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.

1. 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.
sfleming@ducks.org
September 12, 2012

2. 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.

3. Habitat Challenges
NY Case Study : Lake Ontario
abundance

4. Fish Habitat Conservation Strategy:
Program Strategy Overview
PHASE I
Planning/design/outreach
TILT Baseline data
SUNY-ESF Access
Prioritization NYSDEC Experimental design
Access USFWS
Design STR
Education
Modify approach
PHASE II
PHASE III
Implementation
Research/monitoring
USFWS
SUNY-ESF
USDA Toolkit actions NYSDEC
DU
USGS
NYSDEC
Evaluate impact

5. Monitoring: French Creek (2010) :
justification for more work through FEMRF

6. Preliminary Results from 2010 Monitoring
Data provided by SUNY-ESF

7. Implementation: St. Lawrence

8. NOAA - $1 million
(A) Restoration (B) Monitoring
Completed winter 2012-2013 Ongoing 2012-2013
1) French Creek WMA- -Vegetation
Carpenters Branch -Hydrology
-Nutrients
-Trophic levels
-Faunal Linkages
-Muskrat houses
-Marshbirds
2) French Creek WMA – -Herps
Lower French Creek
3) Point Vivian –
Private property

9. Study Sites
Point Vivian
French Creek/
Carpenters Branch
Lake Ontario

10. Is it functioning?

11. 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

12. Methods
Water Level/Hydrology :
a) water level loggers and staff gauges
Nutrients/Lower Trophic Levels
a) examine relationships of water quality variables (solute
chemistry) to changes in water levels to assess effects of
enhancements
b) Chemistry samples will be taken seasonally in spring (April
15), mid-summer (July 15), and fall (October 15) to represent
periods of hydrological change
c) For lower trophic levels, sampling will focus on monitoring
invertebrate composition and density (grab samples)

14. 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

16. PRELIMINARY RESULTS:
i) Typha spp. on habitat mounds < Typha spp. on reference
ii) 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-specific
iv) Submerged aquatic plants (Hydrocharis morsus-rananae) was less
in excavated channels than the natural channels.

17. 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 counts
3) Avifauna: Conway protocol, audio loggers
4) Herpetofauna: frog calls (North American
Amphibian Monitoring Program Protocols) and
turtle trapping (baited hoop nets).

18. Preliminary Results
-12 detections at water controlled sites 2 x as many in water controlled sites
- No focal spp. at French Creek
-YOY and adults using restored sites - Detected at P.V. (restored site), not at
(F.C. and PV) reference.

19. Similar Studies
Lakeview 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

20. 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

21. 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.)

22. QUESTIONS?

23. 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

24. Spread the word!
Wireless password:
HOW12
Conference website:
Conference.healthylakes.org
Email us photos, comments, tweets or video:
healthylakes@gmail.com
On Twitter? Use the hashtag:
#healthylakes