the fall, and a dry condition in the burreed, and arrowhead. The site was winter months. The criteria for setting prepared before planting with a mixture the elevation were focused on providing of compost and sand that was mixed conditions suitable for pike spawning with the parent material to 30 cm. To
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 41 control the colonization of undesirable and that the Inner Harbour is not an weeds and plants, and to control our appropriate location for habitat cre- site maintenance, we also extensively ation. The jury is still out on whether seeded the site with annual oats. This or not the site will be utilized by the provided a quick and extensive ground pike or become problematic in the cover that helped control weeds, retain future. But we are very optimistic soil moisture, contribute to the soil about the potential of this site and conditioning on site, and turn a barren anxiously await next spring when we construction site green in a matter of fully expect the first spawning northern weeks. pike. As for the value of this project, The Spadina Quay Wetland was the we are convinced that wetlands in source of some pointed criticisms. urban areas are priceless when it comes Concerns were raised that it was too to raising public awareness surrounding small to provide any functional habitat habitat restoration in the Great Lakes.
Contact Person: Gord MacPherson, Coordinator Coastal Ecology Unit Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 [email protected]
42 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Restoring Habitat Chapter 8 Using Soft Engineering Techniques at LaSalle Park, Hamilton Harbour, Burlington, Ontario, Canada John Hall
Introduction The easterly lee is vegetated with This harbor project was aimed at overhanging native plants providing enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, shade and protection. The fine gravel reducing turbidity, and encouraging bottom provides protected spawning passive recreational opportunities. This habitat for bass and sunfish. Tree is more in keeping with improved water stumps, logs, open concrete pipes, and quality and closer to the park’s previous poles are anchored into the promontory relationship with Lake Ontario providing refuge and feeding habitats for (Figure 26). fish. Five large shoals and a submerged reef provide more spawning habitat. Project Description The design included five restoration Figure 26 The sand beach at LaSalle Park prior to restoration. components: • a westerly promontory to create a permanent sheltering of the near- shore area to enhance aquatic plant production and create food sources for waterfowl; • offshore reefs and emergent shoals to provide spawning habitat for fish and food sources for wading birds; • a bioengineered complex shoreline integrating near-shore fish habitat and replacing the existing armor- stone edge with trees and shrubs; • restoration of an existing sand beach, thereby providing a linkage for wildlife between a wooded swamp and the harbor; and • incorporation of a walking trail, Figure 27 The sand beach at LaSalle Park after restoration using lookouts, and interpretive signs. soft engineering. The overall goal was to diversify the fish community by encouraging native predators such as bass or pike. This has been carried out with the creation of 11.9 ha of fish habitat, 1.4 km of rehabilitated littoral edge, 145 m of emergent shoals, 2 rocky reefs of 950 square meters, and over 125 fish habitat modules. A rock breakwater extends approxi- mately 160 m into the harbor sheltering the marina basin and creating 11.9 ha of fish habitat. The west side of the promontory contains a wave-washed spawning reef and habitat for inverte- brates, such as crayfish (Figure 27).
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 43 Restoration of the beach area out at the site. East of the pier, the trail involved the removal of many tons of passes a recreational marina on its way rock fill that had been added over the to a boardwalk crossing the restored years. In its place is a sandy pebble beach. This boardwalk, constructed at beach where frogs, turtles, and sala- the back of the beach through the edge manders can travel freely between the of a wetland, provides clearance to water and the natural wetland located accommodate the movement of at the base of the forested bluff. The amphibians. Further east along the beach contains a small pond for frogs shoreline, the trail contains several and salamanders and a nesting mound lookouts and seating areas which have for turtles. In low water conditions, become an excellent area for viewing some of the rocks used to create fish flocks of migrating, nesting, and habitat modules become visible. These feeding waterfowl (Figure 28). Over provide loafing areas for birds and time, as the trees and shrubs planted turtles. In the basin where logs and along the shoreline mature, the trail brush bundles have been anchored to will become more complex, coursing the bottom, turtles, frogs, and shore- between woodlands and lookouts. birds use the branches and trunks for Regulatory Considerations basking and loafing. The meandering shoreline creates a Regulatory considerations included: complex edge preferred by fish and • Federal Department of Fisheries and wildlife. The diverse vegetation attracts Oceans, Fisheries Act permit re- a greater variety of insects, small quired; animals, and birds. The wetland, • Federal Department of Fisheries and shrubs, and trees along the water’s edge Oceans, Navigable Waters Act provide a connection with the forested permit required; and slope. Over time, the natural forest • a permit from the Halton Region edge should creep down to join the Conservation Authority was required wetland and form a corridor for under the Fill, Construction, and mammals and birds along the edge of Alterations to Waterways Regulation. the bay. Cost A waterfront trail, complemented with interpretive signs, allows visitors in Engineering and design $ 219,000 LaSalle park to view and understand Construction of the fish and wildlife restoration carried islands/landscaping/ public access: $2,320,000 Figure 28 The improved habitat and plant diversity is easily viewed from the boardwalk. The boardwalk provides improved Total: $2,539,000 public access. Post project evaluation for effectiveness LaSalle Park is responding to restoration efforts. There is an increase in abundance of aquatic plants and greater diversity in fish and wildlife (Figure 28). Benefits of the Project Benefits included: • construction of 11.9 ha of fish habitat and 6 hectares of wildlife habitat;
44 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines • construction of 1.4 km of new Advice for Overcoming Obstacles littoral edge and 900 m of shoreline When Using Soft Engineering re-vegetation including wetland Practices plantings; • construction of 145 square meters of The proponents felt that the best emergent shoals, 2 spawning reefs of thing this project did, once a concept for 960 square meters, and 125 fish rehabilitation was developed, was to habitat structures; form a project advisory group of • restoration of 130 m of beach; and stakeholders. This group was a combi- • construction of a pedestrian bridge, nation of local interest groups, science 1 km of new trails, 160 m of board- community, and relevant agencies. The walk, and the installation of group worked through the detailed interpretive signage. design and environmental assessment stages. Since these groups had been involved from the design stage, permits/ funding approvals were easier to obtain.
Funding and Implementation Partners Bay Area Restoration Council (representing citizens, interest groups, municipalities, industries, and landowners); Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Environment Canada; Friends of the Environment Foundation; Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; Halton Region Conservation Authority; Hamilton Harbour Commissioners; Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Stakeholders (RAP); Hamilton Naturalists’ Club; Hamilton Region Conservation Authority; McMaster University; Ontario Ministry of the Environment; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Royal Botanical Gardens Project Paradise; The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth; The Regional Municipality of Halton; City of Burlington; City of Hamilton; and Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
Contact Persons: The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project 605 James Street North, 3rd Floor Hamilton, Ontario
Vic Cairns Department of Fisheries and Oceans 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 45 Chapter 9 Enhancing Habitat Using Soft Engineering Techniques at the Northeastern Shoreline of Hamilton Harbour, Western Lake Ontario, Burlington, Ontario, Canada John Hall
Introduction plant growth, which is a requesite This harbor project is aimed at habitat for fish spawning and nursery. restructuring the fish community, from Mudflats, exposed in the fall, attract a community dominated by carp, to migratory birds. Construction began in one more diverse and dominated by top 1993 and was completed in 1995. order predators. The project is also Shoreline aimed at providing rare colonial nesting The shoreline restoration compo- birds with a safe, clean, and permanent nents include a beach, headlands, habitat. This condition is more in wetland, and upland areas. The shore- keeping with improved water quality line extends approximately 400 m and and closer to the harbor’s previous contains two headlands anchoring three relationship with Lake Ontario. beaches. An upland complex of wood- Project Description land and meadow is planted between the The project included the creation of beach and adjacent highway. A trail three islands, isolated from the shore, to follows the length of the shoreline, protect nesting birds from predators terminating in a natural lookout. At the (Figure 29). Beaches and headlands south end of the project site is a launch along the shore provide vegetation and ramp for windsurfers. habitat for wading birds. The islands The upland portion of the shoreline and a chain of underwater shoals create contains a woodland, demonstrating a quiet lagoon, resulting in aquatic natural succession of plant communi- ties. Some oaks and Carolinian woodland species are included, since Figure 29 The Northeastern shoreline of Hamilton Harbour these species are native to the area and following island construction and enhancement of the were recorded as previously growing shoreline using soft engineering techniques. Note the on the beach. traditional shoreline at the top. Islands The South Island, closest to the Burlington Ship Canal, is planted with shrubs and small trees, creating habitat for black-crowned night herons. Its windward side is constructed of armorstone and an underwater reef extending approximately 4 m. The cobble slope of the reef is similar to habitat used by spawning lake trout and whitefish. The lee side of the island contains a wetland flooded during high water levels and exposed during low levels. Fish habitat struc- tures are integrated into the shoreline of the island.
46 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines The Center Island has shrubs and highway; and small trees vegetating the south half of Halton Region Conservation the island, while sand and pebbles cover Authority, required under the Fill, the north half. At the island’s center, Construction, and Alterations to cormorant nesting platforms are Waterways Regulation. constructed on wooden poles with a 5 m buffer from the vegetated south half Cost of the island. A raised knoll at the Engineering and design $ 175,000 north end of the island is covered with substrate suitable for common terns. A Construction of islands/landscaping $ 2,287,000 fish spawning reef, approximately 4 m Public access and interpretive features $ 80,000 wide, extends the length of the wind- ward side of the island, while a small Total: $ 2,542,000 natural beach is constructed on the lee. Drift material accumulates on the beach. Fish habitat structures are Post Project Evaluation integrated into the shoreline. of Effectiveness The North Island is covered with a sand, pebble, and cobble surface. The This site has proven to be a major surface also has randomly placed success for colonial nesting birds and driftwood logs and other structures. fish (Figure 30). The Canadian Wildlife Nesting knolls were constructed for Service identified the following bird Caspian and common terns. A reef species using the islands in 1997: extends from the windward side of the Caspian terns, common terns, black- island. The lee shoreline contains a crowned night herons, ring billed gulls, mudflat, which emerges during the low and herring gulls. With the reduction in water levels in the fall, making it wave action, the aquatic plant commu- available for migratory shorebirds. Fish nity has increased from zero plants to at habitat structures are also integrated least 50% vegetated cover. The fish into the shoreline. community has responded to this improvement. Fish species using this Shoals area have increased in diversity from 6 to The three shoals are connected by 9 16 species after rehabilitation. emergent shoals which provide spawn- ing habitat for fish and shelter the adjacent shoreline. Every second shoal Figure 30 Nesting pairs of colonial birds is submerged during the spring and on islands in Hamilton Harbour. early summer. Alternate shoals contain higher breakwater mounds, which are 1400 visible to boaters. In the fall, when water levels in Lake Ontario drop, the 1200 Caspian tern shoals are used by wading shorebirds. Regulatory Considerations 1000 Comman tern
Many permits were required under 800 B-c night heron the following agencies: Federal Department of Fisheries and Ring-billed gull 600 Oceans, Fisheries Act; Herring gull Federal Department of Fisheries and Number of pairs 400 Oceans, Navigable Waters Act; D-c cormorant Conservation Authority Act; Ontario Ministry of Environment 200 guidelines for open lake disposal; Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 0 1996 1997 1998 since project was adjacent to a major
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 47 Advice for Overcoming Obstacles tion of individuals from local interest When Using Soft Engineering groups, the science community, and Practices relevant agencies. This group worked through the detailed design and The proponents felt that the best environmental assessment stages. Since thing this project did was to form a these groups had been involved from project advisory board of stakeholders the beginning of the design stage, once a concept for rehabilitation was permits/funding approvals were easier developed. This group was a combina- to obtain.
Funding and Implementation Partners Bay Area Restoration Council (representing citizens, interest groups, municipalities, industries, and landowners); Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Environment Canada; Friends of the Environment Foundation; Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; Halton Region Conservation Authority; Hamilton Harbour Commissioners; Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Stakeholders (RAP); Hamilton Naturalists’ Club; Hamilton Region Conservation Authority; McMaster University; Ontario Ministry of the Environment; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; The Regional Municipality of Halton; The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth; Royal Botanical Gardens Project Paradise; City of Burlington; City of Hamilton; and Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
Contact Persons: The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project 605 James Street North, 3rd Floor Hamilton, Ontario
Vic Cairns Department of Fisheries and Oceans 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
48 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Bioengineering for Chapter 10 Erosion Control and Environmental Improvements, Carson River, Nevada Hollis Allen, Craig J. Fischenich, and Rebecca Seal, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station
Project Purpose term success and benefits of bioengi- This case study is an excerpt from a neering treatments for controlling conference proceeding (Piper et al. erosion in an environmentally compat- 2000) and Power Point presentation ible manner. The bioengineering prepared by Hollis Allen and Craig workshop/restoration project was Fischenich of the U.S. Army Engineer completed November 2-4, 1998 in Waterways Experiment Station. In Carson City, Nevada. The river January 1997, the Carson River restoration project was implemented on watershed experienced a 100-year flood a portion of the Carson River within event of approximately 23,000 cfs, Dayton Valley, Lyon County, Nevada leaving many reaches of the Carson (Figure 31). With the involvement of River in need of restoration. Land- the local coordinated resource manage- owner property as well as the native ment group, landowners, local, state, overstory cottonwoods and willows and federal agencies worked together to were threatened by the erosion. A provide technical assistance, funding, restoration workshop was held to and permitting. The coordinated determine the best means for repairing efforts of these various groups made the damage and conveying the long- this bioengineering workshop/restora- tion project a success.
Figure 31 Location of the multi-agency bioengineering project along the Carson River, Nevada.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 49 Project Description existing vegetation, and the potential Key features of the site prior to for long durations of high streamflows restoration include: resulting from annual spring runoff • an outside curve (bendway) approxi- conditions. Streamflows on the Carson mately 600 feet in length; River, during the spring runoff of 1999, • vertical banks ranging from 8-12 feet peaked at approximately 4,000 cfs. in height; Hard structures that consisted of • soils comprised of a fine sandy loam stream spurs or barbs, rock refusal surface, with a permanent water trenches, rock toe protection, and a table at 86-94 inches deep; peaked stone dike were determined to • vegetation consisting of an older be the best options. After an analysis of overstory of cottonwoods with no project site and river velocities, five vegetative understory, especially barbs were designed to cover the entire along the streambank; bendway. In addition to the two rock • wildlife habitat for various bird refusal trenches and the rock toe species that utilize the older over- protection, a peaked stone dike was story of cottonwoods for nesting and added to the lower third of the roosting, and for various waterfowl bendway where there was a change in that utilize the river for water and landowners and where the main force feed, but no cover for nesting; of the current had eroded the • deer, rabbits, and coyotes made up streambank back into a horse corral. the major mammal species in the This area also had several large willows area; and and cottonwoods that would have to be • the local fishery was comprised removed if the bank was sloped back. primarily of carp (no sustainable The peaked stone dike would allow the populations of trout were present). bank to be built out without sloping. More details on the design and layout A reconnaissance of the river restora- of the hard structures can be found in tion site, by resource professionals the reference Piper et al. (2000). involved in the bioengineering work- shop and river restoration project, Bioengineering Treatments Installed indicated that bioengineering treat- Upon completion of bank sloping ments alone would probably not be and installation of the hard structures, a effective. This determination was based number of bioengineering treatments on existing soil conditions, lack of were installed to demonstrate several techniques that can be used for Figure 32 Installation of a brush mattress to reduce streambank stabilization, restoration, accelerated erosion. and management (Allen and Leech 1997; Hoag and Bentrup 1998). A brush mattress was installed along 36 linear feet of streambank, between the first rock refusal trench and the first stream barb (Figure 32). This brush mattress was selected to demonstrate a specific treatment that could be in- stalled to reduce accelerated erosion to an existing eroding streambank and to establish plant growth along the streambank. Vertical bundles with a juniper tree revetment and seeding, and erosion control fabric, were installed along 114 linear feet of streambank between the first stream barb and the second stream barb. Vertical bundles were chosen to
50 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines demonstrate another variation for the Brush layering and seeding, with an treatment of reducing soil erosion and erosion control blanket, was the final encouraging plant material establish- bioengineering treatment installed ment along eroded streambanks when along a total of 196 linear feet of the using the willow plant. In conjunction streambank. This treatment was with the vertical bundles, a juniper tree installed along with the peaked stone revetment was installed at the toe of the dike structure located between the bank to protect the vertical bundles and second rock refusal trench and the fifth assist with trapping suspended sedi- stream barb. The brush layering was ments. This encourages additional selected to assist with stabilizing the deposition of soil during high flow streambank, provide shade to the river, events. The top portion of the and provide food for the fishery. This streambank was seeded and covered treatment was installed on the inside with an erosion control blanket. slope of the peaked stone dike. Topsoil Willow clumps with a juniper tree was placed on the inside slope of the revetment and seeding, and erosion peaked stone dike to provide good soil control fabric, were installed along 98 linear feet of streambank between the second stream barb and the third Figure 33 Willow clumps with stream barb (Figure 33). Willow Juniper Tree Revetment at the toe. clumps are live willows that have been transplanted with the root ball intact. Within this area, a total of 40 willow clumps were transplanted into two rows behind the juniper tree revetment. This treatment was selected to establish willow plant growth to reduce erosion, encourage deposition of suspended sediment, and improve wildlife habitat associated with the immediate streambank. A juniper tree revetment Figure 34 The willow brush trench between barb three and refusal. was installed at the toe of the No erosion control blanket is used. streambank, in front of the willow clumps, to protect the willow clumps and to assist with trapping suspended sediments and encourage additional deposition of soil during high flow events. The top portion of the streambank was seeded and covered with an erosion control blanket. A brush trench was installed along 49 linear feet of the streambank, with rock toe protection, between the third stream barb and the second rock refusal trench (Figure 34). The brush trench was installed as another bioengineering treatment to stabilize the streambank. This treatment requires adequate toe protection be installed to ensure that the brush trench does not erode during high flow events. This treatment, once established, provides streambank stability, filters runoff (from the thick willow root matrix), and provides cover for wildlife.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 51 contact with the willow brush layer. and materials costs. In-kind expenses The willow brush layer was placed on contributed to this project were this inside slope of the dike with the $16,184 ($27/lineal foot). In-kind tops of the willows projecting out over expenses were plant materials, labor, the water and covering the top of the and equipment. In-kind expenses peaked stone dike. Upon completion, a made up 26.5% of the total costs of willow brush layer fill material was this project. The neighboring land- placed over the stems of the willow owners and local river management brush layering and a 3:1 slope was group provided the in-kind services. created to tie back into the top of the Funding and existing slope. This fill material was then seeded and covered with erosion Implementation Partners control fabric. The following is a list of the local, Regulatory Considerations state, and federal agencies who spon- sored and collaborated together to The consortium of agencies partici- make this a successful project: pating in this project included the U.S. Carson Truckee Water Conservancy Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory District; Office out of Reno, Nevada (part of the Carson Water Subconservancy District; Sacramento District Office of the U.S. Dayton Valley Conservation District; Army Corps of Engineers). They were Lyon County; working under a Section 404 Permit of Middle Carson River Coordinated the Clean Water Act that the Corps was Resource Management Plan; overseeing. Natural Resources Conservation Service; Project Costs Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; The total project costs for this Nevada Division of Forestry; bioengineering streambank stabilization Nevada Division of Water Resources; and restoration project was $61,000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – ($101/lineal foot). Cash expenses for Waterways Experiment Station; this project were $44,762 ($75/lineal U.S. Forest Service; and foot). Cash expenses were construction Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development Council. Figure 35 A view of the project site looking upstream about 10 months after construction. Post Project Monitoring Vegetative monitoring along 9 fixed transects was used to help evaluate the success of the bioengineering treat- ments installed. From the data collected, there was an average of 74% cover on all treatments, with the highest first year vegetative cover established on the erosion control blankets, vertical willow bundles above the juniper tree revetment, and the willow brush trench treatment. The highest number of re-sprouts of willows occurred on the vertical willow bundles above the juniper tree revetment, followed by the willow brush trench, and the willow brush layering above the peaked stone dike located between the second rock refusal trench and the fourth stream barb. Figure 35 shows all 5 barbs and bioengineering treatments looking upstream.
52 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Further inspection of the treatments of the river and in the successful revealed large amounts of sediment collaboration of the multiple stakehold- definitely impacted the success of the ers that actively supported the effort. bioengineering treatments by burying The series of barbs and the peaked the lower half of many of the treat- stone dike successfully moved the ments (such as the willow clumps). thalwag away from the cutbank and This sediment, however, was the reason induced sediment deposition where it there was such a high number of was needed. The bioengineering cottonwood seedlings on many of treatments in between the barbs are the treatments. gradually covering areas with vegetation The willow clump bioengineering that have the potential to improve treatment presently has 14 out of 40 fishery and wildlife habitat in the (35%) of the willow clumps regenerat- stream. The treatments will serve as ing, while the other 26 (64%) willow good examples of stream stabilization clumps are buried by the large amounts techniques for future projects. of deposited sediment within the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers treatment area. recognizes the relevance of bioengineer- Six vegetative line intercept cross- ing practices for a number of important section composition transects have been reasons. Bioengineering is a “greener established and will be part of the long approach” to erosion control that is term monitoring program for this being explored by many agencies, bioengineering project. No data including environmental and non- comparison is available at this time. government organizations, for Topographical surveys of the site enhancing new projects. It is also done before construction and 9 months useful for preserving cultural resources following construction have revealed without hard armor that may be less that 430 cubic yards of sediment were aesthetically pleasing or present barriers deposited between the first stream barb to access. Also, bioengineering meth- and the fifth stream barb along the ods are often more cost-effective than bendway. traditional approaches. A total of 6 fixed cross-sections have been established to monitor the change Advise for Overcoming Obstacles in channel morphology. The 6 cross- When Using Soft Engineering sections are located in conjunction with Practices each of the bioengineering treatments When addressing social obstacles for installed. The present cross-sectional the use of bioengineering, it is useful to information illustrates the successful look at what has been successfully done movement of the low flow channel elsewhere, such as in Germany, Austria, (thalwag) away from the bendway. and in various parts of the United This suggests that the stream barbs have States. It is important to emphasize deflected the higher stream flow that bioengineering, when properly velocities away from the bendway designed and employed, can provide causing the low flow channel (thalwag) good habitat features, improve water to migrate to the ends of the stream quality, and help to control erosion. barbs as designed. This in turn can also The Carson River Case Study is a good be linked to the amount of deposition example of employing both “hard” and that has occurred between the stream “soft” methodologies to safely achieve barbs as a result of the calm water areas erosion protection goals, while also developed between the stream barbs, enhancing the environmental quality of which have allowed the river to deposit the same area. sediment within these areas by design. Additional information about the Benefits of Project successes and failures of bioengineering The benefits accrued by this project in this country will be available through are manifest both in the achievement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers web changes in the physical characteristics site in the future.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 53 References Allen, H.H. and J.R. Leech. 1997. Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control. Technical Report EL-97-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Hoag, J.C. and G. Bentrup. 1998. The Practical Streambank Bioengineering Guide - User’s Guide for Natural Streambank Stabilization Techniques in the Arid and Semi-arid Great Basin and Intermountain West. Interagency Riparian/Wetland Plant Development Project, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho.
Piper, K.L., J.C. Hoag, H. Allen, G. Durham, and C. Fischenich. 2000. Bioengineer- ing as a Tool for Restoring Ecological Integrity to the Carson River. Conference 31, International Erosion Control Association, Palm Springs, California.
Note: Technical input was also provided by:
Kevin Piper – Dayton Valley Conservation District, Lyon Co., Nevada; Chris Hoag – NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho; Gail Durham – Nevada Division of Forestry; and Rebecca Seal Soileau – U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experimental Station. Web Sites
Contact Persons: Craig J. Fischenich U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 [email protected]
Hollis H. Allen U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 [email protected]
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
54 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Ford Field Park Chapter 11 Streambank Stabilization Project, Rouge River, Michigan John Lambert, City of Dearborn- Parks Division
Introduction Project Description The primary goal for the Ford Field The streambank stabilization project Park Streambank Stabilization Project was implemented at Ford Field Park in was to stabilize the eroding streambanks Dearborn, Wayne County, Michigan. along the Lower Rouge River as it Ford Field park can best be described as passes through Ford Field Park. Over an urban park. The park area was the past several years, streambank donated to the City of Dearborn by erosion has accelerated causing the loss Henry Ford with the stipulation that the of trees and park area along the river. property would remain a public park. Further, streambank erosion threatens The park is located three blocks utilities and park amenities that are in north of the West Dearborn business close proximity to the river. district, with residential neighborhoods A secondary goal for the project was to the north and to the west of the to emphasize passive recreational park park. The park is connected to the uses. This is accomplished by better University of Michigan–Dearborn integrating the park areas into the Natural Areas and the Henry Ford stream corridor. Park visitors are able Estate by a wooded floodplain. The to better access and personally experi- park is located approximately three- ence the river and stream corridor quarters of a mile upstream of the environment. The river and stream convergence of the lower and middle corridor benefits through improved branches of the Rouge River. water quality, wildlife, and fish habitat. To date, the project has involved A third goal of this project was to stabilizing approximately 900 feet of provide a working laboratory for stream streambank using soft engineering corridor restoration. The City of methods (Figure 36). Various tech- Dearborn, in partnership with the U.S. niques of soil bioengineering were Department of Agriculture – Natural applied to the various conditions found Resources Conservation Service along the streambank. The streambank (USDA–NRCS) and the Wayne County was analyzed for many factors, includ- Conservation District, hosted three soil ing slope, stability, vegetation, stream bioengineering workshops. At these meander, water level, ordinary and high workshops, participants from the water flows, man-made conditions, and community, public sector, and private the natural conditions found along the sector learned soft engineering principles river. Experts, including engineers, and experienced the construction of soil geologists, hydrologists, naturalists, bioengineering techniques. In partner- biologists, foresters, and plant special- ship with the Ford Motor Company, ists, played an important role for the University of Michigan – Dearborn appropriate application of soil bioengi- (UM–D), Dearborn Public Schools, neering techniques to the streambank. Friends of the Rouge, and Rouge The actual project construction Remedial Action Plan Advisory Com- involved City of Dearborn employees, mittee, the city also hosted a native plant workshop participants, and interested and wildflower planting exercise. A members of the community. After second planting exercise is tentatively installation of soil erosion and sedimen- scheduled for 2000. tation control measures, a small backhoe and operator cut back the
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 55 Figure 36 The soil bioengineering workshop construction area on nearly vertical streambanks and exca- the north (left) side of the Rouge River. Existing unstable vated for the installation of the rock toe. streambank conditions are illustrated on the south (right) side. A geotextile fabric was placed in the excavation and then stone was placed from below the bottom of the streambed to the bank-full level. The bank-full level is the elevation of the streambank where vegetation will not grow due to the rise and fall of water levels, and it is critical in the design of any soil bioengineering system. After the rock toe was installed, vegetative plantings were used to stabi- lize the streambank in the area above the rock toe. Soil bioengineering techniques such as live fascine, brushmattress, and vegetative geogrid were constructed using dormant plant material (Figure 37 and 38). The dormant plant material Figure 37 The workshop construction area where the three various was cut off-site and included willow and techniques were used (from left to right: the brushmattress, dogwood cuttings. Containerized vegetative geogrid, and live fascine). dogwood and native grasses completed the plantings used for this project. Native species and wildflower plantings completed the vegetative buffer sections adjacent to the river. The vegetative planting installations require special care and attention for successful plant growth. The planting activities are extremely labor intensive and were accomplished through the soil bioengineering workshops and the wildflower planting exercises. Regulatory Considerations The Ford Field Park Streambank Stabilization Project falls under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Figure 38 The workshop construction area where the three various An application was submitted and a techniques were used after one season of growth. permit issued for each phase of the project. The applicable regulation for the project was under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451, PA 1994 (Part 301-Inland Lakes and Streams; Part 31-Floodplain/ Water Resources Protection). As part of the permit process, the MDEQ maintains a database of endan- gered plant species. The database indicated the possible presence of the cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum) in the project area. A USDA–NRCS plant specialist checked the project area for the cup plant species. No cup plants were found.
56 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Soil erosion and sedimentation ing workshops, numerous groups and control permitting fell under the individuals have come together, shared jurisdiction of the City of Dearborn. information, and learned new ideas. The City of Dearborn is a local en- The effect is multiplied as workshop forcement agency (LEA) responsible for participants spread the information and issuing permits and for enforcing the ideas with others. provisions of the soil erosion and The Ford Field Park Streambank sedimentation control act. The specific Stabilization Project is funded through act is the Natural Resources and a combination of the Rouge River Environmental Protection Act 451, PA National Wet Weather Demonstration 1994 (Part 91-Soil Erosion and Sedi- Grant and local matching funds. To mentation Control). date, approximately $108,000 out of a Cost total project budget of $320,000 has been spent to stabilize approximately A cost estimate for the Ford Field 900 lineal feet of streambank using soft Park Streambank Stabilization Project is engineering methods. Grant funding included (Table 7). The cost estimate is and local matching funds each provide broken down into specific activities. 50% of project costs. Local matching Labor, equipment, and material costs funds come out of the City of are included for each activity. Dearborn general operation and capital The cost for stabilizing approxi- improvement budgets. mately 300 lineal feet of streambank The workshops started in November was $35,921. The unit cost for soft 1998, when the City of Dearborn engineering streambank stabilization hosted a two-day soil bioengineering methods was $120 per foot of workshop for city employees, other streambank. The cost estimate reflects governmental agencies, private sector the most recent project activity. Equip- consultants, and other individuals ment costs were based on the 1999 interested in streambank stabilization Michigan Department of Transporta- utilizing soft engineering principles. tion equipment rental rates. Nearly forty people attended the two- The cost estimate does not include a day workshop. The highlight of the dollar value placed on the volunteer workshop was an all day exercise at labor used for the installation of the Ford Field Park. Over 120 feet of vegetative plant material. For example, streambank was stabilized using if someone were to place a value of $30/ brushmattress, vegetative geogrid, and hour (wages and fringe benefits) for each live fascine techniques of streambank of the 40 volunteers, an additional stabilization. $12,000 ($30/hour * 40 volunteers * 10 Since the November 1998 workshop, hours/volunteer) would be added to the the City of Dearborn has hosted two cost estimate. This would increase the week-long USDA–NRCS soil bioengi- total project cost to $47,921 and the neering training courses. USDA–NRCS unit cost to $160 per foot of personnel from all over the United streambank. The use of volunteers can States, city employees, and interested provide substantial cost savings. individuals have participated in the Funding and Project Partners training courses. The highlight of the week-long courses is still the The City of Dearborn has developed on-site workday. numerous partnerships during the The training courses have included course of the Ford Field Streambank contributions from local and interna- Stabilization Project. Funding partner- tional speakers. Speakers from the ships have developed through the University of Michigan – Dearborn acquisition and use of grants and an (UM–D) include Orin G. Gelderloos, interagency exchange of materials. Ph.D., professor of biology and envi- More important are the working ronmental studies, Kent S. Murray, partnerships created as a result of this Ph.D., professor of geology, and project. Through the soil bioengineer- Dorothy F. McLeer, a naturalist at the
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 57 Table 7 Ford Field Park Streambank Stabilization Project estimated costs.
Excavation and Rock Toe Installation Labor Wages Fringe Benefits Cost Direct Labor Costs $5,358 $4,063 $9,421 Supervisory Labor Costs $2,144 $1,626 $3,770 Other Labor Costs $779 $452 $1,232 Equipment Hours Rate Cost Pickup-Dump 96 $9.63 $924 Dump Truck 96 $24.05 $2,309 Backhoe 96 $33.35 $3,202 Bobcat and Trailer 96 $37.70 $3,619 Supervisory Equipment Costs 96 $6.83 $656 Other Equipment Costs 54 $6.03 $326 Material Quantity Unit Cost Cost Geotextile 600 $1.00 $600 Rock Toe Material $2,900 Miscellaneous $52 Total Rock Toe Installation Costs $29,010 Plant Material Harvest Labor Wages Benefits Cost Direct Labor Costs $546 $414 $961 Supervisory Labor Costs $175 $133 $308 Other Labor Costs $164 $95 $259 Equipment Hours Rate Cost Pickup 8 $5.74 $46 Bobcat and Trailer 8 $37.70 $302 Chain Saw 8 $3.48 $28 Supervisory Equipment Costs 8 $6.83 $55 Other Equipment Costs 8 $6.03 $48 Total Plant Material Installation Costs $2,006
Soil-bioengineering Installation Labor Wages Benefits Cost Director Labor Costs $1,098 $832 $1,930 Supervisory Labor Costs $197 $149 $346 Other Labor Costs $164 $95 $259 Equipment Hours Rate Cost Pickup-Dump 10 $9.63 $96 Pickup 10 $5.74 $57 Stake-Truck 10 $5.74 $57 Van 10 $5.74 $57 Dump Truck 10 $24.05 $241 Backhoe 10 $33.35 $334 Bobcat and Trailer 20 $37.70 $754 Chain Saw 20 $3.48 $70 Supervisory Equipment Costs 8 $6.83 $55 Other Equipment Costs 8 $6.03 $48 Miscellaneous $600 Total Soil-engineering Installation $4,905 Project Costs $35,921 Unit Cost/($/lineal foot) $120
58 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines UM–D Natural Areas. Accomplished cfs. An on-site inspection after the landscape architect and soil bioengi- water receded revealed only minor neering expert Beat Scheuter, from topsoil loss in the brushmattress area. Switzerland, gave an international Previous to the installation of the soft perspective on soft engineering prin- engineering techniques, high water ciples. events with this intensity and duration The Five Star Partnership Grant would have washed out the adjacent sponsored by the Environmental gravel parking area. Protection Agency provided monies for The streambank stabilization project the native plant and wildflower plant- is only one growing-season old. The ing exercises. The six grant partners results have been excellent and are include Ford Motor Company, the City illustrative of projects in their second or of Dearborn, Dearborn Public Schools, third year of growth. Only small, the University of Michigan – Dearborn, scattered areas required a second Friends of the Rouge, and the Rouge planting. Remedial Action Plan Advisory Com- Project Benefits mittee. Through the Ford Field Park The use of soft engineering methods Streambank Stabilization Project, the is not a “cure-all” for streambank City of Dearborn and the USDA– stabilization problems, but an impor- NRCS have developed a strong tant and effective tool for appropriate relationship and partnership for locations. Soft engineering methods promoting soft engineering in can provide benefits not possible with streambank stabilization projects. The the use of hard engineering measures. city would like to thank Dave The benefits of soft engineering over Burgdorf, Frank Cousin, Sean Duffey, hard engineering methods include: and Steve Olds of the USDA–NRCS • use of soft engineering methods is for their contribution to this project. aesthetically pleasing (soft engineer- Without their help, this project would ing provides greater opportunity for not have been possible. incorporating trees, bushes, flowers, and grasses along the stream corri- Post Project Evaluation dor; vegetative plantings offer an for Effectiveness alternative to the sterile environment The Ford Field Streambank Stabili- associated with hard engineering zation Project has been monitored and techniques); evaluated since November 1998. • use of soft engineering methods Photographs, videos, and personal site provide wildlife habitat (vegetative visits were used to document the plantings provide shelter, protective condition and growth rate of the cover, and homes for birds, turtles, vegetative plantings. It is important to and small animals; plantings are also closely monitor the soil bioengineering important for providing corridors for installations on a regular basis and after animals to travel; year-round, the all high water storm events. Remedial area is alive with animal wildlife); and/or supplementary plantings are • use of soft engineering methods made based on the findings and provide fish habitat (soft engineering recommendations from the on-site can provide shelter and breaks in the inspections. stream current; this is important for A testimonial to the effectiveness of fish to live and reproduce; overhang- soil bioengineering is told in the ing vegetation also provides shelter); following story: Approximately two • use of soft engineering improves months after the November 1998 soil- water quality (vegetative plantings bioengineering workshop installation, and buffer areas reduce streambank the Lower Rouge River experienced a erosion and filter overland runoff week long high water event with a peak into the river; vegetative growth mean-daily-discharge rate of nearly 900 shades the river and reduces water
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 59 temperature); the river, picnic tables and debris • use of soft engineering reduces floating down the river, and high levels maintenance costs (after the initial of turbidity. Problem identification installation, areas are allowed to was easy; determining how to solve the revert to their natural state, reducing problem was more difficult. maintenance costs; regular mainte- Change is always hard and new ideas nance is virtually eliminated); and such as soil bioengineering (soft • park visitors can experience the engineering) always carry a certain stream corridor environment; (the degree of risk in execution, and more environment created by the use of importantly, being accepted by the soft engineering methods provides community. The Ford Field Park many opportunities for park visitors Streambank Stabilization Project was to come down to the river and enjoy the result of many individuals and the stream corridor; workshops and groups coming together with an interest planting exercises provide a sense of in trying soil bioengineering (soft stewardship, community pride, and engineering) methods to stabilize the ownership of the Ford Field Park area). streambank of the river. Previous streambank stabilization Ecological awareness and informa- efforts at Ford Field Park included tional programs are an important tool lining the streambank with interlocking in educating the community of the concrete blocks. The blocks have advantages of using soft engineering stopped the streambank erosion, methods. The workshops and wild- however they are showing signs of flower planting exercises provide an deterioration. Sections of block are opportunity for the community to missing, especially near the ends of the participate in the projects, become installation. Maintenance requires the more aware of the stream corridor, and use of string trimmers to trim vegeta- develop a sense of ownership and tive growth between the blocks. There stewardship towards the river. This will are few signs of fish and wildlife along go a long way in gaining support for this section of the river. Supplementing this type of project in the future. the interlocking blocks with vegetative Michigan Department of Environ- plantings will produce many of the mental Quality (MDEQ) personnel benefits previously mentioned. have visited the Ford Field Park Streambank Stabilization Project to see Advice for Overcoming Obstacles the application of soil bioengineering When Using Soft Engineering techniques. Feedback from the MDEQ Practices personnel has been very positive. Exchanging information and opening The problems of the Lower Rouge the lines of communication will benefit River are highly visible at Ford Field both the permit applicant and the Park. Visitors to the park can see the permitting agency. eroding streambank, trees falling into
60 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines References Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Streambank Revegetation and Protection: A Guide for Alaska.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Government Printing Office Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1994. The Booklet: Guidelines for Streambank Restoration. < http://www.ganet.org/gswcc>
State of Michigan – Department of Environmental Quality (M-DEQ). 1994. Permit Requirements and the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Protection Act 451.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 1992. Engineering Field Handbook: Chapter 18 – Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 1995. Engineering Field Handbook: Chapter 16 – Streambank and Shoreline Protection.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Vegetative Measures for Streambank Stabilization: Case Studies from Illinois and Missouri.
U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources of the United States.
U.S. Government – Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wild Ones Handbook – A Voice For The Natural Landscaping Movement.
Contact Persons: Bruce Yinger, Superintendent of Parks City of Dearborn – Parks Division 2951 Greenfield Road Dearborn, Michigan 48120
Gary Morgan, Assistant Superintendent of Parks City of Dearborn – Parks Division 2951 Greenfield Road Dearborn, Michigan 48120
Friends of the Rouge 22586 Ann Arbor Trail Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 61 Chapter 12 Soil Bioengineering for Streambank Protection and Fish Habitat Enhancement, Collingwood, Ontario Rick Grillmayer, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Introduction The catchment area upstream of the 2 The goal of this project was to repair project site is approximately 10 km . and stabilize an eroding streambank Bank stabilization and streambed with the use of vegetation, to create armoring took place during the fall of in-stream cover by constructing a 1993. The confined nature of the vegetated structure, and to create a channel prevented excavating a flood demonstration site that displays the plain or sloping the banks to a stable effective use of soil bioengineering angle. The east side of the channel was technology. privately owned and the owner was not open to any loss of property that would Project Description occur if regrading was used. It was The Black Ash Creek Project was decided to construct a bioengineered initiated in 1992 as a component of the cribwall. This structure would stabilize Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action a vertical bank and require little room. Plan. The overall objectives of this The streambed was armored to prevent watershed project were to reduce down cutting. No attempt was made at sediment loading from the creek into this time to stabilize the road shoulder the harbor and enhance fish and directly opposite the project site, wildlife habitat. Black Ash Creek was however, the Town of Collingwood did identified as contributing approxi- attempt to stabilize the road shoulder by mately 90% of the suspended sediment constructing a concrete wall during the load for Collingwood Harbour early summer of 1995. By the late fall of (Collingwood Harbour RAP Stage 2 1999, the concrete wall was beginning Document 1992). Sources of this to show signs of failure. The soil sediment include erosion induced by bioengineered cribwall was holding well. cattle grazing on steep escarpment areas A soil bioengineered cribwall is a and eroding streambanks. hollow, interlocking arrangement of The location of this project is the timbers constructed as a wall. This Thompson Property on the 10th structure is filled with suitable soil and a concession, Town of Collingwood. The layer of live branch cuttings. Once the reduction of channel sinuosity and cuttings have taken root and grown, elimination of a functioning floodplain they will eventually take over the had created an unstable reach of stream structural functions of the timbers. The with significant erosion. The channel end result is a stable, vegetated slope. had been placed in a roadside ditch and The cribwall was built into the bank the shoulder of the road was eroding. so the face of the cribwall would be at A previous attempt to stabilize this the same location as the original face of channel with field stone had failed the slope. This was done so the capacity because the improperly sized and of the channel would not be reduced. A placed stone was being eroded by high hi-hoe was used to excavate the cribwall stream velocities. The stream gradient site. The logs for the cribwall were cut was steep (3.1%) and once the bed from a Nottawasaga Valley Conservation armor was missing the streambed Authority jack pine plantation. The degraded, aggravating the eroding wall itself was built by hand and mea- bank. The bank slope on both sides sured 30 m long, 1 m high, and 2.2 m was nearly vertical. The stream is wide at the bottom. The wall was intermittent, with flows occurring only canted back so that the top brush layers during snowmelt and storm events. would not shade the bottom ones.
62 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Shrub willow cuttings were har- vested from sites within the watershed Table 8 Soil bioengineering costs associated with soft engineering and transported to the cribwall site. of Black Ash Creek. Care was taken to time the harvest so that only fresh material would be used. Requirements Cost (in dollars) Species of willow used at this site were: Consultants 800 • Willow (Salix eriocephala); Logs for Cribwall 50 • Sandbar Willow (Salix exigua); and • Autumn Willow (Salix serrisima). Contractors 1,423 The cribwall was built by alternating Rock 300 layers of timbers, soil, and cuttings. Geojute 297 Once the cribwall was completed, Spikes 122 unused soil was removed from the site. Refreshments 56 Exposed soil was seeded with annual Fertilizer/seed 40 rye and oats. The soil was then covered Topsoil 250 with anti-wash geojute to prevent surface erosion. Live stakes (live Rental of Lawn Rollers 10 rootable cuttings tamped into the Total Materials 3,348 ground) were placed at random into the Requirements Time (hours) Cost (in dollars) geojute. The streambed was protected from down-cutting by placing 28 tons Measuring and Design 48 772 of rip-rap stone. Site Preperation 27 311 Due to the absence of any horizontal Cutting/transpoting Materials 48 553 sinuosity, stream energy had to be Placement of Materials 148 1,244 dissipated by vertical sinuosity. This Repairs to Lawns 72 138 was achieved by placing the stone in a Total Wages 343 3018 series of steps, attempting to establish a step-pool formation common to high Note: Costs listed were specific to this site only. gradient streams. Regulatory Considerations Cost Whenever a project may impact the Project costs are presented in natural ecosystem, approvals and Table 8. Costs do not include tools, permits are needed. The project was truck rental, fuel, office costs, indirect approved by the local Ministry of support for the crew, or permit fees. Natural Resources (Midhurst District) It would be impossible to separate and a work permit was issued under the these costs as they were used/required Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. A on more than one site. permit from the Nottawasaga Valley Funding and Conservation Authority was required under the Fill, Construction, and Implementation Partners Alterations to Waterways Regulation. Environment Canada Great Lakes The stream at this site is intermittent. 2000 Cleanup Fund; The fish community is predominantly Environment Canada Environmental cyprinids and catostomids, and is non- Partners Fund; existent through summer, fall, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; winter. Fish are present, likely as Ontario Ministry of Environment; migrants, during the spring. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation cribwall was built during the fall, while Authority; the channel was dry. Sedimentation Collingwood Collegiate Institute; during construction was minimal. The Collingwood Rotary Club; and addition of bed material would not have Landowners in the Black Ash affected any fish or macroinvertebrates. Creek Watershed. Materials used were native and harvested from within the same sub-watershed as the cribwall.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 63 Figure 39 Conditions of Black Ash Creek project site on Post Project June 28, 2000. Soil bioengineered cribwall is on the left side Evaluation of Effectiveness of the photograph, the concrete block wall is on the right. 1995: Two years after completion, the streambank at this site was completely vegetated (Figure 39). Any erosion was insignificant. The soil bioengineered cribwall successfully weathered the spring flows, which often saw the structure completely submerged. Growth from the cuttings has been vigorous, with Salix eriocephala becoming the dominant willow. 2000: Seven years after completion, the streambank at this site is still doing very well. The concrete block wall built by the Town of Collingwood is beginning to show signs of failure (Figure 40). This failure is apparent in the form of undercutting, the slumping of several Figure 40 Deterioration of the concrete block wall, showing sections of wall, and widespread undermining and slumping of the structure on June 28, 2000. cracking and deterioration of the concrete. The soil bioengineered cribwall is more than adequately maintaining stability (Figure 41). This project was an overwhelming success. Benefits of the Project Soil bioengineering was chosen as the preferred method of streambank stabilization for several reasons: • It is an applied science that combines structural, biological, and ecological concepts to construct living struc- tures for erosion, sediment, and flood control. Conventional meth- ods of erosion and flood control provide little habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms. Conventional Figure 41 Close-up of soil bioengineering structures often have the effect of an cribwall on June 28, 2000. ecological barrier, separating aquatic and terrestrial; conversely, the vegetation used in bioengineered structures provides a wide range of habitats for many organisms. • Soil bioengineered structures are labor intensive, not capital or energy intensive (limited budget dollars were put into wages, not materials). • This is a living wall (there is usually less long-term maintenance than conventional structures since soil bioengineered structures tend to be self-repairing).
64 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines • The project serves as an excellent site can be readily seen by the public demonstration of the strength and and the presence of a conventional applicability of soil bioengineering as concrete block wall directly opposite a method of managing erosion in of the soil bioengineered wall high-energy stream channels. The provides a direct comparison of the two methods.
References Collingwood Harbour RAP Team. 1992. Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Report: a Strategy for Restoring the Collingwood Harbour Ecosystem and Delisting Collingwood Harbour as an Area of Concern (In consultation with the Public Advisory Committee).
Dobbs, F., and Grillmayer, R. 1994. Black Ash Creek Rehabilitation Project Implementation Report. Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action Plan. ISBN 0-7778-2696-8. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sotir, R., and D.H. Gray. 1989. Fill Slope Repair Using Soil Bioengineering Systems. IN: Public Works, December 1989.
Contact Person: Rick Grillmayer Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority 266 Mill Street Hwy 90, R.R.#1 Angus, Ontario L0M 1B0 [email protected], [email protected]
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 65 Chapter 13 Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives, Lake Superior Ken Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Introduction coordination for the habitat projects on The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Lake Superior. This is a demonstration process can be viewed as a successful of how federal and provincial agencies, model for addressing a variety of in times of severe financial constraints, aquatic and terrestrial habitat issues can effectively share resources and within the Great Lakes. This process, expertise to reduce program costs, which has been a true partnership minimize overlapping mandates on between government agencies and local environmental issues affecting Lake communities, has provided the frame- Superior, and develop real partnerships work to identify specific habitat with industry and the public. problems within Areas of Concern Funding Source (AOC) and achieve many habitat For many of the Lake Superior rehabilitation targets. Combining programs, the Great Lakes 2000 expertise and resources through the Cleanup Fund provided base funding. RAP process has provided an opportu- The objective of this fund was to nity to demonstrate current habitat develop and implement cleanup rehabilitation technologies and to technologies and techniques in the complete large-scale habitat projects, Great Lakes. The Cleanup Fund which could not be addressed by single provided monies for up to one third of agencies or organizations. the proposed cost of the project, with Drawing on the RAP experience in the remaining cost being covered by Lake Superior, there are four key other partners who contributed with aspects which have contributed to both funding and in-kind support. success: clear objectives, interagency Having one established funding source approach, funding source, and commu- generally provides a catalyst for secur- nity involvement. ing other funding partners. Clear Objectives Community Involvement There must be clear objectives in place, which are compatible at all levels When members of the community of regulation and involvement. For are involved with developing and example, The Great Lakes Water implementing a plan, they will share Quality Agreement established water accountability for the project. On Lake quality objectives for the Great Lakes. Superior, strong support has been The RAP process specifically addressed fostered through local Public Advisory impairments to an established list of Committees (PAC). These committees 14 beneficial uses. Within the bounds were true advisory groups who assisted of the above two objective structures, in project planning and implementa- the Public Advisory Committees (PAC) tion. All proposed projects were first set Water Use Goals that pertain to approved by the local PAC before being the specific environmental issue in considered by the Cleanup Fund for their area. funding support. This process resulted in strong community partnerships Interagency Approach during implementation, a community The Lake Superior Programs Office, structure that was accountable for which brought together four govern- projects, and ownership for the suc- ment agencies under one roof, provided cesses which were achieved.
66 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Demonstration Projects structures, including log crib shelters, There are many completed habitat shallow sandy areas for aquatic plants, projects in Lake Superior which rock and bolder edging, gravel shoals, demonstrate soft engineering technol- and partially submerged trees. ogy in shoreline developments. The Functionally, structurally, and following are three examples, located in ecologically the Red Rock Breakwall is the lower reaches of the Kaministiquia a demonstration of Great Lakes shore- River in Thunder Bay and Nipigon line development utilizing soft River in Nipigon Bay. engineering techniques. The final structure is an extension of the Marina Red Rock Harbourfront and Marina Park, providing productive habitat for Breakwater Enhancement – fish and other aquatic organisms and is Nipigon Bay a functional breakwater for the marina. The cost of constructing the Red In order to improve access to Lake Rock full service marina, which will Superior and enhance tourism opportu- accommodate 253 boats, was $2.1 nities for the Township of Red Rock, million. For the additional cost of construction of a full service marina $230,000, the ecological productivity was proposed. The project included of the shoreline has been enhanced and construction of a 1.2 km long backwa- the breakwater is now an extension of ter and dredging 6 ha for the marina the Marina Park. base. The design of this project was Project Partners initiated at the same time as a separate Nipigon Bay Remedial Action Plan; program was being undertaken by the Township of Red Rock; RAP to restore the Nipigon Bay aquatic Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; ecosystem. Through the forging of a Ministry of Northern Development partnership between proponents of and Mines; both projects, concepts were developed Ministry of Natural Resources; with an emphasis on integrating habitat Domtar Packaging; and water quality enhancement initia- Ontario Ministry of the Environment; tives as components of the design of the Public Works Canada – Small Craft marina basin and breakwater. The Harbour Branch; product successfully achieves both Province of Ontario – Jobs Ontario functional and ecosystem objectives Capital Program; and while providing additional recreational, Todhunter Schollen and Associates. aesthetic, and interpretive attributes (Figure 42). McKellar River Wetland Expansion The standard armorstone breakwall Project – Thunder Bay was overlaid with a number of habitat The site of the McKellar River features to enhance habitat diversity Wetland Project is located at the and create a functional littoral zone confluence of the McKellar River and along the inner breakwall. Following Lake Superior, adjacent to the Mission reconstruction of the inner breakwall, Marsh. The goal of the project was to fine material and topsoil were added extend the influence of the remnant before the structure was planted with coastal wetland and to increase the trees and shrubs. Two islands, which diversity and productivity of the fishery included log and canopy shelter within the river and Thunder Bay. structures, spawning shoals, and littoral Coastal wetlands in Thunder Bay have zone extensions, were constructed on been degraded or lost as a result of the outside to protect a second opening urban, industrial, and commercial in the breakaway from wave action. waterfront development. This type of On the inside of the breakwall, habitat nearshore habitat, although critical for diversity was maximized by the addi- the survival of many cool water fish tion of a wide variety of habitat species, is limited in Lake Superior.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 67 Figure 42 The Red Rock Harbourfront and Marina Breakwater project improved access to Lake Superior, enhanced tourism opportunities, and improved fish and wildlife habitat.
Figure 43 An example of recreating coastal wetlands along the McKellar River that were degraded and lost as a result of waterfront development. The far side of the river depicts urbanized shoreline development and the near side of the river depicts restored wetlands.
68 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines This project presented an opportunity Project Partners to restore critical coastal wetland Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan; habitat in an urban waterfront setting. City of Thunder Bay; Two warm water embayments were Lakehead Conservation Authority; constructed on the City of Thunder Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; Bay land adjacent to the Mission Marsh Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Conservation Area (Figure 43). Al- Ontario Ministry of the Environment; though clearly focused on habitat Public Works Canada – Department of creation and enhancement, the location Fisheries and Oceans; and of the embayments in a conservation Todhunter, Schollen and Associates. area also presented the opportunity to integrate interpretive and recreational Kaministiquia River Heritage Park – components into the project. Thunder Bay The two embayments, approxi- For over a century, aquatic and mately 1.5 ha each, were constructed in terrestrial habitat has been modified or dry winter conditions and opened to destroyed in the Thunder Bay Area of the river in March 1994. A complex Concern. The surrounding watershed contour grading plan included a has been degraded by industrial, network of channels with a maximum residential, and recreational develop- depth of 6 m, a number of islands, and ment. Dredging, channelization, and a variety of habitat treatments in the the release of a number of pollutants nearshore zone. Treatments included have eliminated a significant portion of sand, gravel and rock shoals, boulder the quality habitat that once existed edges, submerged tree crowns, and river along the waterfront. Habitat degrada- stone banks. In addition, wetland tion has resulted in loss of species pockets were constructed to accommo- abundance, diversity, and recreational date stormwater runoff and enhance opportunities. Habitat degradation has aquatic vegetation production. also resulted in a decline of aesthetic Surrounding the embayments, over value for the harbor and its tributaries. 4,000 trees and shrubs were planted by Rehabilitation projects undertaken volunteers to stabilize the area dis- by the City of Thunder Bay, in the turbed during construction and to lower reaches of the Kaministiquia provide food and cover for wildlife. River, represent an integrative approach Additional habitat treatments included shallow micro-pools for amphibians, a Figure 44 The open pile construction of this scenic overlook mud flat for shore birds, a sand bluff provides instream cover for aquatic habitat and increased public for shore birds, and rock and log piles access without destroying or degrading the existing wetland areas for reptiles and mammals. along the shoreline. Colonization of the embayments by fish, aquatic plants, and benthic organisms will provide valuable infor- mation for future habitat restoration initiatives. In addition, monitoring activities will provide information on the contributions of the embayments to the surrounding aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Recreational and aesthetic benefits were evident immediately following construction. One year after completion, many conservation area users were surprised to learn that the embayments were constructed and not natural features. Project cost, including concept development, design, and construction, amounted to $650,000.
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 69 to waterfront development and habitat approach would not only provide the restoration. Shoreline degradation had same protective and access functions as left the area void of ecological, recre- the traditional design, the design was ational, and economic value. The altered to enhance aesthetic and Kaministiquia River Heritage Park was biological benefits. In the initial developed to restore the environmental waterfront construction phase (approxi- integrity and natural history of the mately 600 m), project costs were region. The park features a scenic actually reduced from $850,000 to overlook and riverfront promenade $450,000. The remainder of the running alongside an existing wetland project was completed with open pile area (Figure 44). The open pile construction and shoreline enhance- construction of the boardwalk maxi- ments. This project has convinced mizes development and substrate many people that habitat rehabilitation diversity of the aquatic habitat by can be ecologically desirable and providing instream cover. This design, economically viable. however, was not part of the original Project Partners park plan. Initially the approximately 600 m of waterfront was to be devel- Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan; oped with steel sheet piling and City of Thunder Bay; concrete construction. This would Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; have destroyed the natural shoreline Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; and left a hard, straight edge with no Ontario Ministry of the Environment; benefit to the aquatic ecosystem. Todhunter, Schollen and Associates; Convinced that a soft engineering Canadian Pacific Rail; and Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.
References North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans. 1998. Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives – A Technical Manual. (In partnership with Todhunter, Schollen & Associates and Schollen and Company Inc. and Environment Canada’s Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund). Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
Lake Superior Programs Office. 1997. Making a Great Lake Superior. ISBN 0-9681484-0-9.
70 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Battle Creek River, Chapter 14 Bringing Back the Banks Douglas Denison, Smith Group JJR, Inc.
Introduction Utilizing a shared vision of improv- Like many large metropolitan areas, ing the quality of public life in Battle Battle Creek historically utilized its Creek, Smith Group JJR assisted the river system as a workhorse supplying W.K. Kellogg Foundation in selecting a power and transporting raw materials site for their new world headquarters. and products. Economic priorities at The site, located along the eastern edge the time resulted in extensive industrial of downtown, was traversed by the development along the banks of the Battle Creek River. The goal of the river system. The river served to project was to revitalize an urban remove waste materials and stormwater commercial block and transform a from the land, severely impacting their seldom seen urban stream into a highly ecological and aesthetic integrity. used public riverfront park. The Frequently, communities turned their rehabilitation of the Battle Creek River backs to the rivers long ignoring their included ecological planning of bank potential value as public spaces or stabilization techniques to provide for a cultural and natural resource amenities. more natural edge, recapture lost The Battle Creek River was a floodplains, and enhance habitat and working river in its time. It had landscaping while protecting the banks become the “back door” to the commu- and buildings from erosion caused by nity suffering from neglect, hydrologic urbanized river flows (Figure 45). instability, and ecological abuse. Large Project Description building complexes infringed on its In an era when many corporations floodplain and squeezed its banks into flee the established infrastructure of the narrow channels. Parking lots were city to new suburban campuses, the W. built along the riverbanks, and at times K. Kellogg Foundation committed to enclosed it entirely underground. build their new world headquarters on Vegetation was removed from its banks, a 14 acre site in downtown Battle eliminating valuable habitat for aquatic Creek, Michigan. This allowed this organisms and wildlife. Serious erosion international foundation to reconnect resulting from extreme flashiness of with and celebrate its community and stormwater runoff promoted ad hoc cultural heritage while assisting in the stabilization techniques of poured revitalization of the downtown area. concrete, rock, and debris. The site is surrounded by both urban During the 1980s, public and and natural settings that provided the private community leaders began to opportunity for the public to access recognize the potential of the Battle a rich environment. The project Creek River as an amenity and not a included a new 280,000 square foot liability. Smith Group JJR developed headquarters campus, a new urban park regional concept plans that focused the and public square linked by an community’s vision back to the river, enhanced streetscape, and a public providing for opportunities of rehabili- greenway along the Battle Creek River tation, redevelopment, and increased (Figure 46). public visibility. Projects are now An integral element of this project starting to be implemented that provide was the rehabilitation of the Battle for pedestrian linkages along the river, Creek River into a public focal point removal of parking lot decking to allow of the Kellogg Foundation and the the river to be “daylighted” again, and community. It was critical to establish new urban re-development. the stabilization of the banks while
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 71 providing a soft appearance, improving access to the river’s edge, and enhancing Figure 45 The new headquarters of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation aquatic and wildlife habitat. The sits on the rehabilitated shoreline of Battle Creek. rehabilitation of the river’s banks incorporated a biotechnical stabiliza- tion technique that utilized sandstone boulders and vegetation to create a “soft” look that invited the public to the river, while providing the necessary protection of the river banks from extensive erosional forces exhibited by a urbanized stream. The design of the bank edges incorporated elements that provided increased wildlife and aquatic habitat. The project greatly expanded public access to and use of the Battle Creek River inside the commercial core. Regulatory Issues The rehabilitation of the riverbanks included extensive construction along and into the water edge. State regula- tory agencies had permitting authority Figure 46 A new urban park allows greater public access within the for the project while the U.S. Army commercial core. The materials used to create this park appear Corps of Engineers had commenting “soft” and invite the public to the river. authority. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality specific author- ity included: Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act: P.A. 451: Part 13: Floodplains and Flood- ways; Part 21: Rule revisions of Act 245 of Michigan Water Resources Act; Part 31: Water Resources Protection; Part 301: Inland Lakes and Streams Act; and Part 303: Wetlands Protection. Calhoun County had jurisdiction of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act 347. The City of Battle Creek completed preliminary and final site plan approvals and issued demoli- tion, utilities, and building permits. The re-grading of the channelized riverbanks to expand the 100 year floodplain was very favorably received by permitting authorities. Cost The W. K. Kellogg Foundation privately funded all aspects of this project. The total costs for the site work was approximately $7.5 million. The rehabilitation of the Battle Creek River was approximately $750,000. The majority of the costs was associated with demolition of the concrete walls
72 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines channeling the river. The establish- suffering from stream bank erosion, ment of the bank stabilization, lack of vegetation, and no public access. including the sandstone rock work, was Today the river is a focal point of both approximately $300,000. Foundation employees and the commu- Post Evaluation nity. The rehabilitation of the banks of the Battle Creek River included The W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s restoration of a lost floodplain and headquarters project represents a highly stabilization of its banks. The project successful example of how corporate has been very successful. There is no investment in a city can lead to benefits evidence of continued erosion along far beyond simply establishing a new this reach of the river. The combination home for employees. Their commit- of undulating rock edges, deep water ment to an improved quality of life, as pools, and overhanging vegetation adds interpreted and implemented by Smith geomorphologic diversity along the Group JJR, set the stage for long-term river’s edge that was lacking prior to economic growth and reunited the re-construction. The sandstone created community with its cultural heritage. suitable habitat for fish, macro-inverte- Elements such as the public greenway brates, and mammals that immediately along the river reinforce the took refuge along this shoreline. Foundation’s philanthropic goals and its Through the implementation of the support for the City of Battle Creek. linear river park and trail system, the The Battle Creek River flowing site now affords the public direct access through the commercial core of Battle to the river. The public has taken Creek was a river that had long been advantage of this newly created open forgotten and neglected. Buried space and public park land, utilizing beneath parking lots or hidden behind the spaces for summer festivals and the back doors of storefronts and passive recreation. warehouses, the river was seriously
Contact Person: Douglas Denison, Vice President Smith Group JJR, Incorporated [email protected]
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 73 Appendix A November 23, 1999 program for the technology transfer session for soft engineering of shorelines sponsored by the Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative
8:30 AM Registration and Coffee 9:30 AM Welcome and Introductions – Nettie Seabrooks, Chief of Staff for Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer; Peter Stroh, Chairman of the Executive Committee for the Greater Detroit American Heri- tage River Initiative; The Honorable John D. Tennant, Consul General for Canada in Detroit 9:45 AM Multi-Objective Soil Bioengineering Riverbank Restoration – Alton P. Simms, Robbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc. 10:15 AM McDonald Park Wetland Rehabilitation Project (St. Clair River) – Don Hector, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 10:45 AM Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives for Lake Superior – Ken Cullis, Lake Superior Management Unit 11:15 AM Comparison of Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for Shore Erosion Control – Costs and Effectiveness – Tim Patterson, Environment Canada 11:45 AM Overcoming regulatory challenges and making it happen (brief commentaries from David Gesl, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Stan Taylor, Essex Region Conservation Authority; Andrew Hartz, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; Moderator: John Gannon, U.S. Geological Survey) Noon Lunch 1:00 PM Battle Creek River, Bringing Back the Banks - Doug Denison, JJR, Inc. 1:30 PM Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Shoreline Treatments – A Toronto Region Conservation Authority Perspective - Gord McPherson, Toronto Region Conservation Authority 2:00 PM Coffee Break 2:15 PM Constructing Islands for Habitat Rehabilitation in the Upper Mississippi River – Barry L. Johnson, U. S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2:45 PM Panel Discussion “Where and How Can Soft Engineering be used?” Panelists: Ernest Burkeen, Detroit Parks and Recreation; John Blanchard, General Motors Corporation; Faye Langmaid, City of Windsor; Wendy White, National Steel Corporation; Hurley Coleman, Wayne County Parks; Joe Derkowski, Ford Motor Land Development Corporation; Moderators: Mark Breederland, Michigan Sea Grant and John Gannon, U.S. Geological Survey 3:45 PM Concluding Remarks – Curt Boller, Supervisor of Brownstown Township; John Hartig, River Navigator for the Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative 4:00 PM Adjourn 74 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines List of participants Appendix B in the November 23, 1999 technology transfer session for soft engineering of shorelines
Mary V. Anderson, President Dennis Buechler Christopher P. Cynar Friends of Belle Isle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ken Cullis Lisa Appel David Burgdorf Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wildlife Habitat Council U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – Lake Superior Management Unit c/o Detroit Edison Natural Resources Conservation Service Michael Darga Karen Armos Linda Burke Wayne County City of River Rouge NTH Consultants, Ltd. Dept. of Engineering Community Development Director Ernest Burkeen Nancy Darga Gary Bailey City of Detroit Wayne County Parks U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Recreation Dept. Steve Daut Kate Barrett Jackie Byars Midwest Environmental EcoTec Environmental Consultants, Inc. University of Michigan LTC Robert J. Davis Derrick Beach Heather Calappi U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fisheries and Oceans Canada U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Katherine Davison Mary Lynn Becker Suzan Campbell University of Michigan Public Affairs Officer Belle Isle Nature Center Canadian Consulate General City of Detroit Doug Denison Recreation Dept. Smith Group JJR Inc. Fay Beels Friends of Belle Isle Marta Chaffee Andrew Dervan University of Michigan Lake St. Clair Advisory Committee Ralph Benoit School of Public Policy DuPont Herberts Automotive Systems Essex County Field Naturalists Citizen Alliance Douglas Clark Lisa DiChiera EcoTec Environmental Consultants, Inc. Hines Suzanne Bishop Creekside Community Development Corp. Rick Comstock Perphyria Douglas Consumers Energy U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – John Blanchard Environmental Dept. Natural Resources Conservation Service General Motors Corporation Ric Coronado James M. DuBay Connie Boris Citizens’ Environment Alliance of SW The Detroit Edison Company STS Consultants Ontario and Southeast Michigan Michael Dueweke Jeff Braunscheidel George Costaris Eastern Michigan University Lake Erie Management Unit Canadian Consulate General Fisheries Division Sean Duffey Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Bill Craig U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – Rouge RAP Advisory Council Natural Resources Conservation Service Mark Breederland Michigan Sea Grant Chris Critoph Dave Dulong The Raisin Region U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Caleb Brokaw Conservation Authority Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 75 Rosemary Edwards Tom Hildebrand City of Detroit Commander Steve Garrity Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Recreation Department U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, Detroit Steve Holden Lauri Elbing Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Office of Congressman John Dingell Sean Gearhart Surface Water Quality Division City of Trenton Dan Eliett Engineering Dept. Bob Hunt, Deputy Director Lake Erie Cleanup and Restoration Wayne County Mike Geiger Planning Division Robert Elkin U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Robert F. Hunter Saad Ghalib Camp Dresser & McKee Rosanne Ellison NTH Consultants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Charles Jackson, Treasurer Jim Graham Friends of Belle Isle Cliff Evanitski Friends of the Rouge Environment Canada Maxine Jackson, Secretary Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund Donald Guy Friends of Belle Isle Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources Joe Farwell Division of Geological Survey Ryan Jakuc Grand River Conservation Authority Lake Erie Geology Group U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tom Fegan John H. Hartig Barry L. Johnson Wayne County River Navigator Greater Detroit U.S. Geological Survey American Heritage River Initiative Upper Midwest Environmental Robin Fields Sciences Center Sen. Legislative Analyst Jim Hartson Detroit City Council BMJ Engineers & Surveyors Philip P. Johnson, P.E. NTH Consultants, Ltd. Hon. Sheila M. Cockrel Andrew Hartz Michigan Dept. of Environmental Aram Kalousdian, Editor Carla D. Fisher Quality Michigan Contractor & Builder U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dick Hautau Tim Karl Steven Flores City of Detroit Wade-Trim University of Michigan Recreation Department Diana Karwan David Fongers Don Hector University of Michigan Environmental Engineer Ministry of Natural Resources Landscape Architecture Nonpoint Source Program Land and Water Management Andy Henriksen Bob Kavetsky Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Washtenaw County Conservation District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office Danielle Foye Edwina Henry Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources City of Detroit John K. Kerr Division of Geological Survey Economic Development Specialist Alan Herceg Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority Jim Francis U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – Fisheries Biologist Natural Resources Conservation Service Andrea Kevrick Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources InSite Design Studio Mary Lou Herec Jim Galloway Joshua Keys U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brian Hickey St. Lawrence River Institute of David Killen John E. Gannon Environmental Sciences BTS Consulting Engineers U.S. Geological Survey/Great Lakes Science Center
76 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Jonathan I. Kleinman Marlies Manning Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Environmental Consulting Hamilton Anderson Associates Land and Water Management Division and Technology, Inc. Bruce A. Manny Nicholas Raphael Fritz Klingler U.S. Geological Survey/Great Lakes Dept. of Geography NTH Consultants, Ltd. Science Center Eastern Michigan University
Tom Kolhoff Leonard P. Marszalek Dale L. Reaume Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality General Motors Township of Grosse Ile Land and Water Management Division Worldwide Facilities Group Justin Reinhart Matt Kowalski Greg Marvin Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey/Great Lakes Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources Science Center Don Reinke Peter J. McInerney U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dan Krutsch City of Wyandotte BTS Consulting Engineers Ralph Reznick Isabel Minn Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality John Lambert InSite Design Studio Water Quality Division City of Dearborn Russ Moll Chad K. Rhodes Faye Langmaid Michigan Sea Grant City of Detroit City of Windsor Dept. of Environmental Affairs Parks and Recreation Gary Morgan City of Dearborn Dave Rich Glenn Lapin Dept. of Public Works Office of U.S. Senator Carl Levin Detroit Renaissance Paul Muelle James W. Ridgway Meg Larsen, Education Coordinator Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc. Clinton River Watershed Council Steve Olds Kelvin F. Rogers Kathleen Law U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – Natural Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan City of Gibraltar Resources Conservation Service Coordinator Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Amanda Little Tim Patterson Northeast District Office University of Michigan Canada Centre for Inland Waters Steve Roloson Terry Long Larry Pawlus Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Scenic Rivers
Colette Luff John Peck Clea Rome U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Dept. of Commerce University of Michigan Economic Development Administration Landscape Architecture Charles Mabry Tilton and Associates, Inc. John Perrecone Robert Rudowski U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecorse Rowing Club Jane Mackey Region 5 Downriver Community Conference Campbell/Manix Associates Inc. Susan Phillips Gord MacPherson Metropolitan Affairs Coalition Benjamin Russau Toronto and Region Conservation Military Engineers Authority Janet Planck Harry Salisbury Leonard Mannausa David Pollock U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Representative for State Representative Valm George Mans Bobbi J. Raab
Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 77 Lynda Sanchez Steve Stewart Treffen White Michigan Coastal Management Program Michigan Sea Grant Extension School of Public Policy Land and Water Management University of Michigan Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Jim Stone Friends of Detroit River Wendy White David Sanders National Steel Corporation Metropolitan Affairs Coalition Peter W. Stroh Stroh Companies, Inc. Mark Winterton Randy Schatz City of Windsor General Motors Corporation Carey Suhan Public Works Society of American Military Engineers Nettie Seabrooks Testing Engineers & Consultants Kelly Withers City of Detroit Mayor’s Office Fisheries and Oceans Canada Glenn Switzer Martha Segura Conservation Halton Dan Wlodkowski U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wyandotte Boat Club Ecological Services Stan Taylor Essex Region Conservation Authority Lev Wood James Selegean Clayton Group Services U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John Tennant Consulate General for Canada in Detroit Bruce Yinger John Shaw City of Dearborn Environment Canada Aaron Thompson, E.I.T. Dept. of Public Works Water Issues Division Cynthia Silveri, ASLA Atmospheric Environment Branch Laura Yorke Associate Landscape Architect Detroit Recreation Dept. Sal Sclafani Wyandotte Boat Club Alton Simms Robbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc. Steve Thorp Great Lakes Commission Andy Smith Fisheries and Oceans Canada Lisa Tulen International Joint Commission Benjamin L. Smith, III Detroit Economic Growth Corporation Charlie Uhlarik U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rebecca Seal Soileau, Ph.D Research Scientist Roberta Urbani U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Waterways Detroit Edison Experiment Station Brent Valere Dan Sorek Fisheries and Oceans Canada City of Trenton Engineering Dept. Jennifer Vincent Environment Canada Bridget Stefan Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources Eric Warda Wendy Steinhacker U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wildlife Federation Richard Weirs Laura Stephenson U.S. Dept. of Housing Urban Development Toronto Region Conservation Authority Jeff Weiser Sue Stetler U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Metropolitan Affairs Coalition
78 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines Our tie to history. Our tie to prosperity. Our tie to each other.