Best Management Practices for of Shorelines · Best Management Practices for ... technical advice...

of Shorelines

Best Management Practices for

Based on a Binational Conference Sponsored by theGreater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative and Partners

..

.2

00

0

Greater DetroitAmerican Heritage River Initiative

The Detroit River was designated as an American Heritage River byPresident Clinton in July 1998. In Greater Detroit, a multi-stakeholder,action-oriented approach is used to select and implement projects intendedto enhance the environmental, economic development, and historic/culturalpotential of the 32-mile Detroit riverfront. Program oversight is provided byan 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 SeaGrant, and composed of governmental, business, community, and environ-mental representatives provides advice on project activities to the ExecutiveCommittee. Efforts are also coordinated with Canada since the Detroit Riveris an international boundary. Metropolitan Affairs Coalition (MAC), apublic-private partnership of business, labor, and governmental leaders thatfacilitates solutions to regional issues affecting Southeast Michigan, serves asthe project manager and facilitator of the Greater Detroit American HeritageRiver Initiative.

Dr. John Hartig is the initiative’s River Navigator. Dr. Hartig is a federalemployee who works with communities to help identify resources toimplement high-priority projects. Support for the River Navigator positioncomes from U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT partnersinclude the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Federal HighwayAdministration, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Our tie to history. Our tie to prosperity. Our tie to each other.

Best Management Practicesfor Soft Engineering of Shorelines

Based on a Binational Conference held November 23, 1999Sponsored 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 SurveyJohn R. Shaw, Environment Canada

John H. Hartig, Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative

Citation for this report: Caulk, A.D., J.E. Gannon, J.R. Shaw, and J.H. Hartig. 2000. Best Management Practicesfor Soft Engineering of Shorelines. Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative, Detroit, Michigan.Permission is granted to site portions of this report with proper citation.

AbstractHistorically, many river shorelines were stabilized and hardened with concrete and steel to protectdevelopments from flooding and erosion, or to accommodate commercial navigation or industry. Typicallyshorelines were developed for a single purpose. Today, there is growing interest in developing shorelines for multiplepurposes so that additional benefits can be accrued. Soft engineering is the use of ecological principles and practicesto reduce erosion and achieve the stabilization and safety of shorelines, while enhancing habitat, improvingaesthetics, and saving money. The purpose of this best management practices manual is to provide insights andtechnical advice to local governments, developers, planners, consultants, and industries on when, where, why, andhow to incorporate soft engineering of shorelines into shoreline redevelopment projects and reap subsequentbenefits. More specific technical advice and contact information can be found in the soft engineering case studiespresented in this manual.


ii Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines

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.

Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines iii

Table of ContentsPage

Summary and Overviewa .......................................................................................................................1

Theory and ProcessChapter 1: Recommendations from the Incidental Habitat and Access Workshop ...................................... 10

Chapter 2: Multiple Objective Soil Bioengineering for Riverbank Restoration ........................................... 16

EconomicsChapter 3: Comparison of Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for Shore Erosion Control:

Costs and Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 21

Large River SystemsChapter 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, WaterfrontsChapter 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

AppendicesAppendix A: Program from November 23, 1999 ........................................................................................... 74

Appendix B: List of Participants ................................................................................................................... 75

iv Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines

AcknowledgementsThe November 23, 1999 technology transfer session for soft engineering of

shorelines and this report were made possible by financial and in-kind supportfrom a number of organizations and agencies. We gratefully acknowledge suchsupport 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 administrativesupport in organizing the technology transfer session and handling registrations;

• Ms. Sue Stetler and Ms. Susan Phillips of Metropolitan Affairs Coalition for helpin issuing news releases and to Glenda Marks for graphic design assistance;

• Drs. Thomas Heidtke and Mumtaz Usmen for assistance in awarding the firstAmerican 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 coverof 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 engineeringcase studies presented in this report for sharing their practical knowledgeand thoughtful advice. Without their contributions, this report would not havebeen possible.

Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines 1

Summary and OverviewThe Problem of Single PurposeShoreline Development

Historically, many river shorelineswere stabilized and hardened withconcrete and steel to protect develop-ments from flooding and erosion, or toaccommodate commercial navigationor industry. Typically shorelines weredeveloped for a single purpose. Today,there is growing support for develop-ment of shorelines for multiplepurposes so that additional benefits canbe accrued.

Up and down our Detroit River,efforts are underway to reshape theriverfront from being concealed in ourbackyard to becoming the focal pointof our attention. General Motors isswitching the front door of the Renais-sance Center from Jefferson Avenue tothe Detroit River with the building of afive-story Wintergarden (Figure 1).

The Promenade stretching east fromthe Renaissance Center will furthershowcase our river for businesses andresidents. In Windsor, another threemiles of continuous riverfront greenwaywere opened in 1999 to promote ourriver and help create an exciting venuefor people to work, play, and socializedowntown. In Wyandotte, a new golfcourse, rowing club, and greenwayshave directed attention to our river andhave resulted in considerable spin-offbenefits. People want to increase accessto our river, incorporate trails andwalkways to it, improve the aestheticappearance of the shoreline, and reaprecreational, ecological, and economicbenefits from it. Our Detroit River hasbeen rediscovered as an incredible assetand a key ingredient in achievingquality of life.

Figure 1 General Motors Corporation’s Wintergarden at the Renaissance Center facing the Detroit River.

Rendering cour tesy of Hines Development and Skidmore Owings & Merrill, LLP Master Architects.

Our Detroit Riverhas beenrediscovered asan incredibleasset and a keyingredient inachieving qualityof life.

2 Best Management Practices for Soft Engineering of Shorelines

Hard vs. Soft Engineeringof Shorelines

On November 23, 1999, the GreaterDetroit American Heritage RiverInitiative held its first major stake-holder event to look at options on howto reshape the Detroit River shorelineusing techniques of soft engineering.Hard engineering of shorelines isgenerally defined as the use of concretebreakwalls or steel sheet piling tostabilize shorelines and achieve safety.There are many places along ourworking river where hard engineering isrequired for navigational or industrialpurposes. Much of the Detroit Rivershoreline is already hardened. How-ever, there is growing interest in usingsoft engineering of shorelines inappropriate locations. Soft engineeringis the use of ecological principles andpractices to reduce erosion and achievethe stabilization and safety of shore-lines, while enhancing habitat,improving aesthetics, and savingmoney. Soft engineering is achieved byusing vegetation and other materials tosoften the land-water interface, therebyimproving ecological features withoutcompromising the engineered integrityof the shoreline.

Rationale forSoft Engineering

Hard engineering typically has nohabitat value for fish or wildlife. Softengineering incorporates habitat forfish and wildlife. The Detroit River isone of the most biologically diverseareas in the Great Lakes Basin. In1998, the U.S.-Canada State of theLakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)identified the Detroit River-Lake St.Clair ecosystem as one of 20Biodiversity Investment Areas in theentire Great Lakes Basin Ecosystemwith exceptional diversity of plants,fish, and birds, and the requisitehabitats to support them (Reid et al.1999). The State of the Lakes Ecosys-tem Conference went on to call forspecial efforts to protect these uniqueecological features. Many people whoappreciate the outdoors know that theDetroit River supports a nationally

renowned sport fishery. For example,the City of Trenton, located on theTrenton Channel at the lower end ofthe Detroit River, hosted a majorwalleye fishing tournament called“Walleye Week” in 1999. “WalleyeWeek” attracted people from all overNorth America to compete in the In-Fisherman Professional WalleyeTournament, the Team Walleye Tourna-ment, and the Michigan WalleyeTournament offering $240,000 in prizemoney. It is estimated that walleyefishing alone brings in $1,000,000 tothe economy of communities along thelower Detroit River each spring.

Another reason why soft engineeringpractices should be encouraged isbecause it is well recognized that thereis limited public access to the DetroitRiver, particularly on the United Statesside. Use of multiple-objective softengineering of shorelines will increasepublic access to the river.

There are also economic benefitsassociated with use of soft engineering.In general, soft engineering of shore-lines is less expensive than hardengineering of shorelines. Additionally,long-term maintenance costs of softengineering are generally lower becausesoft engineering uses living structures,which tend to mature and stabilizewith time.

Technology Transfer

Over 200 people attended theNovember 23rd conference to:• learn from case studies of soft

engineering of shorelines from placeslike Toronto, Hamilton Harbour,and Thunder Bay, Ontario, theUpper Mississippi River in Minne-sota, and the Kenai River in Alaska;

• hear about recent work on cost-benefit analysis of soft vs. hardengineering of shorelines; and

• discuss where and how soft engineer-ing might be used along theDetroit River (see Appendix A forthe program and Appendix B for alist of participants).

The soft engineering case studiespresented at the conference andadditional ones contributed for this

Hard engineeringtypically has no

habitat value forfish or wildlife.

Soft engineeringincorporates

habitat for fishand wildlife.

It is criticallyimportant that the

right people getinvolved up-front in

redevelopmentprojects to be able

to incorporateprinciples of softengineering into

future waterfrontdesigns.


best management practices manual arelisted in Table 1.

Participants in the November 23rd

soft engineering conference learned thatit is important to redevelop andredesign our shorelines for multipleobjectives. Shorelines can be stabilizedand achieve safety, while increasingpublic access, enhancing habitat,improving aesthetics, and savingmoney. Hard engineering of shore-lines, in the form of steel sheet piling,can cost as much as $1,000 per linearfoot. We cannot afford to use hardengineering along the entire length ofthe Detroit River shoreline, nor do wewant fully hard engineered shorelinesbecause they have no habitat value andwill not support the diversity of fishand wildlife found in our river. Partici-pants also learned that hard and softengineering are not mutually exclusive,there are places where attributes of hardand soft engineering can be usedtogether. This makes sense in a high-flow river like the Detroit Riverthrough which the entire upper GreatLakes pass.

It is critically important that theright people get involved up-front inredevelopment projects to be able toincorporate principles of soft engineer-

ing into future waterfront designs. Thedesign process must identify opportuni-ties and establish partnerships early inthe process which achieve integratedecological, economic, and societalobjectives.

Integrated Approachto Design, Implementation,and Evaluation ofEffectiveness

Figure 2 presents one potentialdesign and implementation frameworkwhich encourages incorporating softengineering practices into shorelinedevelopments. As noted above, it iscritically important that the rightpeople get involved up-front in shore-line redevelopment projects to be ableto incorporate principles of soft engi-neering into future waterfront designs.However, project leaders must firstperform a preliminary assessmentwhich:• defines the geographic extent of the

project or study area;• inventories existing shoreline uses

(habitat, public access, etc.); and• evaluates existing uses against

historical conditions and desiredfuture uses.

A multi-disciplinaryteam should beformed to reachagreement ongoals and multipleobjectives for thewaterfront and itsshoreline.

Table 1 A list of soft engineering case studies presented.

Soft Engineering Case Study Chapter PageRecommendations from the Incidental Habitat and Access Workshop 1 10

Multiple Objective Soil Bioengineering for Riverbank Restoration 2 16Comparison 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


Project leaders must then make adetermination of whether or not softengineering is appropriate. If it is not,resource managers continue withongoing preservation and conservationefforts. There may also be an opportu-nity to incorporate habitat in the formof rock rubble at the tow of the hardstructure. If soft engineering is appropri-ate, an inclusive multidisciplinaryprocess will be required to reap thedesired benefits. A multidisciplinaryteam should be formed to reach agree-ment on goals and multiple objectivesfor the waterfront and its shoreline. Forthe design process to be successful, itmust identify opportunities and estab-

lish partnerships early in the processwhich achieve integrated ecological,economic, and societal objectives.

Once agreement on goals andmultiple objectives has been reached, themultidisciplinary team must set quanti-tative targets to measure progress.The team next evaluates managementalternatives and sets priorities. Thepreferred management practices are thenimplemented. Following the implemen-tation of these actions, monitoring isperformed to evaluate effectiveness.If objectives are met, project success andits benefits are communicated andmanagement agencies continue withpreservation and conservation efforts.

Once agreement ongoals and multiple

objectives has beenreached, the

multi-disciplinaryteam must set

quantitative targetsto measure progress.

Figure 2 A framework to help incorporate soft engineering practices into shoreline developments.

Continue preservation andconservation efforts

Communicate projectsuccess and benefits

N

N Y

Y

Start

Define geographic extent of study area

Inventory existing uses (habitat, public access, etc.)

Evaluate existing uses against historical conditionsand desired future uses

Soft engineering appropriate?

Indentify stakeholders and establish partnerships

Reach agreement on goals and mulitple objectives

Set quantitative targets

Evaluate management alternatives and set priorities

Take action

Monitor and evaluate effectiveness

Objectives and targets met?

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

vv


If objectives and targets are not met, theteam evaluates further managementalternatives, sets priorities, and takesadditional actions in a continuousimprovement fashion until objectivesand targets are met. Other frameworksmay also be as useful to achieve themultiple benefits that soft engineering ofshorelines can provide.

Another way of furthering the use ofsoft engineering practices along shore-lines is to make sure that a number of

key elements are addressed in the shore-line design and implementation process.Table 2 presents a checklist of keyelements to consider in the decision-making process and selected references(i.e., case studies, web sites, literature) forfurther information. This checklist isdesigned to help developers, municipalplanners, consultants, resource mangers,and others to consider using soft engi-neering practices in shorelinedevelopment projects.

Table 2 A checklist of key elements to consider in evaluating soft engineering practices for shorelines andrelated 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 StreamRestoration 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 Lakefor 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 Ministryof Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment (1998)

Evaluating alternative designs Chapter 1 (p. 10); Chapter 2 (p. 16); Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan WritingTeam (1992); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997); Federal Interagency StreamRestoration Working Group (1998) (Chapter 5); Fuller (1997); U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (1984); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000); Waldron (1997); EnvironmentCanada (1996)

Monitoring and assessing effectiveness Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) (Chapter 6); U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (1997); Jones (1999); Kelso and Hartig (1995); EnvironmentCanada (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 RestorationWorking 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 InlandWaters (2000); Ontario Streams (1999); Society for Ecological Restoration (2000);Grillmayer (1995); Fuller (1997)


Concluding RemarksUrban infrastructure is generally

understood to mean the substructure(i.e., roads, sewers) and underlyingfoundation that provides essentialcommunity services. For example,communities need basic servicesprovided by roads and sewers. Re-cently, the concept of “greeninfrastructure” has been used tocommunicate importance of the naturalresource foundation that providesessential ecological services and relatedsocial and economic benefits. Parks,conservation areas, ecological corridors,linked greenways, and open spacesunder best management practices allprovide essential ecological services andrelated social and economic benefits.

There are numerous examplesaround North America that demon-strate that putting money into “greeninfrastructure” and watershed rehabili-tation, enhancement, and protection isnot merely a matter of paying for pastmistakes, but a sound investment thatpays immediate and long-term returns.For example, through the work of theToronto Waterfront Remedial ActionPlan (RAP) and the Toronto WaterfrontRegeneration Trust, full costs andbenefits of restoration projects in theLower Don River Valley have beenestimated. Capital expenditure onwatershed restoration is estimated to beabout $964 million (Canadian), alongwith $1.4 million (Canadian) in annualoperating costs. This will lead tocapital savings of approximately $42million (Canadian), annual userbenefits of approximately $55 million(Canadian), and annual savings ofapproximately $11 million (Canadian).In addition, the direct economicdevelopment benefits include province-wide increases in income of about $3.6billion (Canadian) associated withcapital investment and $5 billion(Canadian) per year associated withexpanded economic activity. Suchestimates of full costs and benefits helpto provide compelling rationale forwatershed management actions.

Further, there is growing recognitionof the importance of “green infrastruc-

ture” in sustaining our communities,environments, and economies. Healthycommunities and economies requirehealthy environments and “greeninfrastructure.” “Green infrastructure”is a key element for:• achieving community renewal;• increasing community awareness,

participation, and pride; and• sustaining communities and econo-

mies.

It is the intent of the Greater DetroitAmerican Heritage River Initiative thatthe advantages of soft engineeringpractices be recognized and incorpo-rated into many shoreline projectsalong the Detroit River as a standardfor future development. Clearly,greater emphasis must be placed onproject evaluation and communicationof lessons learned in order to expandthe use of soft engineering practices.Participants at the November 23rd

conference identified many placeswhere soft engineering practices mightbe used, including:• Belle Isle;• Windsor’s Goose Bay on its east

waterfront;• Henderson Park and the promenade

in Detroit;• Hennepin Marsh on Grosse Ile;• Wayne County’s Elizabeth Park and

Black Lagoon in Trenton;• the Gateway Project along the Rouge

River within the AutomobileNational Heritage Area (Figure 3);

• land owned by National SteelCorporation; and

• other projects.

The time is right to incorporate softengineering practices into our efforts toredevelop and improve our shorelines.In addition, soft engineering practicesshould be incorporated in municipaloperating manuals and day-to-dayoperations that affect shoreline use andmanagement. Soft engineering projectsalso lend themselves to volunteerparticipation. Let’s work together toshowcase the use of multiple-objectivesoft engineering practices along theDetroit River shoreline and proudlydisplay our region’s new front door.

The time is rightto incorporate

soft engineeringpractices into our

efforts to redevelopand improve

our shorelines.In addition,

soft engineeringpractices should be

incorporated inmunicipal operating

manuals and day-to-day operations.

Healthy communitiesand economiesrequire healthy

environmentsand “green

infrastructure.”


Figure 3 The concrete channel of thelower Rouge River as it exists today(right) and a graphic depiction ofwhat this portion of the lower RougeRiver might look like in the future(below). The vision for this areaincludes greenways, parks, softengineering of the shoreline, andmixed use redevelopment.

Design credit: Hamilton Anderson Associates.

Photo credit: Wayne County Depar tment of Environment


ReferencesCanada Centre for Inland Waters. 2000. National Water Research Institute. Burlington, Ontario, Canada. <http://

www.cciw.ca/>

Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green Plan. 1996. Best Management Practices-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Manage-ment. <http://www.res2.agr.ca/london/gp/bmp/fishbmp.html>

Environment Canada. 1996. Planting the Seed, A Guide to Establishing Aquatic Plants. <http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glimr/data/planting-seed/intro.html>

Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment. 1998. AFramework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Canada-Ontario RemedialAction Plan Steering Committee. <http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/green-lane/wildlife/conservation/wetland/frame-work/intro.html>

Environment Canada. 1999a. Soil Bioengineering-An Alternative to Concrete. <http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/green-lane/doc/cuf_factsheets/soil-bioeng-e.html>

Environment Canada. 1999b. The Watershed Report Card. A volunteer-based monitoring program developed inpartnership with Environment Canada. <www.watershedreportcard.org>

Environment Canada. 2000. Cornwall: Cleaning up our Waterfront Makes Good $ense; Restoring Great LakesWatersheds-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. <http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/env-econ/publications-e.html>

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. <http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration>

Fuller, D.R. 1997. Understanding, Living With, and Controlling Shoreline Erosion. A Guidebook for ShorelineProperty 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. <http://www.nvca.on.ca/monitoring/stream/index.htm>

Kelso, J.R.M. and J.H. Hartig. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CanadaInstitute 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.<http://www.landandwater.com>


Leonard, L. 2000. The Watershed Report Card. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. <http://www.watershedreportcard.org/>

North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans and Scollen and Company, Inc. 1998. Achieving IntegratedHabitat Enhancement Objectives – A Technical Manual. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Streams. 1999. Ontario’s Stream Rehabilitation Manual. Belfountain, Ontario, Canada.<http://www.ontariostreams.on.ca/toc.htm>

Reid, R., K. Rodriguez, and A. Mysz. 1999. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998: Biodiversity InvestmentAreas – Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems. <www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/pdf/ntbia.pdf>

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 GreatLakes 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 stormwaterwetlands 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 theNearshore Fish Community of Hamilton Harbour, 1988 to 1997, as Measured Using and Index of BioticIntegrity. Can. Tech. Rept. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2230, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.

Society for Ecological Restoration. 2000. Internet Resources Site. Tucson, Arizona. <http://www.ser.org/>

Society for Ecological Restoration-Ontario Chapter. 2000. Environmental and Resource Studies Program, TrentUniversity, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. <www.trentu.ca/ser>

Tulen, L.A., J.H. Hartig, D.M. Dolan, and J.J.H. Ciborowski (eds.). 1998. Rehabilitating and Conserving DetroitRiver 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. <www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/pdfs/el97-8.pdf>

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. <http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/>

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. ProjectGreen, Inc., Windsor, Ontario, Canada.


Chapter 1

Workshop SynopsisIn preparation for the workshop, a

questionnaire was sent to 138 GreatLakes resource managers in 1992. Theywere asked to characterize incidentalhabitat use in their region. Theresponses indicated that incidentalhabitat at Great Lakes structures is animportant feature for humans, fish, andwildlife. These structures attract andprovide habitat for sport fish andpanfish. Incidental habitat also allowsanglers access to the fisheries. Thesestructures provide nesting and roostingsites for waterfowl, as well as support-ing many human recreational activities.

The structures are constructed ofrock of varying sizes, construction anddemolition materials (concrete), andsheet pilings. Many structures use acombination of materials, often indifferent segments. Some structureshave features that facilitate access, whileothers are unimproved. Handicappedaccessibility is increasingly commonwith the inclusion of concrete walks,guardrails, and fishing piers as designfeatures and additions to existingfacilities. Sport fishing, from shore andsmall boats, is the most commonhuman activity. These structures attractfish, intercept seasonal movements, andprovide shore anglers access to deeperwater. Other human activities associ-ated with the structures includeswimming, boating, walking, camping,rowing, diving, picnicing, and sunbath-ing. Breakwaters that have pavedwalkways allow anglers and strollersbetter access to the water than unim-proved, rubble mound revetments.

At the workshop, attendees weredivided into inter-disciplinary teams.Each team was given a diagram of aphysical structure and assigned thetask of creating incidental habitatand improving public access. Resultsof one of the breakout sessions isincluded here.

IntroductionMany structures have been built

along Great Lakes shorelines, harbors,tributaries, connecting channels, andembayments to serve primary engineer-ing functions of shoreline protection,aid to navigation, and other economi-cally related purposes. Such structuresinclude breakwalls, marinas, jetties,intake and discharge channels, con-fined disposal facilities (CDFs),navigation cells, and dredge spoilislands. They generally have not beendesigned to create or enhance habitator to provide public access, but “inci-dentally” serve such functions tovarious degrees.

There was interest within the GreatLakes natural resources managementcommunity to explore the ways andmeans of modifying engineeredstructures in the Great Lakes to providean economical and ecological “win-win”, and to purposefully improve thehabitat and recreational value of thestructures without adversely affectingtheir primary engineered purpose.Consequently, the Great Lakes FisheryCommission’s Habitat Advisory Boardsponsored the Incidental Habitat andAccess Workshop in March of 1994.Participants, including engineers,regulators, biologists, planners, andeconomists, were challenged in aworkshop setting to work together ondesign features for improving inciden-tal habitat and access associated withphysical structures. Ideas developed inthe workshop are conducive to softengineering concepts and principles.A synopsis of the workshop is providedhere along with basic informationabout breakwater, revetment compo-nents, and information on whichfeatures can most easily be modifiedfor enhancing incidental habitat andpublic access.

Recommendationsfrom the Incidental Habitat and Access WorkshopPhilip Moy, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute


This sub-group was given a sketch ofa breakwater that provided protectionfor a harbor and that was used as anavigation aid for an entrance channel(Figure 4). They were also told that anew marina was proposed to be devel-oped adjacent to the existing channel.The results of their deliberations areillustrated in Figure 5. The economicvalue of the area has been improved bydesigning the marina as well as improv-ing public access for fishing (boat rampand fishing access from the breakwall)and hiking (observation platform,footpath, and boardwalk). Concur-rently, the ecology of the area has beengreatly enhanced by creating a vegetatedbreakwater between the existing channeland a littoral refuge that creates terres-trial, wetlands, and aquatic habitat. Across-section through the vegetated

breakwater (Figures 6) illustrates howtraditional steel sheet piling, widely usedin hard engineering approaches, can beused in combination with cobble,geotextile materials, and top soil tocreate a soft engineered structure thatachieves the necessary aid to navigationand shoreline protection, while improv-ing incidental habitat and public access.

Figure 5 The same siteas in Figure 4 with thesoft engineered designfeatures added byworkshop participants.See Figure 6 for cross-section view at AA inthe middle of Figure 5.SSP= steel sheet piling.

Figure 4 Diagram of a Great Lakes breakwater with hard engineer-ing. Workshop participants were challenged to develop a marina atthis site and include soft-engineered incidental habitat and publicaccess features.

PROPOSED MARINA AREA

18’ DEEP MAINTANINED CHANNEL

18’ DEEP

CONCRETE CAPPEDBREAKWATER

12’ WAVES

EXISTINGENTRANCECHANNEL

HARBOUR4’ WAVES

DRAWING NOT TO SCALE


The main components are the armorstone, core stone, and underlyingbedding or mattress stone. The portionof the bottom-most layer that extendsfrom the foot of the structure is toestone. The armor stone is the largestand most visible stone of the structure,it is what breaks the waves to protectthe harbor. The size or weight of thearmor stone is determined by the waveor ice forces expected at the location ofthe structure. The armor stone weightdetermines the dimensions of thestructure and the other material used inthe structure. The core stone supportsthe armor stone, is relatively unexposedfor use as either habitat or access, andhas little or no flexibility for habitatmodification. The bottom layer of thestructure, the bedding stone, covers thelake or river bottom to help support theother components. Bedding stone isthe smallest stone used in the construc-tion and has more flexibility in thedimension used than the other compo-nents. Bedding stone extends out fromthe foot of the structure and is exposedfor use as habitat. Based on informa-tion from river and lake ecology, a widerange of rock sizes in the bedding stonewill provide a mosaic of micro-habitatsfor fish food organisms, therebyattracting fish for food and shelter(Gannon et al. 1985).

Workshop participants also con-cluded that the primary hurdle toovercome when enhancing incidentalhabitat and public access is improvingcommunication between the agencythat constructs or maintains thestructure and the entity that desires toimprove the habitat. Regulators at theworkshop strongly emphasized theimportance of including incidentalhabitat and public access features earlyin the application and design process.Experience has shown that early andeffective communication about publicaccess features and incidental habitat isessential to realize such benefits inwaterfront designs.

Workshop participants concludedthat it is highly possible to modify thephysical features of Great Lakes naviga-tional structures to improve the habitatand recreational value without adverselyaffecting the primary navigation orshoreline protection purposes. Encour-agingly, existing manuals, such as theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers ShoreProtection Manual (1984), can be usedto create or modify physical structuresto enhance incidental habitat, usuallywith only minor adjustments.

For example, Figure 7 illustrates across-section of a rubble moundbreakwater; revetments are essentially ahalf breakwater laying against the shore.

Figure 6 Cross-section view at AA on Figure 5,showing combination of hard and soft engineered features.SSP= steel sheet piling.

Figure 7 Typical cross-section of a rubble mound breakwater.




Including IncidentalHabitat and Public Accessin the Design Process

Technical information used in thedesign of U.S. and Canadian GreatLakes coastal structures is based largelyon the Shore Protection Manualpublished by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (1984). When presentedwith a project requiring breakwater orrevetment construction/repair, thedesign team will often use a standardapproach. On a lake shore, the designcondition may be the expected wave orice climate; in a riverine environment,the design condition may be the watervelocity depth associated with a 100-year flood. Since the standardbreakwater or revetment design doesnot include incidental habitat as acomponent or consideration, ongoingcoordination with the design teamthroughout the design process isrequired to ensure incorporation ofincidental habitat features.Interdisciplinary Teams: An interdisci-plinary design team of engineers,biologists, planners, and, when appro-priate, regulators must be developed.The team should identify potentialareas of the structure for incidentalhabitat improvement, possible means toincorporate them, and engineeringconstraints. Modification of theincidental habitat proposal may benecessary for the project to remainfeasible within the engineering con-straints. The team should continuecoordination through the developmentof plans and specifications to assurethat the incidental habitat improve-ments are carried through designto construction.Regulatory Considerations: In theUnited States, engineering projects havefive basic phases: reconnaissance,feasibility, design, construction, andoperation and maintenance. Coordina-tion for a new project begins at thereconnaissance phase, usually throughinteragency correspondence requestinginformation on potential impacts tonatural resources. Additional coordina-

tion may follow during the feasibilityphase, as the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) document isprepared. This document is either anEnvironmental Assessment or anEnvironmental Impact Statement.Once the NEPA documentation iscomplete, the project can operate forup to 10 years without preparation ofnew NEPA documents. New docu-mentation during that period isrequired if there is a significant changein the operation or dimensions of thestructure.

Harbor and shoreline protectionstructures may be operated by a federal,state, municipal, or private entity. Theprimary federal agency in the UnitedStates is the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers; in Canada it is the Depart-ment of Fisheries and Oceans. Oneshould contact the appropriate agencyas soon as possible regarding incidentalhabitat possibilities; the earlier coordi-nation begins prior to a maintenanceactivity, the greater the likelihood thatincidental habitat can be incorporated.In addition, it is more cost effective tomodify the structure for incidentalhabitat during regular maintenanceactivities than to mobilize equipmentspecifically for incidental habitatmodification.

It is easiest to incorporate incidentalhabitat at the reconnaissance or feasibil-ity phase. It quickly becomes difficult toinsert incidental habitat modificationsonce the project enters the design phase,and is extremely unlikely that incidentalhabitat modifications presented duringconstruction will be incorporated. It isadvised to maintain close coordinationwith the project manager or design teamto ensure that recommended incidentalhabitat features are included throughoutthe design process and are included inthe plans and specifications for con-struction.Maintenance Opportunities: Newconstruction on the Great Lakes isincreasingly rare, so maintenanceactivities offer more opportunities tomodify an existing structure for inci-dental habitat. Stone must periodicallybe replaced at rubble mound breakwa-


ters and revetments. As the timbersbegin to decay and the stone weathers,timber crib breakwaters may be encap-sulated with either rubble mound orsteel sheet pile (Figures 8 and 9). Inthis process, the old timber crib issurrounded by a new rubble mound orsheet pile structure. Generally the newstructure cannot be higher than theoriginal timber crib structure. Rubblemound encapsulation may not bepossible if the larger “footprint”infringes upon the navigation channelor other harbor feature.

Sheet pile encapsulation can providea smaller cross-section at the base. Partof sheet pile encapsulation involvesclearing a driving line in the toe orscour stone for the sheet piles at thebase of the crib. Instead of removingthis old stone from the site, consider

Figure 8 Typical cross-section of a rubble mound encapsulation.

Figure 9 Typical cross-section of a sheet pile encapsulation.

placing it nearby to form a small reef(Figure 9), or consider creating acentral “disposal” location for the oldrock. With material from othermaintenance projects this location canbecome an artificial reef (Gannon1990). Determine whether there is anyflexibility in the size of new scour stoneto be used at the project. In addition,sheet pile encapsulation can allow theaddition of a concrete cap to provide asmooth walkway.Aesthetics and Biodiversity: It isadvised to use a variety of textures andvegetation to make accessible areasaesthetically pleasing; use curves ratherthan straight lines. Non-traditionalmaterials can be incorporated into thestructure to diversify the habitat.Vegetation, stone, or wood can becombined to diversify habitat complex-ity and gradients to help maximizebiodiversity. Woody material such asroot-wads, brush piles, timbers, ornative, endangered, or threatenedplants should be used if possible. Watervelocity 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 patchuse and island biogeography in develop-ment of habitat at man-made structures.Assess Ecosystem Impacts: All projectsproduce many impacts on the ecosys-tem. Asking a few questions before theproject starts can help to determinewhat type of projects should be used.One should assess existing conditionsand needs in a watershed, ecosystem, orregional context. What are the indirectand cumulative impacts of the project?Will the project have local or regionalimpacts? Will there have to be a trade-off of resource impacts? How will theproposed project impact existingresources? By answering these andother questions, the project can pro-duce maximum benefits.Public Access Considerations: Whattypes of access are desired? What kindsof opportunities will be created by

Encapsulation cannot exceedheight of original structure

Encapsulation cannot exceedheight of original structure

Old toe and scour stone




improved access? How much access isdesirable or acceptable? Should accessbe restricted in some areas to createrefuges for fish or waterfowl? How willpeople be managed to avoid conflictsbetween uses, privacy, and operationand maintenance activities? Oneshould develop project managementplans that include human and wildlifeusers. Structures that attract fish alsoattract anglers. Fixed or floating fishingplatforms and boat ramps improveangler access. Consider non-anglingactivities too; add parking, sanitaryfacilities, and picnic areas. Providingaccess to the water and creating attrac-tive habitat can enhance urbanrecreation opportunities. Access shouldbe barrier-free or barrier-reduced tomake the experience available to asmany users as possible.

Project EvaluationMonitoring Plan: In order to improvefuture projects, one should develop amonitoring plan to determine whetherthe incidental habitat modification wasbeneficial or successful. The planshould monitor fish, wildlife, andhuman use of the area before and after

the project. Recognize that it may takeyears for algae, macroinvertebrates, andother forage organisms to colonize thestructure. Monitoring and research willhelp determine how to improve inci-dental habitat and what habitat andaccess features should be included atnew and existing facilities.Reporting: Once the success (or failure)of the incidental habitat has beendetermined, the results should bereported so that others may benefitfrom the experience. A report shouldbe distributed to all agencies involvedand the results posted on the Internetthrough the Great Lakes InformationNetwork (GLIN; http://www.great-lakes.net). If the incidental habitatmodification was not successful,consider how to modify the design andwhat operational changes to make.Operational changes may be imple-mented relatively quickly; designchanges may have to wait for fundingor until routine maintenance is re-quired. An incidental habitat guidancemanual describing successful projectsand suggested approaches should bedeveloped for planners, developers,and regulators.

ReferencesGannon, 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 inLake 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. MoyUniversity of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute705 Viebahn StreetManitowoc, WI [email protected]


Chapter 2

IntroductionToday, stream and riverbank protec-

tion efforts are expected to addressissues such as habitat, aesthetics, andwater quality in addition to such needsas flood control and erosion protection.It is common knowledge that inte-grated streambank protection designsthat include vegetation are likely tosatisfy these multiple objectives. Soilbioengineering systems utilize vegeta-tion as a principal component and canprovide sound streambank protectionwhile maximizing ecological and waterquality benefits. Streambank protec-tion designs that consist of riprap,concrete, or other inert structures aloneare being accepted less frequentlybecause of their lack of environmentaland aesthetic benefits. Consequently,there is greater interest in designs thatcombine vegetation and inert materialsinto living systems that can reduceerosion while providing environmentaland aesthetic benefits. This integratabletechnology is therefore responsive tothese increasing concerns.

This case study describes soilbioengineering systems that have beenused to meet specific aquatic andriparian habitat objectives, suchas providing overhanging cover for fishand riparian habitat. Examples arepresented to illustrate the use ofthese systems.

Information has been prepared intabular form that may be a useful guidefor evaluating alternative soil bioengi-neering streambank protectionmeasures and selecting those that bestachieve the desired project objectives(Table 3). This procedure has beendeveloped and used on several projectswhere environmental objectives weremajor concerns, including a majorsport fishing stream in Alaska and theOttawa River in Canada, which dividesthe Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Multiple ObjectiveSoil Bioengineering for Riverbank RestorationAlton Simms and Robbin Sotir, Robbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Benefits ofSoil Bioengineering Systems

Soil bioengineering systems forstream and riverbank protection consistof structural engineering componentsand integrated ecological systems thatprovide protection for the entireriverbank over a reach or an entiresystem. There may be several soilbioengineering components capable ofproviding erosion protection for a givensite, depending on the type of erosionor failure problem that exists. Thespecific design chosen may depend onseveral factors, including the level ofrisk that is acceptable, cost, and/orenvironmental and aesthetic objectives.

Table 3 summarizes the floodconveyance, habitat, water quality,recreation, and aesthetic benefits. Table4 summarizes the major environmentalbenefits of the most common soilbioengineering methods employed instreambank protection that utilizewoody vegetation. Such tables can beuseful in helping to select specific soilbioengineering methods that can beincorporated into streambank protec-tion designs to maximize specificenvironmental requirements. Forexample, the branches that overhangthe water along the riverbank provideshade and protection from predatorsmaking it an excellent choice as part ofa bank protection system on streamswhere such habitat is scarce. Theremay be other constraints that affect thechoice however. Some methods mightcause too much flow constriction ormight cause erosion of the opposingbank if used on very small systems.However, this is not typical in the caseof rivers. All of the soil bioengineeringmethods have a common geotechnicalbenefit of providing root reinforcementin the soil mantle. The more deeplyinstalled methods, such as brushlayer,


Table 3 A matrix to help compare the benefits of different streambank protection measures.

Method Flood Conveyance Aquatic Riparian Water Quality Recreation AestheticHabitat Habitat

Live Staking negligible, except fair to good good negligible, except poor to fair goodon small streams on small streams

Live Fascines negligible, except good to good negligible, except fair to good good toon 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 toGeogrid 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 todepends on stream size very good medium streams very goodand design

Joint Planting negligible, except fair to good good negligible, except fair good toon small streams on small streams very good

Brush-Mattress negligible, except good very good fair to good fair to good good toon small streams to excellent excellent

Live Bloom varies, negligible if length excellent negligible good fair to good fair to goodless than 1/4 channel width to fairand height less than 1/2

bank height

Conventional negligible, except on negligible fair negligible to fair fair goodVegetation small streams and none to good

if maintained

Tree none fair to negligible negligible none fairReventment 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

positively affect the direction ofseepage. Hydrologically, these methodsserve as horizontal drains convertingparallel flow to vertical flow. Hydrauli-cally, vegetation reduces velocities and

redirect flows. Soil bioengineeringprojects are typically consideredaesthetically pleasing and become moreso over time.


The species of woody vegetationselected for inclusion in soil bioengi-neering systems can have a significanteffect on the habitat benefits. Variousspecies of willow are the most commonwoody plants used in soil bioengineer-ing because of their excellent rootingability. While willow can provide goodoverhanging cover and shade forstreams, good nesting habitat for somespecies of birds, and some cover formammals, it is not noted as an excellentfood source for land animals. There areother plants that may be better choicesfor accomplishing specific habitatobjectives. Such plants can be added tosoil bioengineering designs to providespecific habitat benefits for targetspecies. Chapter 18 of the NaturalResources Conservation Service Engi-neering Field Handbook (SoilBioengineering for Upland SlopeProtection and Erosion Reduction)provides information about growthhabits, habitat value, and rootingcharacteristics for a variety of plantsadapted in the United States.

Ottawa RiverIn 1996, Public Works and Govern-

ment Services Canada undertook thestabilizing and remediation of a bio-medical disposal site along the banks ofthe Ottawa River in Hull, Quebec,Canada. This site is situated adjacentto a highly visible, popular, and passiverecreational green space known asJacques Cartier Park. This area offersspectacular views of the River andParliment Hill (Ottawa) on the oppo-site bank.

As part of the remediation of the site,excavation of the contaminated soils andmaterials was replaced with a sand/claysubsoil mix (Figure 10). The resultingembankment was then topped off withan approved topsoil blend. Due to thesteepness of the constructed slope andthe river below, surface stability was ofvital importance. This was accom-plished via the use of live fascines on thecontour with erosion control fabricknown as coir (Figure 11).

Figure 10 Soil preparation along the shoreline of Jacques Cartier Park.

Figure 11 Placement of live fascines on contour with erosioncontrol fabric along the Jacques Cartier Park.

Figure 12 Vegetated shoreline resulting from the useof bioengineering techniques in Jacques Cartier Park.


Other project objectives included:preparing a foundation, where over timea natural community of indigenousplant materials for upland and riverinehabitat would evolve; improvingaesthetics; and establishing a long-term,maintenance-free natural slope alongthe Ottawa River within its highlyurbanized context. The success of thisproject to meet the desired goals enabledPublic Works to designate the area asan extension of Jacques Cartier Park(Figure 12).

Kenai RiverThe Kenai River in Alaska is a world

class sport fishing stream noted for itstrophy Chinook salmon fishing. Inheavily used public access areas, such asSoldotna Creek Park and CentennialPark, bank vegetation had been de-stroyed by foot traffic and thestreambank was eroding rapidly (Figure13). Because of the potential impactson rearing habitat and movement ofyoung Chinook, Alaska Fish and Gamewould not permit dikes of any kind orhard structures such as bulkheads.They also discouraged the use of riprapabove the elevation of the ordinary highwater-mark.

Figure 13 Rapid streambank erosioncaused by heavy public use along the KenaiRiver in Alaska.

Figure 14 Overhanging cover was providedby live siltation and live cribwall construc-tions along the Kenai River.

Figure 15 Large rocks placed in front of the live cribwalls provided additional fish cover.


A 650 foot section of streambank atSoldotna Creek Park was stabilized usingsoil bioengineering methods. Over-hanging cover was provided by livesiltation constructions and live cribwalls(Figure 14). In wet areas, native sodrolls and live fascines were used tostabilize the bank line and reestablishvegetation. Large rocks, placed ran-domly in the shallow water in front ofthe live cribwalls, and small rootwads,anchored further out, were used tocreate additional fish cover (Figure 15).The soil bioengineering installationssurvived the 1995 flood, the largest onrecord, with minimal damage. Thissame flood ravaged banks protected withriprap and other hard structures.

SummaryWater resource projects, by their very

nature, involve multiple objectives, andstreambank protection is no exception.In addition to controlling erosion, wemust meet water quality, habitat,aesthetics, and other environmentalobjectives. Integrated soil bioengineer-ing designs that employ woodyvegetation meet these environmentalobjectives better than other types ofstreambank protection alone. Maxi-mum benefits are derived by choosingsoil bioengineering methods andselecting the vegetation to achievespecific environmental objectives.The success of soil bioengineering onthe Ottawa River and the Kenai Riverindicates that this approach to riverbankprotection and restoration is applicableto address multiple objective goals.

ReferencesRobbin 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 FieldHandbook: Chapter 18 - Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction.<www.ncg.nrcs.usda.gov/practice_stds.html>

Contact Person: Alton P. SimmsRobbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc.434 Villa RoadMariet ta, GA [email protected]<www.sotir.com>


Chapter 3Comparison ofSoil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for ShoreErosion Control: Costs and Effectiveness

Tim Patterson, Environment Canada

IntroductionThe objective of this case study is to

compare the costs and effectivenessassociated with both soil bioengineeringand hard structures. Through research,the common principles and materialsused in bioengineering were discovered.An investigation of how these principleswere applied to various sites acrossSouthern Ontario was then conducted.This included visitation of the sites, aswell as interviews with people involved.

Manufactured “hard” structuresdesigned to prevent erosion will oftenbecome cracked and damaged as theyage. Since they are “dead” materials,they cannot maintain or repair them-selves as plant materials can. Hardstructures do, however, provide imme-diate effective erosion control againstsevere elements that would wash awaynewly placed plant materials. This isespecially true for lake front lands. Forthis reason, some constructedbioengineered sites incorporate hardstructures.

The main thrust of bioengineeringinvolves the harvesting and planting ofdormant cuttings or branches from treeand plant species in order to provide anatural basis for erosion control. Thesecuttings are arranged into individualstakes (live stakes) and/or put intobundles. These bundles can be ar-ranged in a variety of ways. The mostcommon arrangements are calledfascines, brushlayers, andbrushmattresses. Cuttings are usuallytaken from dogwoods and/or willows.This is mainly because the cut branchesof these species are able to take root andgrow on their own. As the cuttingsgrow and extend their root structure,the soil becomes more stable.

Bioengineering is used as a natural,long-term solution to erosion control.

A bioengineered site is consideredsuccessful when there is little or noevidence of human intervention,usually several years after planting.The site should become better pro-tected with time. For example, cuttingsplanted into a bank beside a water-course can go through additional stagesof erosion control for the bank. Thecuttings add a bit of protection againstsoil sliding down the bank, immedi-ately after being planted. Roots fromthe cuttings begin to hold the soiltogether more as they grow and inter-connect with each other. Eventually,some of these roots will likely extendout into the watercourse, slowing downflows and creating fish habitat. As thetrees mature more, the thicker roots inthe watercourse are able to partiallydeflect flows away from the bank,decreasing erosion. During floodingconditions, these roots not only helpprotect against erosion, but can trapsoil, sand, and small stones which addto the bank material.

For the majority of applications inbioengineering, the only types of treecuttings that may be successfully usedare those that can grow on their ownafter being cut (when dormant). Thereare three common types of trees inOntario that can provide such cuttings:willows, dogwoods, and poplars.Willow and dogwood cuttings are themost commonly used for bioengineer-ing projects. Although these species areused to establish a firm root structurein the soil, native plants tend to invadea bioengineered site over time, mixingin with the willows and dogwoods.These invading species usually do notharm the integrity of the bioengineeredsite and are often beneficial in aiding tothe root structure.

The technique of bioengineeringis becoming more popular among


municipalities and ConservationAuthorities (CAs) in Ontario. Wheremost municipalities and CAs did notincorporate bioengineering techniquesonly 10 years ago, most do today for atleast some of their erosion controlprojects.

There are two main reasons munici-palities and CAs choose bioengineeringover concrete and steel. The firstreason is that it is considered to bemore environmentally friendly. Thesecond reason is financial. For mostsites, it is actually cheaper to implementbioengineering than it is to create ahard structure, especially for the longterm. Material, transportation, andlabor costs are generally more expensivefor hard structures.

The main reason that some localgovernments do not choose to utilizebioengineering is because they areunsure of its effectiveness. Bioengineer-ing principles are relatively unknown(although not unproven), and thus anuncertain solution to erosion in theminds of many. The limits of theability of bioengineered sites to resisterosion are even less certain and verysite specific.

Because municipalities typically havelarger budgets than CAs, some of thebest combinations of bioengineeringtechniques can be found at projects paidfor by cities. Often, these techniques arein combination with hard structures.

CostsCosts vary for different types of

bioengineering techniques. There isoften no cost for labor and/or materials.Labor is often done by volunteers.Materials, such as cuttings for livestakes, fascines, and brushlayers aresometimes found either on or off site,or are donated.

Hard structures have a specificdesign life to them, but bioengineeringdesigns typically do not. This may bepartly because bioengineering was littleused in North America 10 years agocompared to its use now, so there arefew projects older than 10 years tocompare with (except for sites inEurope). While this may be true, the

theory behind bioengineered designs isthat they are living and self-repairing.Once established with a good design,they increase in strength, and after aperiod of 2 to 3 years they should becapable of resisting high stream flows.They should also be capable of self-repair. Branches or roots that becomebroken or die are gradually replacedwith more growth. Since hard struc-tures cannot repair themselves, theyrequire long-term maintenance. Thismeans that the gap in costs between ahard structure and a bioengineered sitewill continually grow.

Most of the case studies detailedhave successfully achieved stableerosion control using bioengineering.Proper planning and adaptation to siteconditions played a big role in thesesuccesses. This included knowing thelimitations to each type of planting orsoft structure and deciding if and wherethey should be used. Recognizingwhere rip-rap or rocks should be usedinstead of, or in conjunction with, asoft structure was also very important.

Although careful planning went intomost of the case studies, unforeseen orunanticipated problems have occurredat some sites, resulting in partial orcomplete failures in the bioengineeringdesigns. There are many problems thatcan occur due to the combined com-plexities of factors such as thecharacteristics of tree species used, soilconditions, local climate, random stormevents, immediate and surroundingland use, area wildlife, pedestriantraffic, skill of the laborers, and theproject design, among other things.

The success of a bioengineered sitecan only be conclusively determinedafter the first 2 or 3 years. Live stakes,fascines, brushlayers, andbrushmattresses are very vulnerable topoor site conditions, erosion, andvandalism during this time, while theirroot structures are growing. It isessential that the required amount ofsunlight and soil moisture, necessaryfor the species of cuttings used, be apart of the site conditions, as this wasthe main reason for failed areas of sitesin the case studies.


Natural channel design goes wellwith bioengineering. Because thisinvolves the removal or relocation ofsoil, this adds to the cost considerably.

Bioengineering could still use morepublic and municipal support. Al-though it is becoming a popularalternative to hard structures, there arestill some municipalities that seldom ornever use bioengineering designs. Thissupport should come gradually, as theoverall effectiveness of bioengineeringprojects become better known andunderstood.

Bioengineering is much more widelyused in riverine environments over lakeshores. This accounts for the fact thatfew case studies involve lake shore sites.Where bioengineering is used at suchsites, it is often in combination withhard structures such as armorstone orboulders. This is because the erosiveforce of waves along a shoreline isfrequent and usually too overpoweringto allow tree cuttings to grow, even ifaided by geotextiles and cribwalls. Foradequate erosion control in many lowflow creeks, however, hard structuresmay be limited or avoided altogether infavor of bioengineering.

Comparing costs taken from the casestudies, live stakes, fascines,brushlayers, brushmattresses, root wads,and log jams are the lowest costingcomponents of bioengineering, fol-lowed by geotextiles, rip-rap, and livecribwalls (Table 5). Natural channeldesign is above these costs. Hardstructures cost even more (Table 6).

Bioengineering in a riverine environ-ment is usually significantly lessexpensive than hard structures on a permeter basis (Figure 16). Comparingnatural channel design case studies withlarge concrete channels, the differenceis about threefold. Comparing casestudies using basic bioengineeringdesigns with those using large concretechannels, the difference is even more,depending on site conditions.

Environmental BenefitsIn addition to the cost benefits

of bioengineering, the environmentalbenefits, which are not as easily mea-

sured, are an important factor. Wildlifehabitat, green space, and aestheticqualities are in high demand. This isapparent by the number of citizens’ andspecial interest groups that have madecontributions to several case studies.

Lack of information and understand-ing is a big obstacle to soft engineeringpractices. Authoritative guidelines forsoft engineering are not nearly asabundant, or as clear, as specificationsthat exist for hard structures. Munici-palities and other government bodieswill be more likely to approve softengineering designs if specifications areknown and carry the same weight asthose for hard structures.

Table 5 Unit costs of selected materials or components ofbioengineering.

Item Cost

Live stakes (each) $ 0.50Geotextile netting (per m2) $ 1.46Geotextile filter material 270R (per m2) $ 1.74Aquatic plants (each) $ 2.00Cuttings for brushlayers and brush-mattresses (bundle of 50, 1-3 m long) $ 8.50Rip-rap (per ton) $ 14.40Cedar poles for cribwalls (3 m each) $ 20.00Fascines (5 m length) $ 35.00Root wads (each) $ 35.00Coir logs (m) $ 80.00Constructed cribwall (m) $182.26

Sources: City of Mississauga, Cooksville Creek Tender Contract; EnvironmentNetwork; Grillmayer, 1995; Belton Industries, Inc.; Brad Glasman, personal communi-cation.

Table 6 Sample costs per meter of hard structures.

Item Cost

1996 Rip-rap – 400-900 mm diameter $ 6561997 Concrete storm sewer extension – 750 mm diameter $ 7971996 Armorstone wall on Binbrook Lake $ 9841985 Armorstone average cost for Lake Ontario 20 year design $ 1,2251993 Armorstone wall on Lake Superior $ 1,5001994 Shorewall on Lake Ontario $ 1,9811998 Shorewall on Lake Ontario $ 3,364

Sources: Ken Cullis & Jake Vander Wal, personal communication; Joe Hollick,personal communication; Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, Scott’s PlainsPark Tender Contract; R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., 1992.


Figure 16 The cost for bioengineering compared to hard structures (cost/meter).

ReferencesBelton 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. <http://www.cciw.ca/green-lane/cuf/>

Grillmayer, R. 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 Environment,Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Grillmayer, R.G. 1998. Soil Bioengineering. Sub-section in: A Stream Rehabilitation Manual for Ontario – Draft.Ontario Streams web site. <http://www.ontariostreams.on.ca/toc.htm>

Hollick, J. City of Burlington. Personal communication.

Otonabee Region Conservation Authority. 6 Nov. 1997. Tender Contract No. OTR97-02. Scott’s Plains Park ErosionControl Works.

Patterson, T.S. 1999. Comparison of Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for Riverine and Shoreline ErosionControl in Ontario: Costs and Effectiveness. Final Report for Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario,Canada.

R.V. Anderson Associates Limited. 1992. Halton Channel Lining Maintenance Study. RVA 3450.10. Report for theHalton Region Conservation Authority.

Steering Committee Report. 1994. Assessment of Benefits of Subwatershed Planning and Naturalizing Stream Systems,March 1994. Environment Canada, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources.

Basic Live Natural Boulder Armorstone Concrete ShorewallBioeng. Cribwall Channel Bank Channel

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

0

Cos

t/M

eter

John Shaw, Environment CanadaGreat Lakes Cleanup Fund 2000867 Lakeshore RoadP.O. Box 5050Burlington, Ontario L7R [email protected]

Tom Muir, Environment CanadaAtmospheric Environment BranchWater Issues Division867 Lakeshore RoadP.O. Box 5050Burlington, Ontario L7R [email protected]

Contact Persons: Tim Patterson, Environment CanadaNational Water Research InstituteAquatic Ecosystem Restoration Branch867 Lakeshore RoadP.O. Box 5050Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6tim.pat [email protected]


Chapter 4

IntroductionA wetland and prairie restoration

project was carried out in a day-usepark area (MacDonald Park) along theSt. Clair River (Chenal Ecarte) fromSeptember 1995 to July 1997.MacDonald Park is one of 17 river-sidepark areas owned and managed by theSt. Clair Parkway Commission. Use ofthis network of parks includes picnick-ing, camping, boat launching/mooring, swimming, and associatedpassive recreational activities. Thisparticular site was chosen due to itshigh potential for a variety of aquaticand upland restoration techniques, thevisibility and accessibility along acommonly traveled roadway, and thestrong interest of the landowner (St.Clair Parkway Commission). Theproject involved the creation of 1 ha(2.5 acres) of wetland, 1 ha (2.5 acres)of Tallgrass Prairie complete with aninterpretive trail, improvement of200 m (219 yards) of shorelineriparian area, and interpretive signsand brochures.

Project GoalsThe work was initiated through the

St.Clair River Remedial Action Plan(RAP) process in order to help restorefish and wildlife habitat in the St. ClairRiver watershed. This particular projectwas one of 28 areas originally identifiedin an earlier report (Survey of CandidateSites on the St. Clair and Detroit Riverfor Potential Habitat Rehabilitation/Enhancement). Creation of wetlands,improvement of shoreline riparian areas,and establishment of Tallgrass Prairiehabitat were the main objectives. Thesecondary objectives were to use thisproject as a key demonstration area fora variety of aquatic and riparianrestoration techniques.

MacDonald ParkWetland and Prairie Restoration ProjectSt. Clair River, Ontario, Canada

Don Hector, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Project DescriptionThe original site consisted of

maintained grass, used mainly as apicnic area. The wetland componentconsisted of the excavation of 4,588cubic meters (6,000 cubic yards) ofmaterial, treatment of the littoral areaswith topsoil, and stabilization using abiodegradable coir mat. A variety ofwildlife and fisheries components wereincluded; spawning mounds, sub-merged habitat structures, aquaticvegetation plantings, and basking logs.These components were placed in thenewly created wetland area. The bankareas of the wetland were planted withshrubs.

Shoreline areas surrounding the siteand bordering dredged canal areas werereshaped, gently sloped, and stabilizedusing live willow stakes and brushbundles to establish riparian cover andas a means to reduce erosion. Plantingof aquatic vegetation in the nearshorewaters adjacent to these areas occurredin a subsequent phase. Experimentalbiolog floating barriers and bogmatislands were installed to establish in-water structure and provide erosionprotection to local shoreline areas.Approximately 200 m (219 yards) ofshoreline area were rehabilitated usingthese techniques.

In the 1 ha (2.5 acres) upland site,22,000 Tallgrass Prairie plugs of 23different forb (flower) and grass specieswere planted. A slightly elevated horse-shoe shaped trail system wasconstructed using excavated materialfrom the wetland area to allow trailusers an improved view of the prairieplant species, at the height of theirgrowing season.


Regulatory ConsiderationsThe project was subject to both

provincial and federal environmentalassessment act requirements. Throughthis process, including a series of publicnotices, no significant environmentalimpacts were identified and the projectproceeded with minor modifications.A number of positive suggestions andoffers of volunteer help from locallandowners were also received.

Project EvaluationA variety of qualitative and quantita-

tive monitoring has occurred on thesite. A fish inventory was undertakenin the newly created wetland in lateAugust 1996, one month following thecompletion of the wetland component.These results indicated four fish speciespresent in the system: largemouth bass,bluegill, central mudminnow, and anesocid species. In 1997, young-of-the-year northern pike and largemouth basswere documented in the wetland area.Visual monitoring of both the wetlandand prairie components have indicatedexcellent establishment of plant com-munities. Informal records are beingmaintained for amphibians, birds, andreptiles that appear at the project site.A butterfly count, through the NorthAmerican Butterfly Association, wasalso organized to monitor butterfly useof the prairie habitat.

Project BenefitsAlthough the total area of habitat

created was relatively small (2 ha or 5acres), the benefits of this project lie inits demonstration value, both visuallyand as an example of how local com-munity groups can make a meaningfulcontribution to the environment. It isalso an example of how some of thetraditional views of waterfront parkdesign or usage can be broadened.These new concepts and techniques canbe transferred to many other shorelinepark areas along the Great Lakes,particularly where artificial steel orconcrete shorelines are predominant.The St. Clair Parkway Commission isextremely pleased with the results ofthis project and are interested inexploring further habitat restoration

projects along their other waterfrontpark properties. This site continues tobe of interest to new groups wishing tobecome involved in activities at thissite. For example, a turtle nestinghabitat project was completed on siteand a prescribed burn was carried outin 1999, with another one proposed forspring 2000.

Funding and PartnersThis initiative involved a wide

variety of non-governmental groups,government agencies, and numerousfunding partners in completing itsmany components. Up to 20 differentgroups assisted in direct fundingsupport ($97,500), in-kind support($26,000), and volunteer labor. Dur-ing the length of this project, over 75individuals contributed 1,300 hours ofhands-on work. Key groups in thisvolunteer effort included WallaceburgDistrict High School students, localnaturalist groups, fish and gameorganizations, local landowners, andScouts Canada.

The MacDonald Park RestorationProject was supported by the followingfunders and volunteers:Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund;

National Fish and Wildlife Foundations;

Roy Investment Ltd.;

St. Clair Parkway Commission;

Rural Lambton Stewardship Network;

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

Eastern Habitat Joint Venture;

Ontario Ministry of Environmentand Energy;

Shell Environmental Fund;

St. Clair Region Conservation Authority;

Aqua-Terre Environmental Consultants;

Wallaceburg District Secondary School;

Wallaceburg and District Boy Scouts;

Bluewater Anglers Association;

Farmers and Friends Conservation Clubof Lambton;

St. Clair Binational Public AdvisoryCouncil; and

Lambton Wildlife Inc.


ReferencesMacDonald 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. <www.stewardship.on.ca> (listed as Project #1511, Kent County).

Contact Persons: Ron LudolphRural Lambton Stewardship Networkc/o Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesP. O. Box 1168Chatham, Ontario N7M [email protected]

Don HectorFish and Wildlife BiologistOntario Ministry of Natural ResourcesP. O. Box 1168Chatham, Ontario N7M [email protected]


Chapter 5 Constructing Islands forHabitat Rehabilitationin the Upper Mississippi RiverBarry Johnson, U.S. Geological Survey and Jeff Janvrin, Wisconsin Depar tment of Natural Resources

IntroductionLoss of habitat diversity is a common

problem in many large rivers of theworld (Ward and Stanford 1989).Islands can increase habitat diversitywithin large rivers because they provideshallow-water habitats, they shelter areasfrom wind and currents, and they trapsediments and organic matter (Thorp1992). They also provide terrestrialhabitats for birds, reptiles, and smallmammals. In many large rivers, islandsare being lost due to channel modifica-tions, erosion from wave action, andinundation after impoundment (Figure17A; Funk and Robinson 1974; Sedelland Froggatt 1984). In addition, the

natural processes that build islands havebeen constrained in most large rivers dueto dams, flood control, andchannelization.

On the Upper Mississippi River,managers, agencies, and industry haveworked together to restore habitatdiversity by building islands, often fromdredge spoils. In this case study, werelate our experience with three islandconstruction projects that illustratetechniques and concepts that might beapplied in other rivers. Two projects,the Channel-Border Islands project(also called the Pool 8 - Phase I Project;U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1989a)and the Stoddard Bay Backwater

A. Map with white areas depicting islands existing in 1939;dark gray areas are islands remaining in 1998; cross-hatched areas are island construction projects described inthe text. Dashed arrows show flow in the main channel.

Figure 17 Section of the Upper Mississippi River near La Crosse, Wisconsin.

B. Aerial photo of the same area in summer 1999 showing constructedislands and aquatic vegetation.


project (also called the Pool 8 - Phase IIProject; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers1996), are near La Crosse, Wisconsin.The third project, the McCartney Lakeproject (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers1989b), is near Cassville, Wisconsin,just north of Dubuque, Iowa.

Making Projects Happen: Coopera-tion, Partnerships, and Regulations

These island construction projects,like most other habitat rehabilitationprojects on the Upper Mississippi River,are a cooperative effort among multiplestakeholders. These projects wereconducted mainly through the federally-funded Environmental ManagementProgram (EMP), which began in 1986and is coordinated by a group of federaland state agencies. The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers is responsible formaintaining navigation on the river, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hasresponsibility for managing nationaltrust species and for managing federalrefuges (which constitute much of theriver’s floodplain), the five border statesare responsible for managing other fish,wildlife, and lands, and the U.S. Geo-logical Survey coordinates a Long-TermResource Monitoring Program as part ofthe Environmental ManagementProgram. These agencies work togetherto plan, prioritize, and coordinaterehabilitation projects through the EMPand to assure that projects meet all stateand federal environmental regulations.Industry and citizen groups are involvedin project planning through agency

representatives or through membershipon planning committees. In addition,the general public is involved throughpublic meetings, providing writtencomments on planning documents, andparticipating in tours of rehabilitationprojects.

With all these partners involved,planning for rehabilitation projects canbe time consuming. However, in theend a consensus is reached amongparticipants so that project implementa-tion usually goes smoothly.

Island Construction TechniquesThe basic techniques for building

two types of islands used in the UpperMississippi River projects are describedbelow. The design features incorpo-rated into these islands were derivedfrom surveys of existing stable islands inthe area and from analysis of hydraulicconditions at the project site. Thus far,all islands have been built in areas thatare 3-4 feet deep during low waterperiods (usually summer and winter).Building islands in deeper areas mayrequire changes in the techniquesdescribed here.

Building Artificial IslandsConstruction of an artificial island

begins by building a sand base (Figure18). Sand is supplied by dredgingnearby main-channel or backwatersites. This technique often provides auseful method for disposing of dredgematerial. Hydraulic dredging istypically 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).


cheaper than mechanical dredging forlarge amounts of sand. Final shapingand contouring of the sand is accom-plished with the use of bulldozers. Forsafe operation of heavy equipment, thetop of the sand base should be at leastone foot above water level. The desiredshoreline slope of 20:1 is very difficultto build. Thus, a sacrificial berm,designed to erode naturally to a 20:1slope, is placed along the shoreline(Figure 18). On shorelines that may besubject to severe erosion, protectivefeatures are often added. This can belimestone rip-rap applied around theupstream head and tips of islands, butwhere possible, limestone groins (about30 feet long) are used instead. Buildinggroins are cheaper than armoring theentire shoreline with rip-rap and thebeach areas between groins providebetter access to the island for shore-birds, reptiles, and other animals.

After the sand base is complete, acap of 1-4 feet of fine soil is applied(Figure 18). The height of the island istypically the elevation of a 10-yearflood event at that site. Highermounds can be added to support plantsthat require dryer habitats. Finally, theisland is planted with willows along thesandy shoreline and a mix of grasses,trees, and legumes in the fine soil.Using legumes in the mixture helps tomaintain adequate nitrogen in the soil.

To help reduce erosion duringflooding, islands are designed withhigher elevations at the upstream end.As water levels rise, the downstreamportion of the island floods first, whichhelps maintain similar water levels onupstream and downstream sides. Thus,when the island is finally over-topped,the hydraulic head across the island islow, which reduces current velocityand erosion.

Constructing Seed IslandsA second type of island, called a seed

island, has also been used in the UpperMississippi River. A seed island is alinear pile of rip-rap placed perpendicu-lar to the current in areas of highsediment transport and uses the river’snatural processes to build a new island.As water is deflected around the seed

island, sediments are deposited in thearea of slower-moving water, whichforms behind the rock pile. In addi-tion, increased current velocity aroundthe sides of the seed island scours theriver bottom and creates deeper areas.These processes occur primarily duringfloods because high flows and currentvelocities are needed to mobilize andtransport the sand substrate that isdeposited to form islands. The dimen-sions of seed islands, especially theirelevation, should be based on ananalysis of hydraulic conditions andsediment transport occurring at theproject site during flooding.

Upper Mississippi RiverIsland Projects

The projects described below wereselected to illustrate specific features ofdifferent types of island construction.

The Channel-Border Island ProjectIn this project, conducted within an

impounded area of the Upper Missis-sippi River (Figure 17), existing islandswere protected from erosion, while newbarrier islands were built along theborder of the main channel. Theobjective was to shelter off-channel areasfrom currents and wakes to create betterconditions for plant growth in shallowwater (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers1989a). The project began in 1990 byinstalling rip-rap on shorelines ofexisting islands to prevent furthererosion. Then, downstream of theexisting islands, approximately 13,000linear feet of barrier islands were built(totaling 30 acres) using 320,000 cubicyards of dredge spoil. Groins wereinstalled to protect shorelines of the newislands, which were completed in 1993.

Seed islands were also constructednear the Channel-Border islands(Figure 17A). Most seed islands wereabout 200 feet long, 30 feet wide at thebase, and the tops 3-5 feet above thewater level at low flows. Two seedislands near the Channel-Border projecthave been in place since 1995, with sixadditional islands built in 1998.Substrate monitoring around theseislands has shown that scouring anddeposition are occurring as expected.


The Channel-Border Islands Projectbenefited an estimated 1,000 acres ofaquatic habitat. The islands haveweathered waves, wakes, and annualflooding, including the Great Flood of1993, with very little loss of material.Lush vegetation has become establishedon the islands from the original seed-ing. In the shallow protected areasbehind the islands, water transparencyhas increased as has the abundanceof aquatic plants (Figure 17B), whichis a key component for increasingfish abundance (Johnson andJennings 1998).

The Stoddard Bay Islands ProjectStoddard Bay is a backwater area

along the town of Stoddard, Wisconsin(Figure 17) that was previously pro-tected by a line of barrier islandsextending about 3,000 feet from theeast shore of the Mississippi River andcurving downstream about 6,000 feet(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1996).These islands enclosed an area of about600 acres. By the 1970s, these islandshad been lost to erosion and the sitehad become a relatively homogenousopen-water basin. The purpose of thisproject, begun in 1997, was to rebuildthose barrier islands. These islandswould reduce wind fetch and improvehabitat conditions within the enclosedarea, including over-wintering habitatfor fishes. Sand for island constructioncame from dredging 15 acres of nearbybackwater habitat.

To improve flow conditions withinStoddard Bay, low rock sills wereincorporated into the barrier islands(Figure 17). Sills were constructed oflimestone rip-rap and incorporated afine-mesh barrier fabric to help reducewater seepage through the sill. Theselow sills are over-topped during floods,which allows high flows to flush thebay. However, to allow some inflowduring low-water periods, a notch wasplaced into the upstream sill.

Sill heights were determined basedon concerns for winter habitat. Goodover-winter habitat for backwater fishesshould have current velocities less than1 cm/sec (Knights et al. 1995). Undernormal winter conditions, inflow to the

bay occurs only through the notch inthe sill, which produces acceptablecurrent velocities. However, if the sillsare overtopped, current velocitiesincrease to undesirable levels. Toreduce this possibility, we analyzedwinter water elevations at the site andbuilt the sills to an elevation thatproduced only a 10% chance of beingovertopped for more than five consecu-tive days during winter. That sill heightalso corresponded to a two-year springflood elevation.

To help design the Stoddard Bayisland complex, computer modelingwas used (J.␣ Hendrickson, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, St. Paul) to predictcurrent velocities within the bay underalternative island configurations andvarious flow conditions (high flow, lowflow, and low flow with two feet of icecover). The design objective was toproduce a variety of current velocitieswithin the bay, with low velocitiesalways available somewhere and highvelocities occurring in some areasduring high water to scour the sub-strate. Modeling helped determine thenumber of the sills to incorporate intothe barrier islands and the number andlocation of interior islands.

For the Stoddard Bay Project, 27acres of islands were constructed, whichprovided benefits to at least 600 acresof aquatic habitat. Since this projectwas completed in 1999, there has beenlittle time for evaluation. However,during summer 1999, water transpar-ency in the bay was much greater thanoutside the bay and aquatic plants weremuch more abundant than in previousyears (Figure 17B). Angling successwas high within the backwater andalong the exterior of the barrier islands,causing the area to quickly gain areputation as a great fishing spot. Inaddition, the project protects much ofthe shoreline along the town ofStoddard from excessive wave action.

The McCartney Lake ProjectMcCartney Lake is an extensive

backwater complex that has experi-enced considerable sedimentation, withsubsequent loss of deep water areas.Rehabilitation of the lake was begun in


1989 and included stabilizing an inletchannel to reduce sediment inflow tothe system and dredging 8,200 feet ofconnected channels, about 10 feet deep,within the lake (Figure 19; U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers 1989b). Theresulting 400,000 cubic yards of dredgematerial were used to construct a single22-acre island at the downstream endof the lake to reduce wind-generatedwaves on McCartney Lake (Figure 19).

McCartney Island was constructedusing techniques similar to thosedescribed above, but the design wasdifferent. Rather than a barrier island,this was a large island designed toprovide a variety of aquatic and terres-trial habitats. Thus, a 10-acre wetlandwas built on one end of the island andupland habitat at the other end (Figure19). In addition, because of the largesize of the island no shoreline protec-tion was used.

The McCartney Lake project wascompleted in 1991 and since then,the island has remained stable. Imme-diately upon completion, dissolvedoxygen levels and water depth

improved within the dredged areas. Theisland was used almost immediately bywaterfowl, shorebirds, turtles, amphib-ians, and small mammals. However,increases in adult fish populations werenot evident until six years after projectcompletion due to time lags in fishreproduction and growth.

Funding for Island ProjectsFunding for habitat rehabilitation

projects on the Upper Mississippi Rivertypically comes from a variety ofsources. Funding for construction costscomes mostly from the EnvironmentalManagement Program and occasionallyfrom operation and maintenance fundsof the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,Fish and Wildlife Service, or stateagencies. Costs for project planningand evaluation are typically sharedamong agencies with funds comingfrom the Environmental ManagementProgram (including the Long-TermResource Monitoring Program) andfrom in-kind contributions of labor,equipment, and supplies frompartner agencies.

Figure 19 McCartney Lake, on the Mississippi River near Cassville, Wisconsin, showing dredge cuts madeto provide more deep-water habitat. The photo also shows a 22-acre island constructed from the dredgedsediments. The dark area inside the island is a 10-acre wetland.


The islands constructed in theprojects described above have a lifeexpectancy of 50 years. For all threeprojects the costs of island constructionwere similar. Costs averaged about$75,000 per acre (1995 U.S. dollars).This does not include costs forplanning or evaluation of the projects.

Evaluation Techniquesand Learning as You Go

Evaluation of each island project hasproduced more effective island designsand more efficient construction tech-niques. The evaluation process hastypically involved pre- and post-construction assessment of variousfeatures of islands and habitats includ-ing physical (flow patterns, currentvelocity, wave activity, water depth,substrate erosion/deposition), waterquality (temperature, dissolved oxygen,transparency), and biological (aquaticand terrestrial vegetation, invertebrates,fish, birds) components; relativeabundance and diversity of habitats;and stability of island shorelines.Changes in physical and chemical

variables are relatively easy to measureand often show improvement immedi-ately after construction. However,many biological changes are slower andless obvious.

Quantitative monitoring has shownthat islands can be very effective atmodifying currents, wind, and waves,which in turn affects water transpar-ency, plant growth, and sedimentationrates. In fact, the Channel-BorderIsland Project changed flow patternsenough that the design of new islandprojects downstream had to be modi-fied. Qualitative observation andphotographs of islands over time,especially in relation to on-site refer-ence points, have provided usefulevaluation of how shorelines andvegetation are fairing. Detectingchanges in invertebrates and fishesusually requires more intensive on-sitesampling. In addition, long-termquantitative monitoring will be neededto determine if projects have actuallyincreased biological productivity in thesystem as a whole.

ReferencesFunk, 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. <www.wnrmag.com/stories/1998/aug98/missrv.htm>

Johnson, B.L. and C.A. Jennings. 1998. Habitat associations of small fishes around islands in the Upper MississippiRiver. 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 dissolvedoxygen, temperature, and current in backwater lakes of the Upper Mississippi River during winter. NorthAmerican 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 theWillamette 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 islandconstruction - phase I. Upper Mississippi River, Vernon County, Wisconsin. Environmental ManagementProgram, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. June 1989.


U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989b. Definitive project report with integratedenvironmental assessment (R-3), Bertom and McCartney lakes rehabilitationand enhancement. Pool 11, Upper Mississippi River, Grant County, Wisconsin.Environmental Management Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RockIsland District. March 1989.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Definitive project report/environmentalassessment (SP-20), Pool 8 islands phase II. Upper Mississippi River, VernonCounty, Wisconsin. Environmental Management Program, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, St. Paul District. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Ward, J.V., and J.A. Stanford. 1989. Riverine ecosystems: the influence of man oncatchment dynamics and fish ecology. Pages 55-64 in D. P. Dodge, editor,Proceedings of the international large rivers symposium. Canadian SpecialPublication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106.

Web Sites<www.umesc.usgs.gov/http_data/hrep_projects/><www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp/about_ltrmp.html>

Contact Persons: Barry JohnsonU.S. Geological SurveyUpper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center2630 Fanta Reed RoadLa Crosse, WI [email protected]

Jeff JanvrinWisconsin Department of Natural Resources3550 Mormon Coulee RdLa Crosse, WI [email protected]

Jon HendricksonU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.190 Fifth St. EastSt. Paul, MN [email protected]

Jim NissenU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service555 Lester Ave.Onalaska, WI [email protected]


Chapter 6Goose Bay ShorelineStabilization and Habitat EnhancementStan Taylor, Essex Region Conservation Authority

IntroductionThe purpose of the Goose Bay

Shoreline Stabilization and HabitatEnhancement project was to restoreand enhance the shoreline of theembayment. This included the con-struction of submerged fish habitatenhancements along the embayment’slittoral fringe and deeper water areas.

Project DescriptionGoose Bay Park is located on the

Detroit River approximately 200 mwest of the foot of Pillette Road, onWindsor’s near east side. The site isowned by the City of Windsor and is apassive use park approximately 0.9 ha(2.1 acres) in size with a shorelinefrontage (east property line to westproperty line) of approximately 172 m.Goose Bay is one of the last remainingsheltered embayment habitats along theupper Detroit River shoreline. Thisarea has been previously identified asimportant for fish and wildlife habitat.

The restoration and stabilizationwork at Goose Bay involved the protec-tion of the shoreline with rip-rap andnative materials, such as willows,dogwoods, and other hardwood species(Figure 20 and 21). Selected submergedenhancements, such as groyne and rockapron construction, were undertaken toimprove fish spawning and refugehabitat (Figure 22). Two small shelteredwetland areas were created along withcobble stone beaches.

In addition to contributing toprogress toward delisting impairedbeneficial uses in the Detroit River Areaof Concern and meeting Canada-Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets,other highlights of the project include:• re-establishing the Goose Bay

shoreline and riparian areas usingnative materials (native plant speciesand rock) to provide habitat forwaterfowl and passerines;

Figure 20 Goose Bay Park shoreline, prior to rehabilitation,was badly eroding.

Figure 21 Goose Bay Park shoreline, after rehabilitation, is pro-tected from erosion and enhanced for fish and wildlife habitat.


• enhancing submerged fish habitatfeatures to increase fish use forspawning and rearing/refuge; and

• improving submerged fish habitatfeatures (i.e., groynes) to helpprotect the embayment from swiftcurrent regimes and wave action.The project is nearing completion,

with final plantings of aquatic/wetlandvegetation to be done in 2000. Inaddition to pre-project site monitoring,future monitoring activities willdemonstrate the effectiveness of in-water enhancement projects in creatinghabitat in sheltered river embayments.

Advice to Overcome Obstacles WhenUsing Soft Engineering Practices

All necessary permits and approvals(i.e., Department of Fisheries andOceans, Canada Coast Guard) wereobtained by the project proponentprior to construction. The approvalprocess involved a Federal CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Agencyscreening co-ordinated by EnvironmentCanada and was also facilitated by theEssex Region Conservation Authority’s‘one-window’ review and permitprocess. The project will result in a netimprovement in the extent and qualityof fish habitat in the embayment, andtherefore is self-compensating. Thisproject also avoids any impacts on river

flow capacities. The “soft engineering”approach which enhanced habitat wasin harmony with other needs, such asnavigation, river flows, and meeting themain objective of enhancing andprotecting the Public Parkland. Thisbalanced planning and design of theproject avoided any obstacles.

Cost, Funding, and ImplementationPartners

The total project cost was $161,000,with $50,000 being funded by Envi-ronment Canada’s Great Lakes CleanupFund. The remaining balance was paidfor by funding from the City ofWindsor. The project was carried outas a partnership between the City’sParks and Recreation Department andthe Essex Region Conservation Author-ity, with the assistance of BTSConsulting (Windsor). It was under-taken as part of the Detroit RiverCanadian Cleanup program.

Post Project EvaluationA detailed monitoring program will

be undertaken at the site on an annualbasis for two years following construc-tion. The pre-constructionbio-inventory and habitat assessment,with photographic records, will providea baseline for the monitoring program.Annual post-construction monitoringwill be undertaken during the latespring/early summer, and will includeat a minimum:• an assessment of bank stability;• an assessment of riparian plant

mortality;• extent and composition of emergent

vegetation communities in theembayment;

• extent and composition (by dominantsize classes) of embayment substrates;

• a description of basic water qualityparameters;

• qualitative assessment of existing fishspawning and rearing/refuge habitats;

• an assessment of fish use and relativedensities using snorkel or SCUBAtechniques; and

• a description of upland characteris-tics including a qualitativeassessment of wildlife habitat.

Figure 22 Goose Bay Park enhancements, such as rock groynes,were undertaken to improve fish spawning and refuge habitat.


Benefits of ProjectBy restoring and enhancing fish and

wildlife habitat, the project will aid indelisting the impaired beneficial use of“loss of fish and wildlife habitat”. Inaddition, the project will aid in meetingCanadian-Ontario Agreement HabitatTargets. The project has also stabilizedan eroding shoreline and provides anaccessible and aesthetically pleasingpublic park setting which also providesan enhanced view of the Detroit Riverfrom Riverside Drive.

Contact Persons: Faye LangmaidCity of Windsor, Parks andRecreation Department2450 McDougall StreetWindsor, Ontario N8X [email protected]

Stan TaylorEssex Region ConservationAuthority360 Fairview Avenue WestEssex, Ontario N8M [email protected]

Matthew ChildEssex Region ConservationAuthority360 Fairview Avenue WestEssex, Ontario N8M [email protected]

Dan KrutschBTS Consulting Engineers1725 North Talbot Road,RR #1Windsor, Ontario N9A [email protected]


Chapter 7 Fish and WildlifeHabitat and ShorelineTreatments Along the Toronto WaterfrontGord MacPherson, Toronto and Region Conservation Authorit y

IntroductionThe Toronto and Region Conserva-

tion Authority (TRCA) is the agencythat is responsible for shoreline man-agement initiatives within the TorontoWaterfront. Over the years, this has ledto the development of a series ofregional parks, public marinas, erosionprotection for shoreline residents,acquisition of vulnerable properties,and development of significantshoreline parklands. Within theConservation Authority, the CoastalEcology Unit is a small group ofindividuals that is charged with theresponsibility of monitoring theshoreline ecosystem, providing commu-nity outreach, and designing,developing, and implementing signifi-cant shoreline restoration projects.

Over the years, the collective effortstoward monitoring the shoreline haveled to the development of habitatclassifications and a general philosophyfor the design of shoreline structures.Simply, within the north shore of LakeOntario, there are three major types ofshoreline habitat:• open coasts (highly energetic exposed

shorelines that are typically beachesand do not support diverse, orstrong, resident populations of fish;however, on a seasonal basis theseshorelines are critical spawning areasfor pelagic forage species as well as aconnective corridor and staging areafor a broad suite of species);

• sheltered warm water embayments(Lake Ontario is a cold, deep,oligothrophic lake and therefore, theisolated warm water shorelinehabitats attract/hold a variety ofspecies by providing significant

critical habitat; shelteredembayments along the Torontowaterfront are either natural geologicfeatures like the Toronto Harbour/Toronto Island Complex or man-made structures, including the manywaterfront parks and marinas); and

• coastal marshes (many of the riversthat drain into the Toronto water-front reach Lake Ontario through acoastal marsh complex; the size,morphology, and thermal character-istics of these habitat structures makethem the most important habitatfeatures within the waterfront).

Monitoring of these habitats hasprovided meaningful insight into thedesign of habitat restoration projectsand principally, the best lesson learnedto date, is the concept of criticalhabitat. We design critical fish andwildlife habitat components at theshoreline to facilitate the creation of:• reproductive habitats;• nursery habitat;• foraging and resting areas; and• over-wintering habitats.

The conscious development ofcritical habitat features in a restorationproject guarantees that the appropriateterrestrial and aquatic species areattracted to your site and are capable ofcolonizing the site successfully. Twonewly created projects that exemplify theconcept of integrating fish and wildlifehabitat creation into the shoreline arethe Humber Bay Shores and the SpadinaQuay Wetland projects.

Humber Bay ShoresSituated close to the mouth of the

Humber River and adjacent to theHumber Bay Waterfront Park, the


former Motel Strip was the cause ofmany problems within the locallakeshore community (Figure 23). Toprovide a catalyst for redevelopment,and clean up the problematic useswithin the area, the Toronto andRegion Conservation Authority(TRCA) led a partnership of agencies inthe development of a public amenityscheme for this waterfront area. TheTRCA proposed limited lake-filling tofacilitate a desirable building envelope,attract development, and avoid en-croaching on private property in aneffort to create this important publicwaterfront area. Our understanding ofthis shoreline ecosystem assisted in thedevelopment of a park plan that trulyintegrated the needs of the community,allowed redevelopment, and createdsignificant habitat features. Our localknowledge provided valuable insightthat was utilized during the design ofshoreline structures, as well as thedevelopment of habitat components,which were required for regulatoryapproval of the project.

The design of the shoreline wasdictated by the wave climate of the site.In response, we developed habitatcomponents that were suitable for thelocal wave conditions and includedcobble beaches, offshore islands,sheltered shorelines, and a wetlandcomplex (Figure 24). The beachshoreline consists of a series of “T”shaped headlands that secure threecobble beach cells. The cobble beachwas considered the best treatmentbecause it provided a shallow beachprofile that is so important for spawn-ing forage fish. In addition, it wasdetermined to be the best shorelinetreatment technique to attenuate thewaves while still providing a significanthabitat function. Additional featuressuch as shoals, reefs, and randomlyplaced stones were attached to theheadlands in an effort to attract andhold pelagic fish.

The islands were designed to pro-vide, to a degree, sheltered back waterareas and to reduce the wave conditionsso that the site was suitable for habitat

features (Figure 24). The islands arevegetated with shrubs and have largeclusters of anchored woody materialattached to the back-shore. Also, adiversity of substrate types have beenplaced between the islands and shore-line. The overall configuration of theshoreline was undulated to enhance thecharacteristics of the back-shore area ofthe islands. Back-shore conditions,such as shoreline slope, crest height,and habitat features, were altered totake into account the shadow effect ofthe islands. In selected locations weprovided areas of finer substrates byconstructing a shelf within the shore-line structure in the hope ofestablishing emergent vegetation.

The most challenging aspect of thisproject was the development of a 3 hawetland complex (Figure 24). Ourdesired wetland shoreline consists of ashrub buffer, sedge strand, and emer-gent, submergent, and floating leafvegetation. To create this shorelinecondition, we filled in the perimeterand closed off an existing embaymentwith a rock-rubble berm that wascovered by a 1 m veneer of clean fill.To ensure that we had the properelevations for wetlands plants, weinitially surveyed our coastal marshes todetermine the elevations of naturallyoccurring coastal wetlands. Using thisinformation, we created a pilot projectat one of our earlier habitat creationprojects to determine the criticalelevations for plant material. Wecreated a gradual shoreline slope thatwas planted with emergents andmonitored, over the course of five years,to determine the exact elevations atwhich wetland plants would establish.These elevation data have since beenused at all of our wetland project sites.Our general philosophy, in creatingcoastal plant communities, is to createthe conditions suitable for the desiredcommunity and inoculate the site,rather than plant a plantation. Toinoculate this wetland, we planted ouremergent material in nodes to facilitatecolonization and connected these areaswith perimeter plantings.


Figure 23 The shoreline of Humber Bay prior torehabilitation. The former hotel strip was a problem-atic area for the lakeshore community.

Figure 24 After rehabilitation of Humber Bay, adesirable building envelope encourages develop-ment. This new interest in redevelopment hasprovided more, safer public access to the water.

One unique aspect of this projectwas the material we received from theTRCA initiative, the “Aquatic PlantsProgram.” This program was started anumber of years ago and now involvesmore than seven hundred classrooms inthe Toronto area growing a variety ofaquatic and terrestrial plants for ourrehabilitation projects. The TRCAprovides materials, equipment, andtechnical support to the classroominstructors and in return we receivequality plant material at a fraction ofthe cost, with the added benefit of aneffective community outreach program.

Additional habitat features were alsodetailed within the wetland complex.In an effort to diversify the deep waterareas of the wetland, five log cribstructures were sunk in the open water.The cribs were constructed of logs eightfoot long, five feet high, and filled with

a rock ballast. They attract a variety offish in the area. We also deployed anumber of brush bundles that wereanchored to cinder blocks and sunk inthe same vicinity of the log cribs. Avariety of log stumps, whole trees, andlogs were placed along the shoreline tomimic woody debris along the shore.To facilitate pike spawning, we createda braided network of shallow channelsthat were planted with slender emer-gent wetland plants. Duringconstruction, we noticed that thecreated island, when we closed off theembayment, was attracting a largenumber of Caspian Terns. We alteredour original plans and left this islandfeature barren of vegetation and put aveneer of sand and gravel down tomimic the back-shore beach featureutilized by nesting Caspian Terns.


Spadina Quay WetlandOver the past ten years the Toronto

and Region Conservation Authority hasmonitored the fish communities alongthe Toronto Waterfront. About fouryears ago, we started to receive reportsfrom anglers fishing at the foot ofSpadina Avenue in the Inner Harbour.They called in stating that they werecatching tagged northern pike duringthe spawning season. This was signifi-cant because we never tagged any fishalong the north shore of the InnerHarbour of Toronto and we couldn’tbelieve that northern pike would betrying to utilize the marginal habitats ofthe Inner Harbour. We later verified,that indeed, many pike moving fromthe Toronto Islands were congregatingin the Inner Harbour during the earlyspring spawning season.

Two years ago, a colleague in theToronto Parks Department asked if wehad any ideas for the parking lot at theeastern portion of the existing SpadinaParklands in light of some majorredevelopment within the area. Ourimmediate response was to suggest thecreation of a spawning and wetland areafor the pike we were seeing at thatlocation. The challenge faced by us wasto fit a viable wetland in such a smallphysical space in such a high profilearea.

To get water onto the site, we cut theseawall in two locations and removedthe top wall section down to thewaterline (Figure 25). A new woodenboardwalk bridged the gap and a set ofgates were installed to separate anyfloating harbor debris from the wetlandand to control and exclude carp duringtheir spawning season. The openingswere designed to take advantage of theLake Ontario water level regime andstrategically time the extent andduration of inundating water.

Essentially, we were hoping to allowfor shallow water in the spring, maxi-mum water depth throughout thesummer, gradual recession of the waterin the fall, and a dry condition in thewinter months. The criteria for settingthe elevation were focused on providingconditions suitable for pike spawning

in the spring, allowing for a permanentwater feature during the tourist season,and allowing for complete draw-downto ensure the viability of slenderemergents and ensure some dynamicstability to the system.

We focused on creating three plantcommunities within the Spadina QuayWetland: Eastern cottonwoods; stag-horn sumach; and a variety of shorelinegrasses were planted in the uplandriparian zone. The lowland riparianzone was planted with a variety ofsedges, grasses, and herbaceous plants.The wetland zone was planted with avariety of slender emergents, includinghard and soft-stem bulrush, giantburreed, and arrowhead. The site wasprepared before planting with a mixtureof compost and sand that was mixedwith the parent material to 30 cm. To

Figure 25 The Spadina Quay Wetland, which was once a parkinglot, is now a spawning habitat for northern pike.


control the colonization of undesirableweeds and plants, and to control oursite maintenance, we also extensivelyseeded the site with annual oats. Thisprovided a quick and extensive groundcover that helped control weeds, retainsoil moisture, contribute to the soilconditioning on site, and turn a barrenconstruction site green in a matter ofweeks.

The Spadina Quay Wetland was thesource of some pointed criticisms.Concerns were raised that it was toosmall to provide any functional habitat

and that the Inner Harbour is not anappropriate location for habitat cre-ation. The jury is still out on whetheror not the site will be utilized by thepike or become problematic in thefuture. But we are very optimisticabout the potential of this site andanxiously await next spring when wefully expect the first spawning northernpike. As for the value of this project,we are convinced that wetlands inurban areas are priceless when it comesto raising public awareness surroundinghabitat restoration in the Great Lakes.

Contact Person: Gord MacPherson, CoordinatorCoastal Ecology UnitToronto and Region Conservation Authority5 Shoreham DriveDownsview, Ontario M3N [email protected]


Chapter 8Restoring HabitatUsing Soft Engineering Techniques at LaSalle Park,Hamilton Harbour, Burlington, Ontario, CanadaJohn Hall

IntroductionThis harbor project was aimed at

enhancing fish and wildlife habitat,reducing turbidity, and encouragingpassive recreational opportunities. Thisis more in keeping with improved waterquality and closer to the park’s previousrelationship with Lake Ontario(Figure 26).

Project DescriptionThe design included five restoration

components:• a westerly promontory to create a

permanent sheltering of the near-shore area to enhance aquatic plantproduction and create food sourcesfor waterfowl;

• offshore reefs and emergent shoals toprovide spawning habitat for fishand food sources for wading birds;

• a bioengineered complex shorelineintegrating near-shore fish habitatand replacing the existing armor-stone edge with trees and shrubs;

• restoration of an existing sand beach,thereby providing a linkage forwildlife between a wooded swampand the harbor; and

• incorporation of a walking trail,lookouts, and interpretive signs.

The overall goal was to diversify thefish community by encouraging nativepredators such as bass or pike. This hasbeen carried out with the creation of11.9 ha of fish habitat, 1.4 km ofrehabilitated littoral edge, 145 m ofemergent shoals, 2 rocky reefs of 950square meters, and over 125 fish habitatmodules.

A rock breakwater extends approxi-mately 160 m into the harbor shelteringthe marina basin and creating 11.9 ha offish habitat. The west side of thepromontory contains a wave-washedspawning reef and habitat for inverte-brates, such as crayfish (Figure 27).

The easterly lee is vegetated withoverhanging native plants providingshade and protection. The fine gravelbottom provides protected spawninghabitat for bass and sunfish. Treestumps, logs, open concrete pipes, andpoles are anchored into the promontoryproviding refuge and feeding habitats forfish. Five large shoals and a submergedreef provide more spawning habitat.

Figure 26 The sand beach at LaSalle Park prior to restoration.

Figure 27 The sand beach at LaSalle Park after restoration usingsoft engineering.


Restoration of the beach areainvolved the removal of many tons ofrock fill that had been added over theyears. In its place is a sandy pebblebeach where frogs, turtles, and sala-manders can travel freely between thewater and the natural wetland locatedat the base of the forested bluff. Thebeach contains a small pond for frogsand salamanders and a nesting moundfor turtles. In low water conditions,some of the rocks used to create fishhabitat modules become visible. Theseprovide loafing areas for birds andturtles. In the basin where logs andbrush bundles have been anchored tothe bottom, turtles, frogs, and shore-birds use the branches and trunks forbasking and loafing.

The meandering shoreline creates acomplex edge preferred by fish andwildlife. The diverse vegetation attractsa greater variety of insects, smallanimals, and birds. The wetland,shrubs, and trees along the water’s edgeprovide a connection with the forestedslope. Over time, the natural forestedge should creep down to join thewetland and form a corridor formammals and birds along the edge ofthe bay.

A waterfront trail, complementedwith interpretive signs, allows visitors inLaSalle park to view and understandthe fish and wildlife restoration carried

out at the site. East of the pier, the trailpasses a recreational marina on its wayto a boardwalk crossing the restoredbeach. This boardwalk, constructed atthe back of the beach through the edgeof a wetland, provides clearance toaccommodate the movement ofamphibians. Further east along theshoreline, the trail contains severallookouts and seating areas which havebecome an excellent area for viewingflocks of migrating, nesting, andfeeding waterfowl (Figure 28). Overtime, as the trees and shrubs plantedalong the shoreline mature, the trailwill become more complex, coursingbetween woodlands and lookouts.

Regulatory ConsiderationsRegulatory considerations included:

• Federal Department of Fisheries andOceans, Fisheries Act permit re-quired;

• Federal Department of Fisheries andOceans, Navigable Waters Actpermit required; and

• a permit from the Halton RegionConservation Authority was requiredunder the Fill, Construction, andAlterations to Waterways Regulation.

CostEngineering and design $ 219,000

Construction ofislands/landscaping/public access: $2,320,000

Total: $2,539,000

Post project evaluationfor effectiveness

LaSalle Park is responding torestoration efforts. There is an increasein abundance of aquatic plants andgreater diversity in fish and wildlife(Figure 28).

Benefits of the ProjectBenefits included:• construction of 11.9 ha of fish

habitat and 6 hectares of wildlifehabitat;

Figure 28 The improved habitat and plant diversity is easilyviewed from the boardwalk. The boardwalk provides improvedpublic access.


• construction of 1.4 km of newlittoral edge and 900 m of shorelinere-vegetation including wetlandplantings;

• construction of 145 square meters ofemergent shoals, 2 spawning reefs of960 square meters, and 125 fishhabitat structures;

• restoration of 130 m of beach; and• construction of a pedestrian bridge,

1 km of new trails, 160 m of board-walk, and the installation ofinterpretive signage.

Funding andImplementation PartnersBay 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; andWaterfront Regeneration Trust.

Contact Persons: The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project605 James Street North, 3rd FloorHamilton, Ontario<www.cciw.ca/glimr/raps/ontario/hamilton/>

Vic CairnsDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans867 Lakeshore RoadBurlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Advice for Overcoming ObstaclesWhen Using Soft EngineeringPractices

The proponents felt that the bestthing this project did, once a concept forrehabilitation was developed, was toform a project advisory group ofstakeholders. This group was a combi-nation of local interest groups, sciencecommunity, and relevant agencies. Thegroup worked through the detaileddesign and environmental assessmentstages. Since these groups had beeninvolved from the design stage, permits/funding approvals were easier to obtain.


Chapter 9

IntroductionThis harbor project is aimed at

restructuring the fish community, froma community dominated by carp, toone more diverse and dominated by toporder predators. The project is alsoaimed at providing rare colonial nestingbirds with a safe, clean, and permanenthabitat. This condition is more inkeeping with improved water qualityand closer to the harbor’s previousrelationship with Lake Ontario.

Project DescriptionThe project included the creation of

three islands, isolated from the shore, toprotect nesting birds from predators(Figure 29). Beaches and headlandsalong the shore provide vegetation andhabitat for wading birds. The islandsand a chain of underwater shoals createa quiet lagoon, resulting in aquatic

Enhancing HabitatUsing Soft Engineering Techniques at the NortheasternShoreline of Hamilton Harbour, Western Lake Ontario,Burlington, Ontario, CanadaJohn Hall

plant growth, which is a requesitehabitat for fish spawning and nursery.Mudflats, exposed in the fall, attractmigratory birds. Construction began in1993 and was completed in 1995.

ShorelineThe shoreline restoration compo-

nents include a beach, headlands,wetland, and upland areas. The shore-line extends approximately 400 m andcontains two headlands anchoring threebeaches. An upland complex of wood-land and meadow is planted between thebeach and adjacent highway. A trailfollows the length of the shoreline,terminating in a natural lookout. At thesouth end of the project site is a launchramp for windsurfers.

The upland portion of the shorelinecontains a woodland, demonstratingnatural succession of plant communi-ties. Some oaks and Carolinianwoodland species are included, sincethese species are native to the area andwere recorded as previously growingon the beach.

IslandsThe South Island, closest to the

Burlington Ship Canal, is planted withshrubs and small trees, creating habitatfor black-crowned night herons. Itswindward side is constructed ofarmorstone and an underwater reefextending approximately 4 m. Thecobble slope of the reef is similar tohabitat used by spawning lake troutand whitefish. The lee side of theisland contains a wetland floodedduring high water levels and exposedduring low levels. Fish habitat struc-tures are integrated into the shorelineof the island.

Figure 29 The Northeastern shoreline of Hamilton Harbourfollowing island construction and enhancement of theshoreline using soft engineering techniques. Note thetraditional shoreline at the top.


The Center Island has shrubs andsmall trees vegetating the south half ofthe island, while sand and pebbles coverthe north half. At the island’s center,cormorant nesting platforms areconstructed on wooden poles with a 5m buffer from the vegetated south halfof the island. A raised knoll at thenorth end of the island is covered withsubstrate suitable for common terns. Afish spawning reef, approximately 4 mwide, extends the length of the wind-ward side of the island, while a smallnatural beach is constructed on the lee.Drift material accumulates on thebeach. Fish habitat structures areintegrated into the shoreline.

The North Island is covered with asand, pebble, and cobble surface. Thesurface also has randomly placeddriftwood logs and other structures.Nesting knolls were constructed forCaspian and common terns. A reefextends from the windward side of theisland. The lee shoreline contains amudflat, which emerges during the lowwater levels in the fall, making itavailable for migratory shorebirds. Fishhabitat structures are also integratedinto the shoreline.

ShoalsThe three shoals are connected by 9

emergent shoals which provide spawn-ing habitat for fish and shelter theadjacent shoreline. Every second shoalis submerged during the spring andearly summer. Alternate shoals containhigher breakwater mounds, which arevisible to boaters. In the fall, whenwater levels in Lake Ontario drop, theshoals are used by wading shorebirds.

Regulatory ConsiderationsMany permits were required under

the following agencies:Federal Department of Fisheries andOceans, Fisheries Act;Federal Department of Fisheries andOceans, Navigable Waters Act;Conservation Authority Act;Ontario Ministry of Environmentguidelines for open lake disposal;Ontario Ministry of Transportation,since project was adjacent to a major

highway; andHalton Region ConservationAuthority, required under the Fill,Construction, and Alterations toWaterways Regulation.

CostEngineering and design $ 175,000

Construction of islands/landscaping $ 2,287,000

Public access and interpretive features $ 80,000

Total: $ 2,542,000

Post Project Evaluationof Effectiveness

This site has proven to be a majorsuccess for colonial nesting birds andfish (Figure 30). The Canadian WildlifeService identified the following birdspecies using the islands in 1997:Caspian terns, common terns, black-crowned night herons, ring billed gulls,and herring gulls. With the reduction inwave action, the aquatic plant commu-nity has increased from zero plants to atleast 50% vegetated cover. The fishcommunity has responded to thisimprovement. Fish species using thisarea have increased in diversity from 6 to16 species after rehabilitation.

Figure 30 Nesting pairs of colonial birdson islands in Hamilton Harbour.

Num

ber

of p

airs

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

01996 1997 1998

Caspian tern

Comman tern

B-c night heron

Ring-billed gull

Herring gull

D-c cormorant



The proponents felt that the bestthing this project did was to form aproject advisory board of stakeholdersonce a concept for rehabilitation wasdeveloped. This group was a combina-

tion of individuals from local interestgroups, the science community, andrelevant agencies. This group workedthrough the detailed design andenvironmental assessment stages. Sincethese groups had been involved fromthe beginning of the design stage,permits/funding approvals were easierto obtain.

Funding andImplementation PartnersBay 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; andWaterfront Regeneration Trust.

Contact Persons: The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project605 James Street Nor th, 3rd FloorHamilton, Ontario<www.cciw.ca/glimr/raps/ontario/hamilton/97up/>

Vic CairnsDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans867 Lakeshore RoadBurlington, Ontario L7R 4A6


Chapter 10

Project PurposeThis case study is an excerpt from a

conference proceeding (Piper et al.2000) and Power Point presentationprepared by Hollis Allen and CraigFischenich of the U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station. InJanuary 1997, the Carson Riverwatershed experienced a 100-year floodevent of approximately 23,000 cfs,leaving many reaches of the CarsonRiver in need of restoration. Land-owner property as well as the nativeoverstory cottonwoods and willowswere threatened by the erosion. Arestoration workshop was held todetermine the best means for repairingthe damage and conveying the long-

Bioengineering forErosion Control and Environmental Improvements,Carson River, NevadaHollis Allen, Craig J. Fischenich, and Rebecca Seal, U.S. Army Engineer Research and DevelopmentCenter, Waterways Experiment Station

term success and benefits of bioengi-neering treatments for controllingerosion in an environmentally compat-ible manner. The bioengineeringworkshop/restoration project wascompleted November 2-4, 1998 inCarson City, Nevada. The riverrestoration project was implemented ona portion of the Carson River withinDayton Valley, Lyon County, Nevada(Figure 31). With the involvement ofthe local coordinated resource manage-ment group, landowners, local, state,and federal agencies worked together toprovide technical assistance, funding,and permitting. The coordinatedefforts of these various groups madethis bioengineering workshop/restora-tion project a success.

Figure 31 Location of the multi-agency bioengineering project along the CarsonRiver, Nevada.


Project DescriptionKey features of the site prior to

restoration include:• an outside curve (bendway) approxi-

mately 600 feet in length;• vertical banks ranging from 8-12 feet

in height;• soils comprised of a fine sandy loam

surface, with a permanent watertable at 86-94 inches deep;

• vegetation consisting of an olderoverstory of cottonwoods with novegetative understory, especiallyalong the streambank;

• wildlife habitat for various birdspecies that utilize the older over-story of cottonwoods for nesting androosting, and for various waterfowlthat utilize the river for water andfeed, but no cover for nesting;

• deer, rabbits, and coyotes made upthe major mammal species in thearea; and

• the local fishery was comprisedprimarily of carp (no sustainablepopulations of trout were present).

A reconnaissance of the river restora-tion site, by resource professionalsinvolved in the bioengineering work-shop and river restoration project,indicated that bioengineering treat-ments alone would probably not beeffective. This determination was basedon existing soil conditions, lack of

existing vegetation, and the potentialfor long durations of high streamflowsresulting from annual spring runoffconditions. Streamflows on the CarsonRiver, during the spring runoff of 1999,peaked at approximately 4,000 cfs.

Hard structures that consisted ofstream spurs or barbs, rock refusaltrenches, rock toe protection, and apeaked stone dike were determined tobe the best options. After an analysis ofproject site and river velocities, fivebarbs were designed to cover the entirebendway. In addition to the two rockrefusal trenches and the rock toeprotection, a peaked stone dike wasadded to the lower third of thebendway where there was a change inlandowners and where the main forceof the current had eroded thestreambank back into a horse corral.This area also had several large willowsand cottonwoods that would have to beremoved if the bank was sloped back.The peaked stone dike would allow thebank to be built out without sloping.More details on the design and layoutof the hard structures can be found inthe reference Piper et al. (2000).

Bioengineering Treatments InstalledUpon completion of bank sloping

and installation of the hard structures, anumber of bioengineering treatmentswere installed to demonstrate severaltechniques that can be used forstreambank stabilization, restoration,and management (Allen and Leech1997; Hoag and Bentrup 1998). Abrush mattress was installed along 36linear feet of streambank, between thefirst rock refusal trench and the firststream barb (Figure 32). This brushmattress was selected to demonstrate aspecific treatment that could be in-stalled to reduce accelerated erosion toan existing eroding streambank and toestablish plant growth along thestreambank.

Vertical bundles with a juniper treerevetment and seeding, and erosioncontrol fabric, were installed along 114linear feet of streambank between thefirst stream barb and the second streambarb. Vertical bundles were chosen to

Figure 32 Installation of a brush mattress to reduceaccelerated erosion.


demonstrate another variation for thetreatment of reducing soil erosion andencouraging plant material establish-ment along eroded streambanks whenusing the willow plant. In conjunctionwith the vertical bundles, a juniper treerevetment was installed at the toe of thebank to protect the vertical bundles andassist with trapping suspended sedi-ments. This encourages additionaldeposition of soil during high flowevents. The top portion of thestreambank was seeded and coveredwith an erosion control blanket.

Willow clumps with a juniper treerevetment and seeding, and erosioncontrol fabric, were installed along 98linear feet of streambank between thesecond stream barb and the thirdstream barb (Figure 33). Willowclumps are live willows that have beentransplanted with the root ball intact.Within this area, a total of 40 willowclumps were transplanted into two rowsbehind the juniper tree revetment.This treatment was selected to establishwillow plant growth to reduce erosion,encourage deposition of suspendedsediment, and improve wildlife habitatassociated with the immediatestreambank. A juniper tree revetmentwas installed at the toe of thestreambank, in front of the willowclumps, to protect the willow clumpsand to assist with trapping suspendedsediments and encourage additionaldeposition of soil during high flowevents. The top portion of thestreambank was seeded and coveredwith an erosion control blanket.

A brush trench was installed along49 linear feet of the streambank, withrock toe protection, between the thirdstream barb and the second rock refusaltrench (Figure 34). The brush trenchwas installed as another bioengineeringtreatment to stabilize the streambank.This treatment requires adequate toeprotection be installed to ensure thatthe brush trench does not erode duringhigh flow events. This treatment, onceestablished, provides streambankstability, filters runoff (from the thickwillow root matrix), and provides coverfor wildlife.

Brush layering and seeding, with anerosion control blanket, was the finalbioengineering treatment installedalong a total of 196 linear feet of thestreambank. This treatment wasinstalled along with the peaked stonedike structure located between thesecond rock refusal trench and the fifthstream barb. The brush layering wasselected to assist with stabilizing thestreambank, provide shade to the river,and provide food for the fishery. Thistreatment was installed on the insideslope of the peaked stone dike. Topsoilwas placed on the inside slope of thepeaked stone dike to provide good soil

Figure 33 Willow clumps withJuniper Tree Revetment at the toe.

Figure 34 The willow brush trench between barb three and refusal.No erosion control blanket is used.


contact with the willow brush layer.The willow brush layer was placed onthis inside slope of the dike with thetops of the willows projecting out overthe water and covering the top of thepeaked stone dike. Upon completion, awillow brush layer fill material wasplaced over the stems of the willowbrush layering and a 3:1 slope wascreated to tie back into the top of theexisting slope. This fill material wasthen seeded and covered with erosioncontrol fabric.

Regulatory ConsiderationsThe consortium of agencies partici-

pating in this project included the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers RegulatoryOffice out of Reno, Nevada (part of theSacramento District Office of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers). They wereworking under a Section 404 Permit ofthe Clean Water Act that the Corps wasoverseeing.

Project CostsThe total project costs for this

bioengineering streambank stabilizationand restoration project was $61,000($101/lineal foot). Cash expenses forthis project were $44,762 ($75/linealfoot). Cash expenses were construction

and materials costs. In-kind expensescontributed to this project were$16,184 ($27/lineal foot). In-kindexpenses were plant materials, labor,and equipment. In-kind expensesmade up 26.5% of the total costs ofthis project. The neighboring land-owners and local river managementgroup provided the in-kind services.

Funding andImplementation Partners

The following is a list of the local,state, and federal agencies who spon-sored and collaborated together tomake this a successful project:Carson Truckee Water Conservancy

District;Carson Water Subconservancy District;Dayton Valley Conservation District;Lyon County;Middle Carson River Coordinated

Resource Management Plan;Natural Resources Conservation Service;Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection;Nevada Division of Forestry;Nevada Division of Water Resources;U.S. Army Corps of Engineers –

Waterways Experiment Station;U.S. Forest Service; andWestern Nevada Resource Conservation

and Development Council.

Post Project MonitoringVegetative monitoring along 9 fixed

transects was used to help evaluate thesuccess of the bioengineering treat-ments installed. From the datacollected, there was an average of 74%cover on all treatments, with thehighest first year vegetative coverestablished on the erosion controlblankets, vertical willow bundles abovethe juniper tree revetment, and thewillow brush trench treatment. Thehighest number of re-sprouts of willowsoccurred on the vertical willow bundlesabove the juniper tree revetment,followed by the willow brush trench,and the willow brush layering above thepeaked stone dike located between thesecond rock refusal trench and thefourth stream barb. Figure 35 shows all5 barbs and bioengineering treatmentslooking upstream.

Figure 35 A view of the project site looking upstream about10 months after construction.


Further inspection of the treatmentsrevealed large amounts of sedimentdefinitely impacted the success of thebioengineering treatments by buryingthe lower half of many of the treat-ments (such as the willow clumps).This sediment, however, was the reasonthere was such a high number ofcottonwood seedlings on many ofthe treatments.

The willow clump bioengineeringtreatment presently has 14 out of 40(35%) of the willow clumps regenerat-ing, while the other 26 (64%) willowclumps are buried by the large amountsof deposited sediment within thetreatment area.

Six vegetative line intercept cross-section composition transects have beenestablished and will be part of the longterm monitoring program for thisbioengineering project. No datacomparison is available at this time.

Topographical surveys of the sitedone before construction and 9 monthsfollowing construction have revealedthat 430 cubic yards of sediment weredeposited between the first stream barband the fifth stream barb along thebendway.

A total of 6 fixed cross-sections havebeen established to monitor the changein channel morphology. The 6 cross-sections are located in conjunction witheach of the bioengineering treatmentsinstalled. The present cross-sectionalinformation illustrates the successfulmovement of the low flow channel(thalwag) away from the bendway.This suggests that the stream barbs havedeflected the higher stream flowvelocities away from the bendwaycausing the low flow channel (thalwag)to migrate to the ends of the streambarbs as designed. This in turn can alsobe linked to the amount of depositionthat has occurred between the streambarbs as a result of the calm water areasdeveloped between the stream barbs,which have allowed the river to depositsediment within these areas by design.

Benefits of ProjectThe benefits accrued by this project

are manifest both in the achievement ofchanges in the physical characteristics

of the river and in the successfulcollaboration of the multiple stakehold-ers that actively supported the effort.The series of barbs and the peakedstone dike successfully moved thethalwag away from the cutbank andinduced sediment deposition where itwas needed. The bioengineeringtreatments in between the barbs aregradually covering areas with vegetationthat have the potential to improvefishery and wildlife habitat in thestream. The treatments will serve asgood examples of stream stabilizationtechniques for future projects.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineersrecognizes the relevance of bioengineer-ing practices for a number of importantreasons. Bioengineering is a “greenerapproach” to erosion control that isbeing explored by many agencies,including environmental and non-government organizations, forenhancing new projects. It is alsouseful for preserving cultural resourceswithout hard armor that may be lessaesthetically pleasing or present barriersto access. Also, bioengineering meth-ods are often more cost-effective thantraditional approaches.

Advise for Overcoming ObstaclesWhen Using Soft EngineeringPractices

When addressing social obstacles forthe use of bioengineering, it is useful tolook at what has been successfully doneelsewhere, such as in Germany, Austria,and in various parts of the UnitedStates. It is important to emphasizethat bioengineering, when properlydesigned and employed, can providegood habitat features, improve waterquality, and help to control erosion.The Carson River Case Study is a goodexample of employing both “hard” and“soft” methodologies to safely achieveerosion protection goals, while alsoenhancing the environmental quality ofthe same area.

Additional information about thesuccesses and failures of bioengineeringin this country will be available throughthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website in the future.


ReferencesAllen, 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 andSemi-arid Great Basin and Intermountain West. Interagency Riparian/WetlandPlant 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. Conference31, 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; andRebecca Seal Soileau – U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,

Waterways Experimental Station.

Web Sites<www.ieca.org>

<www.wes.army.mil/el>

<www.wes.army.mil/el/emrp/techtran.html>

Contact Persons: Craig J. FischenichU.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterWaterways Experiment StationEnvironmental Laboratory3909 Halls Ferry Rd.Vicksburg, MS [email protected]

Hollis H. AllenU.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterWaterways Experiment StationEnvironmental Laboratory3909 Halls Ferry Rd.Vicksburg, MS [email protected]

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterWaterways Experiment StationEnvironmental Laboratory3909 Halls Ferry Rd.Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199


Chapter 11

IntroductionThe primary goal for the Ford Field

Park Streambank Stabilization Projectwas to stabilize the eroding streambanksalong the Lower Rouge River as itpasses through Ford Field Park. Overthe past several years, streambankerosion has accelerated causing the lossof trees and park area along the river.Further, streambank erosion threatensutilities and park amenities that are inclose proximity to the river.

A secondary goal for the project wasto emphasize passive recreational parkuses. This is accomplished by betterintegrating the park areas into thestream corridor. Park visitors are ableto better access and personally experi-ence the river and stream corridorenvironment. The river and streamcorridor benefits through improvedwater quality, wildlife, and fish habitat.

A third goal of this project was toprovide a working laboratory for streamcorridor restoration. The City ofDearborn, in partnership with the U.S.Department of Agriculture – NaturalResources Conservation Service(USDA–NRCS) and the Wayne CountyConservation District, hosted three soilbioengineering workshops. At theseworkshops, participants from thecommunity, public sector, and privatesector learned soft engineering principlesand experienced the construction of soilbioengineering techniques. In partner-ship with the Ford Motor Company,University of Michigan – Dearborn(UM–D), Dearborn Public Schools,Friends of the Rouge, and RougeRemedial Action Plan Advisory Com-mittee, the city also hosted a native plantand wildflower planting exercise. Asecond planting exercise is tentativelyscheduled for 2000.

Project DescriptionThe streambank stabilization project

was implemented at Ford Field Park inDearborn, Wayne County, Michigan.Ford Field park can best be described asan urban park. The park area wasdonated to the City of Dearborn byHenry Ford with the stipulation that theproperty would remain a public park.

The park is located three blocksnorth of the West Dearborn businessdistrict, with residential neighborhoodsto the north and to the west of thepark. The park is connected to theUniversity of Michigan–DearbornNatural Areas and the Henry FordEstate by a wooded floodplain. Thepark is located approximately three-quarters of a mile upstream of theconvergence of the lower and middlebranches of the Rouge River.

To date, the project has involvedstabilizing approximately 900 feet ofstreambank using soft engineeringmethods (Figure 36). Various tech-niques of soil bioengineering wereapplied to the various conditions foundalong the streambank. The streambankwas analyzed for many factors, includ-ing slope, stability, vegetation, streammeander, water level, ordinary and highwater flows, man-made conditions, andthe natural conditions found along theriver. Experts, including engineers,geologists, hydrologists, naturalists,biologists, foresters, and plant special-ists, played an important role for theappropriate application of soil bioengi-neering techniques to the streambank.

The actual project constructioninvolved City of Dearborn employees,workshop participants, and interestedmembers of the community. Afterinstallation of soil erosion and sedimen-tation control measures, a smallbackhoe and operator cut back the

Ford Field ParkStreambank Stabilization Project, Rouge River, MichiganJohn Lambert, City of Dearborn- Parks Division


nearly vertical streambanks and exca-vated for the installation of the rock toe.A geotextile fabric was placed in theexcavation and then stone was placedfrom below the bottom of thestreambed to the bank-full level. Thebank-full level is the elevation of thestreambank where vegetation will notgrow due to the rise and fall of waterlevels, and it is critical in the design ofany soil bioengineering system.

After the rock toe was installed,vegetative plantings were used to stabi-lize the streambank in the area above therock toe. Soil bioengineering techniquessuch as live fascine, brushmattress, andvegetative geogrid were constructedusing dormant plant material (Figure 37and 38). The dormant plant materialwas cut off-site and included willow anddogwood cuttings. Containerizeddogwood and native grasses completedthe plantings used for this project.Native species and wildflower plantingscompleted the vegetative buffer sectionsadjacent to the river.

The vegetative planting installationsrequire special care and attention forsuccessful plant growth. The plantingactivities are extremely labor intensiveand were accomplished through the soilbioengineering workshops and thewildflower planting exercises.

Regulatory ConsiderationsThe Ford Field Park Streambank

Stabilization Project falls under thejurisdiction of the Michigan Departmentof Environmental Quality (MDEQ).An application was submitted and apermit issued for each phase of theproject. The applicable regulation forthe project was under the NaturalResources and Environmental ProtectionAct 451, PA 1994 (Part 301-InlandLakes and Streams; Part 31-Floodplain/Water Resources Protection).

As part of the permit process, theMDEQ maintains a database of endan-gered plant species. The databaseindicated the possible presence of thecup plant (Silphium perfoliatum) in theproject area. A USDA–NRCS plantspecialist checked the project area forthe cup plant species. No cup plantswere found.

Figure 36 The soil bioengineering workshop construction area onthe north (left) side of the Rouge River. Existing unstablestreambank conditions are illustrated on the south (right) side.

Figure 37 The workshop construction area where the three varioustechniques were used (from left to right: the brushmattress,vegetative geogrid, and live fascine).

Figure 38 The workshop construction area where the three varioustechniques were used after one season of growth.


Soil erosion and sedimentationcontrol permitting fell under thejurisdiction of the City of Dearborn.The City of Dearborn is a local en-forcement agency (LEA) responsible forissuing permits and for enforcing theprovisions of the soil erosion andsedimentation control act. The specificact is the Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Act 451, PA1994 (Part 91-Soil Erosion and Sedi-mentation Control).

CostA cost estimate for the Ford Field

Park Streambank Stabilization Project isincluded (Table 7). The cost estimate isbroken down into specific activities.Labor, equipment, and material costsare included for each activity.

The cost for stabilizing approxi-mately 300 lineal feet of streambankwas $35,921. The unit cost for softengineering streambank stabilizationmethods was $120 per foot ofstreambank. The cost estimate reflectsthe most recent project activity. Equip-ment costs were based on the 1999Michigan Department of Transporta-tion equipment rental rates.

The cost estimate does not include adollar value placed on the volunteerlabor used for the installation of thevegetative plant material. For example,if someone were to place a value of $30/hour (wages and fringe benefits) for eachof the 40 volunteers, an additional$12,000 ($30/hour * 40 volunteers * 10hours/volunteer) would be added to thecost estimate. This would increase thetotal project cost to $47,921 and theunit cost to $160 per foot ofstreambank. The use of volunteers canprovide substantial cost savings.

Funding and Project PartnersThe City of Dearborn has developed

numerous partnerships during thecourse of the Ford Field StreambankStabilization Project. Funding partner-ships have developed through theacquisition and use of grants and aninteragency exchange of materials.More important are the workingpartnerships created as a result of thisproject. Through the soil bioengineer-

ing workshops, numerous groups andindividuals have come together, sharedinformation, and learned new ideas.The effect is multiplied as workshopparticipants spread the information andideas with others.

The Ford Field Park StreambankStabilization Project is funded througha combination of the Rouge RiverNational Wet Weather DemonstrationGrant and local matching funds. Todate, approximately $108,000 out of atotal project budget of $320,000 hasbeen spent to stabilize approximately900 lineal feet of streambank using softengineering methods. Grant fundingand local matching funds each provide50% of project costs. Local matchingfunds come out of the City ofDearborn general operation and capitalimprovement budgets.

The workshops started in November1998, when the City of Dearbornhosted a two-day soil bioengineeringworkshop for city employees, othergovernmental agencies, private sectorconsultants, and other individualsinterested in streambank stabilizationutilizing soft engineering principles.Nearly forty people attended the two-day workshop. The highlight of theworkshop was an all day exercise atFord Field Park. Over 120 feet ofstreambank was stabilized usingbrushmattress, vegetative geogrid, andlive fascine techniques of streambankstabilization.

Since the November 1998 workshop,the City of Dearborn has hosted twoweek-long USDA–NRCS soil bioengi-neering training courses. USDA–NRCSpersonnel from all over the UnitedStates, city employees, and interestedindividuals have participated in thetraining courses. The highlight ofthe week-long courses is still theon-site workday.

The training courses have includedcontributions from local and interna-tional speakers. Speakers from theUniversity of Michigan – Dearborn(UM–D) include Orin G. Gelderloos,Ph.D., professor of biology and envi-ronmental studies, Kent S. Murray,Ph.D., professor of geology, andDorothy F. McLeer, a naturalist at the


Table 7 Ford Field Park Streambank Stabilization Project estimated costs.

Excavation and Rock Toe InstallationLabor Wages Fringe Benefits CostDirect Labor Costs $5,358 $4,063 $9,421Supervisory Labor Costs $2,144 $1,626 $3,770Other Labor Costs $779 $452 $1,232

Equipment Hours Rate CostPickup-Dump 96 $9.63 $924Dump Truck 96 $24.05 $2,309Backhoe 96 $33.35 $3,202Bobcat and Trailer 96 $37.70 $3,619Supervisory Equipment Costs 96 $6.83 $656Other Equipment Costs 54 $6.03 $326

Material Quantity Unit Cost CostGeotextile 600 $1.00 $600Rock Toe Material $2,900Miscellaneous $52Total Rock Toe Installation Costs $29,010

Plant Material HarvestLabor Wages Benefits CostDirect Labor Costs $546 $414 $961Supervisory Labor Costs $175 $133 $308Other Labor Costs $164 $95 $259

Equipment Hours Rate CostPickup 8 $5.74 $46Bobcat and Trailer 8 $37.70 $302Chain Saw 8 $3.48 $28Supervisory Equipment Costs 8 $6.83 $55Other Equipment Costs 8 $6.03 $48Total Plant Material Installation Costs $2,006

Soil-bioengineering InstallationLabor Wages Benefits CostDirector Labor Costs $1,098 $832 $1,930Supervisory Labor Costs $197 $149 $346Other Labor Costs $164 $95 $259

Equipment Hours Rate CostPickup-Dump 10 $9.63 $96Pickup 10 $5.74 $57Stake-Truck 10 $5.74 $57Van 10 $5.74 $57Dump Truck 10 $24.05 $241Backhoe 10 $33.35 $334Bobcat and Trailer 20 $37.70 $754Chain Saw 20 $3.48 $70Supervisory Equipment Costs 8 $6.83 $55Other Equipment Costs 8 $6.03 $48Miscellaneous $600Total Soil-engineering Installation $4,905

Project Costs $35,921

Unit Cost/($/lineal foot) $120


UM–D Natural Areas. Accomplishedlandscape architect and soil bioengi-neering expert Beat Scheuter, fromSwitzerland, gave an internationalperspective on soft engineering prin-ciples.

The Five Star Partnership Grantsponsored by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency provided monies forthe native plant and wildflower plant-ing exercises. The six grant partnersinclude Ford Motor Company, the Cityof Dearborn, Dearborn Public Schools,the University of Michigan – Dearborn,Friends of the Rouge, and the RougeRemedial Action Plan Advisory Com-mittee.

Through the Ford Field ParkStreambank Stabilization Project, theCity of Dearborn and the USDA–NRCS have developed a strongrelationship and partnership forpromoting soft engineering instreambank stabilization projects. Thecity would like to thank DaveBurgdorf, Frank Cousin, Sean Duffey,and Steve Olds of the USDA–NRCSfor their contribution to this project.Without their help, this project wouldnot have been possible.

Post Project Evaluationfor Effectiveness

The Ford Field Streambank Stabili-zation Project has been monitored andevaluated since November 1998.Photographs, videos, and personal sitevisits were used to document thecondition and growth rate of thevegetative plantings. It is important toclosely monitor the soil bioengineeringinstallations on a regular basis and afterall high water storm events. Remedialand/or supplementary plantings aremade based on the findings andrecommendations from the on-siteinspections.

A testimonial to the effectiveness ofsoil bioengineering is told in thefollowing story: Approximately twomonths after the November 1998 soil-bioengineering workshop installation,the Lower Rouge River experienced aweek long high water event with a peakmean-daily-discharge rate of nearly 900

cfs. An on-site inspection after thewater receded revealed only minortopsoil loss in the brushmattress area.Previous to the installation of the softengineering techniques, high waterevents with this intensity and durationwould have washed out the adjacentgravel parking area.

The streambank stabilization projectis only one growing-season old. Theresults have been excellent and areillustrative of projects in their second orthird year of growth. Only small,scattered areas required a secondplanting.

Project BenefitsThe use of soft engineering methods

is not a “cure-all” for streambankstabilization problems, but an impor-tant and effective tool for appropriatelocations. Soft engineering methodscan provide benefits not possible withthe use of hard engineering measures.

The benefits of soft engineering overhard engineering methods include:• use of soft engineering methods is

aesthetically pleasing (soft engineer-ing provides greater opportunity forincorporating trees, bushes, flowers,and grasses along the stream corri-dor; vegetative plantings offer analternative to the sterile environmentassociated with hard engineeringtechniques);

• use of soft engineering methodsprovide wildlife habitat (vegetativeplantings provide shelter, protectivecover, and homes for birds, turtles,and small animals; plantings are alsoimportant for providing corridors foranimals to travel; year-round, thearea is alive with animal wildlife);

• use of soft engineering methodsprovide fish habitat (soft engineeringcan provide shelter and breaks in thestream current; this is important forfish to live and reproduce; overhang-ing vegetation also provides shelter);

• use of soft engineering improveswater quality (vegetative plantingsand buffer areas reduce streambankerosion and filter overland runoffinto the river; vegetative growthshades the river and reduces water


temperature);• use of soft engineering reduces

maintenance costs (after the initialinstallation, areas are allowed torevert to their natural state, reducingmaintenance costs; regular mainte-nance is virtually eliminated); and

• park visitors can experience thestream corridor environment; (theenvironment created by the use ofsoft engineering methods providesmany opportunities for park visitorsto come down to the river and enjoythe stream corridor; workshops andplanting exercises provide a sense ofstewardship, community pride, andownership of the Ford Field Park area).

Previous streambank stabilizationefforts at Ford Field Park includedlining the streambank with interlockingconcrete blocks. The blocks havestopped the streambank erosion,however they are showing signs ofdeterioration. Sections of block aremissing, especially near the ends of theinstallation. Maintenance requires theuse of string trimmers to trim vegeta-tive growth between the blocks. Thereare few signs of fish and wildlife alongthis section of the river. Supplementingthe interlocking blocks with vegetativeplantings will produce many of thebenefits previously mentioned.


The problems of the Lower RougeRiver are highly visible at Ford FieldPark. Visitors to the park can see theeroding streambank, trees falling into

the river, picnic tables and debrisfloating down the river, and high levelsof turbidity. Problem identificationwas easy; determining how to solve theproblem was more difficult.

Change is always hard and new ideassuch as soil bioengineering (softengineering) always carry a certaindegree of risk in execution, and moreimportantly, being accepted by thecommunity. The Ford Field ParkStreambank Stabilization Project wasthe result of many individuals andgroups coming together with an interestin trying soil bioengineering (softengineering) methods to stabilize thestreambank of the river.

Ecological awareness and informa-tional programs are an important toolin educating the community of theadvantages of using soft engineeringmethods. The workshops and wild-flower planting exercises provide anopportunity for the community toparticipate in the projects, becomemore aware of the stream corridor, anddevelop a sense of ownership andstewardship towards the river. This willgo a long way in gaining support forthis type of project in the future.

Michigan Department of Environ-mental Quality (MDEQ) personnelhave visited the Ford Field ParkStreambank Stabilization Project to seethe application of soil bioengineeringtechniques. Feedback from the MDEQpersonnel has been very positive.Exchanging information and openingthe lines of communication will benefitboth the permit applicant and thepermitting agency.


ReferencesAlaska Department of Fish and Game. Streambank Revegetation and Protection: A

Guide for Alaska. <www.state.ak.us/adfg/habitat/geninfo/webpage/techniques.htm>

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream CorridorRestoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Government Printing OfficeItem No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.<http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration>

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1994. The Booklet: Guidelinesfor Streambank Restoration. < http://www.ganet.org/gswcc>

State of Michigan – Department of Environmental Quality (M-DEQ). 1994. PermitRequirements and the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.Protection Act 451. <www.deq.state.mi.us>

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1992. Engineering Field Handbook: Chapter 18 – Soil Bioengineeringfor Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction. <www.nrcs.usda.gov>

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1995. Engineering Field Handbook: Chapter 16 – Streambank andShoreline Protection. <www.nrcs.usda.gov>

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Vegetative Measures for StreambankStabilization: Case Studies from Illinois and Missouri. <http://willow.ncfes.umn.edu/stream/str_cov.htm>

U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources of the United States. <http://water.usgs.gov>

U.S. Government – Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wild Ones Handbook– A Voice For The Natural Landscaping Movement. <www.epa.gov/grtlakes/greenacres/wildones/woindex.html>

Contact Persons: Bruce Yinger, Superintendent of ParksCity of Dearborn – Parks Division2951 Greenfield Road Dearborn, Michigan 48120

Gary Morgan, Assistant Superintendent of ParksCity of Dearborn – Parks Division2951 Greenfield RoadDearborn, Michigan 48120

Friends of the Rouge22586 Ann Arbor TrailDearborn Heights, Michigan 48127 <www.therouge.org>


Chapter 12

The catchment area upstream of theproject site is approximately 10 km2.

Bank stabilization and streambedarmoring took place during the fall of1993. The confined nature of thechannel prevented excavating a floodplain or sloping the banks to a stableangle. The east side of the channel wasprivately owned and the owner was notopen to any loss of property that wouldoccur if regrading was used. It wasdecided to construct a bioengineeredcribwall. This structure would stabilizea vertical bank and require little room.The streambed was armored to preventdown cutting. No attempt was made atthis time to stabilize the road shoulderdirectly opposite the project site,however, the Town of Collingwood didattempt to stabilize the road shoulder byconstructing a concrete wall during theearly summer of 1995. By the late fall of1999, the concrete wall was beginningto show signs of failure. The soilbioengineered cribwall was holding well.

A soil bioengineered cribwall is ahollow, interlocking arrangement oftimbers constructed as a wall. Thisstructure is filled with suitable soil and alayer of live branch cuttings. Once thecuttings have taken root and grown,they will eventually take over thestructural functions of the timbers. Theend result is a stable, vegetated slope.

The cribwall was built into the bankso the face of the cribwall would be atthe same location as the original face ofthe slope. This was done so the capacityof the channel would not be reduced. Ahi-hoe was used to excavate the cribwallsite. The logs for the cribwall were cutfrom a Nottawasaga Valley ConservationAuthority jack pine plantation. Thewall itself was built by hand and mea-sured 30 m long, 1 m high, and 2.2 mwide at the bottom. The wall wascanted back so that the top brush layerswould not shade the bottom ones.

Soil Bioengineeringfor Streambank Protection and Fish HabitatEnhancement, Collingwood, OntarioRick Grillmayer, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

IntroductionThe goal of this project was to repair

and stabilize an eroding streambankwith the use of vegetation, to createin-stream cover by constructing avegetated structure, and to create ademonstration site that displays theeffective use of soil bioengineeringtechnology.

Project DescriptionThe Black Ash Creek Project was

initiated in 1992 as a component of theCollingwood Harbour Remedial ActionPlan. The overall objectives of thiswatershed project were to reducesediment loading from the creek intothe harbor and enhance fish andwildlife habitat. Black Ash Creek wasidentified as contributing approxi-mately 90% of the suspended sedimentload for Collingwood Harbour(Collingwood Harbour RAP Stage 2Document 1992). Sources of thissediment include erosion induced bycattle grazing on steep escarpment areasand eroding streambanks.

The location of this project is theThompson Property on the 10th

concession, Town of Collingwood. Thereduction of channel sinuosity andelimination of a functioning floodplainhad created an unstable reach of streamwith significant erosion. The channelhad been placed in a roadside ditch andthe shoulder of the road was eroding.A previous attempt to stabilize thischannel with field stone had failedbecause the improperly sized andplaced stone was being eroded by highstream velocities. The stream gradientwas steep (3.1%) and once the bedarmor was missing the streambeddegraded, aggravating the erodingbank. The bank slope on both sideswas nearly vertical. The stream isintermittent, with flows occurring onlyduring snowmelt and storm events.


Shrub willow cuttings were har-vested from sites within the watershedand transported to the cribwall site.Care was taken to time the harvest sothat only fresh material would be used.Species of willow used at this site were:• Willow (Salix eriocephala);• Sandbar Willow (Salix exigua); and• Autumn Willow (Salix serrisima).

The cribwall was built by alternatinglayers of timbers, soil, and cuttings.Once the cribwall was completed,unused soil was removed from the site.Exposed soil was seeded with annualrye and oats. The soil was then coveredwith anti-wash geojute to preventsurface erosion. Live stakes (liverootable cuttings tamped into theground) were placed at random into thegeojute. The streambed was protectedfrom down-cutting by placing 28 tonsof rip-rap stone.

Due to the absence of any horizontalsinuosity, stream energy had to bedissipated by vertical sinuosity. Thiswas achieved by placing the stone in aseries of steps, attempting to establish astep-pool formation common to highgradient streams.

Regulatory ConsiderationsWhenever a project may impact the

natural ecosystem, approvals andpermits are needed. The project wasapproved by the local Ministry ofNatural Resources (Midhurst District)and a work permit was issued under theLakes and Rivers Improvement Act. Apermit from the Nottawasaga ValleyConservation Authority was requiredunder the Fill, Construction, andAlterations to Waterways Regulation.

The stream at this site is intermittent.The fish community is predominantlycyprinids and catostomids, and is non-existent through summer, fall, andwinter. Fish are present, likely asmigrants, during the spring. Thecribwall was built during the fall, whilethe channel was dry. Sedimentationduring construction was minimal. Theaddition of bed material would not haveaffected any fish or macroinvertebrates.Materials used were native and harvestedfrom within the same sub-watershed asthe cribwall.

CostProject costs are presented in

Table 8. Costs do not include tools,truck rental, fuel, office costs, indirectsupport for the crew, or permit fees.It would be impossible to separatethese costs as they were used/requiredon more than one site.

Funding andImplementation PartnersEnvironment Canada Great Lakes

2000 Cleanup Fund;Environment Canada Environmental

Partners Fund;Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;Ontario Ministry of Environment;Nottawasaga Valley Conservation

Authority;Collingwood Collegiate Institute;Collingwood Rotary Club; andLandowners in the Black Ash

Creek Watershed.

Table 8 Soil bioengineering costs associated with soft engineeringof Black Ash Creek.

Requirements Cost (in dollars)

Consultants 800Logs for Cribwall 50Contractors 1,423Rock 300Geojute 297Spikes 122Refreshments 56Fertilizer/seed 40Topsoil 250Rental of Lawn Rollers 10Total Materials 3,348

Requirements Time (hours) Cost (in dollars)

Measuring and Design 48 772Site Preperation 27 311Cutting/transpoting Materials 48 553Placement of Materials 148 1,244Repairs to Lawns 72 138Total Wages 343 3018

Note: Costs listed were specific to this site only.


Post ProjectEvaluation of Effectiveness1995: Two years after completion, thestreambank at this site was completelyvegetated (Figure 39). Any erosion wasinsignificant. The soil bioengineeredcribwall successfully weathered thespring flows, which often saw thestructure completely submerged.Growth from the cuttings has beenvigorous, with Salix eriocephalabecoming the dominant willow.2000: Seven years after completion, thestreambank at this site is still doing verywell. The concrete block wall built bythe Town of Collingwood is beginningto show signs of failure (Figure 40).This failure is apparent in the form ofundercutting, the slumping of severalsections of wall, and widespreadcracking and deterioration of theconcrete. The soil bioengineeredcribwall is more than adequatelymaintaining stability (Figure 41). Thisproject was an overwhelming success.

Benefits of the ProjectSoil bioengineering was chosen as

the preferred method of streambankstabilization for several reasons:• It is an applied science that combines

structural, biological, and ecologicalconcepts to construct living struc-tures for erosion, sediment, andflood control. Conventional meth-ods of erosion and flood controlprovide little habitat for terrestrial oraquatic organisms. Conventionalstructures often have the effect of anecological barrier, separating aquaticand terrestrial; conversely, thevegetation used in bioengineeredstructures provides a wide range ofhabitats for many organisms.

• Soil bioengineered structures arelabor intensive, not capital or energyintensive (limited budget dollarswere put into wages, not materials).

• This is a living wall (there is usuallyless long-term maintenance thanconventional structures since soilbioengineered structures tend to beself-repairing).

Figure 39 Conditions of Black Ash Creek project site onJune 28, 2000. Soil bioengineered cribwall is on the left sideof the photograph, the concrete block wall is on the right.

Figure 40 Deterioration of the concrete block wall, showingundermining and slumping of the structure on June 28, 2000.

Figure 41 Close-up of soil bioengineeringcribwall on June 28, 2000.


• The project serves as an excellentdemonstration of the strength andapplicability of soil bioengineering asa method of managing erosion inhigh-energy stream channels. The

site can be readily seen by the publicand the presence of a conventionalconcrete block wall directly oppositeof the soil bioengineered wallprovides a direct comparison of thetwo methods.

ReferencesCollingwood Harbour RAP Team. 1992. Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action

Plan Stage 2 Report: a Strategy for Restoring the Collingwood HarbourEcosystem 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 ProjectImplementation 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 GrillmayerNottawasaga ValleyConservation Authority266 Mill StreetHwy 90, R.R.#1Angus, Ontario L0M [email protected], [email protected]


Chapter 13

IntroductionThe Remedial Action Plan (RAP)

process can be viewed as a successfulmodel for addressing a variety ofaquatic and terrestrial habitat issueswithin the Great Lakes. This process,which has been a true partnershipbetween government agencies and localcommunities, has provided the frame-work to identify specific habitatproblems within Areas of Concern(AOC) and achieve many habitatrehabilitation targets. Combiningexpertise and resources through theRAP process has provided an opportu-nity to demonstrate current habitatrehabilitation technologies and tocomplete large-scale habitat projects,which could not be addressed by singleagencies or organizations.

Drawing on the RAP experience inLake Superior, there are four keyaspects which have contributed tosuccess: clear objectives, interagencyapproach, funding source, and commu-nity involvement.

Clear ObjectivesThere must be clear objectives in

place, which are compatible at all levelsof regulation and involvement. Forexample, The Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement established waterquality objectives for the Great Lakes.The RAP process specifically addressedimpairments to an established list of14 beneficial uses. Within the boundsof the above two objective structures,the Public Advisory Committees (PAC)set Water Use Goals that pertain tothe specific environmental issue intheir area.

Interagency ApproachThe Lake Superior Programs Office,

which brought together four govern-ment agencies under one roof, provided

Achieving IntegratedHabitat Enhancement Objectives, Lake SuperiorKen Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

coordination for the habitat projects onLake Superior. This is a demonstrationof how federal and provincial agencies,in times of severe financial constraints,can effectively share resources andexpertise to reduce program costs,minimize overlapping mandates onenvironmental issues affecting LakeSuperior, and develop real partnershipswith industry and the public.

Funding SourceFor many of the Lake Superior

programs, the Great Lakes 2000Cleanup Fund provided base funding.The objective of this fund was todevelop and implement cleanuptechnologies and techniques in theGreat Lakes. The Cleanup Fundprovided monies for up to one third ofthe proposed cost of the project, withthe remaining cost being covered byother partners who contributed withboth funding and in-kind support.Having one established funding sourcegenerally provides a catalyst for secur-ing other funding partners.

Community InvolvementWhen members of the community

are involved with developing andimplementing a plan, they will shareaccountability for the project. On LakeSuperior, strong support has beenfostered through local Public AdvisoryCommittees (PAC). These committeeswere true advisory groups who assistedin project planning and implementa-tion. All proposed projects were firstapproved by the local PAC before beingconsidered by the Cleanup Fund forfunding support. This process resultedin strong community partnershipsduring implementation, a communitystructure that was accountable forprojects, and ownership for the suc-cesses which were achieved.


Demonstration ProjectsThere are many completed habitat

projects in Lake Superior whichdemonstrate soft engineering technol-ogy in shoreline developments. Thefollowing are three examples, located inthe lower reaches of the KaministiquiaRiver in Thunder Bay and NipigonRiver in Nipigon Bay.

Red Rock Harbourfront and MarinaBreakwater Enhancement –Nipigon Bay

In order to improve access to LakeSuperior and enhance tourism opportu-nities for the Township of Red Rock,construction of a full service marinawas proposed. The project includedconstruction of a 1.2 km long backwa-ter and dredging 6 ha for the marinabase.

The design of this project wasinitiated at the same time as a separateprogram was being undertaken by theRAP to restore the Nipigon Bay aquaticecosystem. Through the forging of apartnership between proponents ofboth projects, concepts were developedwith an emphasis on integrating habitatand water quality enhancement initia-tives as components of the design of themarina basin and breakwater. Theproduct successfully achieves bothfunctional and ecosystem objectiveswhile providing additional recreational,aesthetic, and interpretive attributes(Figure 42).

The standard armorstone breakwallwas overlaid with a number of habitatfeatures to enhance habitat diversityand create a functional littoral zonealong the inner breakwall. Followingreconstruction of the inner breakwall,fine material and topsoil were addedbefore the structure was planted withtrees and shrubs. Two islands, whichincluded log and canopy shelterstructures, spawning shoals, and littoralzone extensions, were constructed onthe outside to protect a second openingin the breakaway from wave action.On the inside of the breakwall, habitatdiversity was maximized by the addi-tion of a wide variety of habitat

structures, including log crib shelters,shallow sandy areas for aquatic plants,rock and bolder edging, gravel shoals,and partially submerged trees.

Functionally, structurally, andecologically the Red Rock Breakwall isa demonstration of Great Lakes shore-line development utilizing softengineering techniques. The finalstructure is an extension of the MarinaPark, providing productive habitat forfish and other aquatic organisms and isa functional breakwater for the marina.

The cost of constructing the RedRock full service marina, which willaccommodate 253 boats, was $2.1million. For the additional cost of$230,000, the ecological productivityof the shoreline has been enhanced andthe breakwater is now an extension ofthe Marina Park.

Project PartnersNipigon Bay Remedial Action Plan;Township of Red Rock;Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund;Ministry of Northern Development

and Mines;Ministry of Natural Resources;Domtar Packaging;Ontario Ministry of the Environment;Public Works Canada – Small Craft

Harbour Branch;Province of Ontario – Jobs Ontario

Capital Program; andTodhunter Schollen and Associates.

McKellar River Wetland ExpansionProject – Thunder Bay

The site of the McKellar RiverWetland Project is located at theconfluence of the McKellar River andLake Superior, adjacent to the MissionMarsh. The goal of the project was toextend the influence of the remnantcoastal wetland and to increase thediversity and productivity of the fisherywithin the river and Thunder Bay.Coastal wetlands in Thunder Bay havebeen degraded or lost as a result ofurban, industrial, and commercialwaterfront development. This type ofnearshore habitat, although critical forthe survival of many cool water fishspecies, is limited in Lake Superior.


Figure 43 An example of recreating coastal wetlands along the McKellar River that were degraded and lost asa result of waterfront development. The far side of the river depicts urbanized shoreline development and thenear side of the river depicts restored wetlands.

Figure 42 The Red Rock Harbourfront and Marina Breakwater project improved access to Lake Superior,enhanced tourism opportunities, and improved fish and wildlife habitat.


This project presented an opportunityto restore critical coastal wetlandhabitat in an urban waterfront setting.Two warm water embayments wereconstructed on the City of ThunderBay land adjacent to the Mission MarshConservation Area (Figure 43). Al-though clearly focused on habitatcreation and enhancement, the locationof the embayments in a conservationarea also presented the opportunity tointegrate interpretive and recreationalcomponents into the project.

The two embayments, approxi-mately 1.5 ha each, were constructed indry winter conditions and opened tothe river in March 1994. A complexcontour grading plan included anetwork of channels with a maximumdepth of 6 m, a number of islands, anda variety of habitat treatments in thenearshore zone. Treatments includedsand, gravel and rock shoals, boulderedges, submerged tree crowns, and riverstone banks. In addition, wetlandpockets were constructed to accommo-date stormwater runoff and enhanceaquatic vegetation production.

Surrounding the embayments, over4,000 trees and shrubs were planted byvolunteers to stabilize the area dis-turbed during construction and toprovide food and cover for wildlife.Additional habitat treatments includedshallow micro-pools for amphibians, amud flat for shore birds, a sand blufffor shore birds, and rock and log pilesfor reptiles and mammals.

Colonization of the embayments byfish, aquatic plants, and benthicorganisms will provide valuable infor-mation for future habitat restorationinitiatives. In addition, monitoringactivities will provide information onthe contributions of the embayments tothe surrounding aquatic and terrestrialecosystems. Recreational and aestheticbenefits were evident immediatelyfollowing construction. One year aftercompletion, many conservation areausers were surprised to learn that theembayments were constructed and notnatural features.

Project cost, including conceptdevelopment, design, and construction,amounted to $650,000.

Project PartnersThunder Bay Remedial Action Plan;City of Thunder Bay;Lakehead Conservation Authority;Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund;Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;Ontario Ministry of the Environment;Public Works Canada – Department of

Fisheries and Oceans; andTodhunter, Schollen and Associates.

Kaministiquia River Heritage Park –Thunder Bay

For over a century, aquatic andterrestrial habitat has been modified ordestroyed in the Thunder Bay Area ofConcern. The surrounding watershedhas been degraded by industrial,residential, and recreational develop-ment. Dredging, channelization, andthe release of a number of pollutantshave eliminated a significant portion ofthe quality habitat that once existedalong the waterfront. Habitat degrada-tion has resulted in loss of speciesabundance, diversity, and recreationalopportunities. Habitat degradation hasalso resulted in a decline of aestheticvalue for the harbor and its tributaries.

Rehabilitation projects undertakenby the City of Thunder Bay, in thelower reaches of the KaministiquiaRiver, represent an integrative approach

Figure 44 The open pile construction of this scenic overlookprovides instream cover for aquatic habitat and increased publicaccess without destroying or degrading the existing wetland areasalong the shoreline.


to waterfront development and habitatrestoration. Shoreline degradation hadleft the area void of ecological, recre-ational, and economic value. TheKaministiquia River Heritage Park wasdeveloped to restore the environmentalintegrity and natural history of theregion. The park features a scenicoverlook and riverfront promenaderunning alongside an existing wetlandarea (Figure 44). The open pileconstruction of the boardwalk maxi-mizes development and substratediversity of the aquatic habitat byproviding instream cover. This design,however, was not part of the originalpark plan. Initially the approximately600 m of waterfront was to be devel-oped with steel sheet piling andconcrete construction. This wouldhave destroyed the natural shorelineand left a hard, straight edge with nobenefit to the aquatic ecosystem.Convinced that a soft engineering

ReferencesNorth 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.

approach would not only provide thesame protective and access functions asthe traditional design, the design wasaltered to enhance aesthetic andbiological benefits. In the initialwaterfront construction phase (approxi-mately 600 m), project costs wereactually reduced from $850,000 to$450,000. The remainder of theproject was completed with open pileconstruction and shoreline enhance-ments. This project has convincedmany people that habitat rehabilitationcan be ecologically desirable andeconomically viable.

Project PartnersThunder Bay Remedial Action Plan;City of Thunder Bay;Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund;Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;Ontario Ministry of the Environment;Todhunter, Schollen and Associates;Canadian Pacific Rail; andNorthern Ontario Heritage Fund.


IntroductionLike many large metropolitan areas,

Battle Creek historically utilized itsriver system as a workhorse supplyingpower and transporting raw materialsand products. Economic priorities atthe time resulted in extensive industrialdevelopment along the banks of theriver system. The river served toremove waste materials and stormwaterfrom the land, severely impacting theirecological and aesthetic integrity.Frequently, communities turned theirbacks to the rivers long ignoring theirpotential value as public spaces orcultural and natural resource amenities.

The Battle Creek River was aworking river in its time. It hadbecome the “back door” to the commu-nity suffering from neglect, hydrologicinstability, and ecological abuse. Largebuilding complexes infringed on itsfloodplain and squeezed its banks intonarrow channels. Parking lots werebuilt along the riverbanks, and at timesenclosed it entirely underground.Vegetation was removed from its banks,eliminating valuable habitat for aquaticorganisms and wildlife. Serious erosionresulting from extreme flashiness ofstormwater runoff promoted ad hocstabilization techniques of pouredconcrete, rock, and debris.

During the 1980s, public andprivate community leaders began torecognize the potential of the BattleCreek River as an amenity and not aliability. Smith Group JJR developedregional concept plans that focused thecommunity’s vision back to the river,providing for opportunities of rehabili-tation, redevelopment, and increasedpublic visibility. Projects are nowstarting to be implemented that providefor pedestrian linkages along the river,removal of parking lot decking to allowthe river to be “daylighted” again, andnew urban re-development.

Battle Creek River,Bringing Back the BanksDouglas Denison, Smith Group JJR, Inc.

Utilizing a shared vision of improv-ing the quality of public life in BattleCreek, Smith Group JJR assisted theW.K. Kellogg Foundation in selecting asite for their new world headquarters.The site, located along the eastern edgeof downtown, was traversed by theBattle Creek River. The goal of theproject was to revitalize an urbancommercial block and transform aseldom seen urban stream into a highlyused public riverfront park. Therehabilitation of the Battle Creek Riverincluded ecological planning of bankstabilization techniques to provide for amore natural edge, recapture lostfloodplains, and enhance habitat andlandscaping while protecting the banksand buildings from erosion caused byurbanized river flows (Figure 45).

Project DescriptionIn an era when many corporations

flee the established infrastructure of thecity to new suburban campuses, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation committed tobuild their new world headquarters ona 14 acre site in downtown BattleCreek, Michigan. This allowed thisinternational foundation to reconnectwith and celebrate its community andcultural heritage while assisting in therevitalization of the downtown area.The site is surrounded by both urbanand natural settings that provided theopportunity for the public to accessa rich environment. The projectincluded a new 280,000 square footheadquarters campus, a new urban parkand public square linked by anenhanced streetscape, and a publicgreenway along the Battle Creek River(Figure 46).

An integral element of this projectwas the rehabilitation of the BattleCreek River into a public focal pointof the Kellogg Foundation and thecommunity. It was critical to establishthe stabilization of the banks while

Chapter 14


providing a soft appearance, improvingaccess to the river’s edge, and enhancingaquatic and wildlife habitat. Therehabilitation of the river’s banksincorporated a biotechnical stabiliza-tion technique that utilized sandstoneboulders and vegetation to create a“soft” look that invited the public tothe river, while providing the necessaryprotection of the river banks fromextensive erosional forces exhibited by aurbanized stream. The design of thebank edges incorporated elements thatprovided increased wildlife and aquatichabitat. The project greatly expandedpublic access to and use of the BattleCreek River inside the commercial core.

Regulatory IssuesThe rehabilitation of the riverbanks

included extensive construction alongand into the water edge. State regula-tory agencies had permitting authorityfor the project while the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers had commentingauthority. Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality specific author-ity included: Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Act: P.A.451: Part 13: Floodplains and Flood-ways; Part 21: Rule revisions of Act 245of Michigan Water Resources Act; Part31: Water Resources Protection; Part301: Inland Lakes and Streams Act; andPart 303: Wetlands Protection.Calhoun County had jurisdiction of theSoil Erosion and SedimentationControl Act 347. The City of BattleCreek completed preliminary and finalsite plan approvals and issued demoli-tion, utilities, and building permits.The re-grading of the channelizedriverbanks to expand the 100 yearfloodplain was very favorably receivedby permitting authorities.

CostThe W. K. Kellogg Foundation

privately funded all aspects of thisproject. The total costs for the sitework was approximately $7.5 million.The rehabilitation of the Battle CreekRiver was approximately $750,000.The majority of the costs was associatedwith demolition of the concrete walls

Figure 45 The new headquarters of the W. K. Kellogg Foundationsits on the rehabilitated shoreline of Battle Creek.

Figure 46 A new urban park allows greater public access within thecommercial core. The materials used to create this park appear“soft” and invite the public to the river.


channeling the river. The establish-ment of the bank stabilization,including the sandstone rock work, wasapproximately $300,000.

Post EvaluationThe W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s

headquarters project represents a highlysuccessful example of how corporateinvestment in a city can lead to benefitsfar beyond simply establishing a newhome for employees. Their commit-ment to an improved quality of life, asinterpreted and implemented by SmithGroup JJR, set the stage for long-termeconomic growth and reunited thecommunity with its cultural heritage.Elements such as the public greenwayalong the river reinforce theFoundation’s philanthropic goals and itssupport for the City of Battle Creek.

The Battle Creek River flowingthrough the commercial core of BattleCreek was a river that had long beenforgotten and neglected. Buriedbeneath parking lots or hidden behindthe back doors of storefronts andwarehouses, the river was seriously

suffering from stream bank erosion,lack of vegetation, and no public access.Today the river is a focal point of bothFoundation employees and the commu-nity. The rehabilitation of the banksof the Battle Creek River includedrestoration of a lost floodplain andstabilization of its banks. The projecthas been very successful. There is noevidence of continued erosion alongthis reach of the river. The combinationof undulating rock edges, deep waterpools, and overhanging vegetation addsgeomorphologic diversity along theriver’s edge that was lacking prior tore-construction. The sandstone createdsuitable habitat for fish, macro-inverte-brates, and mammals that immediatelytook refuge along this shoreline.

Through the implementation of thelinear river park and trail system, thesite now affords the public direct accessto the river. The public has takenadvantage of this newly created openspace and public park land, utilizingthe spaces for summer festivals andpassive recreation.

Contact Person: Douglas Denison, Vice PresidentSmith Group JJR, [email protected]


Appendix A November 23, 1999program for the technology transfer session for softengineering of shorelines sponsored by the GreaterDetroit American Heritage River Initiative

8:30 AM Registration and Coffee

9:30 AM Welcome and Introductions – Nettie Seabrooks, Chief of Staff forDetroit Mayor Dennis Archer; Peter Stroh, Chairman of theExecutive Committee for the Greater Detroit American Heri-tage River Initiative; The Honorable John D. Tennant, ConsulGeneral 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 LakeSuperior – Ken Cullis, Lake Superior Management Unit

11:15 AM Comparison of Soil Bioengineering and Hard Structures for ShoreErosion Control – Costs and Effectiveness – Tim Patterson,Environment Canada

11:45 AM Overcoming regulatory challenges and making it happen (briefcommentaries from David Gesl, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;Stan Taylor, Essex Region Conservation Authority; AndrewHartz, 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 TorontoRegion Conservation Authority Perspective - Gord McPherson,Toronto Region Conservation Authority

2:00 PM Coffee Break

2:15 PM Constructing Islands for Habitat Rehabilitation in the UpperMississippi 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; JohnBlanchard, General Motors Corporation; Faye Langmaid, Cityof Windsor; Wendy White, National Steel Corporation; HurleyColeman, Wayne County Parks; Joe Derkowski, Ford MotorLand Development Corporation; Moderators: MarkBreederland, Michigan Sea Grant and John Gannon, U.S.Geological Survey

3:45 PM Concluding Remarks – Curt Boller, Supervisor of BrownstownTownship; John Hartig, River Navigator for the Greater DetroitAmerican Heritage River Initiative

4:00 PM Adjourn


List of participantsin the November 23, 1999 technology transfer sessionfor soft engineering of shorelines

Dennis BuechlerU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

David BurgdorfU.S. Dept. of Agriculture –Natural Resources Conservation Service

Linda BurkeNTH Consultants, Ltd.

Ernest BurkeenCity of DetroitRecreation Dept.

Jackie ByarsUniversity of Michigan

Heather CalappiU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Suzan CampbellBelle Isle Nature CenterCity of DetroitRecreation Dept.

Marta ChaffeeUniversity of MichiganSchool of Public Policy

Douglas ClarkEcoTec Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Rick ComstockConsumers EnergyEnvironmental Dept.

Ric CoronadoCitizens’ Environment Alliance of SWOntario and Southeast Michigan

George CostarisCanadian Consulate General

Bill CraigRouge RAP Advisory Council

Chris CritophThe Raisin RegionConservation Authority

Christopher P. Cynar

Ken CullisOntario Ministry of Natural ResourcesLake Superior Management Unit

Michael DargaWayne CountyDept. of Engineering

Nancy DargaWayne County Parks

Steve DautMidwest Environmental

LTC Rober t J. DavisU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Katherine DavisonUniversity of Michigan

Doug DenisonSmith Group JJR Inc.

Andrew DervanLake St. Clair Advisory CommitteeDuPont Herber ts Automotive Systems

Lisa DiChieraHines

Perphyria DouglasU.S. Dept. of Agriculture –Natural Resources Conservation Service

James M. DuBayThe Detroit Edison Company

Michael DuewekeEastern Michigan University

Sean DuffeyU.S. Dept. of Agriculture –Natural Resources Conservation Service

Dave DulongU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Appendix B

Mary V. Anderson, PresidentFriends of Belle Isle

Lisa AppelWildlife Habitat Councilc/o Detroit Edison

Karen ArmosCity of River RougeCommunity Development Director

Gary BaileyU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Kate Barret tEcoTec Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Derrick BeachFisheries and Oceans Canada

Mary Lynn BeckerPublic Affairs OfficerCanadian Consulate General

Fay BeelsFriends of Belle Isle

Ralph BenoitEssex County Field NaturalistsCitizen Alliance

Suzanne BishopCreekside Community Development Corp.

John BlanchardGeneral Motors Corporation

Connie BorisSTS Consultants

Jeff BraunscheidelLake Erie Management UnitFisheries DivisionMichigan Dept. of Natural Resources

Mark BreederlandMichigan Sea Grant

Caleb BrokawSoutheast Michigan Council of Governments


Rosemary EdwardsCity of DetroitRecreation Department

Lauri ElbingOffice of Congressman John Dingell

Dan Eliet tLake Erie Cleanup and Restoration

Robert ElkinU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Rosanne EllisonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cliff EvanitskiEnvironment CanadaGreat Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund

Joe FarwellGrand River Conservation Authority

Tom FeganWayne County

Robin FieldsSen. Legislative AnalystDetroit City Council

Hon. Sheila M. Cockrel

Carla D. FisherU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Steven FloresUniversity of Michigan

David FongersEnvironmental EngineerNonpoint Source ProgramLand and Water ManagementMichigan Dept. of Environmental Quality

Danielle FoyeOhio Dept. of Natural ResourcesDivision of Geological Survey

Jim FrancisFisheries BiologistMichigan Dept. of Natural Resources

Jim GallowayU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

John E. GannonU.S. Geological Survey/Great LakesScience Center

Commander Steve GarrityU.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office,Detroit

Sean GearhartCity of TrentonEngineering Dept.

Mike GeigerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Saad GhalibNTH Consultants

Jim GrahamFriends of the Rouge

Donald GuyOhio Dept. of Natural ResourcesDivision of Geological SurveyLake Erie Geology Group

John H. HartigRiver Navigator Greater DetroitAmerican Heritage River Initiative

Jim HartsonBMJ Engineers & Surveyors

Andrew HartzMichigan Dept. of EnvironmentalQuality

Dick HautauCity of DetroitRecreation Department

Don HectorMinistry of Natural Resources

Andy HenriksenWashtenaw County Conservation District

Edwina HenryCity of Detroit

Alan HercegU.S. Dept. of Agriculture –Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mary Lou Herec

Brian HickeySt. Lawrence River Institute ofEnvironmental Sciences

Tom HildebrandToronto and Region Conservation Authority

Steve HoldenMichigan Dept. of Environmental QualitySurface Water Quality Division

Bob Hunt, Deputy DirectorWayne CountyPlanning Division

Robert F. HunterCamp Dresser & McKee

Charles Jackson, TreasurerFriends of Belle Isle

Maxine Jackson, SecretaryFriends of Belle Isle

Ryan JakucU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Barry L. JohnsonU.S. Geological SurveyUpper Midwest EnvironmentalSciences Center

Philip P. Johnson, P.E.NTH Consultants, Ltd.

Aram Kalousdian, EditorMichigan Contractor & Builder

Tim KarlWade-Trim

Diana KarwanUniversity of MichiganLandscape Architecture

Bob KavetskyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEast Lansing Field Office

John K. KerrEconomic Development SpecialistDetroit/Wayne County Port Authority

Andrea KevrickInSite Design Studio

Joshua Keys

David KillenBTS Consulting Engineers


Marlies ManningHamilton Anderson Associates

Bruce A. MannyU.S. Geological Survey/Great LakesScience Center

Leonard P. MarszalekGeneral MotorsWorldwide Facilities Group

Greg MarvinOhio Dept. of Natural Resources

Peter J. McInerneyCity of Wyandot te

Isabel MinnInSite Design Studio

Russ MollMichigan Sea Grant

Gary MorganCity of DearbornDept. of Public Works

Paul MuelleHuron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority

Steve OldsU.S. Dept. of Agriculture – NaturalResources Conservation Service

Tim PattersonCanada Centre for Inland Waters

Larry PawlusU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

John PeckU.S. Dept. of CommerceEconomic Development Administration

John PerreconeU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 5

Susan PhillipsMetropolitan Affairs Coalition

Janet Planck

David PollockValm

Bobbi J. Raab

Michigan Dept. of Environmental QualityLand and Water Management Division

Nicholas RaphaelDept. of GeographyEastern Michigan University

Dale L. ReaumeTownship of Grosse Ile

Justin ReinhartOhio Dept. of Natural Resources

Don ReinkeU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ralph ReznickMichigan Dept. of Environmental QualityWater Qualit y Division

Chad K. RhodesCity of DetroitDept. of Environmental Affairs

Dave RichOffice of U.S. Senator Carl Levin

James W. RidgwayEnvironmental Consulting and Technology, Inc.

Kelvin F. RogersCuyahoga River Remedial Action PlanCoordinatorOhio Environmental Protection AgencyNortheast District Office

Steve RolosonOhio Dept. of Natural ResourcesScenic Rivers

Clea RomeUniversity of MichiganLandscape Architecture

Robert RudowskiEcorse Rowing Club

Campbell/Manix Associates Inc.

Benjamin RussauMilitary Engineers

Harry SalisburyU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jonathan I. KleinmanEnvironmental Consultingand Technology, Inc.

Fritz KlinglerNTH Consultants, Ltd.

Tom KolhoffMichigan Dept. of Environmental QualityLand and Water Management Division

Matt KowalskiU.S. Geological Survey/Great LakesScience Center

Dan KrutschBTS Consulting Engineers

John LambertCity of Dearborn

Faye LangmaidCity of WindsorParks and Recreation

Glenn LapinDetroit Renaissance

Meg Larsen, Education CoordinatorClinton River Watershed Council

Kathleen LawCity of Gibraltar

Amanda Lit tleUniversity of Michigan

Terry LongU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Colet te LuffU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Charles MabryTilton and Associates, Inc.

Jane MackeyDownriver Community Conference

Gord MacPhersonToronto and Region ConservationAuthority

Leonard MannausaRepresentative for State RepresentativeGeorge Mans


Lynda SanchezMichigan Coastal Management ProgramLand and Water ManagementMichigan Dept. of Environmental Quality

David SandersMetropolitan Affairs Coalition

Randy SchatzGeneral Motors Corporation

Nettie SeabrooksCity of Detroit Mayor’s Office

Martha SeguraU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEcological Services

James SelegeanU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

John ShawEnvironment Canada

Cynthia Silveri, ASLAAssociate Landscape ArchitectDetroit Recreation Dept.

Alton SimmsRobbin B. Sotir & Associates, Inc.

Andy SmithFisheries and Oceans Canada

Benjamin L. Smith, IIIDetroit Economic Growth Corporation

Rebecca Seal Soileau, Ph.DResearch ScientistU.S. Army Corps of Engineers-WaterwaysExperiment Station

Dan SorekCity of TrentonEngineering Dept.

Bridget StefanOhio Dept. of Natural Resources

Wendy SteinhackerNational Wildlife Federation

Laura StephensonToronto Region Conservation Authority

Sue StetlerMetropolitan Affairs Coalition

Steve StewartMichigan Sea Grant Extension

Jim StoneFriends of Detroit River

Peter W. StrohStroh Companies, Inc.

Carey SuhanSociety of American Military EngineersTesting Engineers & Consultants

Glenn SwitzerConservation Halton

Stan TaylorEssex Region Conservation Authority

John TennantConsulate General for Canada in Detroit

Aaron Thompson, E.I.T.Water Issues DivisionAtmospheric Environment Branch

Sal SclafaniWyandotte Boat Club

Steve ThorpGreat Lakes Commission

Lisa TulenInternational Joint Commission

Charlie UhlarikU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Roberta UrbaniDetroit Edison

Brent ValereFisheries and Oceans Canada

Jennifer VincentEnvironment CanadaGreat Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund

Eric WardaU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Richard WeirsU.S. Dept. of Housing Urban Development

Jeff WeiserU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Treffen WhiteSchool of Public PolicyUniversity of Michigan

Wendy WhiteNational Steel Corporation

Mark Winter tonCity of WindsorPublic Works

Kelly WithersFisheries and Oceans Canada

Dan WlodkowskiWyandotte Boat Club

Lev WoodClayton Group Services

Bruce YingerCity of DearbornDept. of Public Works

Laura Yorke

Best Management Practices for of Shorelines · Best Management Practices for ... technical advice...

Documents

Transcript of Best Management Practices for of Shorelines · Best Management Practices for ... technical advice...