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
[email protected]
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