Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat BUI Overview

Top recommendations for delisting:

1. Develop sub-criteria (particularly for wetland and aquatic/ riparian delisting criteria)
2. Quantify F & W restoration to date
3. Take action to improve existing habitats
4. Develop a habitat management plan

Why was this BUI originally listed as impaired?

• Significant physical loss of wetlands due to industrial growth, urban development and dredging activities;
• Loss of littoral (nearshore) habitat;
• Water quality degradation in the Detroit River proper was noted as a concern but not properly documented at the time.

This BUI will be considered to be ‘not impaired’ when…. 

Coastal wetlands: Protect existing coastal wetland habitat and restore wetland function in priority areas of the AOC and its watershed (as identified in the 2007 Detroit River AOC Canadian Priority Habitat Sites and the 2002 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy).

Aquatic & riparian habitat: Protect existing deep water, coastal spawning, and tributary fish and aquatic wildlife habitat and restore ecosystem function in priority areas in, and hydrologically connected to, the Detroit River.

Shoreline softening: Develop and begin to implement a shoreline management strategy to soften and naturalize Detroit River Canadian shoreline, whenever opportunities arise.

Terrestrial habitat: Protect existing natural terrestrial corridors and restore ecosystem function between the Detroit River and the Ojibway Prairie Complex, the LaSalle Candidate Natural Heritage sites, and other major identified habitat sites (as identified in the 2007 Detroit River AOC Canadian Priority Habitat Sites and the 2002 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy).

What do we know?

Coastal wetlands

• 2013 ERNHSS: Total wetland habitat in watersheds = 1,246.9 ha (2.3% of entire Detroit River watershed)
  • Turkey Creek: 50.6 ha (0.8% of total sub-watershed)
  • Little River: 24.3 ha (0.4% of total sub-watershed)
  • Canard River: 361.7 ha (1.1% of total sub-watershed)
  • Detroit River: 810.3 ha (9.6% of total sub-watershed. Note: this sub-watershed includes the AOC itself)
• 2014 ECCC report indicated wetlands area in the AOC has not changed over time – there was a small gain in wetland area of 14 ha and an increase in wetland fragmentation.
• 2018 Detroit River Shoreline Strategy shows that the coverage of wetlands in the Detroit River AOC in 2017 was 8.6km², 53.4% of historic level of coverage of 16.0 km² in 1876. Since 1970, wetland coverage has increased by 1.6 km² from 7.0 km². While changes in mapping of Provincially Significant Wetlands may account for part of the increase in coastal wetland coverage, it appears that the trend of coastal wetland loss in the AOC has been reversed over the last 35+ years.. Further, coastal wetland loss may have been highest during low Great Lakes water levels in the 1960’s, prior to any Provincial Policies protecting wetlands (1992).

Coastal wetland quality:

• The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) monitors the condition of five coastal wetland sites in the Detroit River AOC by assessing water quality, marsh birds, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities.
• Water quality in Detroit River AOC coastal wetlands has generally been “good”, with the exception of the Canard River Marsh, which is highly turbid. The annual average Water Quality Index score for Detroit River AOC coastal wetlands improved from 2012-2015, and has remained relatively stable since.
• SAV Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for coastal wetlands were considered “good” from 2011-2018.
• Aquatic macroinvertebrate IBI scores for coastal wetlands ranged from the low end of “good” to “very good” from 2011-2018. There was a notable increase in the average IBI score from 2017 to 2018 (40.2 to 58.7), which can be attributed to Turkey Creek Marsh scoring significantly better in 2018.
• Marsh bird IBI scores for coastal wetlands varied between “poor” and “fair” in 2018, but they were generally on the high end of “poor”. There was a decline in the mean marsh bird IBI score over a four-year period from 2013 to 2016; however, scores improved from the low end of “poor” in 2016 to the high end of “poor” in 2017. The mean IBI score in the Detroit River AOC remained relatively stable in 2018 compared to 2017.
• 2019 – Water quality, SAV, and aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at one site in 2019 (Collavino Marsh). The WQI score for Collavino Marsh indicated water quality was “very degraded”, whereas the IBI scores indicated that the SAV and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities were in “fair” condition. Restoration actions are currently being implemented at Collavino Marsh to enhance habitat quality, promote the growth of native vegetation, and reduce the extent of invasive Common Reed (Phragmites australis). These results (in addition to the marsh bird survey results) will serve as baseline data that characterize the pre-restoration condition of the marsh.
• 2019 – Marsh breeding bird surveys were conducted at five Detroit River AOC coastal wetlands in 2019, four of which were not previously surveyed as part of this program (including Collavino Marsh). Marsh bird IBI scores ranged from “poor” to “fair”. The sites that scored “poor” (Fighting Island Marsh and Turkey Island Marsh) were situated offshore and had relatively little marsh habitat. Sites that scored “fair” (Collavino Marsh, M.M.M. Hunt Club Marsh, and Canard River Marsh) contained larger patches of emergent vegetation that supported a greater number of marsh nesting species.
• One possible explanation for the poor condition of marsh bird communities is that wetlands in the Detroit River AOC are too small to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community of marsh nesting birds. CWS conducted a preliminary analysis to determine whether wetland size was impacting marsh bird communities in Detroit River AOC wetlands. Results indicated that larger wetlands generally had better marsh bird community condition than smaller wetlands across the lower Great Lakes (Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and the Huron-Erie Corridor), but Detroit River AOC wetlands had lower richness of marsh nesters, lower richness area-sensitive marsh nesting obligates, and a lower percentage of emergent marsh nesting obligates than expected given their size. These preliminary findings suggest that individual wetland size does not explain poor marsh bird community condition among these Detroit River AOC sites.
• Quality, not quantity, explains the poor marsh bird community condition. Most of the wetlands within the Detroit River marshes are dominated by Phragmites, which significantly decreases habitat quality for marsh nesting birds.
• Based on boat electrofishing data (Midwood et al) , no differences in fish IBI scores were found between IBI scores at DR sites (68.3 ± 14.8) and comparable sites in the Walpole Island Delta (66.5 ± 11.5). In addition to IBI scores, fish community data within the DR have generally high species richness in both DR (49 species) and multiple species at risk.

Aquatic and riparian habitat

• The 2007 priority habitat report identified 18 potential sites (mostly terrestrial) for habitat restoration. This list was provided by the DRCC to the Habitat WG. Some of these sites have been restored to date, but others remain. The vast majority of lands identified for restoration are privately owned. This has been the main impediment to restoration implementation as private landowners will not voluntarily undertake habitat restoration. Therefore, land acquisition is necessary for effective implementation, however this is cost prohibitive.
• 2012 study by Bruce Manny showed that only 2.7% of the entire Huron-Erie Corridor possesses the necessary combination of water velocity and depth conducive to spawning habitat restoration which informed reef construction.
• 2015 OMNR report assessing potential fish habitat restoration project sites.
• 2016 study by Landmark Engineering assessed feasibility of seven (7) separate potential aquatic habitat creation sites along the Detroit River; specifically, two (2) at Peche Island, three (3) at Fighting Island, one (1) at Boblo Island, and one (1) at the Old Boblo Dock in Amherstburg. These projects are feasible to build habitat, but most are located on private property and require large amounts of funding and permitting.
• 2020 report by DFO indicated that in contrast to statements in the Detroit River Stage 1 RAP Report which expressed concern about the fish community changing to a more benthivorous structure, there is no evidence of substantial benthification of the fish community in the Detroit River across the study period. The catch of all fishes increased over time, suggestive of improvements to habitat or changes in fish community structure, with non-benthic fishes increasing at twice the rate of benthic fishes.

Shoreline

• 2012 Detroit River Shoreline assessment revealed the primary land uses along the river as: Commercial (5%), Park (19%), Natural (21%), Industrial (12%), Residential (38%), Other (5%).  The most common type of shoreline structure encountered in the Detroit River Shoreline Assessment study was the retaining wall, which covered approximately 40 km (42%) of the total Detroit River structural shoreline. Revetment was the next most common structure, accounting for approximately 15 km (16%) of the entire structural shoreline length. Rubble and armoured dikes were also present at 6% and 4%, respectively, of the entire structural shoreline length. Unprotected and natural shoreline was recorded along 22 km (23%) and 7 km (8%) of the shore, respectively, while unclassified shoreline only accounts for 1% (<0.5 km).
• 2012 LEBCS establishes soft shoreline habitat quality targets for the Lake Erie connecting channels (Detroit River, St Clair River, and Upper Niagara River), which are recommended to provide critical habitat for the full diversity of native species. These targets are:
  • Less than 60% soft shoreline = poor quality
  • 60%-70% soft shoreline = fair quality
  • 70-80% soft shoreline = good quality
  • Greater than 80% soft shoreline = very good quality
• 2016 Shore Restoration Manual published to promote restoration and softening options available.
• As of 2017, 39% of the shoreline was identified as ‘hard’, according to the Detroit River Shoreline Management Strategy. The 61% soft shoreline places it just inside the LEBCS ‘fair’ category and while not necessary to achieve the delisting criteria, to reach a ‘good’ rating, an additional 5.04km of shoreline would need to be softened. To reach a ‘very good’ rating, an additional 10.96km needs to be ‘softened’ along the length of the river.
• 2018 the Detroit River Shoreline Management Strategy was completed and described the shoreline to identify and prioritize target habitat sites for protection, restoration, or enhancement; and develop a list of short- and long-term habitat goals (projects). 14 shoreline softening/enhancement projects have been undertaken through the RAP.

Terrestrial

• ERNHSS 2013 – 3,674.4 ha of forest and other terrestrial within the Detroit River AOC watershed.
  • Turkey Creek: 836.0 ha (13.67% of total sub-watershed)
  • Little River: 127.7 ha (1.97% of total sub-watershed)
  • Canard River: 2,247.9 ha (6.56% of total sub-watershed)
  • Detroit River: 462.8 ha (5.5% of total sub-watershed)

What has been done?

Coastal wetlands

Strategies and Tools

• Since 2007 – CWS Coastal Wetland Monitoring.
• 2019 – Evaluation of wetland size as limiting factor for marsh bird IBI scores.
• 2019/20 Calibrating IBIs to Local Conditions –  Jan has been working to compile existing IBI data for the Detroit River AOC and calibrate the IBI scores against stressor data to provide locally-relevant criteria for designating the condition of local wetlands and coastal habitats. This information will lead to quantitative delisting criteria for BUIs #3, #11, and #14.

 Projects/Actions

• Early 1990s – The Ruwe Marsh (now known as M.M.M Hunt Club Marsh) Restoration Project was carried out over a span of six months with the goal to repair an existing finger dike structure in an effort to protect existing habitat in an ecologically important area of the Detroit River.
• 1998 Turkey Creek Channel Improvements – Removed contaminated sediments from Turkey Creek and reconnected wetland to improve 3.5 km of aquatic habitat.
• 1999 Canard Marsh Improvements and Turkey Island Enhancement – The project included stabilizing and repairing dyke walls around the south wetland cell and south finger dyke, resulting in the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat in the provincially significant wetland. In addition, the development of a Habitat Management Plan for Turkey Island was initiated.
• 2019 Collavino wetland restoration – The wetland is located at the mouth of the Canard River. Pumping infrastructure was installed at the 75-acre wetland to allow for the control of water levels within the wetland. ERCA has created a management plan for the wetland and plans to implement the management plan in summer 2020.
• Various years – The Town of LaSalle, City of Windsor and the Town of Amherstburg included the protection of wetlands and other natural areas in their municipal plans. Municipalities have implemented policies from the province of Ontario (the Provincial Policy Statement or PPS) which mandates that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands. Municipalities have received updated Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) boundary information from Land Information Ontario (LIO) and have incorporated appropriate policies, land use designations and zonings within local municipal Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws, prohibiting development within PSWs.

Aquatic and riparian habitat

Strategies and Tools

• 2003 – present Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) and Essex Region Natural Heritage System Strategy (ERNHSS) Implementation –  The purpose of the BCS and ERNHSS studies was to produce a spatial database of all natural areas in the Essex region and conduct an analysis of the terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitats to identify the extent of existing natural vegetation. This was then used to facilitate prioritization of opportunities for habitat rehabilitation and enhancement.
• 2015 MNRF Fish Sampling – In summer 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) collected fish and habitat data from 22 sites on the Detroit River. The sites targeted for survey were based on those prioritized by the members of the Detroit River Canadian Clean-Up (DRCC) working group. Of the 22 sites, 20 were identified in a then Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) survey report in 1993 and 2 were chosen based on proprietary access. The goal of the survey was to collect current baseline data on fish community compositions and habitat to assess the potential for rehabilitation.
• 2015 Detroit River Canadian Priority Habitat Restoration Site Matrix – The purpose of the matrix was to refine best available sites (integrating habitat types noted in the delisting criteria) for restoration using GIS data and other available information (public lands, shoreline assessment, MNR Rehabilitation Plan 1993, 2013 Essex Region Natural Heritage System Strategy, etc.).  Each site was assessed using the variables identified in the matrix and ranked with a score based on answers to habitat-specific questions. Once sites are identified and ranked, the Work Group can prioritize restoration needs for the AOC and begin preparing a Habitat Delisting Plan.     
• 2018/19 DFO HEAT model – Tool developed to evaluate effect of projects on fish habitat (e.g., gain or loss of habitat). HEAT will be used to determine the relative changes to habitat from restoration projects in the Detroit River.
• 2018/19 DFO habitat suitability models – Maps of potential habitat for temperature guilds (cold, cool, warm) by age guilds (adult, nursery, spawning), total system estimate in m² based on current state of layers.
• 2019/20 DFO SAV model – Development of random forest models for SAV presence and percent cover. The final SAV presence and percent cover models include all three available environmental parameters: depth, velocity, and effective fetch. This model will be used as an input into the habitat suitability model.

 Projects/Actions

Deepwater

• 2008 Lake Sturgeon Habitat Restoration at Fighting Island and 2013 Expansion of the Fighting Island Fish Spawning Reef – As part of this project, a total of 2.1 acres (0.89 acres in 2008 and 1.2 acres in 2013) of aquatic, deep water habitat was restored on the northeast tip of Fighting Island in the Detroit River. The first stage of the project (2008) constructed a boulder field and 12 individual reefs made up of four different rock types. The expansion phase of this project (2013) constructed one reef bed made up of one type of stone (6-12 inch limestone).
• 2012 Canard River Park Shoreline Restoration – created a deep water pool to further improve fish habitat.

 Coastal Spawning

• 2003/4 McKee Park – A submerged reef was placed offshore for spawning by lake sturgeon and other fish species. Sheltering islands provide a low energy area sheltered from waves and boat wakes for fish to rest and feed. Sand and rounded stone (cobble) placed around these islands provide a living space for aquatic invertebrates (bugs) that in turn provide food for fish. A sand shoreline of sand and cobble (rounded stones) were added to provide a recreational feature as well as a place for fish, in particular young Lake Sturgeon to rest and feed.
• 2004 Fort Malden – A variety of substrate sizes was incorporated and two submerged, offshore spawning shoals were constructed to provide habitat for lake sturgeon and other fish species.
• 2010 LaSalle Riverfront Park – Completed in 2010, the rehabilitation work featured restoration of 550 metres of shoreline into an undulating shoreline, incorporating a variety of rock types and sizes, as well as a large offshore sheltering island.
• 2013 Lafarge Inc. – The work included placement of rock clusters as well as other fish habitat features in water.
• 2015 Mill Street Waterfront Improvements – Root wads were submerged in the calm water of the harbour to provide habitat for fish and an area for turtles to bask.
• 2020 Peche Island – Sheltering islands are being built on the north side of Peche Island to create a 105,000 m² backwater area for fish to spawn and SAV to establish.

 Tributary

• 2003 Upper Canard River Low Flow Augmentation Project – A large water detention facility was constructed on private land to capture and store flows during periods of high rainfall for slow release during the summer low-flow period to benefit downstream fish populations.
• 2012 Canard River Park Shoreline Restoration –  The project utilizes a variety of soft shoreline techniques including a diversity of stone types, shapes and sizes to create small spaces for fish eggs and invertebrates, increasing the overall shoreline length (by changing its shape) and creating a deep water pool to further improve fish habitat.

Shoreline

Tools and Strategies

• 2012 Detroit River Shoreline Assessment – As part of the Shoreline Assessment Project, each property along the Canadian side of the Detroit River was visited and details related to the sites’ biological and structural characteristics (e.g., natural, sheet steel wall, etc.) were collected. This information was analyzed and mapped to identify and prioritize areas for shoreline restoration or enhancement.
• 2014 Restoration Alternatives Selection Manual – A manual was created to guide shoreline restoration efforts for private landowners working within the Detroit River AOC, and to assist the DRCC partnership in determining the suitability of various sites for implementing fish habitat enhancement works. The manual describes the various options for shoreline restoration that are possible along the Canadian side of the Detroit River for different project types. As well, it offers an easy-to-follow decision making matrix to help guide landowners, contractors, and the technical staff of various approving agencies to choose the best shoreline solution for a given site, based on common site characteristics.
• 2018 Detroit River Shoreline Management Strategy – The purpose of this document is to guide efforts in order to re-designate the Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat BUI by using existing resources and recent information to identify and prioritize target habitat sites for protection, restoration, or enhancement; and developing a list of short- and long-term habitat goals (projects).

Projects/Actions

To date, we have completed 14 shoreline softening/enhancement projects on the Detroit River. See below for more details about the specific projects.

¹ This project took place on the Canard River, a tributary of the Detroit River.

Terrestrial

Tools and Strategies

• 2001-2012 Detroit River-Canard River Corridor Stewardship Program (through ECSN) – The Essex County Stewardship Network (ECSN), through the Detroit River/Canard River Corridor Stewardship Initiative, continued to assist with the de-listing of the Detroit River AOC by improving water quality/quantity and natural habitats along the main tributaries of the Detroit River (Canard River, Turkey Creek and Little River). The ECSN is working with willing landowners and partner agencies to increase natural habitat linkages, enhance fish and wildlife habitats and populations by reducing fragmentation, rehabilitating existing areas and creating new habitats.
• 2013 ERNHSS – ERNHSS provided a prioritization of the natural heritage system, both from the standpoint of identifying high priority core natural heritage features for stewardship and securement as well as identify high priority restoration opportunities which will maximize ecological benefits. Note: Identification of natural heritage features through Candidate Natural Heritage Site Inventories only ensures that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is triggered when a development application is made on or adjacent to the feature. These inventories do not really provide hard and fast protection for sites.
• 2007 Habitat Priority Report – The purpose of the report is to update existing information about priority habitat sites in the Detroit River Area of Concern in order to guide future habitat-related actions. It is hoped that by drawing attention to these significant habitats, future efforts can be focused on protecting, restoring, and/or acquiring them.

Projects/Actions

• 1999 Twin Oaks Business Park Improvements – In 1999, 1,800 trees and shrubs were planted in the Twin Oaks area
• 2000 to present – 438 hectares of tree planting and wetland restoration has occurred on private property in the Detroit River watershed through ERCA since 2000
• 122 Community and school tree plantings (area to be quantified in 2020 GIS analysis)
  • Largest site includes Earth Day site at Florence and Wyandotte St in Little River watershed
• 2002 Brunet Park Restoration – The 2002 restoration project consisted of re-establishing a dominant oak savannah community in an area that was previously maintained as turf grass.
• 2003 E.C. Row and Lauzon Parkway Cloverleaf Naturalization Project – In a partnership between the Little River Enhancement Group and Ford C.A.W. Environment Committee a portion of forest in the Little River watershed near the E.C. Row Expressway and Lauzon Parkway was restored to help improve water and habitat quality.
• 2019/20 – Progress has been made on a land swap between the City of Windsor and the Port Authority. Should the land swap proceed, the City of Windsor will own the Ojibway Shores property, effectively connecting the protected Ojibway Shores properties to the river. 
• City of Windsor changed zoning of a 40-acre section of Black Oak area to Park.

What still needs to happen?

 Coastal Wetlands

• Improve wetland quality for marsh birds through management, including Phragmites removal and other habitat enhancements for marsh birds. Phragmites control through the release of the upcoming biocontrol should result in significantly improved wetland habitat for all wetland species including nesting marsh birds. Without a healthy (native species dominated), diverse ecosystem, nesting boxes or structures are unlikely to produce healthy marsh bird populations.
• Consider placing ARUs in wetlands not monitored and/or selected for potential restoration
• Develop and complete Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Plan. These types of plans are typically completed at the site level not landscape level. It is important that the plans establish who they will be implemented by and that what they prescribe is carefully considered.
• Need to establish thresholds in IBIs based on Jan’s work to help support delisting criteria and incorporate into sub-criteria

 Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

• Need to determine sub-criteria for wetlands and riparian/aquatic delisting criteria to enable evaluation of delisting criteria
• Develop sub-criteria/definitions of habitats and use models to determine needs.
• Complete construction of Peche Island habitat project
• Need to apply DFO habitat models to examine which deep water, spawning, and tributary fish habitats are critical in the river and their extent in the DR AOC to prioritize effort and resources. Habitat types will also need to be defined.

 Shoreline

• No further actions required.

 Terrestrial

• Need for updated ERHNSS data on terrestrial coverage, corridors to key habitats as identified in the delisting criteria and gaps, if any.
• As part of the NHS update, include wetland coverage as well as summary of habitat restoration projects completed to support fish and wildlife habitat BUI and tally.
• Finalize land swap for Ojibway Shores

When is the status expected to change?

• Assessment report completed in 2023
• Re-designation in 2024

Who will conduct peer review?

• Canadian Wildlife Service
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• MI EGLE

The bi-national connection: What is the U.S. doing?

• The U.S. developed a document titled “Targets for removal of the Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat and Degradation of Fish & Wildlife Populations beneficial use impairments of the Detroit River Area of Concern”. The purpose of this report is to outline the criteria for the removal of the Loss of Fish and Wildlife BUI and the Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations BUI from the AOC. The criteria allow for protection and restoration of the fish and wildlife habitat in the AOC and clearly define an end point for removing the Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Population BUIs.
• The report identified 14 projects that were required to be completed for BUI removal. To date, 8/14 projects have been completed or are in progress, leaving 6 projects remaining. These projects and their status are outlined below:

1. Detroit River Reefs
2. Detroit Upper Riverfront Parks Restoration
3. Belle Isle Hydrologic Analysis, Feasibility and Pre-Design
4. Belle Isle Forested Wetland Restoration
5. Milliken State Park Pocket Marsh with River Connection
6. Hennepin Marsh Restoration
7. Celeron Island Restoration and Shoal Construction – expected completion December 2020
8. Lake Okonoka Restoration with River Connection and Shoreline Restoration – Completed 2019
9. Stony Island Shoal Reconstruction – Completed 2018
10. Sugar Island Restoration – Completed 2018
11. Blue Heron Lagoon Restoration – Completed 2013
12. South Fishing Pier Restoration – Completed 2013
13. U. S. Steel Shoreline Restoration – Completed 2013
14. Shoreline Restoration at Wayne County’s Refuge Gateway – Completed 2012

Where can I learn more? 

Detroit River Canadian Remedial Action Plan: Stage 2 Report (2010): pages 68-76.