Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project

Data Collection and Wetland Assessment Methods

2002‐2009

BackgroundBackground• DRCWMP is a joint project carried out by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation AuthorityCentral Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Environment Canada with the assistance of the TRCA and GRCAof the TRCA and GRCA.

• The DRWCMP has evolved from an initial concept and agreement in principle in 1999concept and agreement in principle in 1999, to a detailed monitoring plan that was implemented in 2002 and has continued into p2009.

GoalsGoals

• Implement a long‐term monitoring programImplement a long term monitoring program that enables reporting on the condition of coastal wetlands in the Durham Regioncoastal wetlands in the Durham Region. 

• Assess the impacts of human activities on the condition of these wetlandscondition of these wetlands.

• Provide direction for actions. 

TimelineTimeline

Y 6

Initial project 

discussions  Year 2 Year 6 

Technical Report

and partnerships 

formed

Background Report

Field Work Begins

Interim Report

Technical Report and 

Fact Booklet

Year 3 Technical Report

Methodology Handbook

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

What are Coastal Wetlands?What are Coastal Wetlands?

• Wetland communities along shorelines of theWetland communities along shorelines of the Great Lakes.

• Different types:• Different types:– drowned river‐mouth

b i d i b i b h– barrier protected, i.e. barrier beach

Why are Coastal Wetlands important?y p• Coastal Wetlands provide unique ecological and social functions including:functions including:– Settlement and retention of sediments and contaminants.– Retention and cycling of nutrients.– Overall water quality improvement.– Flood retention.Groundwater recharge– Groundwater recharge.

– Provision of habitat for flora and fauna.– Protection of shoreline from erosion.– Recreational opportunities including fishing, hunting, canoeing, and wildlife viewing.

What are the threats to Coastal l d l h dWetland Health and Integrity?

L f tl d h bit t d t t l• Loss of wetland habitat and upstream natural areas as a result of development or filling for 

i lt lagricultural use.

• Reduced water quality due to pollution and contaminated or nutrient rich runoff.

• Loss of natural water level variability.

• Introduction and spread of invasive species.

Durham Region Coastal Wetlandsg

These include:1 Rouge River Marsh

A total of 18 coastal wetlands are being monitored as part of the DRCWMP.  

1. Rouge River Marsh2. Frenchman’s Bay Marsh3. Hydro Marsh4. Duffins Creek Marsh5. Carruthers Creek Marsh6. Cranberry Marsh7. Lynde Creek Marsh8 Whitby Harbour Marsh8. Whitby Harbour Marsh9. Corbett Creek Marsh10. Gold Point Marsh11. Oshawa Creek Marsh

h h12. Pumphouse Marsh13. Oshawa Second Marsh14. McLaughlin Bay Marsh15. Westside Marsh5 ests de a s16. Bowmanville Marsh17. Wilmot Creek Marsh18. Port Newcastle Marsh

Data CollectionData Collection

Biological and Physical Monitoring Activitiesg y g

Physical MonitoringPhysical Monitoring• Includes annual monitoring of water quality and water levels, monitoring of sediments every 5 years and monitoring of several other parameters on an as‐needed basis.

• Physical data reflects the level of human yimpacts on the marsh and poor physical conditions have negative impacts on biological communities.

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring ActivitiesPhysical

– Water qualityWater quality• Annual

– TP, NH4,NO3, turbidity, conductivity, pH, temperature, salinity, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen depthoxygen, depth.

– July/August• Monthly

– Depth, temperature, turbidity, conductivity, pH TDS salinitypH, TDS, salinity.

– May‐September

– Monitoring water quality provides information on the health of the wetland as well as the health of the overall watershed since these wetlands are located at the downstream end of h h dthe watershed.

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring Activities

Physical– Water levels

• Water level loggers installed at wetlands disconnected from the lake

• Loggers in from April‐October• Water levels surveyed upon removal• Lake water levels obtained from the Canadian Hydrographic ServiceCanadian Hydrographic Service

– Water level monitoring provides information on the timing and degree of water fluctuation within theof water fluctuation within the wetland.

– Water level fluctuations can have impacts on water quality and biologicalimpacts on water quality and biological communities.

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring Activities

Physicaly– Sediment quality

• 3 homogenized, surficial sediment samples from each wetland/wetland basineach wetland/wetland basin

• Collected every 5 years• Analyzed for PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, metals, Total Organic Carbong

– Monitoring sediments provides information of the level of sediment contamination within the wetlandswithin the wetlands.

– Sediment contamination can have toxic effects on aquatic organisms including reproductive behavioural neurologicalreproductive, behavioural, neurological, developmental and immunological effects.

Monitoring‐ as neededMonitoring as neededPhysical

– Bathymetry

– Watershed natural and cultural land cover

– Land cover change in Elevation (m)

73.159 - 7474.001 - 74.574.501 - 7575.001 - 75.575.501 - 7676.001 - 76.576.501 - 7777.001 - 77.5

77.501 - 7878.001 - 78.578.501 - 7979.001 - 79.579.501 - 8080.001 - 8282.001 - 8585.001 - 9090.001 - 100

Legend

0.5 m Contour

adjacent uplands

– Public ownership of watershed lands

– Sediment/nutrient loading

Biological MonitoringBiological Monitoring

• Includes vegetation monitoring using EcologicalIncludes vegetation monitoring using Ecological Land Classification as well as the monitoring of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation BirdsSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation, Birds, Amphibians, Fish and Macroinvertebrates.

• Provides information on the relative health of• Provides information on the relative health of each community.

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring ActivitiesBiological

– Ecological Land Classification (ELC)g ( )• Classify all lands within 500 meter buffer of wetland boundary

• Complete full ELC data cards for each polygonp p yg• Update GIS mapping and ELC database

– ELC provides a complete picture of the vegetation communities in the wetland and surrounding area.communities in the wetland and surrounding area. Changes in ELC communities can be monitored.

S d l 500 hSecond500.shp

Pumphouse_elc_500m.shpBBO1BBT1BLS1CUM1-1CUT1CUW1FODFOD7-2FOMSWD2-2SWT2-2SWT2-10MAM2-2MAS2-1MAS3-12

Pumphouse500.shpSecond_elc_500m.shp

BBO1BBO1-1BBT1BBS1-2CUM1-1CUT1CUT1-3CUW1CUP1-5CUP3-3SWD2-2SWD3-2SWD3-4SWD4-1SWD4-3SWT2-2SWT2-5SWT2 6

N

SAS1-1OAO

100 0 100 200 Meters

N

SWT2-6MAM2-1MAM2-2MAM2-10MAS2-1SAF1-1SAS1SAS1-1OAO

200 0 200 400 600 Meters

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring ActivitiesBiological

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation– Submerged Aquatic Vegetation• 20 randomly placed 1x1 m quadrats• Measure 

– total percent cover– percent cover of each individual species present

b d– turbidity– water depth

– SAV communities are indicators of water quality and provide food and/or habitat for fish, birds, macroinvertebrates, andmacroinvertebrates, and amphibians.

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring ActivitiesBiological

– Birds• Marsh Monitoring Protocol (MMP)• Two visits per wetland per season (May 20 – July 5)20  July 5)

• 100‐meter radius semi‐circle stations• 15 minute survey for each station• 5 minutes passive, 5 minute call playback, 5 minute passive

• Record focal species as well as all other h dspecies seen or heard

– The health of bird populations reflects the condition of the wetland (water quality, submerged aquatic vegetation).

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring Activities

Biologicalo og ca– Amphibians

• Marsh Monitoring Protocol (MMP)• Surveys for calling frogs and toads• 3 surveys per wetland per season• April‐Junep• 100 meter semi‐circle stations• 3 minute survey each station• Record all species heard number and call level• Record all species heard, number and call level

– The health of frog populations reflects the condition of the wetland (water quality, submerged aquatic vegetation).

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring ActivitiesBiological

Macroinvertebrates– Macroinvertebrates• 3 sweep net samples at each wetland• D‐frame net

f j b di• Sweep from just above sediment to surface of water

• Emergent vegetation (cattails)/ open water interfacewater interface

• July/August• Subsample of 150 inverts for each locationlocation

– Macroinvertebrate assemblages are indicators of water quality and provide food for fish birds andprovide food for fish, birds and amphibians.

Monitoring ActivitiesMonitoring ActivitiesBiological

– Fish• Electrofishing  transects at each wetlandwetland

– The health of the fish community reflects thecommunity reflects the condition of the wetland –including water quality, SAV, g q yand water levels.

Wetland Assessment MethodsWetland Assessment Methods

Assessing Biological Community dCondition

• Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) ‐ A multimetric approach used to d t i th bi ti i t it f t l tl d bi l i ldetermine the biotic integrity of coastal wetland biological communities (fish, submerged aquatic vegetation, amphibians, birds, macroinvertebrates).

• Use attributes (metrics) of the biological communities that respondUse attributes (metrics) of the biological communities that respond to stress (disturbance). 

• Combine scores from a number of attributes or metrics into one IBI score (out of 100) for each community.

SAV IBI ExampleSAV IBI Example

• 5 Metrics (Biological community attributes) used in the IBI:– Number of turbidity‐intolerant speciesy p

– Number of native species

– Floristic Quality IndexQ y

– Relative percent cover of turbidity‐intolerant speciesp

– Percent Cover

SAV Community IBIs 2009

Wetland IBI Wetland IBIRouge River 43.59Frenchman’s Bay 32.86Hydro Marsh 2 18

Pumphouse Marsh 50.34

Oshawa Creek 4.56

S d M h 40 14Hydro Marsh 2.18Duffins Creek 30.98Carruthers Creek 9.35

Second Marsh 40.14

McLaughlin Bay 2.26

Westside Marsh 2.77Cranberry Marsh 35.63Lynde Creek 10.62Whitby Harbour 35.4

Westside Marsh 2.77

Bowmanville Creek 10.22

Wilmot Creek 2.69yCorbett Creek 39.49 Port Newcastle 13.52

Significance of the DRCWMPg• Great Lakes wide

– Standardized data collectionStandardized data collection methods allow comparison between Durham Region and other coastal wetlands Allows forcoastal wetlands. Allows for determination of relative wetland health within the Great Lakes.

• Regionally• Regionally– Since wetlands are located at the downstream end of the watershed, h i h l h i fl i f htheir health is a reflection of the conditions in the watershed in which they are located and the 

ll ioverall region.

Current and Future WorkCurrent and Future Work

• 6‐year Technical Report

• 2009 Monitoring Reportg p

• Ongoing Monitoring

• Recommendations for• Recommendations for conservation and restoration projectsrestoration projects

SummarySummary

• Ongoing monitoring is necessary to allow us to evaluate the condition of coastal wetlands, observe changes in health over time and provide recommendations for restoration or enhancement.

• This monitoring project would not be possible without the help and funding of the manywithout the help and funding of the many partners involved.

PartnersPartners

Volunteers!!