1. Project Title: McKellar River Habitat Creation Project
2. Contact
Karen Bray
North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans
1194 Dawson Road, R.R. #12, Site 8-16, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5E3
Tel.: (807) 768-2112; FAX: (807) 768-1889
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, GLLFAS
1 Canal Drive, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 6W4
4. Restoration Goal
Enhance habitat diversity and aquatic productivity in a dredged navigation channel and demonstrate techniques for enhancing the littoral zone and creating wetland habitat.
5. Project Type
Excavation of shallow embayments open to the river to increase littoral zone and provide critical habitat for resident and migratory fish species, herptiles, and birds.
6. Background and Rationale
The McKellar River is the middle of three short channels comprising the Kaministiquia river delta flowing into Thunder Bay harbour (Figure 1). Decades of use as a commercial shipping route has produced a straight, deep channel and a shoreline partly armoured with steel sheet piling and concrete. Elimination of most of the shallow littoral zone has left the river with little in the way of habitat productivity or diversity. Poor water quality and contaminated sediment from industrial activities upstream have compounded the problem for aquatic organisms.
Use of the McKellar River for commercial shipping has ceased and there appear to be no plans to recommence dredging or to reopen the river to commercial traffic. The channel is now used mostly for recreational craft. There is a private marina and a public boat launch on the south side of the river and a public marina has been proposed by the City of Thunder Bay. Water quality has improved somewhat as a result of better pollution control by industries upstream and further improvements are planned.
The goal of the McKellar River Project is threefold:
a) to restore and enhance estuarine habitat diversity in the McKellar River;
b) to demonstrate techniques for rehabilitating a dredged navigation channel; and
c) to provide increased recreational opportunities and waterfront access.
7. Regulatory Considerations
a) Completion of an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Class Environmental Assessment for Water Related Excavation, Dredging, and Fill Activities.
b) Acquisition of an exemption from the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
c) File a Government of Canada Environmental Assessment Review
Process Screening
Decision Document.
d) Ensure the substrate of the embayments conforms with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy Lake Filling Guidelines.
8. Criteria
The physical dimensions of the embayments are determined by constraints of the site and concerns raised during the environmental assessment. The size is determined by the boundaries of property lines, an access road to the south, and the presence of an underground coal conveyor system located between the two ponds.
9. Project Design
Basin morphometry was designed to minimise deep excavation adjacent to the coal conveyor while still encouraging circulation and providing diversity of habitat. Three wetland pockets <1m deep are designed to help improve water quality in the main basins by settling out suspended solids from overland runoff. These small pockets are connected to the basins with 2-stage culverts which allow for daily flushing and settling as water levels fluctuate. Additional habitat features, such as a mud flat, shallow depressions in the adjacent woodlot for amphibians and a sand bluff for bank swallows are being considered (Figure 2).
10. Implementation
Excavation of the embayments began in March, 1994, and both ponds were open to the river by April 2, 1994. The basins were dug in dry conditions with a plug to prevent inundation left at the river's edge and the basins allowed to slowly fill with water before the dirt plug was removed. A portion of the fill was placed on a long closed landfill site in the adjacent Mission Marsh Conservation Area. Habitat features in the basins included gravel shoals, sand spits, boulder edges, tree crowns, and root fans, the latter two added as they became available.
In the summer of 1994, topsoil was spread over the stockpile site and that, plus all areas disturbed during construction, hydroseeded to stabilize the area until planting of larger vegetation can occur in 1995. Site works, such as walkway construction and resurfacing, grading and seeding, continued throughout the summer when conditions were more favourable.
11. Degree of Environmental Intervention
Approximately 15 ha of land on Mission Island were disturbed as a result of this project. This includes the two embayments, the Mission Marsh Conservation Area, and an adjoining private property where excess fill was stockpiled. Most of the area disturbed was either open, grassy field or low, wet shrubland which characterises much of the remainder of the island. Unless absolutely unavoidable, as in a portion of the land used for the embayments, woodlots on public land were left intact. Despite all efforts to restrict construction activities to minimise disturbance to organisms and habitats, there is no doubt that some destruction of habitat and displacement of animals has occurred. The net gain in habitat productivity, however, is deemed to outweigh any losses.
12. Cost
Pre-construction:
Detailed design $17 410
Environmental assessment - coal conveyor 15 025
Environmental assessment - substrate 10 675
Environmental assessment - soil leachate 5 350
Environmental assessment - land survey 980
Environmental assessment - newspaper ads 1 190
Subtotal, Pre-construction $50 630
Construction:
Construction contract $544 000
Engineering supervision 21 000
Aquatic plants 24 840
Terrestrial plants 17 960
Subtotal, Construction $607 800
Assessment (estimated):
Field crew 5.3 person weeks/year, 5 yrs. $20 160
Benthos sample sorting 830 samples @ 9.00 7 470
Benthos taxonomy 830 samples @40.00 33 200
Sr.Scientist/Biologist 1 week/yr., 5 yrs. 5 000
Data analysis/report writing 3 @3000 (avg) 9 000
Subtotal, Assessment $74 830
Total Estimated Project Cost $733 260
13. Monitoring and Assessment
There are two main objectives of the monitoring program:
1) a long-term, continuing program to document changes in physical structure, chemical composition, and community dynamics not only for the sake of observing change, but to evaluate the embayments for their contribution to biological productivity and demonstrable technologies; and
2) a short-term evaluation of water quality and circulation to fulfil federal EARP requirements for approval to construct Phase II.
In the first year, benthos and water quality were sampled once a month from May to October. Benthos samples were taken using a petite ponar at 6 sites in each embayment with four replicates each; an additional 2 sites in each embayment were sampled using a sweep net. Water samples were collected at a depth of 1 m in each of the two back bays and one sample was taken at the mouth of the west embayment. Parameters measured included pH, conductivity, alkalinity, turbidity, TSS, nitrates, phosphates, and chloride. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles were taken in each embayment, one shallow (approx. 1 m) and one deep (2.5 m), and recorded continuously from May to October. The fish population was sampled using a variety of gear types including minnow traps, trap nets, fyke nets, and an electrofishing boat. Winter conditions, such as ice cover and movement, will be also be monitored.
14. Measures of Success
Success Rating:
4 - successful (initial stages)
1 - assessment incomplete (long term)
Monitoring physicochemical change and ecological succession will
be important for evaluating the success of this project. Specific
measures of success, such as plant densities, plant and animal
biomass, water quality criteria, or presence of specific species,
may not be as desirable as the more poorly defined and less quantifiable
targets of diversity, trophic level representation, and habitat
use. It may be more important to document conditions and use rather
than assessing the success in terms of specific standards. Therefore,
development of diverse and self-sustaining
communities with representation from all trophic levels will be
an indication of success.
Initial colonisation by a variety of organisms which indicate good water quality and the maintenance of adequate circulation in the embayments demonstrates success in the early stages. Ongoing monitoring of the fish, benthos, and plant communities, and changes to basin morphometry will indicate success in the longer term. The scale, however, for achieving a fully functioning "natural" system may be anywhere form ten to several hundred years, depending on the variable.
15. Key References
None.
Correct citation for this contribution:
Bray, K. 1995. McKellar River habitat creation project, p. 106-111. 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.