09.07.2015 Views

Wetland Characteristics - Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Wetland Characteristics - Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Wetland Characteristics - Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

LYON’S CREEK EAST WETLANDINVENTORY & MONITORING STUDYPrepared for:<strong>Niagara</strong> <strong>Peninsula</strong> <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>Authority</strong>Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentOntario Ministry of Natural ResourcesEnvironment CanadaOCTOBER 2007Dougan & AssociatesC. Portt & Associates


Project Objectives• To comprehensively inventory wetland resources(fish, wildlife and vegetation)• To map wetland vegetation communities• To provide data and mapping for updating thewetland evaluation• To recommend monitoring strategies


Study Area• Study area is 3.8 km in length• Lyon’s Creek is 17 km long; split by Welland Canal.• Lyon’s Creek watershed - 88.0 km².


Project Background• Provincial Significant <strong>Wetland</strong> (PSW)− O.W.E.S evaluated in 1984− 14.4% swamp and 85.6% marsh• Important ecological values include:− nesting colonial waterbirds− winter cover for wildlife− waterfowl production (of local significance)− fish spawning and rearing.• Lyon’s Creek Floodplain <strong>Wetland</strong> (ANSI) consideredthe best example of an incised meander streambasin in the region.• Lyon’s Creek Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)


Study Methods• Background Review• Inventory Design• Remote Sensing• Field Work− Amphibian Surveys− Breeding Bird Surveys− Vegetation Surveys− Fish Habitat Review• Data Summaries, GIS Mapping & Analysis• Reporting


METHODS – Background ReviewDescriptionSourceReports/DocumentsRegional Municipality of <strong>Niagara</strong> Official Plan Studies -Potential Recreation Areas and Fragile Biological SitesInventory and RecommendationsRegional Municipality of <strong>Niagara</strong> – Environmentally SensitiveAreasLife Science Features of the Haldimand Clay PlainPhysiographic RegionPhilips Planning and Engineering Ltd. (1972)Brady (1980)Macdonald (1980)<strong>Wetland</strong> Data Record and Evaluation - Lyon's Creek <strong>Wetland</strong>s Moraal & Smith (1984)Natural Areas of the <strong>Niagara</strong> Region: A Preliminary Survey Regional Municipality of <strong>Niagara</strong> (1985)The Physiography of Southern Ontario (3 rd Edition) Chapman & Putnam (1984)<strong>Wetland</strong> Data Record and Evaluation- Lyon's Creek Woodlot26<strong>Wetland</strong> Data Record and Evaluation- Lyon's Creek CorridorWoodlot 13Bacro et al (1988)Nash et al (1988)The Soils of the Regional Municipality of <strong>Niagara</strong>. Kingston & Presant (1989)Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region Riley (1989)The Ontario Butterfly Atlas Holmes et al (1991)Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario Dobbyn (1994)Report on <strong>Niagara</strong> River Area of Concern ContaminatedSediment Site Assessment Phase III<strong>Niagara</strong> River AOC Phase IV: Sediment Management OptionsFor Lyon’s Creek East And West DraftSpecies at Risk in OntarioGolder Associates Ltd. (2005)Dillon Consulting Ltd. (2005)OMNR (2006a)


METHODS – Background ReviewDescriptionSourceWeb-based Database QueriesNHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) - Natural Areasdatabase query (electronic).NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) - ElementOccurrence database query (electronic).NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) - VegetationCommunity database query (electronic).NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) (2006b)NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) (2006b)NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) (2006b)OBBA (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas) breeding bird data webquery for atlas squares 17PH45 and 17PH46.OBBA (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas) database (2006)http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/datasummaries.jspAerial Photographic ResourcesDigital Orthogonally Rectified Imagery Flown April 2000Regional Municipality of <strong>Niagara</strong>Cartographic ResourcesGeneralized Soil Map of the Regional Municipality of<strong>Niagara</strong>Soils of the Regional Municipality of <strong>Niagara</strong>, OntarioMap G 3464 H34 J3 1985 L35Map G 3463 N54 J3 1989 O567 (7 maps)1:50,000 Canadian Topographic Series Maps Welland 30L/14 ; <strong>Niagara</strong> 30M/3&6


METHODS – Background ReviewDescriptionSourcePersonal CommunicationPersonal communication to confirm the identification ofCuscuta polygonorum.Personal communication regarding the status of Cuscutapolygonorum in Ontario.Personal communication to acquire list of odonates on recordin the Ontario Odonata Atlas for atlas squares 17PH45 and17PH46.Personal communication to acquire list of herpetofauna onrecord in the Ontario Herpetofauna Summary (Atlas) for atlassquares 17PH45 and 17PH46.Personal communication to acquire names of the principleatlassers for 17PH45 and 17PH46, as well as ask about his ownfamiliarity with the study area.Personal communication to determine what species listed inOBBA atlas square 17PH45 and 17PH46 were recorded withinthe study area.Fish sampling dataFish species lists (in MNR District files)Personal communication regarding the status of grasspickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus)Bill Crins, Senior Ecologist, Ontario ParksMike Oldham, Botanist/Herpetologist, Natural HeritageInformation CentreColin Jones, Wildlife Technician, Natural HeritageInformation CentreMike Oldham, Botanist/Herpetologist, Natural HeritageInformation CentreJohn Black, Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA)coordinator for <strong>Niagara</strong> RegionBrad Clements, principal atlasser for 17PH45Gary Pieterse, principle atlasser for 17PH46N. Mandrak, Fisheries and Oceans CanadaJ. Durst, Ministry of Natural ResourcesDon Sutherland, Zoologist, Natural HeritageInformation Centre


METHODS – Inventory Design


METHODS – Remote Sensing• Aerial Photo Interpretation 1:5,000 scale• <strong>Wetland</strong> Polygons Identified & Delineated• Classified to Community Series Level of ELC(marsh, swamp)• Mapped in GIS Environment• Field Maps produced• Wildlife sample stations selected


METHODS – Amphibian Surveys• Timed to coincide with periods considered optimalfor sampling (April 15 - 30, May 15 – 30, May, June15 - 30)• Survey procedures largely follow the MarshMonitoring Program (BSC, 2003)• Point count survey methodology used and limitedto calling frogs and toads.• 7 sampling stations established


METHODS – Breeding Bird Surveys• Two sampling sessions were completed betweenMay 24 and July 10, 2006.• Point count survey incorporates protocols fromboth the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas and the ForestBird Monitoring Program.• 11 point count stations established


METHODS – Sampling Stations


METHODS – Vegetation Surveys• Surveys conducted late August to early September tocoincide with optimal detection of wetland andaquatic plants.• 3 surveys completed from canoe and land.• Vegetation mapping was confirmed and communitiesclassified to vegetation type level of ELC.• Biophysical attributes recorded from each community(i.e. structural diversity, height, species richnessetc.).• Species checklists produced.• <strong>Wetland</strong> units described according to OWES.• Location of significant species recorded.


METHODS – Aquatic Surveys• Fisheries field investigations were limited to areconnaissance level examination of the study area.• 2004 fish sampling data from Fisheries and OceansCanada was considered adequate to characterize thefish community.


METHODS – Aquatic Surveys


FINDINGS• Background Review• Field Inventories• Significant Features


FINDINGS - Background Review• Vegetation Resources• Lyon’s Creek is characterized as an ‘Incised Meander Stream Valley’subregion, found scattered about the ‘<strong>Niagara</strong> Slough Clay Plain’ subregion.• Biota found within these river systems are generally quite diverse,occasionally containing species with distinct southern or westernaffinities• Macdonald (1980) acknowledged the long history of anthropogenicdisturbance within these river systems, and noted they often havelimited representational potential due to their generally disturbedand degraded nature.• There are no records for provincially significant vegetationcommunities or rare vascular plant species on record for the studyarea.


FINDINGS - Background Review• Wildlife Resources• <strong>Wetland</strong> Evaluation (1984) & Natural Areas of the<strong>Niagara</strong> Region (1985) - several significantspecies/functions noted• NHIC - no wildlife records for study area or vicinity.• Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas – 100+ birds species ingeneral area, including 28 significant species• Ontario Mammal Atlas – 21 common species• Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas - 3 common species• Ontario Odonata Atlas - 7 common species• Ontario Butterfly Atlas – 1 significant species


FINDINGS - Background Review• Aquatic Resources• 15 fish species are listed as resident in Lyon’s Creek wetland (MNR files)• Fish collections in Lyon’s Creek west of Highway 140 in 1991 lists bluegillsunfish, largemouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish and unidentifiedcentrarchids and cyprinids.• DFO staff sampled Lyon’s Creek in June & August 2004.• 26 fish species were captured in Lyon’s Creek by DFO. 15 fish species werecaptured within the study area.• All of the species described as resident in the MNR wetland evaluationwere captured except for creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).• With the exception of lake chubsucker, the fish community present in thestudy area is present elsewhere in Lyon’s Creek.• It is likely that the fish species that were captured in the lower reachesoutside the study area are also occasionally present in the study area.• The lake chubsucker has “threatened” COSEWIC status and is listed underthe Species at Risk Act. Grass pickerel has “special concern” COSEWICstatus and is not listed under the Species at Risk Act.


FINDINGS – Field Inventories• Vegetation Resources• 45 wetland polygons/units identified.• 18 different ELC Vegetation Types identified.• 126 vascular plants representing 43 families and 81genera were recorded.• Dominant wetland types included:‣Water Lily Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic (SAF1-1)‣Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1)‣Coontail Submerged Shallow Aquatic (SAS1)• Significant variation in wetland vegetation types.<strong>Wetland</strong> units represented by complexes.


FINDINGS - Observed ELC Veg TypesSwampCode Vegetation Types Grank Srank # of Polys Area (ha)SWD2-2 Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp G? S5 2 0.33SWT2-4 Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp G4 S3 5 0.76SWT2-6 Meadowsweet Mineral Thicket Swamp G? S5 1 0.14SWT2-8 Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp G5 S3S4 4 0.41MarshMAM2Common Reed Graminoid MineralMeadow Marsh ? ? 3 0.15MAS2-1 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh G5 S5 14 3.6MAS2-2 Bulrush Mineral Shallow Marsh G? S5 2 0.16MAS2-3Narrow-leaved Sedge Mineral ShallowMarsh G4? S5 1 0.12MAS2-4Broad-leaved Sedge Mineral ShallowMarsh G4G5Q S5 1 0.02MAS2-7 Bur-reed Mineral Shallow Marsh G4G5Q S4 1 0.12MAS2-8 Rice-cut Grass Mineral Shallow Marsh G? S4 1 0.03MAS2-9 Forb Mineral Shallow Marsh Type G? S5 1 0.09MAS3-13 Water Willow Organic Shallow Marsh G? S4 2 0.31Shallow Water AquaticSAS1-2 Waterweed Submerged Shallow Aquatic G5Q S4S5 1 0.96SAS1-4 Water Milfoil Submerged Shallow Aquatic G? S5 1 1.9SAS1 Coontail Submerged Shallow Aquatic ? ? 1 3.01SAF1-1Water Lily-Bullhead Lily Floating-leavedShallow Aquatic G5 S5 2 6.08OAO Open Water - - 1 0.46Total 44 18.64


Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp


Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp


Meadowsweet Mineral Thicket Swamp


Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh


Bulrush Mineral Shallow Marsh


Narrow-leaved Sedge Mineral ShallowMarsh


Rice-cut Grass Mineral Shallow Marsh


Forb Mineral Shallow Marsh Type


Water Willow Organic Shallow Marsh


Water Milfoil Submerged ShallowAquatic


Water Lily-Bullhead Lily Floating-leavedShallow Aquatic


FINDINGS – Vegetation Inventories


FINDINGS – Vegetation Inventories


FINDINGS – Field Inventories• Amphibian Surveys− 6 common species documented− American Bullfrog: area-sensitive− Full chorous @ A5, A6 & fields east of A6(AMTO, SPPE & WCFR)− GRFR & NLFR most widespread (7 of 9)− SPPE & BULL least widespread (4 of 9)


FINDINGS – Field Inventories• Breeding Bird Surveys− 44 species documented− 0 nationally/provincially significant species− 9 regionally significant species− Local conservation status information notyet established− 11 species associated with wetlands (onlyone of which is considered significant)


FINDINGS – Field Inventories• Miscellaneous Wildlife Observations− Northern Watersnake− Midland Painted Turtle− Black-crowned Night Heron− Colonial Bird Nest Survey• 4 potential heron nests


FINDINGS - Significant & Sensitive Features• Vascular Plants:‣ Supports the only location in the province for avascular plant species, updating its status frompossibly extirpated (SH) to critically imperilled (S1);‣ It contains other provincially rare vascular plantelements.Species Grank Nrank Srank Status SourceCuscuta polygonorum G5 NH SH Provincially Rare NHIC (2006a)Quercus palustris G5 N3 S3 Provincially Rare NHIC (2006a)


Smartweed Dodder• Rootless, achlorophyllous,holoparasitic annual.• Associated with intermittentlyflooded habitat along Lyon’sCreek.• Only previous record for thisspecies in Canada was from acollection made September3rd, 1964 by W.G. Benedictfrom Point Pelee.• Updates its status in Canada &Ontario to N1 S1 respectively,representing the only knownextant population.


Pin Oak• Associated with glacialtill plains, clay plainsand alluvial soils.• Intolerant of shade, andis characteristic of earlysuccessional stages ofbottomland forests andfloodplains.• Conspicuous in theregion.• Incidental observationsof Pin Oak individualswere recorded in thestudy area.


FINDINGS- Significant & Sensitive Features• Vegetation Communities‣ supports habitat for at least twoprovincially rare vegetation types.Vegetation Type 6E 7E Grank SrankSWT2-4 Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp Type X G5 S3S4SWT2-8 Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp Type X X G4 S3


Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp Type• Range of uncertainty about the status ofthis community exists in Ontario,considered vulnerable - to - apparentlysecure. According to Bakowsky (1996), itis restricted to Ecoregion 7E, and <strong>Niagara</strong>represents an area where it morecommonly occurs.• Close to 0.5 ha of this community typeoccurs in the study area, in thindiscontinuous linear strips flanking Lyon’sCreek.


Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp Type• Scattered throughout 6E and 7E.• Noted for a high tolerance to flooding;areas subject to prolonged drying periodsmay invaded by tree seedlings.• A total of 0.76 ha of this vegetationcommunity currently exits in the studyarea.


FINDINGS – Significant & Sensitive Areas


FINDINGS – Significant & Sensitive Areas


FINDINGS - Significant & Sensitive Features• Wildlife Resources‣ Supports habitat for a nine regionally significantbird species;• American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)• Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon)• Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)• Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens)• Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)• Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus)• Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)• Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus)• Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula)


FINDINGS - Significant & Sensitive Features• Wildlife Resources‣ Supports foraging habitat for provinciallysignificant colonial nesting bird; unclear ifprevious nesting has occurred‣ Supports habitat for a regionally uncommonsnake species;‣ Supports habitat for a number of areasensitivespecies• American Bullfrog• White-breasted Nuthatch‣ Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH)?• Bullfrog Concentration Areas


FINDINGS - Significant & Sensitive Features• Aquatic Resources• Supports habitat for a species of fish designated asThreatened by COSEWIC/OMNR:‣ Lake Chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta)• Supports habitat for a species of fish designated asSpecial Concern by COSEWIC:‣ Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus)


RECOMMENDATIONSMonitoring Monitor temporal changes to wetland vegetation Periodically monitor known occurrences of rare plants Continue conducting wildlife monitoring using datacollected in 2006 as baseline Consider supplementing amphibian & breeding bird surveyswith regular surveys for odonates and other wetland insectspecies Periodically monitor occurrences of rare fish species


RECOMMENDATIONSGeneral Precautions‣ Smartweed Dodder‣ Conduct additional survey work to more accurately establishdistribution in Lyon’s Creek study area‣ Have regard for Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA)‣ Remediation works (including vegetation clearing) should takeplace outside core breeding periods (i.e. May 1 – July 31)‣ Due diligence required at other times‣ Northern Watersnake‣ Remediation works (including vegetation clearing and earthmovement) would have least impact from mid August to beginningof October‣ Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH)‣ Conduct more detailed assessment‣ Impacts resulting from access to creek need to be considered


OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS• Based on four scenarios presented by DillonConsulting at PIC (June 2007)• D&A Interpretation preliminary – specificimpacts worked out at detailed design stage


Management Option 1: Monitored Natural RecoveryDescription: No removal or capping ofsediment. Biota monitored regularly forPCB residues.Advantage: Existing condition of thewetlands and species diversity, includingsignificant species, is maintained.Disadvantage: PCB residues bioaccumulateas before; some impacts on local wildlifespecies.Anticipated Impact: Low


Management Option 2: Enhanced Natural RecoveryDescription: Natural sediments added toexisting surface materials to augmentnatural recovery.Advantage: Contaminated materials burieddeeper limiting exposure to biota.Disadvantage: Changes to available openwater will affect composition of wetlandcommunities.Anticipated Impact: Low to Medium


Management Option 3: CappingDescription: >50 cm of material and/or geotextileplaced on sediment surface.Advantage: Isolates PCB contaminated sediment. Riskto biota reduced.Disadvantage: Significant loss of wetland communityextent. Corresponding change in species diversityand representation, possibly affecting significantspecies. Would be a HADD.Anticipated Impact: High


Management Option 4: Removal and DisposalDescription: Heavy equipment removes top 70 cm ofsediment and associated vegetation.Advantage: Sediments containing PCBs are removed.Risks to wetland biota eliminated.Disadvantage: Major loss and disruption of wetlandplant communities. Reduced diversity, includingpotential loss of significant species. <strong>Wetland</strong>restoration success limited. Would be a HADD.Anticipated Impact: High

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!