PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON THE CREATION OF CHANNELS AND PONDS WITHIN CATTAIL MARSHES ON THE BAY OF QUINTE, AND A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

PREPARED BY

ANDY SMITH BAY OF QUINTE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN JANUARY, 1995 PREFACE

On August 17 and 18, 1994 a workshop was held to bring together scientists and members of , , the Bay of Quinte Implementation Advisory Committee (formally the Public Advisory Committee) to discuss enhancing Quinte wetlands by dredging channels and ponds in dense cattail stands. The goals for the workshop were to review the impacts of this technique, discuss its advantages and disadvantages, and design a new channel/pond system. This report is a summary of the workshop and a conceptual plan for a project based on recommendations from the workshop. If implemented this experimental/demonstration project will be studied to determine the effectiveness of creating open water areas within dense cattail stands for providing habitat for variety of species. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Workshop Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Summary of Workshop Presentations and Discussions:~,' ...... 3 2.1 A Literature Review of the Impacts to Wildlife of Channel Creation Through Monotypic Cattail Stands as Proposed at the Bay of Quinte Area of Concern 3 2.2 Studies Conducted on Wetlands in The Quinte Area, 1994 ...... 4 2.2.1 Review of Some Recent Wetland Enhancement Projects in the Quinte Area and Creation techniques...... 4 2.2.2 Fisheries Assessment of Some Wetland Enhancement Projects in the Quinte Area ...... 5 2.2.3 List of Plants and Animals Observed During the Tour of Sawguin Creek Marsh, August 17, 1994 ...... 6 2.2.4 Studies of Marsh- and Waterbirds on the Bay of Quinte, 1994 .... 7 2.3 Discussion on the Benefits and Drawbacks of Channel Creation as a Method of Enhancing a Wetland ...... 8 2.4 Discussion on the Design of a New Channel/Pond Project on the Bay of Quinte ...... 10 3.0 A Plan for a New Channel/pond Project in a Cattail Marsh on the Bay of Quinte . 12 3.1 Background Information ...... 12 3.2 The Design...... 14 3.3 Methods for Creating Openings in Emergent Marshes...... 17 3.4 The Method Recommended for Construction ...... 18 3.5 Environmental Assessment and Permit Requirements ...... 19 3.6 Location...... 21 4.0 Conclusion...... 22 5.0 Acknowledgements ...... 23 6.0 References...... 24 Appendix 1: Diagrams of a Conceptual Plan for a Channel/pond Creation Project. Appendix 2: List of Workshop Participants. Appendix 3: Common and Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in the Text. Appendix 4: Workshop Agenda. 1.0 WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION Alastair Mathers, Workshop Organizer, Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources

, ~ "" The Quinte RAP Habitat Working Group held this workshop to evafuate the approach of creating channels in large 'mono-typic' cattail mats as a method of increasing habitat diversity. The purpose of the workshop was to provide information on what is known about the technique. In addition, the working group hoped to gather input from people with a variety of backgrounds, not to seek approval of any agency or individual. Input was sought on two questions: 1) is channel creation or similar techniques worthwhile? 2) what features should be included in the design?

Prior to implementation of any project of this nature the working group will have to consider a variety of environmental protection regulations including the Environmental Assessment Act, Environmental Assessment and Review Process, Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, and the Wetlands Policy, and seek approvals as necessary. In addition, partners will need to be identified to help with funding and implementation.

Channel creation projects are being considered as one of the tools which could prove useful in the 'Bay of Quinte Wetland Management Plan'. The habitat working group will be developing the plan as described in the RAP. Other tools which are likely to contribute to the management plan would include protection of wetland habitats, and creation of new habitats. Channels have been created in Bay of Quinte wetlands recently, and the impact of these habitat modifications have been studied for the past two years. It is hoped that these studies will provide useful information for management on both the Bay of Quinte and other wetlands.

There are two reasons why construction of channels should be considered. Construction of channels in mono-typic cattail stands will increase the diversity of wetland habitats by increasing the amount of habitat edge and the abundance of submergent aquatic plants. Increasing these habitats should encourage more diverse wildlife populations. For example, creating channels will provide spawning and nursery habitats for pike and largemouth bass, two fish species which are currently at low abundances in the Bay of Quinte. The understanding of which species will

1 benefit from channel creation is not perfect, however, a variety of community ecology studies have shown that more diverse habitats tend to have larger numbers of species and more 'balanced' ecosystems.

, , An additional reason to consider channel creation as a management tool is that this technique should rehabilitate coastal wetlands to a more natural state. Quinte's wetlands were once more open, less dominated by cattails, and described as 'lush weed beds with very abundant wild rice'. The change towards wetlands which are dominated by cattails is in part due to the natural process of succession which has be observed in many plant communities. However, there is some evidence that human activities including regulating water levels, adding silt to wetlands through agricultural and forestry activities, and adding nutrients to the Quinte ecosystem may have encouraged the dominance of cattails. It can not be shown conclusively that human activities are at the root of the changes to Quinte's wetland, however, the ability of cattails to dominate large areas of wetland, and replace historic species has been documented elsewhere.

2 2.0 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

2.1 A Literature Review of the Impacts to Wildlife of Channel Creation , ~., '.' '.', Through Monotypic Cattail Stands as Proposed at the Bay of Quinte Area of Concern. Cynthia Pekarik, Consultant

In marshy areas dominated by one plant species level ditching is believed to increase marsh productivity. Creating a series of openings leads to greater interspersion, thus creating niches for more species of animals (D. McLachlan, pers. comm.). A 50:50 ratio of vegetation to open water (hemi-marsh) has been found to be the one with most avian species diversity (Weller, 1975; Sodja and Solberg, 1993). Research to date presents us with evidence that level ditching can lead to an increase in the number of invertebrates, fish, mammals and birds utilizing a given area.

Aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrates numbers from the herbivore-detrivore group increased subsequent to marsh manipulation. Mudminnows, pike and carp have been sighted in level ditches. Coots, red-winged blackbirds, black terns, pied-billed grebes, common gallinules, virginia rails, mallards, blue-winged teal, redheads, marsh wrens, pintails, lesser scaup, and northern shovelers were species who have exhibited increased breeding success in marshes where· the rate of interspersion between water and emergent vegetation has been manipulated to resemble a herni-marsh. American bittern, least bittern and long-billed marsh wren popUlations remained constant. great blue herons, green herons, great egrets, black ducks, common terns, and belted kingfishers seem to make use of interspersion for feeding. The breeding densities of swamp sparrows and ring-necked pheasants decreased. Muskrat popUlations should grow after opening up a marsh.

Designs will vary according to individual conditions and the species meant to benefit, nonetheless the environment to aim for is one composed of islands of vegetation surrounded by water. Pools of water at least 30 feet in diameter are recommended. Ditches should be dredged

3 to a depth of 1.2 metres below the spring/summer water level and they should reach the inorganic substrate. The design of choice is a sinuous pattern varying in width from 3,7 to 6 metres. Care should be taken with spoils so as not to create a dyke or allow predator access to

nests. , ,

References McLachlan, Dave. Ducks Unlimited (Canada), Barrie, Ontario.

Sojda, R.S. and K.L. Soldberg. 1993. 13.4.13. Management And Control Of Cattails in Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife leaflet 13. United States Dept. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Servo Washington D.C. 8 pp.

Weller, M.W. 1975. Studies of Cattail in Relation to Management for Marsh Wildlife. Iowa State J. Res. 49:383-412.

2.2 Studies Conducted on Wetlands in the Quinte Area, 1994.

2.2.1 Review of Some Recent Wetland Enhancement Projects in the Quinte Area and Creation Techniques. Andy Smith, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Wetland enhancement was carried out at Saguin Creek Marsh, Little Cataraqui Marsh and Big Island Marsh by creating open water channels in dense homogeneous stands of cattail. The channels were dug using a floating backhoe. The compact size and its ability to "walk" through dense marsh allow the backhoe to access many sites and results in little disruption of non target areas. Dredged material (muck) is piled on the edge of the channel to weigh down the cattail mat and reduce the chance of it spreading into the channel. Channels are approximately 3 to 4 metres wide and 0.75 to 1 metre deep at high water. The cost for contracting the floating backhoe and operator is $85/hour (1993). He is able to construct 12-20 metres of channel 3-4 metres wide

4 and 0.75-1 metre deep per hour.

Channels were dug in Pine Point Wetland in 1992 to provide boat access to the Bay of Quinte and to improve fish and wildlife habitat. The altered area CDnsisted of dense cattail marsh, willow and alder swamp, and upland. Channels ranged in size from 0.5 to 2.5 metres deep and 3 to 10 metres wide.

, 2.2.2 Fisheries Assessment of Some Wetland Enhancement Projects in the Quihte Area. Andy Smith, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Leslie Cope, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Fish use of wetland enhancement projects at Sawquin Creek Marsh, Little Cataraqui Marsh, Big Island Marsh and Pine Point Wetland between June and August 1994 was evaluated. The projects cDnsisted 'of creating open water channels within dense stands of cattails, and a willow/cattail swamp and upland area. Fish use was compared between the artificial channels, natural channels and dense stands of cattails. Comparisons were based on catches in modified windemere traps. Catch per unit effort and species richness was greatest in the artificial channels, lowest in the cattail stands and in between in the natural channels. Fish captured in the artificial channels include centrarchids, cyprinids, central mudminnows, brDwn bullheads, yellDw perch, bowfin, northern pike and white perch. Only central mudminnows were found in the cattails.

Vegetation growth in the channels and on spoil mounds has varied. Planting spoil mounds to speed up revegetation and promote the growth of preferred species may be necessary. The blockage of the channels by floating cattail mats was observed and could become a maintenance problem.

5 2.2.3 List of Plants and Animals Observed During the Tour of Sawguin Creek Marsh on August 17, 1994. Compiled by Leslie Cope, Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources A tour of Lower Sawguin Creek Marsh (including unmanaged,· marsh and a channel creation project) was conducted on August 17, 1994. Participants were asked to make a list of the species they observed during their visit.

Plants American Water Plantain Grasses Broad-Fruited Burreed Lady's Thumb Broadleaf Arrowhead Marsh Skullcap Broadleaf Cattail Narrow leaf Cattail Bull Thistle Pectinate Pondweed Bulrush Purple Loosestrife Bushy Pondweed Sedges Common Bladderwort Slender Naiad Coontail Small Pondweed Curly Dock Spotted Jewelweed Cut-leaved Water-horehound Swamp Milkweed Dogwood Water Smartweed Eurasian Water Milfoil Water Stargrass European Frog's Bit Water Willow Flat-leaved Bladderwort White water Lily Flat-Stemmed Pondweed Wild Celery Fragrant Bedstraw Wild Rice Willow Herb Yellow Water Lily

Birds American Bittern Marsh Wren Caspian Tern Northern Harrier Double Creasted Cormorant Ring-Billed Gull

Fish Central Mudminnow Pumpkinseed cont ..

6 Largemouth Bass

Amphibian Leopard Frog

, L -' 'of,

2.2.4 Studies of Marsh- and Waterbirds on the Bay of Quinte, 1994. D.V. (Chip) Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service Michael Patrikeev, Canadian Wildlife Service Michael Richardson, Canadian Wildlife Service Hans B1okpoel, Canadian Wildlife Service

Four studies of marsh- and waterbirds were undertaken in the Bay of Quinte by CWS in 1994: 1) The effects of channel creation on bird populations in a cattail marsh, 2) Avian community structure in a large cattail marsh, 3) Shoreline surveys for avian habitat in western Bay of Quinte and 4) Black tern populations and their use of nesting rafts in the Bay of Quinte area.

In the channel creation area of the Lower Sawguin Creek Marsh (south of Huff's Island) marsh bird monitoring plots were set up in areas of man made channels, natural channels, and control (non-channelled) areas. The common breeding species were red-winged blackbird, swamp sparrow and marsh wren. There was no difference in the number of species or individuals among the three types of sites. However, the channel creation area was only large enough for one plot. Further surveys will be made in 1995.

The breeding avian community in the Lower Sawguin Creek Marsh appears to be made up primarily of northern harriers and american bitterns (7-8 pairs/calling males each), marsh wrens and swamp sparrows. Other species were only minor components of the community. This might be considered slightly depauperate but the harriers and bitterns are noteworthy species. Before a fInal assessment is made, additional inventories on larger study sites will be done in 1995.

The shoreline of the western half of the Bay of Quinte was surveyed by boat on occasions for areas of waterbird use. The area which consistently harboured the greatest number of individuals

7 and species was Gravelly Point on the north east corner of Huff's Island. Trident Point on the Tyendinaga Reserve was also a major use area. The far western end of the Bay, near the Murray Canal, provided habitat for good numbers of caspian terns. The Bay may be a major summering area for immature great black-backed gulls, a species whiy~ ba§ only recently started nesting regularly on Lake Ontario. The eastern half of the Bay will be surveyed in 1995.

Numbers of nesting black terns in the Bay appear to have declined greatly since the last survey in the early 1990's. In 1994 the only active nesting area was noted at Hay Bay. Nesting platforms were set out to provide additional habitat but they were not used. Surv~ys for nesting populations in adjacent areas located small numbers at several sites. Further work will be done in 1995 in an attempt to get terns to use nesting rafts and to investigate breeding habitat and possible reasons for the bird' s decline in the Bay.

2.3 Discussion on the Benefits and Drawbacks of Channel Creation as a Method of Enhancing a Wetland. The following (sections 2.3 and 2.4) is a summary of a brainstorming session that took place during the workshop. Participants did not necessarily agree with all the statements, nor is their any kind of ranking to the statements.

The Benefits:

Overall - Contributes to understanding of wetland management. - Rehabilitates a degraded wetland. - Improves water quality (clarity). - Increases the amount of edge.

Effects on Wildlife - Increases the number of species (both flora and fauna).

8 - Creates spawning, nesting, migration, and nursery habitat for some species. - Increases the abundance of some species (e.g. muskrat, fish). - Few species are negatively impacted. - Potential muskrat harvest.

Technical - Low cost. - Technique is adaptable and easily implemented. - Sensitive areas can be avoided. - May be designed to meet specific needs. - Structures can be added (e.g. stumps). - Precise location for remedial work. - No fill is added to the marsh. - No need to regulate water levels. - Can isolate channels during construction to avoid siltation of other areas.

The Drawbacks:

Overall - The system is currently stable - should it be disturbed? - Studies may indicate that a substantial degree of biodiversity is already present. - Disturbance from backhoe (e.g. siltation, disrupt migratory birds). - Should we address water quality improvement before habitat diversification? - Forest edge creation has caused forest fragmentation, is there need for concern about fragmented cattail stands being created?

Effects on Wildlife - Channel creation will favour some species at the expense of others. - Increased access for predators. - Some plant species may be slow to re-colonize. - Two species (swamp sparrow and ring-necked pheasant) decreased in numbers

9 (literature review). - May increase the spread of exotic species.

Maintenance , , - Effects are not permanent (approx. 20 years), therefore maintenance is required. - Beaver and muskrat activity control. - Seeding spoilbanks. - Clearing channels. - Erosion control due to promotion of erodability in cattail mats.

2.4 Discussion on the Design of a New Channel/Pond Project on the Bay of Quinte.

- Work in an entirely different location, continue to monitor the existing channels. - The proposed channel design would not add enough open water for birds. - Proposed that should design a large, open pond with a channel leading into it. - Is this design limited by machinery? - Is it possible to use a large dragline to make the pond? - Ponds may be preferred, channels create fish habitat but the effects are only 1 or 2 meters back from the channel. - Create hummocks with spoils in the middle. - Discussion of whether the channel leading up to the pond should be straight or curved. - Straight - water flow, less chance of blockage. - Curved for fish. - Should the channel be blocked? - Could block it off entirely to prevent access or block it in a few places with floating mats. - Examine the grade from the edge of the marsh down into the cattails. - What is the criterion for channelization area choices? - Measurements of nutrients and light penetration are required to examine water quality ..

10 - Create donut shaped ponds.

- Other suggestions - Work on local water quality. - Do not try to create a hemi-marsh in the cattails, instead block off a piece of open water and create one. - Perform maintenance on Ducks Unlimited channels at Big Island,increase water flow through channels.

11 3.0 A PLAN FOR A NEW CHANNEL/POND PRGJECT IN A CATTAIL MARSH ON TIIE BAY OF QUINTE.

, , 3.1 Backgnnmd Infonnation

Many wetlands on the Bay of Quinte are dominated by dense stands of cattail with relatively little interspersion or diversity. This type of habitat is of minor value to wildlife (Payne,1992), but has great potential for enhancement. The Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan Stage Two Report stated that creating open water channels and ponds within dense cattail stands could be considered as a habitat rehabilitation measure (Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee, 1993). At the workshop discussion (section 2.4) it was decided that the technique should be ' considered experimental and concentrate on the construction and study of a large open water area or pond. Although most of Quinte's wetland species could benefit from this project, The Quinte RAP Habitat Working Group has decided to use black terns and least bitterns as the target or indicator species. On the Bay of Quinte black tern populations appear to be decreasing (Weseloh et a!., this report), a trend that has been seen elsewhere on Lake Ontario (Gurr, 1994). The status of the least bittern is unknown but there are concerns that the population has decreased in numbers across Ontario (Woodliffe, 1987). The following are short reviews of the habitat requirements of black terns and least bitterns and some examples of the importance of marsh interspersion to other species.

The interspersion of open water and emergent vegetation appears to be the common factor of black tern breeding habitat (Dunn, 1979 and Muller et a!., 1992), however, nests can be found over open water (Bergman et a!., 1970) and rarely in dense vegetation (Dunn, 1979). Vegetation form does not seem to be as important as interspersion, as black terns will nest in shrub swamps (Muller et a!., 1992) and cattail marshes (Bergman et a!. 1970 and Dunn, 1979). A compilation of data from four studies (284 samples) shows that 37% of black terns nested on floating dead vegetation, 23% on muskrat structures, 18% on floating boards or logs, 16% on cattail rootstocks and 7% on other substrate (Data from Dunn, 1979). Nests are built an average of 4-6 m from open water and over water between .6 and 1.2 m deep (Dunn, 1979 and Cuthbert,

12 1954}. Black terns feed primarily on insects but will also take small fish (Dunn, 1979). Cuthbert (1954) found that most feeding was done within "a few hundred feet of the nest". Perches seem to be important aspect of black tern habitat particularly in juvenile feeding areas (Muller et aI.,

, ~ ..j 1992 and Cuthbert, 1954).

Least bitterns breeding habitat consists of tall dense stands of emergent vegetation (especially cattails) usually associated with open water (Gibbs et aI., 1992). Weller and Spatcher (1965) found the greatest number in an Iowa marsh when it was in the hemi marsh stage. Nests consist of a platform and canopy constructed from and in tall dense vegetation growing' in water, and are located less than 10 m from open water (Gibbs et aI., 1992). Least bitterns feed primarily on small fish and insects but will also take other small aquatic animals such as frogs, tadpoles, salamanders, leeches, slugs, and crayfish, (Gibbs et aI., 1992). They forage along the edge between dense emergent vegetation and deep (25-60 cm) open water, however, they take most of their prey near the water's surface (Gibbs et aI., 1992).

A great deal of work has been done on the importance of open water interspersion to the productivity to wildlife in emergent marshes. Weller and Spatcher (1965) observed that bird numbers and diversity peaked in an Iowa marsh when a cover to open water ratio of approximately 1: 1 was achieved. Courcelles and Bedard (1979) found the greatest density of dabbling ducks on a Ottawa river marsh was located in broken cattail habitat. Voigts (1976) comparing different levels of emergent cover found the greatest number of aquatic invertebrates in areas of mixed submergent and emergent vegetation. When comparing dense cattail stands to artificial channels within cattail stands, Cope (1994) caught more individuals and species in the artificial channels. In a bio-inventory of a cattail dominated marsh on Lake Saint Francis, Huizer and Atkinson (1992) found that frogs and turtles were confmed to ditches, channels and the shoreline. They felt that the abundance of herptiles in the marsh could increase by augmenting the amount of open water interspersion (by water level control). Several map, painted and snapping turtles have been captured in channels created at the Pine Point Wetland on the Bay of Quinte (pers. obs.). Increased activity by mink, raccoons and skunks near level ditches has been observed (Pekarik, 1994). Proulx (1981) found that the average composition of a muskrat home range in Luther Marsh, Ontario coincided with an open water, emergent vegetation ratio

13 of 1: 1. He also felt that "an area covered by dense stands of cattails would be worth little for muskrat populations if there were no water to permit them accessibility to these food plants" (Proulx, 1981). Creating open water areas in emergent marshes has been used effectively to

increase muskrat production (pekarik, 1994). , ,

3.2 The Design

The main goal of marsh management projects of this type is to increase the ratio·of open water to emergent vegetation and create a hemi-marsh effect. Some of the reasons why a hemi marsh is desirable were summarized in sections 2.2 and 3.1. This design is based on the discussions from the workshop (sections 2.3 and 2.4) and a review of scientific literature. Weller (1975) recommended creating interconnected pools greater than 30 feet (9.2 M) in diametre when managing cattail marshes for avian production. This project follows those guidelines by creating a large pond connected by a channel to the open water of the Bay of Quinte. The design (found in Appendix 1) should be considered conceptual since several factors are unknown at this time (e.g. funding and work site). The description of the pond/channel system and design considerations are described in the following sections:

1: The pond

The pond will be approximately 40 metres wide and long, resulting in an area of 0.16 hectares (including islands). Small patches of cattails will be left to increase the interspersion within the pond. The asymmetric shape of the pond edge will increase the shoreline length and irregularity. In general puddle duck use of ponds increases with pond size and shoreline irregularity (Anonymous, 1981 and Belanger and Couture, 1988). A pond of this size should provide breeding habitat for ducks (e.g. Hopper, 1972 and Evard, 1975), and habitat for other birds, mammals and herptiles. Michael Richardson (pers. comm.) suggests that creating a shallow pond with islands of cattail and a mix of vegetation would imitate some natural black tern nesting sites on the Bay of Quinte. Fish will make use of the pond primarily as a nursery area but also for spawning and feeding (Cope 1994).

14 2: The channel

Channel widths of 3 to 9 metres wide (Payne, 1992) and con~tructed in a sinuous pattern with a trough to trough length of 25-30 metres (Pekarik, 1994) are suggested. An intermediate width of 6 metres may be the most suitable: It would provide a wide enough open water area that it would be used by several species, it should have a greater life span than a 3 metre channel, European frog's bit should not form dense mats covering the entire channel which can occur in narrow channels (pers. obs.), yet it would be narrow enough that secretive animals would always be close to emergent cover. A sinuous pattern will increase the amount of edge; the shoreline irregularity and reduce the sight distances. This should result in greater use by territorial and secretive animals than a straight channel. The actual length of the channel will depend upon the project location and funding,however 75 m will be used for planning purposes.

3: Islands/ dredge spoils

Dredged material has been used to create small islands within wetland enhancement projects (pers obs.). I studied an air photo of the channels created at Sawguin Creek and found that the ratio of area filled by dredged material to open water created was approximately 0.68: 1. This ratio could be increased by creating higher islands, however, this may encourage the growth of non wetland plant species. There are several benefits to using the dredged material to create islands: Waterfowl nesting density and success is generally higher on islands than on upland sites (Young 1968, Johnson et aI., 1978), wetland species besides cattail will grow on the islands increasing plant diversity (pers. obs.), the islands would weigh down the edge of the cattail mat and reduce the chance of it floating into the pond and channel (J. McCallum, pers. comm.), and there would be no cost for the removal of the dredged material.

The following guidelines should be followed for the construction of islands. They should be compacted by heavy machinery to reduce their erodibility and the area that needs to be filled. Spaces (either cattail or open water) should be left between the islands to decrease the mobility of predators and ensure that water movement is not restricted. Islands should be constructed to be a maximum of 1.5 metres above the high water mark (payne, 1992). Erosion can be

15 controlled by planting as soon as possible after construction or using erosion control material. Planting a medium to dense cover of herbs should increase island use and success by nesting waterfowl (Duebbert, 1982) and reduce the chance of a purple loosestrife infestation.

, , 4: Depth/slope

A slope of 1:1 (payne, 1992) to 1:3 and a high water depth of 1.2 metres has been recommended for level ditches (channels) (pekarik, 1994). This slope and depth should allow the growth of dense submergent plant beds and use by a variety of fish and wildlife throughout the year but will be deep and (steep) enough to retard (eliminate?) the regrowth of cattails. Due to the substrate type (peat and muck) and the fact that much of the work will be done underwater the bottom morphology will vary but an average depth of 1.2 metres (at highwater) and a steep slope should be the goal.

5: Structures

Structures that could be considered for installation include waterfowl nesting baskets or boxes, nesting or loafmg rafts, fish habitat structures and perches.

Waterfowl use of nesting structures has been variable, but nest success is generally equal to or greater than nests in natural sites (Kadlec and Smith, 1992). However, due to the amount of emergent cover that would be present at the site, nesting structures may not be necessary. If nesting baskets are erected they should have an enclosed nesting area (i.e. overhead cover) to protect from avian predators, and a mammalian predator guard on the pole. Doty (1979) found cone shaped baskets to have the greatest nest success.

Nesting rafts have been constructed for and used successfully by ducks (Young, 1971). Evard (1975) found a high correlation between waterfowl use of dug ponds and the presence of a loafmg structure. Black terns have been observed nesting on floating boards (Weller and Spatcher, 1965 and M. Richardson, pers. comm.) and will use artificial nesting platforms (Muller et al. 1992). Small rafts could be used to imitate natural floating debris that would

16 normally be found in an older pond. Rafts should be placed in the artificial pond, a natural pond and a known black tern nesting site to observe their use and effectiveness at attracting black terns (M. Richardson, pers. comm.).

Habitat structures such as log jams and stumps are attractive to several species of fish and should increase the productive capacity of the artificial pond and channel. These structures would be most important during the first few years after the dredging since plant growth may be minimal and cover limiting. As well, any exposed (above water) parts of the structures could be used as loafing or perching sites for marsh birds and reptiles. Muller et al. (1992) found exposed perches to be common to all black tern breeding sites in their study in New York State. These perches consisted of snags, stumps and duck blinds that had a minimum height of 2 feet above the water (I. Mazzocchi, pers. comm.).

3.3 Methods for Creating Openings in Emergent Marshes.

Several different methods have been used to create opens within dense stands of cattails including covering, crushing, poisoning, cutting, burning, and cattail removal (Beule, 1979). The first five methods generally require an area to be flooded to maintain the openings, water level control is not being considered as an option for this project. Removal of the cattail mat can be accomplished by blasting, "cookie cutting", or excavating by hi-hoe or floating excavator.

Blasting is an effective and economical method of creating openings that was tried in Hay Bay Marsh on the Bay of Quinte in 1972. The potholes ranged in size from 25 x 15 feet (8.3 x 4.5 m) to 35 x 20 feet (10.6 x 6.1 m) (lves, 1972). Air photos from 1978 showed that they had partially grown over, and by 1993 the potholes had totally filled in with cattails (Hartley, 1993). Blasted potholes are not as enduring as excavated ponds, are not recommended for peat substrates and do not get as much waterfowl use as excavated ones (payne, 1992). Blasting on West Lake resulted in complaints from home owners of broken windows (lves, 1972). Thus blasting sites would have. to be limited to areas with no nearby homes.

17 A cookie cutter can create channels 2.4 m wide, ponds 10 m in diametre, both 0.6 m deep (E. Conners, pers. comm.). Channels can be dug at a rate of 61 m (dense cattails and moderate­ firm substrate) to 304 m (moderate cattails in organic substrate) per hour. Aquamate M.A.T. Inc. charges 250 dollars per hour (minimum 10 hours), qr,3A76 to 17,076 dollars per ha of excavated material. Most of the wetlands on the Bay of Quinte are dense cattails over a biomass substrate so the price would probably be mid range. The technique is not very durable and normally requires maintenance cuts approximately every two to three years, however they are much cheaper (E. Conners, pers. comm.). Cookie cutting was attempted in Big Island Marsh in 1987. Most of the work filled in with cattails within one to two years (Hartley, 1993) and only a few channels remain open (pers. obs.).

A CWIP project was done on Wolfe Island (Bayfield Bay) in which approximately 2930 M of channels and ponds were constructed by a hi-hoe (D. Sutherland, pers. comm.). Channels were 2.4 to 3.7 M wide and 1.2 to 2.1 M deep and created in both the summer and winter between 1991 and 1994. A total of 0.81 ha of material were excavated at a cost of 32,710 dollars or 40,383 dollars per hectare. The hi-hoe operator indicated that the maximum size of pond he could create would have a diametre of approximately 9.2 M (E. Hamilton, pers. comm.).

Aquamate M.A.T. Inc. (operators of a floating excavator) reviewed the project proposal (pond 40 m by 40 m, channel 75 m by 6 m, total 0.21 ha) and felt that they could do the project for between 5272 and 7908 dollars or 25,105 to 37,657 dollars per ha. However their excavator is booked for over a year and thus may not be available (E. Conners, pers. comm.).

3.4 The Method Recommended for Construction.

Excavation appears to be the most effective method to create this channel/pond system. Excavation allows for the greatest control of several factors such as size and shape of the channel, pond and islands, and is the most durable technique. Also, there would not be the safety concerns that exist with blasting. Cost is the main drawback of excavating, however, since

18 this is a small scall experimental project it should not be the primary concern. A decision on which type of excavator (e.g. floating, hi-hoe, etc.) can be made once contractors have viewed the project site and submitted a bid.

3.5 Environmental Assessment and Pennit Requirements

Canada Environmental Assessment Act In 1995 the Canada Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) will replace the Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP). The requirements of CEAA would be met by the following three conditions: 1) The project is endorsed by the Bay of Quinte RAP and lAC, 2) documentation is provided showing that the project would have no significant negative environmental impacts, and 3) permits from all applicable agencies are received. The project would have to be approved under CEAA to receive funding from the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund (M. Nicolson, pers. comm.).

Environmental Assessment Act Under this provincial legislation the project is included under the Small Scale Class EA as a category 'C' project (fisheries and wildlife improvement with a completion cost under $50 000). "As activities associated with these types of projects have little, if any, detrimental effect on the environment they are approved under the Class Ea, without requiring further approvals under the Environmental Assessment Act or application of the Field Environmental Planning Procedure" (OMNR, 1994). However, the project would have to follow the guidelines listed in the Construction and Mitigation Handbook for MNR Class EA Projects. These guidelines control disturbances to the construction site, the handling of dredged material and rehabilitation of the site. Also," the MNR District Manager may, if significant adverse environmental effects or public concern are anticipated, require that any of the category' C' projects be planned according to the Field Environmental Planning Procedure" (OMNR, 1994).

19 Public Lands Act A work permit from OMNR is required to dredge on shorelands. The permit would have conditions (such as timing restrictions, no siltation etc.) to ensure that the construction activities would not negatively affect the environment. . ,

Wetlands Policy Twenty-two of the wetlands on the Bay of Quinte are provincially significant. Development including excavation and the placing of fill are generally not considered acceptable activities within provincially significant wetlands. However, The Manual of Implementation Guidelines for the Wetlands Policy Statement states that "It (the Wetlands Policy) is not meant to preclude well considered wetland management programs designed to rehabilitate wetlands from a sometimes severely damaged state, or to provide for other improvements under well considered processes in which the Ministry of Natural Resources is usually a participant and co-proponent" (OMNR and OMMA, 1992). It also states that for a project to be considered as rehabilitation the wetland type and hydrological functions must be maintained and biodiversity should be increased (OMNR and OMMA, 1992). However, MNR is presently reviewing the wetlands policy, in particular the sections dealing with the function of and development within a wetland. This review should clarify what enhancement techniques are acceptable and how they may be applied.

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Several of the larger wetlands on the Bay of Quinte are Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). Any work in these sites would require further review by OMNR staff to ensure that the natural heritage features and ecosystem health of the wetland is not affected by the project (C. Schaefer, pers. comm.).

Fill Regulations In general, habitat enhancement projects are acceptable but would still have to be reviewed by the local Conservation Authority. If the work were to take place within a provincially significant wetland a permit under the fill regulations would be required (K. Taylor, pers. comm.).

20 Environmental Protection Act (federal), Ontario Water Resources Act (provincial) Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OMEE) considers the creation of islands from the dredged material to be open water disposal since it would be ?one below the high water mark. A sediment quality analysis would have to be conducted· and be better than the Great Lakes background levels (based on analyses of Great Lakes pre-colonial sediment horizon) for approval for open water disposal (D. Persaud, pers. comm.). OMEE would also require a project summary including a detailed map of the work site, and a description of the material to be moved (OMEE, 1994).

Township Bylaws The township in which the work site is located should be informed of the project to ensure that no bylaws are broken. For example, the township of Ameliasburgh has a bylaw against dredging and ftIling in areas zoned environmental protection. Most of Sawguin Creek Marsh is located within Ameliasburg, thus any work there would need the approval of the township (C. Schaefer, pers. comm.).

3.6 Location

One of the goals of this project is to create nesting habitat for black terns. Nesting was observed at four locations on the Bay of Quinte in 1994, Big Island Marsh, Mud Creek Marsh, Sawguin Creek Marsh and Hay Bay Marsh (Michael Richardson, pers. comm.). The project should be done adjacent to one of these sites to improve the chances of black terns finding and using it if they feel it is suitable habitat.

21 4.0 CONCLUSION

The next step is to select a project location, then a final design could be developed, costs determined and permit applications and funding proposals cmupleted. Plans should be made to conduct pre and post construction monitoring on the project location so the effects of the work can be measured. Monitoring methods should be the same as those used on studies of past projects so that comparisons can be made.

The benefits to fish and wildlife from the management of cattails is well documented. Opening up dense cattail stands would increase the diversity and abundance of many forms of plant and animal life within the marsh. This experimental/demonstration project would be compatible with the goals of the Bay of Quinte RAP, the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture and the Canada Ontario Agreement.

22 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to all the workshop speakers and other participants, . Lisa Miller-Dodd, Leslie Cope, , ~"- / .j, Darlene Bridge and Mike MacDonald for assisting with the preparation and running of the workshop, Alastair Mathers for providing guidance and editing this report, and Sue Dorey and Abe TeGrotenhuis for helping with autocad. Funding for the workshop and report was provided by OMNR and the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund.

23 6.0 REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1981. Habitat management for waterfowl in Ontario:Techniques for management and program development. Wildlife Branch, Ont. Min: Nat. Resour. 32 pp.

Belanger, L. and R. Couture. 1988. Use of man made ponds by dabbling duck broods. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):718-723.

Bergman, R.D., P. Swain, M.W. Weller. 1970. A comparative study of nesting Forester's Terns and Black Terns. Willson Bull. 82(1):435-444.

Beule, J.D. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin Wetlands. Tech Bull No. 112, Wisc. Dept. Nat. Resour. Madison;Wisconsin. 38 pp.

Cope, L. 1994. A fisheries evaluation of the channel creation project on the Bay of Quinte. L. Ont. Fish. Unit, Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Napanee, Ontario. 24 pp.

Courcelles, R. and J. Bedard. 1979. Habitat selection by dabbling ducks in the Baie Noire Marsh, southwestern Quebec. Can J. Zool. 57:2230-2238.

Cuthbert, N.L. 1954. A nesting study of the Black Tern in Michigan. Auk. 71:36-63.

Doty, H.A. 1979. Duck nest structure evaluation in prairie wetlands. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(4):976-979.

Duebbert, H.F. 1982. Nesting of waterfowl on islands in Lake Audobon, North Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10(3):232-237.

Dunn, E.H. 1979. Nesting biology and development of young in Ontario Black Terns, Can. Field Nat. 93(3):276-281.

24 Evard, J.O. 1975. Waterfowl use of dug ponds in northwestern Wisconsin. Wild!. Soc. Bull. 3(1): 13-18.

Gibbs, J.P., F.A. Reid, and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Least Bitt\!rnJlu The Birds of North America, No. 17 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural sciences; Washington D.C: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Gurr, M. 1994. Black Tern population decreases by over 80% in five years at Presqu'ile Provincial Park. Onto Min. Nat. Resour. Brighton, Ont. 6 pp.

Hartley, K. 1993. An evaluation of 5 coastal marsh restoration projects in the Bay of Quinte region. Moira Riv. Conserv. Auth., Belleville, Ontario. 35 pp.

Hopper, R.M. 1972. Waterfowl use in relation to size and cost of potholes. J. Wild!. Manage. 36(2):459-468.

Huizer, R. and J Atkinson. 1992. Chariottenburgh Project: Bio-inventory, habitat mapping and assessment of the potential impacts of impoundment and flooding. Atkinson and Huizer Biosurveys, Ottawa, Ontario. 65 pp.

Ives, J.L. 1972. Wildlife and waterfowl improvement project (ski) Napanee division - Tweed district. Onto Min. Nat. Resour. Napanee, Onto 11 pp.

Johnson Jr, R.F., R.O. Woodward, L.M. Kirsch. 1978. Waterfowl nesting on small man made islands in prairie wetlands. Wild!. Soc. Bull. 6(4):240-243.

Kadlec, J.A. and L.M. Smith. 1992. Habitat management for breeding areas. In Ecology and Management of Breeding Waterfowl (B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec and G.L. Krapu, Eds.) pp. 590-610. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesta.

25 Muller, S.L., I.M. Mazzocchi, and K. Loconti-Lee. 1992. Black tern (Chlidonias niger) investigations in New York state, 1990 and 1991. NYS Dept. of Environ. Conserv., Div. of Fish and Wild!., Nongame Unit, Watertown, New York. 35 pp.

, , OMEE. 1994. Evaluating construction activities impacting on water resources, part 3A. Queens Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. 48 pp.

OMNR. 1994. Environmental assessment procedures manual for MNR activities. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour. Toronto, Ontario.

OMNR and OMMA. 1992. Manual of implementation guidelines for the wetlands policy statement. Queens printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 116 pp.

Payne, N.F. 1992. Techniques for wildlife habitat management of wetlands. McGraw-Hill Inc. Toronto, Onto 549 pp.

Pekarik, C. 1994. A literature review of the impacts to wildlife of channel creation through monotypic cattail stands as proposed at the Bay of Quinte Area of Concern. Can. Wild!. Servo Burlington, Onto 157 pp.

Proulx, G. 1981. Relationship between Muskrat populations, vegetation and water level fluctuations and management considerations at Luther Marsh, Ontario. PhD. Diss., University of Guelph, Guelph, Onto 239 pp.

Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee. 1993. The Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Report: Time To Act. 180 pp + appendices

Voigts, O.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance in relation to changing marsh vegetation. Amer. Mid!. Nat. 95(2)313-322.

Wel1er, M.W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State J. Res. 49:383-412.

26 Weller, M.W. and C.S. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Iowa Agric. home Econ. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. No. 43. 31 pp.

Woodliffe, P.A. 1987. Least Bittern. In Atlas of the breedi~ghi~dS of Ontario (M.d. Cadman, P.F.J. Eagles, and F.M. Helleiner, Eds.). pp 48-49. Univ. of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario.

Young, C.M. 1968. Island nesting of ducks in northern Ontario. Can Field Nat. 82:209-212.

Young, C.M. 1971. A nesting raft For ducks. Can. Field Nat. 85(2):179-181.

Personal Communications

Ed Conners, Aquamate M.A.T. Inc., Port Credit, Ontario.

Ernie Hamilton, Hi-hoe operator, Kingston, Ontario

Michelle Nicolson, Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, Toronto, Ontario.

Irene Mazzocchi, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Watertown, New York.

Jim McCallum, floating backhoe operator, Peterborough, Ontario.

Deo Persaud, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto, Ontario.

Michael Richardson, Canadian Wildlife Service (contract), Brighton, Ontario

Dale Sutherland, Landowner, Wolfe Island, Ontario.

27 Chris Schaefer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Napanee, Ontario

Keith Taylor, Prince Edward Region Conservation Authority, Picton, Ontario

, ,

28 , ~. , ,

APPENDIX 1

Diagrams of a Conceptual Plan for a Channel/Pond Creation Project.

+--- 40 m ----3»

, ,

"., CATTAIL [JI'." - ",'

o c------'' ,­ WATER FIGURE ~I: ,.-' .... CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR A B~~" ... ' .. SPOIL CHAI\II\IEL-!POND CREATlm~ ".;:~;o;.:;:_~{.: ISLJ.\I\IDS PROJECT. ~ Prepared by: Sue Dorey and Andy SmIth , \., __ J W -;7 , , ""-- L/' /?­

l-1- I o I // o I i i~' E ( "I I '-./ i llJ i I in"-.-1 .J

( I) ~/ / // U) ,.-j o (-V' J Ll..- CJ

/ 11...... ~j

iii,...... Lj , ~. APPENDIX 2

List of Workshop Participants

Jim Atkinson Lisa Miller-Dodd , ~, ./ 'J Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Darlene Bridge Rick Napton Environmental Youth Corps Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

Ron Carter Tom Northart Implementation Advisory Committee Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

Leslie Cope Michael Patrikeev Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Canadian Wildlife Service

Adele Crowder Cynthia Pekarik Queens University Consultant

Don Cuddy Michael Richardson Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Canadian Wildlife Service

Lesley Dunn Olive Root Environment Canada Implementation Advisory Committee

Shawn Green Jan Samis Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Implementation Advisory Committee

Karen Hartley Andy Smith Moira River Conservation Authority Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Natalie Korchuk Arnold Vandemer Moira River Conservation Authority Implementation Advisory Committee

Andy Margetson Chip Weseloh Napanee Region Conservation Authority Canadian Wildlife Service

Ernie Margetson Natalie Zegarra Moira River Conservation Authority Environmental Youth Corps

Alastair Mathers Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources APPENDIX 3

Common and Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in the Text

, ). ) Common Name Scientific Name

Plants Alder Alnus spp. American Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica Broad-Fruited Burreed Sparganium eurycarpum Broadleaf Arrowhead Sagitaria latifolia Broadleaf Cattail Typha latifolia Bull Thistle Crisium vulgare Bulrush Scirpus spp. Bushy Pondweed Najas guadalupensis Cattail Typha spp. Common Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Curly Dock Rumex crispus Cut-leaved Water-horehound Lycopus americanus Dogwood Comus spp. Eurasian Water Milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum European Frog's Bit Hydrocharis morus-ranae Flat-leaved Bladderwort Utricularia intermedia Flat-Stemmed Pondweed Potomegeton zosteriformis Fragrant Bedstraw Galium triflorum Grasses Poaceae family Lady's Thumb Polygonum persicaria Marsh Skullcap Scutellaria galericulata Narrow leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia Pectinate Pondweed Potomegeton pectinatus Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Sedges Cyperaceae family Slender Naiad Najas flexilis Small Pondweed Potomegeton pusillus Spotted Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incamata Water Smartweed Polygonum amphibium Water Stargrass Heteranthera dubia . Water Willow Decodon verticillatus White water Lily Nyphaea ordata Wild Celery Valisnaria americana Wild Rice Zizania aquatica Willow Salix spp. Willow Herb Epilobium palustre cont... Common Name Scientific Name

Plants Yellow Water Lily Nuphar varigata

Birds American Bittern Botaurus leiitiginosus American Coot Fulica americana Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Black Duck Anas rubripes Black Tern Chlidonias nigra Blue-Winged Teal Anas discors Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Common Gallinule Gallinula chloropus Common Tern Sterna hirundo Double Creasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Great Egret Casmerodius albus Great Black-Backed Gull Larus marinus Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Green Heron Butorides striatus Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Long-Billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Marsh Wren Cistothorus spp. Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Northern Shovelers Anas clypeata Pied-Billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Pintail Anas acuta Redhead Aythya americana Red-Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Ring-Billed Gull Larus delaWarensis Ring-Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Fish Bowfm Amia calva Carp Cyprinus carpio Central Mudmirmow Umbra limi Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Northern Pike Esox lucius Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus White Perch Morone americana Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

cont ... Common Name Scientific Name

Reptile Map turtle Graptemys geographica Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Snapping turtle Chelydrasecpentina

Amphibian Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

Mammal Beaver Castor canadensis Mink Mustela vision Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Racoon Procyon lotor Skunk Mephitis mephitis APPENDIX 4 Workshop Agenda

1) August 17, 1994 Tour of Sawguin Creek Marsh channels - constructed in 19n., We will ferry people over to the Sawguin Marsh channels bymotor boat. Groups of three will travel through the channels by canoe.

2) 9:00-14:00, August 18, 1994. Napanee Region Conservation Authority Office. Workshop On the Creation of Channels and Ponds Within Cattail Marshes on the Bay of Quinte.

Introduction Importance and history of coastal wetlands in the Bay of Quinte. RAP goals and project objectives.

Literature review of the impacts to wildlife of channel creation. A summary of experiences with channel creation elsewhere.

Field evaluation of created channels in the Quinte area Fish and wildlife studies done on wetland enhancement projects in 1994. Review of plants and animals observed during the tour on August 17.

Discussion about the pros and cons of managing Quinte wetlands.

Straw-man proposal Develop a design for a new channel/pond complex to be created in a dense stand of cattails. ,~., 'J,