Habitat Restoration Projects Start to Finish€¦ · 20 Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River...

1

Management Actions II:Habitat Restoration Projects

Start to Finish

2

Moderators

• Michael Kuzia-Carmel, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

• Tony Friona, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Panelists• Erin Giese, University of Wisconsin – Green Bay

• Stacy Hron, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

• Melanie Foose, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

• Meaghan Kern, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

3

Habitat Restoration within the AOC Program

Some Statistics:

• 27 AOCs in total have listed “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” BUI as

“impaired.”

• 8 AOCs have successfully removed “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat”

BUI.

• 2 AOCs are projected to remove “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” BUI

in 2018.

• Lower Menominee River (Wisconsin)

• St. Marys River (Michigan)

4

IJC Guidance on Habitat Restoration

Listing Criteria (Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat):• When fish and wildlife management goals have not been met as a result of loss of fish and wildlife

habitat due to a perturbation in the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the Boundary Waters,

including wetlands.

Delisting Criteria (Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat):• When the amount and quality of physical, chemical, and biological habitat required to meet fish and

wildlife management goals have been achieved and protected.

Rationale• Emphasizes fish and wildlife management program goals; emphasizes water component of Boundary

Waters.

5

Four Key Questions

How do you know what are the correct projects to remove the Habitat BUIs?

What happens to your restoration projects when completed?

Are they meeting programmatic and ecological restoration goals?

Did the projects remove the BUIs?

6

Assessing the Fish & Wildlife Habitat BUI for theLower Green Bay & Fox River Area of Concern

MAY 16, 2018

Bob Howe, Amy Wolf, Erin Giese*, Vic Pappas, Brie Kupsky, Mike Grimm & Nicole Van Helden

© Robert Howe© Robert Howe© Tom Prestby

7

Project Overview: Dec 2014-Dec 2017

Goal: Evaluate the current conditions of

and recommend removal targets for two

beneficial use impairments (BUIs)

1. Degradation of fish and wildlife

populations

2. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

8

AOC Fish & Wildlife Assessment

- Habitat Field Mapping

- Biota Surveys:• Anurans + Marshbirds

• Migratory Waterfowl

• Plants

• Odonates + Bats

- Biota Database

- Historical Information

- Stakeholder Meetings

© Scott Giese

© Robert Howe

9

Final Report + Suggested Project Goals

10

Primary Findings

18 Priority Habitats- E.g., emergent marsh (high energy coastal),

hardwood swamp, submergent marsh

- Rare: Great Lakes beach, southern sedge

meadow

22 Priority Species/Species Groups- E.g., colonial waterbirds (breeding), tributary

fish, freshwater Unionid mussels, muskrat© Erin Giese

© Robert Howe

11

Fish & Wildlife BUI Assessment Process

12

F&W Habitat BUI Assessment Tool

13

Habitat BUI Assessment Tool

• Condition of one or both fish &

wildlife BUIs can be improved by

conservation actions

• Actions on highest weighted

elements are most effective

14

Example: Great Lakes Beach

15

Example: Great Lakes Beach

16

Example: Great Lakes Beach

17

Next Steps!

• Reach consensus on recommended fish &

wildlife BUI removal targets

• Help develop and prioritize management action

list

• Identify partners/funding needed to implement

management actions

• Provide input on the refinement of BUI

Assessment Tools

18

Four Key Questions

How do you know what are the correct projects to remove the Habitat BUIs?

19

Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River AOC

Habitat Restoration identified as an objective in the Stage I/Stage II RAP in 1989.

The RAC made the following four recommendations towards achieving the goal of restoring fish and wildlife habitat:

1. Carry out an assessment of habitat conditions and the potential for improvement in the Area of Concern.

2. Develop a habitat improvement plan.3. Acquire the necessary land.4. Design and carry out specific habitat improvement projects.

“Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” BUI listed as “impaired” in the Stage I/Stage II Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in 1989.

20

Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River AOC

Original/Past Removal Criteria

“Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” BUI

• Habitat consistent with DEC management goals for area (Stage I/Stage II RAP, 1989).• Invasive plant species, including Japanese knotweed and Purple loosestrife will be managed at levels

that do not disrupt the sustainability of native, upland and aquatic plant communities (2005 RAP Status Report).

21

Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River AOC

Current Removal Criteria

“Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” BUI

1. Restore Habitat Connectivity; ANDa) Enact the City of Buffalo’s new unified development ordinance, the City of Buffalo Green Code, which contains explicit zoning

provisions imposing a minimum 100-foot development setback and a 50-foot vegetative buffer (§ 5.5.3.A.5. C-W-100 Standards).

b) Implement the Buffalo River Habitat Action Plan (2013).c) A minimum 25% of the AOC shoreline is restored to natural slope, shallows, and aquatic native vegetation, including

naturalizing areas of the City Ship Canal shoreline" 25% = 19,941 linear feet and 28.95 acres

2. Improve Water Qualitya) Major anthropogenic causes of low dissolved oxygen, including navigational dredging and combined sewer overflows (CSOs),

are not a limiting factor for supporting aquatic life.

22

Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River AOC

The RAC committed to developing a plan to assess habitat conditions and determine the potential for habitat improvement in the Stage I/Stage II RAP (1989).

Habitat Restoration and Water Quality sub-groups were formed in order to:• Review existing BUI removal criteria.• Establish specific and attainable targets for habitat-related BUIs.

• BUI #3 – “Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations”• BUI #11 – “Degradation of Aesthetics”• BUI #14 – “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat”

Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper (now Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper) was named the RAP coordinator in 2003.

23

Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River AOC

In July 2011, the Buffalo River Ecological Restoration Master Plan (ERMP) was prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc.

The ERMP provided a framework for ecological restoration in the larger Buffalo River, and provided a list of potential habitat restoration sites within the Buffalo River AOC.

Ultimately, the ERMP informed the Buffalo River Habitat Action Plan, which was approved by the Buffalo River RAC in May 2013.

24

Habitat Restoration in the Buffalo River AOC

The Buffalo River Habitat Action Plan identified the final list of habitat restoration sites throughout the AOC, as well as a timeline for the design and construction phases for each project.

Implementation of the Habitat Action Plan coincided with the revision of the removal criteria for the habitat-related BUIs, which were finalized in June 2014.

• “Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations”• “Degradation of Aesthetics”• “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat”

Substantial completion of the habitat restoration projects throughout the Buffalo River AOC is anticipated to occur in 2019.

In total, habitat restoration throughout the Buffalo River AOC is expected to exceed the quantifiable restoration target established in the removal criteria (25% of AOC shoreline).

25

26

Four Key Questions

What happens to your restoration projects when completed?

WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR RESTORATION PROJECT WHEN COMPLETED?

Stacy Hron, WDNR Office of Great Waters

Warranty

• Depending on the structure of your contract, usually 1-3 years, where the contractor is responsible for meeting obligations

• Make sure you understand what is covered by the warranty before you bid your project

• Be specific and have performance standards

Establishment Period Maintenance

• Initial maintenance period, usually 3-5 years where vegetation establishes, critters recolonize and the most intensive maintenance is needed

• Often a good practice to include this in the construction contract, as it incentivizes the contractor to do a good job during construction

• Great to have an experienced and knowledgeable landscape contractor or entity performing the work

Long Term Maintenance

• While this starts at beginning of the project, it starts in earnest when the contractor completes their work

• To ensure the greatest success, you should understand what kind of maintenance is needed long term at the BEGINNING of the project (during planning & design), who will do it and how it will be funded

Photo: Gail Overholt

Community Support & Ownership

• Great to start involving the community at the beginning of the planning process

• Many ways to foster community support and ownership in a project at any time in the process!

Photo: Lindsay Frost

33

Four Key Questions

Are they meeting programmatic and ecological restoration goals?

ARE THEY MEETING PROGRAMMATIC AND ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION GOALS?

Stacy Hron, DNR Office of Great Waters

Sheboygan River AOC

Restoring an AOCDredging Habitat

Restoration

Monitoring/

Assessment

Photos by Stacy Hron, WDNR

Next Steps for Sheboygan – Verification MonitoringPre-Management Action Assessment

• Waterfowl Tissue (Advisory)• Fish Tissue (Advisory)• Fish Tumors• Plankton & Benthos• Tree Swallows• Fish Community• Macroinvertebrates• Aquatic Habitat• Herptiles• Breeding Birds• Bats• Mussels• Wintering Birds• Fish-Eating Birds• Small Mammals and Mink• Natural Community/Rare Plant/Invasive Plant

Post Management Action Monitoring

• Waterfowl Tissue (Advisory)

• Fish Tissue (Advisory)

• Fish Tumors

• Plankton & Benthos

• Tree Swallows

• Fish Community

• Macroinvertebrates

• Aquatic & Terrestrial Habitat

• Herptiles

• Breeding Birds

• Bats

• Mussels

• Mink

• Sediment Toxicity & Aquatic Toxicity

40

Four Key Questions

Are they meeting programmatic and ecological restoration goals?

ST. CLAIR RIVER AOCLoss of Fish and Wildlife

Habitat BUI(U.S. Side)

Event Celebrating the

Restoration of Fish and Wildlife Habitat

in the St. Clair River

Summer 2017

LOSS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT BUI

REMOVED 2017!

CREA

Krispin Drain

Marine City Drain

Cottrellville Shoreline

Cuttle Creek

Blue Water River Walk

Port Huron South

Marysville

Living Shoreline

Port Huron North

Middle

Channel Reef

Harts Light

Reef

Pointe aux Chenes

Reef

Blue River Walk

Wetland

ARE THE HABITAT PROJECTS MEETING

RESTORATION GOALS?

Case Study:

CUTTLE CREEK

Primary Goal:

FISH PASSAGE

BEFORE: PERCHED BOX CULVERT

AFTER: FREE FLOWING!

FISH SAMPLING LOCATION

APRIL 2016

APRIL 2018

THANK YOU!

51

Four Key Questions

Did the projects remove the BUIs?

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

AOC Conference 2018Habitat Restoration Effectiveness-White Lake

Meaghan Kern

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Great Lakes National Program Office

Pilot Study-Habitat Restoration Effectiveness

May 16, 2018

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Agenda

• Why is GLNPO doing this study?

• Which Habitat Projects did we choose?

• And Why?

• What did we do?

• Results and Takeaways

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Habitat Restoration Effectiveness Goals

Since 2010, GLNPO has invested over $100M towards Habitat Restoration.

GLNPO’s Pilot Study Goals

1. Determine if project goals met and maintained over the years.

2. Study the monitoring/maintenance efforts that are currently underway.

3. Inform GLNPO on lessons learned for future habitat restoration projects, selection procedures, and means of implementation

4. Inform GLNPO on best tools for evaluation and long term maintenance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Pilot Study Selection Criteria

1. Funded by GLNPO

2. In AOC

3. Completed for at least 5 years

4. Construction completed documents and/or baseline work.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Pilot Study-White Lake AOC

• Construction Completed in 2012• 10 Projects:

▪ grant to the Muskegon Conservation District ($2.5M)

▪ required as Management Actions to address Wildlife Habitat and Populations

▪ Facilitated removal of Fish BUIs• Projects Included:

• Restoration of 8,000 linear feet of shoreline

• Creation of 38 acres of wetland and aquatic habitat

• Restoration of 15 acres of riparian and upland areas

• Removal of 52,000 Cubic yards of shoreline/submerged debris.

• Removal of 500 linear feet of sheet pile wall.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Baseline Information Used for Pilot Study

• Specifications

• Planting plans and Drawings

• Ruetz, C. “Evaluating Targets for Delisting Two Beneficial Use Impairments: Loss of Fish Habitat and Degradation of Fish Populations” 2011.

• GLRI Final Report

• Species Lists

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Habitat Restoration Effectiveness Pilot Project

• Via IAG worked with biologists at USACE-Chicago to implement.

• Pilot Project Cost is $250,000.

• 10% Cost of Habitat Restoration ($2.5M) and

• Less than 3% of costs to de-list AOC ($5.2M).

• USACE Conducted Evaluation Surveys- Field Season 2017

-Fish: spring, summer, fall

-Floristics: spring, summer, fall

-Habitat QHEI

-Summarized Great Lakes Marsh Reports: Pre and Post

-Draft and Final Report Summer 2018

Baseline Result

Fish IBI Goals 43±4IBI 2009-2011: Mean Score = 40

IBI Score - 39.3WFI (Wetland Fish Index)-3.4 (Scale 0-5)

QHEI “Critical areas privately owned and city owned lands restored and protected…”None

Widespread Impairments throughout lake still exist due torecreational and residential impacts.

Floristics 8 sites with plantingsHabitats include: marsh, prairie, dune, sedge meadowApproximate Seed listNo quantitative FQI target

FQI-48.4 (FQI>35 is Significant)

Marsh Monitoring “Bird Studies Canada Monitoring will not vary from other Great Lakes Coastal sites..” Baseline 2006, 2010-2012. Post-Restoration Monitoring 2014-2016

Monitoring shows increase in species from pre- and post-restoration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Key Takeaways- Private lands can be difficult to maintain long-term

- “Thin-strip” Restoration is Risky

- Lake managed for residence and recreation will always have moderate to high levels of impairment.

- Strong background information on what was done to conduct a post restoration evaluation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office

Contact Information

Meaghan Kern

U.S. EPA

Project Manager

1-312-353-5784

Kern.Meaghan@epa.gov

62File Name