Watershed
Transcription
Watershed
The RI River and Stream Continuity Project RI Resource Conservation and Development Council (RI RC&D) June, 2011 Project Partners Purpose of Our Presentation Today Overview of Stream Continuity Project efforts in RI. Stream crossing restoration prioritization methods & potential restoration projects. Focusing outreach & restoration efforts. Funding opportunities for restorations & future of this Project. Obtain feedback. Dams Photo by Lawson Cary Restrictive Stream Crossings : Culverts Photos by Lawson Cary Examples of Restrictive Features: Inlet Drop Photos courtesy of Scott Jackson Outlet Drop (Beaver River Watershed) Drawing courtesy of Scott Jackson Physical Barriers Severe physical barrier (Beaver River Watershed) Minor physical barrier (Queens River Watershed) Excessive Velocities (Upper Pawcatuck River Watershed) Stream bank erosion (Queens River Watershed) Tailwater Armoring Drawings courtesy of Scott Jackson (Queens River Watershed) Insufficient water depth Queens River Watershed Impacts of poor crossings Habitat loss and degradation. Population fragmentation and isolation → loss of diversity. Alteration of ecological processes. Road kill leading to population losses. http://www.awra.org/state/alaska/Coho_in_culvert.jpg Fish and Wildlife Habitat Courtesy of Scott Jackson Courtesy of Scott Jackson Courtesy of Scott Jackson If you build it, they will come… Photo courtesy of Scott Jackson Affected Species Brook trout http://www.smokyonthefly.com/images/ brooktrout.jpg Blueback herring http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/ Atlantic salmon http://www.tjgeneralstore.com American shad http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ Affected Species Wood turtle http://www.mass.gov Freshwater crayfish http://www.teara.govt.nz Freshwater mussels www.eeb.uconn.edu 2-lined salamander http://www.geocities.com/ Purpose of Stream Continuity Project in RI Respond to a conservation need identified by local partners. Identify potential barriers to fish passage in RI watersheds. Utilize local volunteer groups and organizations to locate potential restoration projects. Provide outreach where severe barrier crossings exist. Consider development of RI stream crossing standards. Progress: Connecting habitat, watershed by watershed. Methods Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses for both the Upper and Lower Wood River Watersheds Data on roads and streams obtained from RIGIS Methods: Data Collection Stream & Crossing Characteristics Road type Crossing type Crossing condition Crossing embedded Crossing substrate Physical barriers Crossing span Scour pool Water depth Water velocity Support fish Flow conditions Inlet/outlet drop Tailwater armoring Methods: Data Collection Data Entry Data Output OUTPUT : Crossing Standards Severe Barriers Moderate Barriers Minor Barriers Meets General Standards Meets Optimum Standards A good crossing… Spans the stream and banks. Does not change water velocity. Has a natural streambed. Creates no noticeable change in the river. Effective crossings include… Bridges Open bottom arches Culverts that span, and are sunken into, the streambed. Severe Barriers Locke Brook & Mail Rd. - Queens watershed Tomaquag Brook & Nooseneck Hill Rd. - Pawcatuck Mainstem watershed Phillips Brook and Narrow Lane - Wood River watershed Chickasheen Brook & S. County Trail - Upper Pawcatuck watershed We don’t do outlet perches!! Photo by Lawson Cary Moderate Barriers Unnamed Brook and Hazard Road – Wood River watershed Fisherville Brook and Pardon Joslin Road - Queens River watershed Beaver River and Kingstown Road -Beaver River Watershed Unnamed Brook and Ten Rod Road -Wood River watershecd Photos by Lawson Cary Minor Barriers Breakheart Brook & Austin Farm Rd. - Wood watershed Meadow Brook & Kingstown Rd. - Pawcatuck mainstem watershed Sodom River & William Reynolds Rd. - Queens watershed Unnamed Stream & S.County Trail - Upper Pawcatuck watershed Meets General Standards Flat River and Austin Farm Road Photos by Lawson Cary Wood River and Skunk Hill Road Meets Optimum Standards Washington State http://www.skagitfisheries.org/PastNews/ images/AlderCulvert2.jpg Michigan State http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/images/ manisteeriver-mini.jpg Crossing Inventory 4353 road/stream crossings identified in RI. 970+ crossings have been inventoried to date in 12 watersheds. 289 of 750 crossings entered in UMass database have been identified as “severe barriers” (must reevaluate). 159 potential restoration projects identified so far; analysis and outreach continues. Results so far… Stream Crossing Standard (2010 analysis) Watershed Meets Meets General Optimum Standards Standards Severe Moderate Minor Lower Wood River 45 29 17 1 0 Upper Wood River 62 53 19 3 1 Queens River 27 38 10 0 0 Beaver River 15 9 0 0 0 Upper Pawcatuck River Total 10 159 29 158 12 58 0 4 0 1 Percent of Total 42% 42% 15% 1% 0% 380 Poten'al Available Stream Habitat. Derived from RI Stream Con'nuity Project Assessment Upstream habitat Watershed (miles) Upstream Downstream Downstream Wetlands Wetlands (acres) (acres) habitat (miles) Queens 34.9 349.9 976.8 15473 Beaver 29.29 61.7 700.17 760.9 Up.Wood 21.78 179.047 na na Lo.Wood Up.Pawcatuck 48.767 3.4 245.159 20.6 na na na na 138.137 856.406 1676.97 16233.9 * Data includes intermiFent streams Totals Severe Barriers & Dams Upper Wood River Watershed Lower Wood River Watershed Prioritizing Crossing Restoration: SB’s Distance/length of stream US and DS from crossing to next SB or Dam ( > 0.5 miles) Presence of Fish Presence of RTE species or multiple aquatic species Watershed size & location Size and type of road Landowner willingness to participate Opinions, suggestions, and comments from experts Other possible considerations for crossing restoration prioritization: • Wetlands permitting. • Cost of restoration (retrofitting culverts vs. replacement). • Crossings on cold water streams. • Crossings on same stretch of stream. Distance/Length of Stream US and DS from Crossing Assumptions: – – – Included Perennial and Intermittent streams in the analysis (so amount of stream is being over-estimated for fish habitat). Fish are able to pass through the moderate barriers. Dams are considered severe barriers. Upstream Habitats Over 1.5 miles of stream re-connected Downstream Habitats 12 miles of stream reconnected Total Habitat Re-opened: 17 Miles !!!! Wow!! http://www.waol.com/pages/images/34.JPG Project Outreach Results from the analysis may be sent to towns and landowners. Work with landowners to apply for WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program) grants. Funding from other sources may include Fed / State Fish & Wildlife fish passage grants, funds from watershed organizations, other…? Share data with other groups. Restoration Projects: Wood River Watershed Breakheart Brook, Arcadia Park, W.Greenwich Unnamed Brook, Dye Hill Rd, Hopkinton Photos by Lawson Cary Breakheart Brook Restoration Before: After: Folks from NRCS, RIDEM, USFWS, and TU assist in restoration Jay Boyer of TU helps place stones Project Implementation Analysis and reports complete: • • • • • Upper Wood Lower Wood Queens Beaver Upper Pawcatuck Data analysis in progress: • • • • • Pawcatuck main-stem Upper Moosup Clear Millers Peters Renewed outreach. Conclusions RI project demonstrates the transferability of the UMass model to other watersheds. Volunteers are a viable and crucial component of the project. Project provides opportunity for habitat restoration. Further analysis is needed to prioritize restoration efforts. Must seek new funding sources and assistance opportunities to continue project in RI. Next Steps Additional factors to consider when prioritizing and ranking stream crossings? Who is interested in partnering in this project? What resources can your organization provide? Additional Information http://www.streamcontinuity.org/ For more information, please contact: Kathryn Zuromski Programs Associate, RIRC&D kathryn.zuromski@ri.usda.gov 401-822-8879 Thank you! May I answer any questions? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Pic/2004-04-30_14-16-49.jpg