 were constructed in three stages. First, earth was
excavated and stockpiled. Rock fill (average diameter 300 mm,
<P>
<IMG SRC=)
1. Project Title: Neebing-McIntyre Floodway Habitat Restoration
2. Contact
Ken Cullis
North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans, 1194 Dawson Road, R.R. #12, Site 8-16, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5E3
Tel.: (807) 768-2106; FAX (807) 768-1889; E-mail: CULLIS.KEN@A1@NRNWOA
3. Agencies Involved
North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans*, 1194 Dawson Road, R.R. #12, Site 8-16, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5E3
(* Includes Environment Canada, Great Lakes Cleanup Fund, Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources and Environment and Energy.)
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1 Canal Drive, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 6W4
4. Restoration Goal
Diversify fish habitat in a homogenous floodway.
5. Project Type
Construction of underwater log pile, log mat, and boulder pile structures. Construction of protected, shaded embayments.
6. Background and Rationale
Until 1983, the Neebing and McIntyre rivers entered Lake Superior within 1 km of each other. Because occasional flooding damaged adjacent residential areas, the narrow, meandering lower portions of the two rivers were filled and replaced with a single straight, wide (Å35 m) channel devoid of instream structure. The littoral zone was restricted to a very narrow (<1.5 m) strip along either bank and shoreline and aquatic vegetation was sparse. However, upstream portions of both rivers were known for spring and fall rainbow trout spawning runs and resident brook trout populations. Walleye and yellow perch were also present in both river systems. We attempted to create refugia and restore a portion of the original instream habitat diversity to benefit immigrating spawning fish and emigrating juveniles.
7. Regulatory Considerations
a) Completion of an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Class Environmental Assessment for Water Related Excavation, Dredging, and Fill Activities.
b) File a Government of Canada Environmental Assessment Review Process Screening Decision Document.
c) Obtain an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Work Permit.
d) Ensure rock fill added to the floodway conforms with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy Lake Filling Guidelines.
8. Criteria
The embankment modification and structures could not interfere with flood control properties of the floodway, nor could they cause reduced bank stability. Traffic corridors for small boats were to be maintained.
9. Project Design
In a 1.25 km section of the floodway four embayment structures and eight groupings of log mats, log pilings, and boulder piles were created (Figure 1).
granite) was placed above and below the water line to provide both bank stabilization and refugia in the interstices. Finally, earth fill, geogrid (Tensar BX1200 (SS2)) and live plant cuttings (local plants, e.g., willow, dogwood, and alder, 15-25 mm as well as 60 mm in diameter) were placed above the water line. Geotextile fabric (Terrafix 400 NR), Miradrain (6000 core by Mirafix), subdrain (corrugated plastic drainage tubing) and rock dressing (average diameter 100 mm, granite) were placed as shown in Figure 2. At the terminals of each area of bank stabilization, Armour stone (large boulders, 300-1000 kg, granite) were placed perpendicular to the stream flow.
The log mat/wood pilings/boulder pile structures were placed as shown in Figure 3. The wood piles (rough poplar, 4-5 m in length, minimum diameter of 300 mm) were driven into the substrate, large end first, so that the tops of the piles were a minimum of 1 m below the surface of the water. Boulder pilings were constructed by excavating areas to be filled to a minimum depth of 1 m. Geotextile (as above) and rock fill (as above) were placed in the excavated areas. Log mats were constructed by driving wood pilings (rough poplar, minimum length of 6 m) into the substrate in clusters. Wood logs were placed among the clusters with one end into the bank and one end against the pile cluster in a fashion which prevented the log mats from floating downstream. Plant cuttings were planted on the top of the bank.
11. Degree of Environmental Intervention
Four embayment structures affected a total of approximately 60-80 m of shoreline and required at least 96 m3 of armour stone. At each site the bottom of the bank was excavated 6.0-6.5 m back from the original.
In total, the eight groups of log mat/log piling/boulder piles required approximately 80 m3 of rock fill and 480-560 m of rough poplar. These structures affected approximately 150 m of shoreline.
12. Cost Construction:
Materials and Construction $96 514 Engineering Support $13 375 Subtotal, Construction $109 889 Assessment (estimated): Field Crew (2 person weeks/year, 5 years) $7 200 Sr. Scientist/Biologist (2 person weeks) $2 000 Data Analysis/Reporting ($3,000/year, 5 years) $15 000 Subtotal, Assessment $24 200 Total Estimated Project Cost $134 089
13. Biological Assessment
Assessment techniques include electrofishing (done to give #/m3), quantitative seining and mid-channel trawling as well as benthic sampling.
14. Measures of Success
The structures should act as centres for aggregation of fish, resident and migrating. An increase in diversity or abundance of fish populations, especially an increase in the number of juvenile salmonids and other sport fish, should also occur. Survival of emigrating juvenile fishes should be enhanced.
Success Rating: 1
Fish abundance and diversity are greater in the embayments than along unaltered stretches of shoreline. It is unclear whether the localized increases are indicative of increased overall abundance, diversity, and survival in the floodway.
15. Key References
None.
Correct citation for this contribution:
Cullis, K. 1995. Neebing-McIntyre floodway habitat restoration, p. 21-26. 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.) Occas. Pap. No. 1.