Coastal Wetland Restoration Success Stories-Fleming, 2012
24
Habitat Challenges: Lake Ontario Case Study HOW-Great Lakes Coalition Conference 2012 Session: GLRI Coastal Wetland Restoration Success Stories Presenter Sarah Fleming, Regional Biologist Ducks Unlimited, Inc. [email protected] September 12, 2012
-
Upload
healthy-lakes-healthy-lives -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
281 -
download
2
description
Great Lakes coastal wetlands exist in severely altered watersheds and landscapes that can result in degraded wetland conditions (e.g., monotypic vegetation, invasive species), and management actions required to maintain biologically diverse wetlands can be ecologically limiting (e.g., diked wetlands with minimal hydrologic exchange). We report on three GLRI-funded projects designed to improve coastal wetland ecosystems by restoring hydrologic connectivity, increasing fish passage, and enhancing wetland ecosystem functions and services. Biological monitoring is an integral component of each project and includes traditional and innovative research efforts focused on results with broad application across the Great Lakes basin.
Transcript of Coastal Wetland Restoration Success Stories-Fleming, 2012
Habitat Challenges: Lake Ontario Case Study
HOW-Great Lakes Coalition Conference 2012Session: GLRI Coastal Wetland Restoration Success Stories
PresenterSarah Fleming, Regional Biologist
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. [email protected]
September 12, 2012
Hydrologic alteration, as a result of regulation, has had big effects on wetlands.
• Extensive diverse wet meadows have declined in area over 50% since early 1960s.
• Cattail-dominated marsh has expanded in response to stable water levels – reducing diversity of species and natural communities in wetlands.
Habitat ChallengesNY Case Study : Lake Ontario
abundance
PHASE IPlanning/design/outreach
TILTSUNY-ESFNYSDECUSFWS
STR
PHASE IIIResearch/monitoring
SUNY-ESFNYSDEC
USGS
PHASE IIImplementation
USFWSUSDA
DUNYSDEC
Fish Habitat Conservation Strategy:Program Strategy Overview
PrioritizationAccessDesign
Toolkit actions
Evaluate impact
Modify approachEducation
Baseline dataAccessExperimental design
Monitoring: French Creek (2010) : justification for more work through FEMRF
Data provided by SUNY-ESF
Preliminary Results from 2010 Monitoring
Implementation: St. Lawrence
NOAA - $1 million
1) French Creek WMA- Carpenters Branch
2) French Creek WMA – Lower French Creek
3) Point Vivian – Private property
(B) Monitoring Ongoing 2012-2013
-Vegetation-Hydrology-Nutrients-Trophic levels-Faunal Linkages-Muskrat houses-Marshbirds-Herps
(A) Restoration Completed winter 2012-2013
Lake Ontario
Study Sites
French Creek/Carpenters Branch
Point Vivian
Is it functioning?
Monitoring : Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
• Short-term duration, but will provide baseline• Compare treatment sites (restoration) to reference
sites (no restoration)• Allow for post-enhancement priorities
• Goal: ascertaining faunal and habitat responses that can be attributed to the enhancement effort and provide baseline data for assessment responses in the future
Methods
Water Level/Hydrology : a) water level loggers and staff gauges
Nutrients/Lower Trophic Levelsb) examine relationships of water quality variables (solute chemistry)
to changes in water levels to assess effects of enhancements c) Chemistry samples will be taken seasonally in spring (April 15),
mid-summer (July 15), and fall (October 15) to represent periods of hydrological change
d) For lower trophic levels, sampling will focus on monitoring invertebrate composition and density (grab samples)
Methods
Wetland Vegetation
a) Transects will bisect each study site along a wetland elevation gradient
b) Sampling points: staked, marked, and GPS. Vegetation measurements: 1-m2 quadrat. Plant species composition and percent cover of each species according to a Braun-Blauquet scale will be measured
c) Samples once during July 15-August 15
PRELIMINARY RESULTS:
i) Typha spp. on habitat mounds < Typha spp. on referenceii) Moisture: habitat mounds that were drier had less species richness
and coverage of non-Typha spp. compared to mounds that were more moist.
iii) Restoring native vegetation was site-specificiv) Submerged aquatic plants (Hydrocharis morsus-rananae) was less
in excavated channels than the natural channels.
Methods
Faunal Linkages:1) Fish: Spring runs, emigration runs of YOY pike
(size and abundance) = index of spawning success rates.
2) Muskrat house density : winter counts3) Avifauna: Conway protocol, audio loggers4) Herpetofauna: frog calls (North American
Amphibian Monitoring Program Protocols) and turtle trapping (baited hoop nets).
Preliminary Results
2 x as many in water controlled sites-12 detections at water controlled sites- No focal spp. at French Creek
- Detected at P.V. (restored site), not at reference.
-YOY and adults using restored sites (F.C. and PV)
Similar StudiesLakeview WMA, Jefferson county, NY
TNC project funded by EPA through GLRI:
Results
Fish 2011 – 1 YOY NOPI 2012 – 14 YOY NOPI
Muskrats 2011- no signs 2012 – visible signs
Black Terns 2011 – 1 pair 2012 – 1.5 pairs
Similar Studies Lake Erie, ON
Long Point Waterfowl: Greater total bird abundance on restored sites Greater marsh bird species richness Invertebrates: relative abundance was 1.7 times
greater in restored Plant species richness and diversity greater at
restored
Published: Schummer et al. Wetlands, 2012
Summary
• Short-term trends support positive benefits after only one year• Response of native plant community• 4-5 year out, channels are still open and minimal cattail
encroachment• Re-established connectivity• Managed sites support greater positive responses from target
spps.
• More data and studies needed
(publications in prep.)
QUESTIONS?
Field Trips:Board on the 1st floor, West Superior Ave
entrance (bottom of Grand Staircase)Trolleys board 2:30
Joint Reception: trolleys begin departing at 5:45
Spread the word!Wireless password:
HOW12
Conference website: Conference.healthylakes.org
Email us photos, comments, tweets or video: [email protected]
On Twitter? Use the hashtag: #healthylakes
