SWEPS Stream Restoration 2014 Final Report

A review of stream restoration and related activities conducted during summer of 2014

September 2014

• Keegan McGrath
• Patrick Weeks
• Brittany Gregory

Shubenacadie Watershed Environmental Protection Society

In partnership with Adopt a Stream and the Clean Foundation of Nova Scotia

Executive Summary

Over the summer of 2014 the SWEPS stream restoration team was involved in the completion of several projects related to improving the overall health of the Shubenacadie watershed. This report represents the summation and final documentation of that work. It provides a snapshot of work accomplished during the summer of 2014 and is useful as a legacy document to facilitate future SWEPS projects.

Specific tasks completed during the summer of 2014 included:

• The installation of 6 in-stream restoration structures
• Stabilization of stream bank in area of active erosion
• Riparian planting
• Thalweg development
• Removal of debris jams/blockages
• Water quality testing at 8 sites, including lab analysis of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and E. coli at Holland brook
• Site scoping and evaluation for future restoration at over 30 sites
• Community outreach/communication

In total over 450m of stream habitat were restored at two streams in the Shubie watershed. Additionally, the team created an online map and generated a wealth of data on sites throughout the watershed, both of which are valuable resources for SWEPS.

Based on scoping of sites and consultation with experts from Adopt A Stream, the stream restoration team identified three sites that are considered good candidates for restoration in upcoming summers. These are Tilmann’s Brook, Springfield Lake, and the upper Beaverbank River. Tillmans brook is considered the best option for restoration; however, consultation with the church group that owns the adjacent property is needed before the project can begin. The next best option is Springfield lake, while the upper Beaverbank River is the lowest priority. A description of each of these sites is provided herein.

During the course of the summer the restoration team placed a high priority on community engagement. Community events including a “stream clean-up” and community BBQ were held. These were attended by SWEPS members and community members. Two local newspapers (the Community Herald and the Laker) also published stories on the restoration efforts of the team.

To mark the locations where SWEPS has successfully conducted stream restoration, two interpretive signs have been proposed. One at Lockview High School (near “A” lake stream) and the other at Bennery brook. At the time of writing, discussions with Lockview High School and Scotia Learning (the land owners) regarding the potential for placing an interpretive sign on the south side of Lockview were on- going.

The final section of this report provides recommendations for future stream restoration teams. These are lessons based on the experiences of the 2014 stream restoration team. These and the other resources provided (Appendices A-D) are expected to facilitate the task of these teams.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Table of Contents ii

1. Introduction 1
2. Work Summary – Stream Restoration 2014 2
   1. Human Impacts on Watersheds 3
   2. Stream Restoration Activities 5
      1. Black’s Brook (“A” Lake Tributary) Stream Restoration 7
      2. Golden Lake Stream Restoration 10
   3. Water Quality Testing at Holland Brook 11
   4. Site Scoping and Mapping 12
   5. Community Outreach 14
3. Future Projects 16
   1. Tillmann’s Brook 16
   2. Springfield Lake Stream 17
   3. Upper Beaverbank River 18
   4. Other SWEPS Projects 19
4. Recommendations 20

References 23

Appendix A – Resources 24

Appendix B – List of Tools 25

Appendix C – Site Details Document 26

Appendix D – Screenshot of Potential Interpretive Sign 26

Introduction

Background, purpose, description of team and project goals

With funding from Adopt a Stream (AaS), the Shubenacadie Watershed Environmental Protection Society (SWEPS) engaged in stream restoration throughout the summer of 2014. While the work conducted during 2014 represents a standalone project, it was built directly from previous projects funded through AaS and completed during the summers of 2012 and 2013. It is anticipated that further stream restoration and/or related activities will continue in the future.

The primary purpose of the stream restoration project of 2014 was to identify and implement activities that would improve habitat quality for Brook trout, Atlantic salmon, and other wildlife in and around waterways of the Shubenacadie watershed. Throughout the summer, several specific goals were identified in order to achieve and supplement the stated purpose of the restoration project. These included:

• to complete stream restoration on “A” lake tributary and at least one other stream
• to conduct water quality testing of Holland brook in an effort to identify the source(s) of contamination that had been previously documented by Dalhousie University
• to engage in community outreach to promote environmental stewardship in the Shubenacadie watershed and raise the public profile of SWEPS
• to gather information on the condition of streams throughout the Shubie watershed to improve knowledge of the watershed and
• to make recommendations regarding future restoration projects

This report is intended to transmit the outcomes, knowledge, and recommendations of the summer project to the SWEPS members and other stakeholders. It provides a brief introduction to stream restoration and a summary of work completed by the stream restoration team during the summer of 2014 (section 2.0). Section 2.0 is subdivided into four categories including: human impacts on watersheds (section 2.1), stream restoration activities (section 2.2), water quality testing at Holland brook (section 2.3), site scoping and mapping (section 2.4), and community outreach (section 2.5). Also included in this report is a discussion of potential future projects (section 3.0), and challenges encountered, lessons learned, and recommendations (section 4.0). Lastly, included in the appendices are resources that are considered useful for future stream restoration teams including a list of important resources (Appendix A), a list of materials used (Appendix B), and data on sites visited (Appendix C).

Through training, independent research, trial and error, and with guidance from experts working for Adopt a Stream, the stream restoration team was able to restore 470m of stream habitat in the Shubie watershed. Moreover a great deal of information on stream sites throughout the watershed was collected. This included general site information and data on physical, chemical and biological parameters of streams. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the team was able to reach out and engage with various individuals, groups and organizations to promote environmental stewardship and further the goals of SWEPS. This report represents the summation and final documentation of that work. It is intended to provide a snapshot of work accomplished during the summer of 2014 and be useful as a legacy document to facilitate future SWEPS projects.

Work Summary – Stream Restoration 2014

The team that carried out the stream restoration activities during the summer of 2014 included a project coordinator and two Nova Scotia Youth Conservation Corps (NSYCC) students. Keegan McGrath, the project coordinator, completed a B.Sc. in Biology and a Masters of Environmental Studies. NSYCC students, Patrick Weeks and Brittany Gregory, were enrolled in programs for water resources technician training and geological engineering respectively. This team was supported by SWEPS members who volunteered their time, equipment, and expertise.

At the beginning of the summer season none of the team members had any direct experience with stream restoration. To acquire the knowledge/skills necessary, training was provided by Adopt a Stream, the Clean Foundation, Community University Research Alliance (CURA H2O), and the Sackville Rivers Association. Topics for which training was provided included stream restoration, fish habitat assessment, and culvert assessments (see Appendix A for details regarding specific training). Equipment used was obtained from SWEPS members, the Community Based Environmental Monitoring Network, and where necessary purchased. A list of equipment necessary for stream restoration and how it can be collected is provided in Appendix B.

Work completed over the summer of 2014 is subdivided here into stream restoration (section 2.2), water quality testing (section 2.3), site scoping (section 2.4), and community outreach (section 2.5).

These sections are preceded by an introduction to the impacts that human activities can have on watersheds (section 2.1). This is useful because it provides context and demonstrates the rational for projects that were undertaken.

Human Impacts on Watersheds

Watersheds are constantly under pressure from a range of human activities. These can dramatically impact their character and suitability for wildlife. Streams in particular are subject to impacts from range of causes including damming, logging, development (urban, sub-urban, and otherwise), industry, agriculture and much more. These activities can alter the physical, chemical and biological nature of streams in complex ways.

While a comprehensive discussion of human impacts on watersheds and streams is beyond the scope of this report, it is useful to examine one of these issues in a limited way; here we explore the issue of logging (Box 2.1). For more information on these issues see section 2.3 of the government report

“Ecological Restoration of Degraded Aquatic Habitats: A Watershed Approach” produced by DFO (DFO, 2006)

In the Shubenacadie watershed, streams have been impacted by many causes, some of which are historically important and others which are ongoing. Historically important issues in this area include: logging, agriculture, and residential development. Current and future causes for concern include: development (building roads, homes, and businesses in areas that were previously undeveloped); logging (although to a lesser degree than in the past) and tree removal by homeowners; storm water runoff; malfunctioning septic systems; and chemical spills/dumping from vehicles, industry and the public. One of the most important impacts of these on streams in the Shubenacadie watershed is to cause erosion of stream banks. This causes streams and rivers to be wider and shallower than they would be in their natural condition. Additionally, highly impacted streams also become straighter and simpler. This means that they don’t have the same diversity of bottom structure (pools, riffles, and runs). The net result is that the streams are become less suitable habitat for many species of fish.

For a watershed group such as SWEPS it is important to attempt to mitigate as many of the root causes of environmental impacts as possible. This is achieved in many ways, the most practical of which are education and advocacy. In this way further degradation of the natural environment can hopefully be avoided. In instances where impacts have already occurred, it is sometimes possible to reverse or at least diminish the damage that has happened. By working with the existing condition of the stream it is possible to intervene in such a way that environmental impacts are reduced; a process known as stream restoration.

Stream Restoration Activities

The purpose of stream restoration is to mitigate human impacts and improve the stream environment so that it is more suited to sustaining wildlife, particularly for valued fish species (e.g. Atlantic salmon) (although see Box 2.2). It is a strategy that is used by community groups in Nova Scotia to modify the physical (e.g. depth, width, temperature) and/or chemical (e.g. dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH) properties of streams. When done properly, stream restoration has been shown to be an effective method for increasing the abundance of valued aquatic species (evidence for this can be found on the Adopt-a-Stream website: http://manual.adoptastream.ca/sec10_1.html).

The primary techniques used for stream restoration in NS include: stream bank stabilization (e.g. riparian planting, installation of reinforcing structures), installation of digger logs and/or deflectors; debris removal, and thalweg development. These are used to combat the over-widening and simplification of streams. Other techniques including culvert repair, dam removal, construction of fish passage, and liming of rivers are also used to address other specific problems such as barriers to fish passage, or low pH caused by acid rain. For a comprehensive description of restoration activities used in Nova Scotia refer to the Adopt a Stream Program Manual: “A Watershed Approach to Community Based Watershed Stewardship” (Adopt a Stream, 2014) that is available online.

Black’s Brook (“A” Lake Tributary) Stream Restoration

• GPS coordinates of access: 44.822413, -63.619055
• Average bankfull width: 4.5m
• Issues: Large stretches of stream are over-widened; severe erosion from tree cutting and foot traffic, several large blockages; significant accumulation of garbage.
• Prescribed activity: Installation of diggers/deflectors, riparian planting, removal of debris jams, and community clean-up.

Over the summer of 2014, a large part of the stream restoration team’s efforts were dedicated to restoration on Black’s brook (“A” lake tributary). Black’s brook is a low-order headwater stream that runs from “A” lake down to Fletchers lake in Fall River (Figure 1). Primary access to the site is from a parking lot on the southern end of Lockview High School. This property is a P3 school and is owned by Scotia Learning. The stream itself is owned by the city of Halifax and bordered by Lockview to the north and private homes on all sides. The downstream end of the brook has a shallow slope (<3^o) that increases closer to “A” lake. This causes the stream pattern to shift from a meander in the bottom section, to step-pools in the top section. The surrounding forest is mix of hardwood and softwood species including balsam fir, spruce, hemlock, red maple, striped maple, yellow birch and others. Interestingly, core samples of some of the larger hemlocks indicate that there are trees at least 115 years old present with others reaching as much as 150 years. During the summer the team also observed snapping turtles, squirrels, snowshoe hares, mink, deer (tracks), and several species of birds including pileated woodpeckers and oven birds.

Issues for this site were identified in cooperation with Adopt a Stream during summer of 2013. To address these, a series of in-stream restoration structures were prescribed including 5 digger logs and 1 deflector (Figure 2). These were constructed over the summer of 2014 using logs and rocks found nearby. This was a major cost-saver as it reduced the need for purchase and transport of these materials. For guidance on construction of in-stream structures please consult the Adopt a Stream Program Manual (Adopt a Stream, 2014).

In addition to the in-stream structures, 5 large debris jams and several smaller ones were broken apart and the debris removed from the flood plain so that they would not be swept back into the stream at periods of high water. These debris jams had accumulated over several years and were causing blockages in the stream. These were primarily made of logs and leaves in various states of decay, which had been forced together by the movement of water. Many of these had washed into the stream through natural causes but it was suspected by the team members that a significant portion had also been thrown into the stream by nearby homeowners and students.

After the debris jams were removed the team engaged in bank stabilization activities. Two strategies were chosen for two sites where this was done. The first involved the use of rip rap rock to shore up eroding banks. This was achieved by piling up rocks in areas where banks were eroding. Large rocks that were able to resist the erosive power of the stream (during peak flows) were used. Once all of the easily accessible stone was used, additional stone was purchased. In total, an estimated 8,000 lbs of stone was used to shore up eroded banks. The second strategy was to plant shrubs and trees in the riparian area. The roots of these plants help hold the soil together, providing strength to the bank. In this case the team chose to use roses and elder trees, both species that are suited to the environment. These were transplanted from nearby environments.

The final restoration activity that the team carried out at Black’s brook was thalweg development. Thalweg development is done by digging out a portion of the stream so that water flow is consolidated and not too shallow. This is especially important during low flow because if there is not a defined Thalweg water will spread out over the bottom of the stream and not provide enough depth for fish passage. This was left until last because the removal of debris jams and construction of in-stream structures was expected to (and did!) change the flow pattern of the stream. This activity is not critical to stream restoration because ideally it will occur passively over time as a result of the in-stream structures. However, it may be desirable because it can speed up the process.

Total length of stream restored at Black’s Brook was approximately 350m.

Golden Lake Stream Restoration

• GPS coordinates of access: 44.873103, -63.631930
• Average bankfull width: 3.5m
• Issues: Several large blockages
• Prescribed activity: Debris removal

The second area where stream restoration took place over the summer of 2014 was on a section of stream running from Golden Lake into Grand Lake (Figure 3). This area is dominated by softwood trees including spruce, hemlock and white pine. Due in part to its elevation, this forest had suffered extensive wind throw damage from storms over the past several years. Many of the downed trees had ended up in the brook creating blockages that caused the stream to overflow the banks. Over a period of 2 weeks the stream restoration team removed these blockages. One large tree that had fallen into the stream was not removed because it was too large for the team to handle. This tree would require the use of a chainsaw to cut it into more manageable pieces.

No in-stream restoration structures (e.g. digger logs, deflectors) were constructed at this site because it is too steep. Total length of stream restored was 120m.

Water Quality Testing at Holland Brook

• GPS coordinates of access: 44.846516, -63.607382
• Issues: Previous testing identified high bacterial counts
• Prescribed activity: Water testing at various points along Holland brook.

Water quality testing done by Dalhousie University in 2013 found that there were abnormally high counts of fecal bacteria in Holland brook. In order to follow up on this research and potentially identify the source of contamination the stream restoration team under took some water quality testing on August 13, 2014. Eight test sites were established prior to testing (Figure 3). These were chosen to reflect important upstream stretches of stream.

Water quality parameters were tested at each site using a YSI probe. These included temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and salinity (Table 1). Additionally, water samples for each site were collected. These were then taken to Dalhousie and tested for total Nitrogen (tN) and E. coli (Table 1). Due to circumstances outside of the team’s control, testing for tP was not completed at the time of writing.

Table 1. Results of water quality testing in Holland Brook. Samples were collected on August 13, 2014 from 9:50am – 12:05pm. Air temperature was 18.5^oC.

• ¹CFU – Colony Forming Units
• ²ND – Non-Detect. Non detection limit for total nitrogen is 0.05 mg/L.
• *Dissolved oxygen readings were abnormally high. It is suspected that the probe was not properly calibrated.

The results of water quality testing indicate that there are indeed some problem areas in Holland Brook. Particularly worrisome is the very high E. coli count in sites 6 and 7. While all the tests sites exceed the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (2014) (these require that no E. coli be present in any detectable amount), sites 6 and 7 are above even the Canadian Guidelines for Recreational Water Quality (2014) (which require an average of less than 200 CFU/100 mL and no single sample above 400 CFU/100 mL). However, the high E. coli counts at sites 6 and 7 do not appear to be causing high E. coli counts at sites downstream (sites 1, 2, 4, and 5). This is counter to what the restoration team expected when testing began.

It is possible that the high E. coli counts of sites 6 and 7 are a temporary and/or localized problem. The water level was low during the time of sampling and was not flowing quickly at sites 6 and 7 (this is reflected in the low DO). Moreover, only one sample was taken at each location. As a result, it is possible that a nearby source of water pollution (e.g. animal feces) or some other anomaly contributed to the high E. coli counts. For this reason, it is difficult at this time to draw any firm conclusions. It is recommended that further water testing be done at all of these locations in the future.

Site Scoping and Mapping

In addition to the stream restoration and water quality analysis described above, the Stream Restoration team scoped out several sites throughout the Shubie watershed. The purpose of this scoping was to get a better idea of the condition of waterways and investigate the potential for future stream restoration

projects. In total 35 sites were identified and 33 sites were visited. Potential for stream restoration was assessed at all sites visited and water quality testing using a YSI probe was conducted at 8 sites.

A map of these sites is available online through Google Maps (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zLAfalqkYUnw.kMxUO6Pw2a6I). The map includes some basic description information and notes on the site. Moreover, there are links to pictures and water quality data for sites where these were collected. The sites marked on the map are coded according to the assessed potential for stream restoration. A description of the meanings of these markers is provided in Table 2. The map is an extremely useful tool for contextualizing the restoration work done during 2014. Additionally, it can easily be adapted to future uses. For example, it can be shared on the website as an outreach tool or updated each year as additional sites are restored and data is collected. Currently the map is accessed through Google at no cost, however, there is potential for additional functionality to be added if a professional version (My Maps Engine Pro) is acquired. The cost for this service at the time of writing was $5 a month.

Table 2. Description of markers used in the Google Maps document (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zLAfalqkYUnw.kMxUO6Pw2a6I) that contains information on sites visited by the SWEPS Stream Restoration Team.

Patrick Weeks, a member of the stream restoration team, has committed to continue his involvement with SWEPS over the near-term to educate SWEPS members on the use of the map and make it available on-line.

A detailed document with notes, pictures and data from all sites visited is appended to this document (appendix C). Due to the size of the file it is available as a separate PDF document. A description of the three sites identified as good potential candidates for future stream restoration is provided in section 3.0.

Community Outreach

As part of the stream restoration team’s goal to improve awareness and care for local streams they engaged in community outreach. Below is a brief description of activities and engagements.

Halifax Youth Science Camp

On July 24^th, 2014 the stream restoration volunteered to run a session on stream restoration for the Halifax Youth Science Camp kids. In total there were about 20 kids and 5 councillors that took part. The primary contact for Halifax Youth Science Camps is Gareth Watt (wattg@halifax.ca). He has expressed interest in having future presentations from SWEPS in years to come.

The team brought insects gathered from a nearby stream to show the kids. We then talked about streams and the different plants and animals that we can find in NS streams. The students got the chance to look at the bugs up close. We also showed them some videos that we had taken throughout the summer. We finished up by playing a game of animal charades where the kids had to act like an animal found in NS while the others tried to guess. It was a great time and the kids seemed to enjoy it very much.

“A” lake Stream Clean-Up

On July 19^th, SWEPS hosted a community clean-up event at “A” lake, one of the sites where stream restoration was being conducted. The event was advertised widely and attended by approximately 20 people from the community and SWEPS. We collected several bags of garbage from along the stream. We also got people to help move piles of rock that we had collected prior to the event. This “rock toss” helped us move a considerable amount of rock to an area of the stream where there was major erosion. Moreover, it was a lot of fun and helped people get a feel for what is involved in stream restoration.

One of the people who attended the clean-up also interviewed Keegan and posted the interview to his web page (http://www.earthspheredevelopment.com/news/ceo-of-esdc-on-stream-restoration- cleanup).

SWEPS in the press

Individuals from SWEPS were interviewed for two stories over the summer of 2014. The first was in the Halifax Community Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/community/bedford-sackville/1222842- community-call-out-for-a-stream-clean-up) and the second was in the Laker community newspaper (http://www.thelaker.ca/stories.asp?id=6799). These stories were used to advertise for community events (e.g. the “A” lake clean-up) and raise the public profile of SWEPS.

SWEPS online

In order to engage the online community most effectively SWEPS has an active internet presence. SWEPS maintains a twitter account (@_SWEPS), a Facebook profile (SWEPS watershed), a Facebook page (Shubenacadie Watershed Environmental Protection Society) and a website (http://www.sweps.org/). Each of these platforms can be used for various purposes including: interacting with other organizations or individuals; posting photos, documents, links; spreading information; and sharing with the community.

SWEPS BBQ

On August 16^th, 2014 SWEPS hosted a BBQ at St. Andrew’s park on the corner of Maranatha Dr. and High Rd. Drinks, snacks, burgers, and sausages were provided. This was open to SWEPS members and other people in the community who were interested in joining. The BBQ was attended by approximately 15 individuals.

Lockview High School engagement

In order to spread the message to Lockview High School students Keegan has engaged with Lockview High School officials to investigate the possibility of 1) putting an interpretive sign on school property (see appendix D) and 2) developing curriculum around “A” lake stream that is located adjacent to the school. The purpose of engaging with students is to get them excited about their nearby natural environment. The hope is that this will help them become invested in “A” lake stream so that they act as environmental stewards of the area.

At the time of writing, this activity was ongoing but could take many potential forms including: a visit from a biology class, the formation of a student society for protecting the area, and/or a student workshop. The ultimate form of engagement with Lockview High School is likely to change and evolve over time. Currently, Scotia Learning (the landowners) and the Lockview Principle have agreed to continue discussions on this topic with SWEPS. A memorandum of understanding is being drafted.

Future Projects

One of the goals of the stream restoration crew was to identify potential future sites for stream restoration (see section 2.4). The reason for doing this was twofold: 1) to get a better idea of the state of streams in the Shubenacadie watershed and 2) create a list of sites where restoration could be done to improve stream habitat. It is hoped that this resource could then be used by future stream restoration teams and cut down on time spent planning restoration. As a result of these scoping activities, three sites were identified for potential restoration. The following is a description of these sites (section 3.1- 3.3). Also included in this section is a description of other future projects that are being considered by SWEPS that are indirectly related to stream restoration (section 3.4).

Tillmann’s Brook

• GPS coordinates of access: 44.820663,-63.587058
• Average bankfull width: 9.5m
• Issues: Large stretches of stream are over-widened; severe erosion from tree cutting and foot traffic, several large blockages; significant accumulation of garbage.
• Prescribed activity: Installation of diggers/deflectors, riparian planting, removal of debris jams, and community clean-up.

Tillmann’s Brook is located between Miller Lake and Soldiers Lake near the 102 Highway. It is most easily accessed from a portion of land owned by the United Pentecostal Church of Dartmouth off of Sanctuary Ct. The stream is very over-widened and straight. Most likely this damage occurred during the construction of hydropower dams located on both Miller and Soldier lakes. Tillmann’s brook is a middle order stream. The substrate is mostly cobble and boulder. In the upper portions of the stream there is a considerable amount of bedrock and the stream forms step pools.

Tillmann’s Brook has been identified as the best candidate for future stream restoration. It is a large project that would likely take a significant chunk of a summer to complete. This site was visited by Adopt a Stream personnel and a large number (9-12) of in-stream structures were proscribed. This included diggers and rock sills. To develop a restoration plan of this site it is recommended that future restoration teams work closely with Adopt a Stream personnel.

Due to its proximity to camps used by church groups and Scout troops there is a high potential for collaboration and community outreach. The primary contact for the Pentecostal Church which owns the adjacent property is Pastor Underhill (902-403-5551). The restoration team from 2014 was in contact with him briefly and he seemed tentatively interested in allowing SWEPS to use their property to undertake restoration. It is important to note that this land is used by families in the church throughout the year as a camp. In the summer, there is even more activity with children’s summer camps. While there is potential for collaboration on any restoration project, it may also be the case that the group prefer not to have any work occurring while they are actively using the site. Any future projects would need to re-establish contact with the church, reintroduce the idea and develop a new relationship regarding this project.

Another issue that is important to note regarding the potential for stream restoration on Tillmann’s Brook is the issue of connectivity. DFO does not consider Tillmann’s Brook as fish passage. This is due to the dams located upstream and downstream (with no fish ladders) which prevent the upstream movement of trout. Moreover, the ability of trout to survive the downstream passage of dams is unknown. Due to the blockages, stream restoration in this area is unlikely to improve connectivity of habitats. However, discussion with several local anglers has left no doubt that trout frequent this area in large numbers. For this reason, it is considered as a worthwhile project because it would improve spawning habitat for trout already present. Should stream restoration go forward on this site, it should be with the full knowledge that its benefits will be limited due to the circumstances

Springfield Lake Stream

• GPS coordinates of access: 44.815673, -63.734407
• Average bankfull width: 6m
• Issues: Large stretches of stream are over-widened; bank erosion is observed; blockages are present; is downstream of Halifax Water sewage treatment facility.
• Prescribed activity: Installation of diggers/deflectors, riparian planting, removal of debris jams, and community clean-up.

Springfield lake is located in Upper Sackville north-east of Sackville Dr. It is fed by three low-order tributaries on its western side. It is bordered on all sides by residential development. The stream for which restoration is proposed is on the east side of the lake and runs from Springfield lake into Lisle lake. The local name of the stream is not currently known but it is referred to here as “Springfield lake stream”.

This site has can be accessed from Falcon Crest Ct. to the south or Lakeview Ave. to the north. The site was visited by the restoration team and by Adopt a Stream personnel. It is over-widened throughout with major bank blowouts and erosion occurring. The substrate is mostly cobble and gravel, and is considered workable. For these reasons, it is considered a good candidate for future stream restoration. The amount of restoration needed on Springfield lake stream is currently not known. Due to the length of the stream, there is potentially a large amount of restoration work which could be done. If a future restoration team is interested in working on this stream it is advised that they consult with Adopt-A-Stream personnel.

An important note regarding this site is that it is downstream from a Halifax Water sewage treatment plant. For this reason the risk of bacterial contamination is high. Individuals visiting this site should take proper care to avoid ingesting water and ensuring that hand washing or hand sanitizer is used to prevent the spread of pathogens.

Upper Beaverbank River

• GPS coordinates of access: 44.847977, -63.691549
• Average bankfull width: 7.5m
• Issues: Stream is slightly over-widened but good depth and bottom diversity is maintained; 3-4 large blockages
• Prescribed activity: Installation of diggers/deflectors is not necessary. Removal of debris jams is considered sufficient to promote fish passage.

The site identified for potential restoration on the upper Beaverbank River is on a section of stream north of Rosley Rd and west of the Beaverbank Rd. This area is known to locals as an area of salmon migration. This site is best accessed from a bridge on Rosley Rd. The forest is easily traversed. A network of ATV trails has been made and it appears as though some forest thinning has occurred.

Major restoration work on Beaverbank River is not required, however there are several large blockages present. The stream is slightly over-widened but the natural channel morphology is maintained. Flow is consolidated year-round and bottom diversity (lots of good quality pools) is good. This project could be accomplished in short order (1-2 days) and would be good to take on towards the end of the summer once higher priority projects have been completed.

Other SWEPS Projects

Throughout the summer there were several other ideas/projects considered by the restoration team or mentioned by SWEPS members. Many of these are not related to the Adopt a Stream project. The following is a brief outline of some of these ideas/projects. The purpose of this is to capture some of the information from brainstorming activities.

Interpretive signs at Bennery and Lockview

Since 2012, SWEPS has undertaken stream restoration on three sites in the Shubie watershed. Two of these, Blacks Brook and Bennery Brook, are nearby to high traffic areas which would make ideal locations to place interpretive signs. These would serve as a signpost for the restoration projects and allow members of the community to learn about their environment, SWEPS (and other groups), and stream restoration. These would increase awareness of the issues in watersheds and also the activities which can be done to improve them. Ideally the signs would become part of the legacy of the stream restoration activities, drawing people in to investigate the areas where work has been done. A screenshot of a potential sign is included in Appendix D.

Funding/constructing the signs could be achieved in many ways including:

• Funds from Adopt a Stream
• Community fundraising
• Direct solicitation of sign-makers
• A class project
• A combination of the above

At the time of writing, discussions and planning of the construction of a sign for Blacks Brook was ongoing.

Mapping/Protecting Old Growth in the Shubie Watershed

Knowledge of old growth forest stands in the Shubie watershed is currently very sparse. For example, it was not known by members at an August 2014 meeting that there are trees as old as 150 years in the area of Blacks Brook. For this reason, it has been suggested that it may be useful to engage in some assessment/mapping of old growth in the Shubie watershed. This would facilitate the protection of these stands in the future. Before engaging in this type of project it would useful to hold informal information gathering discussions with individuals who would be able to provide guidance such as foresters from NSEnvironment or NSDNR. Then, through discussions with experts and SWEPS members a course of action can be decided upon.

Wetland Delineation and/or Mapping

Similar to an initiative to map and protect old growth forest, delineating and mapping wetlands in the Shubie watershed would improve knowledge of the extent of wetlands. This could then be leveraged when developments occur so that important areas are protected and appropriate compensation is provided for wetlands that are impacted.

This type of work is typically done by a consultant who is trained to do wetland delineation. It is an expensive endeavour that is likely beyond the means of SWEPS unless funding opportunities are identified. However if completed then it could be used to leverage future funding for wetland restoration. For example, a report done on the Sackville Rivers watershed is hosted on the NSEnvironment website and includes a list of areas identified for their restoration potential (http://www.novascotia.ca/nse/wetland/restoration.asp). This report is made public so that if a developer is required to compensate for lost wetlands in HRM they have a list of areas they can choose for restoration. By having a similar list for the Shubie watershed, SWEPS could increase the likelihood of receiving funds for wetland restoration.

Recommendations

Throughout the summer the team had the opportunity to learn quite a bit based on what worked, what didn’t, and other observations. In the interest of improving future stream restoration projects (or other projects carried out by SWEPS) the following are recommendations based on lessons learned.

The season is short – get going early

While it might seem long at the start, the field season goes by very quickly. It is useful to make a list of potential projects and the resources (tools/training) needed to accomplish them as soon as possible. Once this is done then it is best to reach out to those individuals/organizations which will be providing those resources. Many of these will be busy or unavailable in the near term. While you wait for them to be available you can tackle tasks for which the team is prepared.

Stream restoration isn’t a perfect science

Stream restoration is based on good science but each project is going to be different and is going to take a little bit of guesswork. Do your homework, be prepared but don’t let uncertainty paralyze the team.

Since time is so short it may not be best to delay the team for too long when making a plan. If you are completely stuck or considering something that could be detrimental to the stream make sure to consult with the experts. They may be busy and not be able to investigate right away. In that case make sure you have a list of other things that need doing so you can tackle them while you wait. Examples include: contacting stores for donations, office work, online work, helping other groups (so that they may in turn help you) etc…

There are lots of good resources out there… use them!

Adopt a Stream personnel and other community groups are great resources that can help out and improve the stream restoration efforts. However, these resources will only benefit the team if you seek them out. For a list of resources see Appendix A.

Encourage summer students to take initiative

While it is easy to view summer students as simply a pair of hands that go where they are told, these students can be very resourceful. Historically the students hired through the NSYCC are quite strong and passionate individuals with unique skills. They may have quite a lot to offer the stream restoration team. Allowing students the space to be creative and take on greater responsibility can be very rewarding. For example, in the summer of 2014 it was the summer students initiative that produced the online site map and the detailed site document.

Volunteers are hard to come by; make it easy for them to attend community events

Community and volunteer events are an important part of stream restoration. It lets people see what the team is doing and learn about their natural environment. In addition, volunteers can be a great help, especially for big jobs (e.g. moving big piles of rocks). In these situations, more is typically better however, getting more people and volunteers out to events can be quite a challenge. That is why it is important to get the word out. Using traditional media (e.g. newspaper, radio), social media (e.g. facebook, twitter, instagram), flyers, emails, and posters are all good ways of advertising these events. Get the word out early and be clear about the details!

References

Adopt A Stream. 2014. The Nova Scotia Adopt a Stream Program Manual: A Watershed Approach to Community Based Watershed Stewardship http://manual.adoptastream.ca/

Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (2014).(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink- potab/guide/index-eng.php)

Canadian Guidelines for Recreational Water Quality (2014). (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/pubs/water-eau/guide_water-2012-guide_eau/index-eng.php#a411)

DFO. 2006. Ecological Restoration of Degraded Aquatic Habitats: A Watershed Approach. Available from http://adoptastream.ca/?q=project-resources

Appendix A – Resources

Table A1 – A list of useful organizations and individuals for anyone doing stream restoration.

Table A2 – Documents and files produced by SWEPS that may be useful for future stream restoration.

Table A3 – Training completed during 2014 and the organization which provided it.

Appendix B – List of Tools

Table B1 – A list of tools used in stream restoration and pertinent information on them

Appendix C – Site Details Document

Attached as a separately due to the large file size.

Appendix D – Screenshot of Potential Interpretive Sign