Determining wildlife population and habitat status in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern Thunder Bay AOC | Public Advisory Committee Meeting | Thunder Bay, ON | Greg Grabas | Environment Canada | May 6, 2015 Mission Marsh
Delisting Criteria - Wildlife Populations That the wildlife community (at a population level) does not differ significantly from suitable Lake Superior reference sites. Or Monitoring data shows that the wildlife community (at a population level) does not differ significantly from the abundance that would be expected from the amount and quality of physical, chemical, and biological habitat typical of the Area of Concern. Habitat This beneficial use will no longer be impaired when riparian, wetland, and coastal habitat within the Thunder Bay AOC is in compliance with the guidelines set out through Environment Canada's How Much Habitat is Enough? (2004) – Habitat Change Detection Analysis (2012). In addition, remaining and created wetlands must be protected from further degradation through existing environmental legislation. Provincial standards should be used to inventory and classify wetlands within the Thunder Bay AOC. Page 2 – August 12, 2015
Site 2 Which site has a ‘better’ 1 American Bittern 2 American White Pelican bird community ? 3 Bald Eagle 2 Barn Swallow Site 1 2 Belted Kingfisher Sora 3 American Bittern 1 Brown-headed Cowbird 1 Common Yellowthroat 6 Blue-winged Teal 4 Great Blue Heron 3 Clay-colored Sparrow 4 Green-winged Teal 4 Common Merganser 1 Herring Gull 5 Common Nighthawk 2 Mallard 2 Common Raven 1 Merlin 12 Common Yellowthroat 2 Osprey 14 Double-crested Cormorant 4 Red-breasted Merganser 1 Great Blue Heron Swamp 20 Red-winged Blackbird Sparrow 3 Green-winged Teal 4 Sora 2 Herring Gull 5 Swamp Sparrow 5 Mallard 2 Swainson's Thrush 7 Red-winged Blackbird 1 Tree Swallow 4 Sora 1 Veery 3 Song Sparrow 3 Wood Duck 2 Wood Duck 1 White-throated Sparrow American 1 White-throated Sparrow 1 Yellow-rumped Warbler Bittern 1 Yellow-rumped Warbler 1 Yellow Warbler 1 Yellow Warbler
Use Index of Biotic Integrity to determine the condition of wildlife communities Use several ‘metrics’ to define condition of biotic communities Metric Metric Metric Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Metric Metric Metric Page 4 – August 12, 2015 Sturgeon Bay
How are indices developed? A B B Community Attribute Suitable metric Increasing Physical/Chemical Disturbance Page 5 – August 12, 2015
Page 6 – August 12, 2015
Use sites inside ● and outside ■ of the Area of Concern Page 7 – August 12, 2015
There are surrounding land use data for several wetlands Open Water Wetland Beach and Bluff Woodlot and Forest Pasture and Idle Field Crop and Improved Residential Non-Residential Development Utility and Transportation N Land Use within 1,000 metres 200 0 200 400 Meters Page 8 – August 12, 2015
Key water quality parameters • pH – indicate pollution • Conductivity – from fertilizer and road salt • Turbidity – suspended sediment or biota • Temperature – cooler is better • Nitrogen – from sewage and fertilizer • Phosphorus – fertilizer and industrial
Mixed conditions inside and outside of the Area of Concern (out of 10) Site (Thunder Bay) Condition Site (St. Mary’s River) Condition Sturgeon Bay 7.01 Anderson Creek 5.74 Flathead Harbour 7.00 Carpin Beach 6.20 Cloud Bay 6.84 Desbarats Wetland 6.69 Northern Wood Preservers Marsh 6.81 Echo Bay 6.14 Mission Marsh 6.57 Hay Bay Wetland 4.56 Pine Bay 5.92 Joe Dollar Bay Wetland 6.22 Hurkett Cove 5.88 Lake George 4.43 Brule Bay 5.78 Maskinonge Bay 7.19 Blende Rivermouth Wetland 5.43 Pumpkin Point 4.12 Chippewa Marsh 5.43 Stobie Creek 6.57 Neebing Marsh 5.09 West Shore, St. Joseph Island 3.24 Page 10 – August 12, 2015
How are indices developed? A B B Community Attribute Suitable metric Increasing Physical/Chemical Disturbance Page 11 – August 12, 2015
Marsh bird and amphibian surveys • Passive point count sampling • Secretive species call broadcast (birds) • 3-visits per wetland Page 12 – August 12, 2015
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation • 20 randomly placed quadrats • All species and coverage recorded
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Page 14 – August 12, 2015 Cloud Bay
Divide birds into guilds Marsh User Marsh Nesting Bird Marsh Foraging Bird Marsh Non-Aerial/ Emergent Marsh Water Aerial Nesting water Nesting Obligate Forager Forager Generalist Forager Area-Sensitive Emergent Marsh Nesting Obligate Non-Area-Sensitive Emergent Marsh Nesting Obligate Page 15 – August 12, 2015
Breeding marsh bird community attributes that respond to disturbance Clear relationship • Species richness of aerial and water foragers (-) • Abundance of aerial and water foragers (-) Probable – more data required • Species richness of marsh nesting generalists (-) • Species richness of marsh nesting obligates (-) Page 16 – August 12, 2015 Chippewa Marsh
Mixed breeding bird community conditions inside and outside of the Area of Concern (out of 20) Site Condition Sturgeon Bay 15 Chippewa Marsh 12 Mission Marsh 12 Cloud Bay 11 Northern Wood Preservers Marsh 11 Pine Bay 11 Neebing Marsh 10 Hurkett Cove 9 Brule Bay 5 Page 17 – August 12, 2015
Breeding bird community condition inside and outside of the Area of Concern (out of 20) Condition Location Page 18 – August 12, 2015
Macroinvertebrate community attributes that respond to disturbance Clear relationship • Number of Crustacea and Mollusca genera (-) • Percent Crustacea and Mollusca genera (-) • Percent Amphipoda (-) • Percent Crustaceans (-) Probable – more data required • Overall species richness (-) • Percent Chironomids (-) Page 19 – August 12, 2015
Macroinvertebrate community conditions inside Area of Concern generally lower than outside (out of 20) Site Condition Pine Bay 20 Hurkett Cove 18 Sturgeon Bay 15 Cloud Bay 14 Chippewa Marsh 13 Blende Rivermouth Wetland 12 Brule Bay 11 Mission Marsh 7 Flathead Harbour 6 Neebing Marsh 6 Northern Wood Preservers Marsh 5 Page 20 – August 12, 2015
Aquatic macroinvertebrate community condition inside the AOC is lower than outside Condition Location Page 21 – August 12, 2015
No metrics identified for amphibian community Probable – more data required • Species richness of woodland species (wood frog, spring peeper, chorus frog, treefrog) (-) • Species richness of intolerant species (-) northern leopard frog, pickerel frog, and wood Frog • Likelihood of detecting a rare species (-) northern leopard frog, and pickerel frog Page 22 – August 12, 2015 Brule Bay
No metrics identified for submerged aquatic vegetation community Probable – more data required • Richness of turbidity tolerant species (+) • Average coefficient of conservatism (-) Page 23 – August 12, 2015 Flathead Harbour
Next steps • Collect more data • Rerun analyses • Recalibrate IBIs • Make decision on delisting paradigm Page 24 – August 12, 2015 Cloud Bay
Recommend
More recommend
