Lake Ontario Integrated Shoreline Strategy: Recovery Through Partnerships

Corporate StakeholdersCorporate StakeholdersCorporate StakeholdersCorporate Stakeholders

November 29th, 2011

About the CVC

• The primary scientific authority for the Credit River watershed

• Works in partnership with municipal, provincial, and federal governments, schools, businesses and community organizations to deliver local programs.

About the CVC

• CVC programs support:– Water resource management– Aquatic and Terrestrial Natural Heritage

– Planning advice and Regulations – Conservation area acquisition and

management

– Restoration and Stewardship– Education and Communications

Why LOISS, Why Now?

• Piecemeal approach to shoreline management had limits.

• Needed to:– Better understand shorelines stresses, causes and effects.– Find a more comprehensive way to improve and restore shoreline.

Study Area: Regional

• Study the shoreline as part of Credit River watershed and the Lake Ontario basin

• Some of the effects/issues go far beyond the study boundaries

• Need for innovative and multiple partnerships

Study Area: Local

Study Objectives

• Guide local, regional, and provincial governments in future planning :– restoration initiatives, (re) development, and land use

decisions

• Support the function of this significant bioregional corridor– focus on opportunities to protect and restore

natural ecosystems along the shoreline

Share information with decision-makers to protect and improve the shoreline

Study Objectives

• Protect wetlands, shorelines and watercourses through Conservation Authorities Act.

• Provide planning and technical advice to city to assist in management of sensitive lands, e.g. hazard land and natural heritage lands

Integrated Study

Aimed at addressing complexity of Great Lakes:

• Leveraging data gathered by other initiatives

• Liaising with other programs, projects and levels of government

• Feeding LOISS data back to others

Concurrent Initiatives

Provincial/Federal Great Lakes • IJC water level regulation changes

• Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs)• Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy: Credit Priority

Action Site

• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Update• Canada – Ontario Agreement

• Other initiatives requiring implementation at local level (e.g. Source Water Protection)

Concurrent Initiatives

CVC• Natural Heritage System: Landscape Scale

Analysis• Lakeview Waterfront Connection

City of Mississauga• Strategic Plan: Our Future Mississauga• Official Plan (Port Credit and Lakeview District Policy Reviews)

• Mississauga Waterfront Parks Strategy• Credit River Parks Strategy• Inspiration Lakeview• Natural Heritage System Strategy

LOISS: Phased ApproachBackground Review and Data Gap Analysis

(2010 – 2011)– Identify Knowledge Gaps – Established Technical Steering Committee

(Mississauga; Peel; MNR; MOE; EC; DFO)

Characterization and Impact Analysis (2011-14)– Current Phase: Addressing Knowledge Gaps – Begin communications and outreach efforts

Implementation Plan (initiate in 2012+)– Refine goals and objectives– Prioritize planning and restoration plans– Monitor and refine

LOISS: Approach

• Multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the shoreline:

− Fluvial Geomorphology− Conservation Lands− Ecological Goods and

Services− Terrestrial Natural Heritage

− Water Quality− Aquatic Natural Heritage− Coastal Processes− Hydrology/Hydraulics− Hydrogeology

− Stewardship, Education and Communication

Shoreline Characteristics

• Includes several uncommon habitat types– Rattray Marsh: only remaining large coastal baymouth bar wetland

between Oshawa and Burlington – Cobble beach: 1.5 km (only 35 km or 3% total shoreline left in

Lake Ontario*)– Carolinian Life Zone

• Forest Cover low and fragmented (8.7%)• Wetland cover (< 1%)

• Important migratory stopover habitat (birds, bats, butterflies)– Diversity of migratory songbirds (esp

warblers)• Acadian Flycatcher (END)• Pair of Prothonotary Warblers (END)• Bobolink (THR)

*http://www.epa.gov/solec/indicator_sheets/alvars_cobble_beaches.pdf

What Have We Learned?

Shoreline Characteristics

• Key site for Atlantic Salmon restoration

• American Eel and other species of conservation concern also found in Study Area

• Linkages inland to 14 other smaller watersheds (and Credit River) that drain directly into Lake Ontario and Iroquois Beach

• About 43% shoreline publicly-owned

Key Threats: Current and Historic

• Water quality

• Changes to the ecosystem

• Exotic, invasive, or introduced species

“Stonehooker”, Port Credit

•Habitat loss and degradation

•Climate Change

Credit: ABL, 1990

What Have We Learned?

Water Quality: Credit River contributes to poor water quality in Lake Ontario

• Substantial pollutants in Lake Ontario enter from within the study area

• Credit is one of largest Canadian sources of total phosphorous to Lake Ontario:– Deposits twice as much phosphorus as Clarkson and

Lakeview Wastewater Treatment Plants – Invasive mussels trap organic phosphorous and

contribute to algal growth

• Groundwater discharge supports baseflow in streams across Study Area

What Have We Learned?

Habitat Loss and Degradation: Shoreline from Burlington to Toronto is “sediment-starved”

• Lacking natural gravel/sand sediment needed to support the eco-system and provide aquatic habitat.

• Most of lakebed is bedrock 19th century stonehooking(removing stone from shallow waters for construction) impacted lakebed movement

• Built structures, such as piers, interfere with water and sediment movement

• Reduced natural erosion rates even at relatively natural shorelines. Majority (80%) of the shoreline is protected with artificial structures

What Have We Learned?

Completed door to door, parks, and online (close to 700)

Preliminary survey results:• Importance“Very important”

Water quality (80%) Walking trails (77%) Connected parks/natural areas (71%) Natural shoreline (69%)Presence of wildlife (68%)

Perceived problemsPollution and waste: industrial (73%) and

household (61%)Urban development (72%)Invasive species (44%)Breakwalls and other structures (only 28%)

Importance of Wildlife

37.5%

50.0%

1.0%

2.1%

3.6%5.7%

General Wildlife BirdsInsects Reptiles & AmphibiansMammals Fish

What Have We Learned?Level of satisfaction with the shoreline natural elements

11.5%

14.2%

10.2%

6.9%

19.2%

6.0%

5.4%

10.4%

36.5%

No % ResponseNo % ResponseNo % ResponseNo % Response

10.0%

4.4%

8.3%

4.2%

6.3%

19.8%

2.7%

61.7%

15.6%

Do not know (% Do not know (% Do not know (% Do not know (% Response)Response)Response)Response)

78.5%Parks Linked Together By

Green Spaces and Trails

81.5%

Areas Left in a Natural

Condition (Non-Manicured

Green Space)

81.5%Presence of Wildlife

89.0%Walking/Hiking Trails

74.6%Natural Shoreline (Sand,

Cobble, or Bluffs)

74.2%Wetlands

91.9%Trees and Meadows

27.9%Availability of Fish

47.9%47.9%47.9%47.9%Water QualityWater QualityWater QualityWater Quality

Yes (% Response)Yes (% Response)Yes (% Response)Yes (% Response)

Despite generally high level of satisfaction with s horeline natural elements, 79% of respondents thought that t here was a need to create a more natural shoreline

Next Steps

• Communications: Workshops (Fall 2011)

• Finalize Background Review and Data Gap Analysis Report: Fall 2011

• Characterization and Impact Scenarios (e.g. restoration/conservation opportunities): 2011-2014

• Initiate Implementation Plan: 2012+