Lessons Learned from Two Years of Detailed Wetland Monitoring at Highway Borrows Outline Amy Mclenaghan, Bsc., P.Biol., L.A.T

Home , Environmental monitoring

Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring - Lessons Learned from Two Years of Detailed Wetland Monitoring at Highway Borrows Outline Amy McLenaghan, BSc., P.Biol., L.A.T. Biologist at Tetra Tech EBA Inc. • Project History • Data Management • Design Standards • Parameters • Vegetation • Soil • Wildlife

Brian Adeney, P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineer at Tetra Tech EBA Inc. • Parameters • Hydrological Function • Water Quality • Invertebrates • Fish • Conclusions • Recommendations

2 Project Environmental Considerations

• Wetland Monitoring

• Fish and Fish Habitat Monitoring • Fish habitat compensation works

• Rare Plants and Weeds

• Reclamation

• Wildlife Movement Study • Animal-vehicle collision study • Caribou Protection Plan

• Data Management

3 Task Manager: 500+ tasks are managed

Task Manager: 500+ tasks are managed

4 Database initiates and records communications with Task Leads Database updates Web Map. Web Map is linked to SharePoint Wetland Borrow Monitoring • 2012 Tetra Tech EBA Development of Wetland Monitoring Plan – First year of monitoring (2012) to develop baseline data – Second year of monitoring (2013) – data collection • Objectives: – Monitor wetland borrows to determine how they function in relation to nearby naturally occurring wetlands; – Compare the success rates of old and new wetland borrow design standards; – Recommend mitigative measures to rectify any deficiencies, as needed. • Results to be utilized in continued development of AT’s internal wetland policy

7 Wetland Borrow Monitoring

• Four types of monitored wetlands:

1. Old borrow; old design standard 2. New borrow; old design standard 3. New borrow; new design standard 4. Reference wetlands

8 Old Design Standard

9 Old Design Standard

10 Source: Google Earth New Design Standard

Littoral Littoral Upland Deep Zone Island Zone Zone

Lake Bottom

11 New Design Standard

12 Monitoring Program

• 2012 – 8 new borrows with old design (7 years old) – 2 old borrows with old design (>40 years old) – 2 new borrows with new design (built in 2012) – 2 reference wetlands (open water wetlands)

• 2013 – Removed: • 2 new borrows with old design (sold as SWMF) – Added: • 2 new borrows with old design (new locations built in 2013) • 1 additional reference wetland (open water bog)

• 2014 - Up to 10 new borrows to be added 13

Locations of Monitored Wetlands

14 Before Work Begins...

We gather our strength to monitor the following parameters:

15 Monitored Parameters

• Vegetation • Soils • Wildlife • Hydrological Function • Water Quality • Aquatic Invertebrates • Fish

16 Wetland Borrow 11 – Open Water Bog

This wetland appears as an anomaly throughout the data since it’s been constructed as an open water bog. All other wetland borrows are designed to mimic open water wetlands. 17 Vegetation

– 1 m x 1 m permanent plots – Aquatic, Riparian and Upland species richness – Proportion of exotic species (invasive species and weeds) – Proportion of wetland indicator species

• Are wetland borrow vegetation communities functional/comparable to reference wetlands?

• How is vegetation changing over time? What environmental conditions might effect change?

18 Vegetation

DESIGN OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD NEW NEW OLD OLD

Observed Plant Species Richness 2012 - 2013

19 Vegetation

DESIGN OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD NEW NEW OLD OLD Proportion of Exotic Plant Species Relative to Observed Species Richness 2012-2013

20 Vegetation

DESIGN OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD NEW NEW OLD OLD Proportion of Wetland Indicator Plant Species Relative to Observed Species Richness 2012-2013

21 Soil

- 30 cm excavations in aquatic, riparian, and upland zones

• Topsoil depth • Depth to water • Colour • Texture

- Some indications of gleying were noted. - Erosion was noted on side banks in older borrows.

• Are soils indicative of constructed wetland conditions? 22 Wildlife

– Sound recorders • Birds • Bats • Amphibians

– Sound recorder data will be analyzed every third year

– Incidental observations • Species classified into wetland indicator statuses

• Do the wetland borrows support wetland- dependent wildlife species?

23 Wildlife

Table: Results of Incidental Wildlife Observations in 2013 Number of Wetland # Observed Species Wetland % Wetland Richness Indicators Indicators R01 13 5 38 R02 8 5 63 R03 4 2 50 B01 8 4 50 B02 5 3 60 B03 3 2 67 B04 2 2 100 B05 2 1 50 B06 4 3 75 B09 6 4 67 B10 4 4 100 B11 5 4 80 B12 9 7 78 B13 5 2 40 B14 7 4 57

24 Conclusions: Vegetation, Soil, and Wildlife – Plant species richness was within ranges R1-R2 at four wetland borrows, and within R3 at nine others. It was below range at three borrows. – For wetland borrows, the proportion of exotic plant species relative to observed species richness was between 0% and18%. This is greater than the comparable ratio from the reference wetlands. – There is no clear difference between the proportion of wetland indicator plant species relative to observed species richness. – Soil may not be a useful indicator of constructed wetland conditions, due to the temporal requirements for soil development. – All wetland borrows show signs of wildlife use. Species richness ranged from 2 to 13. Wetland indicator species ranged from 38% to 100%. 25

Highway 63 Wetland Borrow Monitoring – Continued

26 Hydrological Function

– Staff gauges (2012 and 2013) – Level loggers (2013) – Determine water levels and range of fluctuations with precipitation data – Drainage flows (inlets/outlets) and connections between wetlands

• Are water levels changing over time?

• Have the wetland borrows reached equilibrium?

• Are the water level changes we see in the borrows comparable to those in the reference

wetlands? 27

Hydrological Function

100.3

DESIGN

100.1 B01 OLD B02 OLD B04 100 m OLD 99.9 B12 NEW B14 OLD 99.7 R01

R02

R03 99.5

Water Elevation vs. BM vs. @ Elevation Water 99.3 31-May 7-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 5-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 2-Aug 9-Aug 16-Aug 23-Aug 30-Aug 6-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct

Date (2013) Level Logger Readings

28 Water Quality

– Sampling at inlet and at middle of wetland

– Water field data • Temp., pH, EC, DO

– Laboratory analysis • Total metals, TOC routine chemistry, nutrients (2 events)

• Is water quality being affected by external sources?

• Is water quality changing over time?

29 Water Quality

• NO3-N, P, Iron, Aluminum above CCME

– Eutrophication (P) – Groundwater influences (Fe, Al, Cu)

• Cadmium, Mercury, heavy metals

– Road runoff input – Other non-natural influences (unknown)

30 Aquatic Invertebrates

– Sediment sampling to capture benthic invertebrates

– Net sweep sampling to capture water column invertebrates

– Four 1 m transects: • one set at shoreline; and • one set in centre of wetland.

• Is a diverse community of aquatic invertebrates supported? 31

Aquatic Invertebrates

Reference Borrow wetlands wetlands

Total abundance of aquatic invertebrates collected at all sites during summer 2013 sampling period (20 species) 32 Fish

– Two minnow traps at each wetland • Deployed for ~12 hours • Flow entry points noted

– Captured fish identified, counted, measured, released

– Compare data between years to determine whether overwintering is likely to occur

• Is fish habitat supported?

• Is overwintering/successful breeding occurring?

33 Fish

Source: Google Pictures 34 Fish Table: Fish Captures / Observations Wetland Borrow 2012 2013 White Sucker White Sucker B01 Finescale Dace Finescale Dace Brook Stickleback Brook Stickleback B03 - Brook Stickleback Brook Stickleback B04 Brook Stickleback (observed) Brook Stickleback Brook Stickleback B06 Finescale Dace Finescale Dace Fathead Minnow

• All captures occurred at 2007 borrows with old design. • Overwintering suspected to occur at B01, B04, and B06 (same species caught/observed). • Some connectivity between wetlands in spring.

35 Conclusions: Hydrological function, water quality, invertebrates, and fish

– Range of water levels is 0.1 to 0.3 m over the year, similar with most borrow wetlands and reference sites

– Important role of water depth variability/edge effects

– Most mature wetlands showing signs of eutrophication

– Groundwater signature (Fe, CA, Al, etc.) showing in many wetlands

– Some influence of road runoff if within catchment area

– Need to understand if wetland will be groundwater and/or surface water fed

Conclusions (cont.) Hydrological function, water quality, invertebrates, and fish

– Variation of substrate species in sediments and water column (20 found)

– Overall abundance of substrate in newer wetland borrows increased from 2012 to 2013

– Fish found in four wetlands (none originally)

– Overwintering suspected in at least two wetland borrows where similar species found in both years

– Some connection between wetland borrows possible in spring

Looking forward…

• Detailed comparative / trend analyses – To start when three years of data are available

• Determine initial success criteria after three years

• Determine whether borrows have either met these criteria or are on a trajectory towards meeting them – Evaluate need to continue monitoring individual wetlands and if so, what the monitoring intensity will be

• Will continue to add new wetland borrows to the program as they are developed

• Work with AT towards the development of design standards

• Share results with others to enhance understanding 38

Questions?