waterfowl and wetlands of the lake st clair region

Transcription

WATERFOWL AND WETLANDS
OF THE LAKE ST CLAIR REGION:
PRESENT CONDITIONS AND FUTURE OPTIONS
FOR RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION
Prepared by
K. H. A. Weaver, S. A. Petrie, S. E. Richman, M. D. Palumbo, M. E. Dyson, P.
Brisco, and T. S. Barney
Long Point Waterfowl, P.O. Box 160, Port Rowan, Ontario, N0E 1M0
Waterfowl and Wetlands of the Lake St. Clair Region: Present Conditions
and Future Options for Research and Conservation
Katelyn H. A. Weaver
Long Point Waterfowl
Scott A. Petrie
Long Point Waterfowl1
Department of Biology, Western University2
Samantha E. Richman
Matthew D. Palumbo
Matthew E. Dyson
Paul Brisco
Corland Realty Incorporated Brokerage
Ted S. Barney
1
Port Rowan, ON, Canada
N0E 1M0
2
Western University
London, ON, Canada
N6A 5B7
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Mission and Objectives of Long Point Waterfowl
Purpose of this Document
Lower Great Lakes by the Numbers
2
4
5
6
7
CHAPTER 1: Introduction to the Lake St. Clair Region
History of Lake St. Clair
Waterfowling Heritage at Lake St. Clair
10
12
CHAPTER 2: Wetlands of Lake St. Clair
Historic Wetland Loss and Current Extent
Wetland Profiles at Lake St. Clair
Upland
Swamp
Marsh
Open Water
Practice of Diking Wetlands
Lake St. Clair – Extent of Wetland Systems
Mitchell’s Bay to the Thames River
St. Clair National Wildlife Area
Detroit River
Grosse Pointe to Clinton River
Anchor Bay
St. Clair River Delta – Extent of Wetland Systems
St. Clair River Delta in the Early 1980s
Bouvier Bay
Dickinson Island
Harsens Island
Basset Island
Squirrel Island
Walpole Island
St. Anne Island
Mitchell’s Bay
St. Clair River Delta 21st Century Conditions
Wetland Biodiversity as it Relates to Waterfowl
Waterfowl Aquatic Foods
Plants
Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic Birds
Lower Detroit River Important Bird Area
Eastern Lake St. Clair Important Bird Area
16
21
22
23
24
25
27
30
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
36
37
38
38
40
41
42
42
2
CHAPTER 3: Waterfowl of Lake St. Clair
Migratory Crossroads
Waterfowl Distribution and Abundance on Lake St. Clair
Winter Waterfowl Surveys
Distribution Maps
Banding and Recovery Maps
Swans
Geese
Dabbling Ducks
Banding and Recovery Data for Dabbling Ducks
Diving Ducks
Bay Ducks
Sea Ducks
Banding and Recovery Data for Diving and Sea Ducks
Summary of Winter Waterfowl Surveys
Long Point Waterfowl Research Highlights at Lake St. Clair
Tracking Tundra Swans
Tracking Mallards
Lesser Scaup Migration Movements
44
48
48
48
49
52
56
59
62
67
67
70
72
77
78
79
82
85
CHAPTER 4: Threats, Conservation and Research Priorities
Invasive Species
Phragmites
Dreissenid Mussels
Mute Swan
Land Use Change
Wetland Loss and Degradation
Agricultural Practices at Lake St. Clair
Industrial Development and Contaminants
Contamination with Respect to Wildlife
Alternative Energy Development
Future Conservation Efforts and Research Recommendations
88
89
92
95
98
102
105
108
110
115
122
LITERATURE CITED
124
APPENDIX
Supplementary Table 1. Order, common name, scientific name, and conservation
status of all plants listed in the document
status of all animals listed in the document
131
3
133
Acknowledgements
The Waterfowl and Wetlands of the Lake St. Clair Region: present conditions and future
options for research and conservation document was developed as part of Long Point
Waterfowl’s initiative to bring greater focus to waterfowl and wetlands in the Lake St. Clair
region. We would like to gratefully acknowledge Wildlife Habitat Canada, TD Friends of the
Environment Foundation, and Bill Parfet for providing funding for this document.
The following people and organizations have contributed to this document by providing
knowledge, data, or review: Alan Afton, Shannon Badzinski, Paul Brown, Rob Buchanan,
Darrell Dennis, Craig Ely, Taylor Finger, Janice Gilbert, Wayne Gulden, John Haggeman,
Christie-Lee Hazzard, Jeff Kinsella, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Jason Reaume,
Chris Sharp, Brendan Shirkey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey Game Bird
Banding and Recovery Program, April White, and Kristi Wilkins. Unless stated otherwise, credit
for figure creation goes to Katelyn Weaver. A special thanks to Brendan Shirkey for providing
the kernel density maps of seasonal waterfowl movements in Chapter 3.
We would also like to thank the following contributing photographers and organizations for
providing pictures: Paul Brisco, Greg Dunn, Taylor Finger, Janice Gilbert, Mike Moynihan,
James Overstreet, Matthew Palumbo, Michael Schummer, Brendan Shirkey, Theodore Smith,
Lena Vanden Elsen, Long Point Waterfowl, Katelyn Weaver, and Philip Wilson. All pictures in
the document without photo credits are property of Long Point Waterfowl or were obtained
from Flickr open access pictures.
Finally we would like to provide thanks to the following organizations for providing access to
the GIS layers used in this document: Ducks Unlimited Canada, Great Lakes Information
Network, Michigan Technological Research Institute, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
Consortium, and all other open access layers obtained through ArcGIS.
Citation:
Weaver, K. H. A., S. A. Petrie, S. E. Richman, M. D. Palumbo, M. E. Dyson, P. Briscoe and T.
S. Barney. 2015. Waterfowl and wetlands of the Lake St. Clair region: present conditions and
future options for research and conservation. Long Point Waterfowl, unpublished report. 134
pp.
For more information about Long Point Waterfowl visit:
http://www.longpointwaterfowl.org
For more information about Wildlife Habitat Canada visit:
http://whc.org
4
Mission and Objectives
The mission of Long Point Waterfowl is to study the staging, wintering, and breeding ecology
and requirements of waterfowl on the Great Lakes. We generate information useful for
management purposes by monitoring trends in the distribution and abundance of waterfowl,
performing research on waterfowl habitats, and studying habitat requirements of other wetland
dependent wildlife as well as the impact of invasive species.
Our research, education, and outreach priorities focus on:
1. The importance of the lower Great Lakes watershed to waterfowl and other
wetland-dependent wildlife
2. Threats to habitat and wildlife of the Great Lakes through:
a. Wetland loss and degradation
b. Invasive species
c. Perceptions of wetlands
d. Environmental contaminants
By making the results of our work available to
the public and scientific community, we are a
strong voice for conservation and we make a
substantial contribution to the science of
waterfowl and wetland ecology. Long Point
Waterfowl is also committed to providing handson opportunities for young wildlife technicians,
biologists, and scientists, as well as to
increasing public awareness of the importance
of maintaining healthy wetlands and sustainable
wildlife populations.
5
Purpose of this Document
Our goal is to illustrate that Lake St.
Clair is one of the most important yet
threatened wetland complexes in the
Great Lakes. Lake St. Clair is a
shallow, highly productive lake basin
dominated by open water <10m deep
and includes one of the largest
freshwater deltas in the world.
Unfortunately, much of the landscape
© Matthew Palumbo
within the Lake St. Clair region has
been drastically altered through
wetland drainage, conversion to agricultural lands, recreational disturbance, urbanization, and
industrial development. The collection of pertinent information and data in this document
provides a foundation for identifying current conditions and information gaps important to
waterfowl and wetland habitats of the region.
By highlighting the status and conservation concerns for waterfowl and wetlands at Lake St.
Clair, Long Point Waterfowl has taken the first step in guiding future research. To further Long
Point Waterfowl’s conservation efforts, we have gathered and interpreted existing information
and datasets on waterfowl use, wetland ecology, wetland drainage, invasive species, and
agricultural trends of the Lake St. Clair region in this document. These data include telemetry
locations of Tundra Swan, Lesser Scaup and Mallard, which provide detailed movement
analysis for major waterfowl families at Lake St. Clair (Chapter 3).
By consolidating the most recent
information on the Lake St. Clair region, we
hope to increase awareness of the current
issues affecting conservation and to attract
further research and conservation efforts to
the region. As there are several other
documents that address concerns about
Lake St. Clair, our primary focus for the
document is on waterfowl (swans, geese,
and ducks) on the Canadian side of the lake
and the biological diversity of wetlands and
wetland inhabitants, with an emphasis on
some important invasive species that have
impacted the region.
© Matthew Palumbo
Swim in waterfowl trap used to capture Mallards and other
dabbling ducks for banding at Lake St. Clair.
The most significant impacts and limitations
identified were habitat loss, food availability
and invasive species. This detailed planning and assessment document and subsequent
research papers and reports will be instrumental in attracting attention to the Lake St. Clair
region. It will also aid in developing research and conservation planning strategies and support
for the region. This report will provide an encompassing educational tool for all people
interested in Lake St. Clair.
6
Lower Great Lakes Region by the Numbers
Wetland loss in the lower Great Lakes (LGL) watershed tops 4 million hectares (ha) and
remaining coastal wetlands in the LGL and connecting channels total approximately
73,153 ha.
An estimated 12.8 million waterfowl migrate through the LGL each fall.
Approximately 7.0 million waterfowl refuel in the LGL during spring migration each year.
An estimated 20,000 exotic Mute Swans consume >60,000 metric tons of vegetation from
LGL wetlands annually.
Once covering only 1 – 2% of the wetland area in the 1980s, the invasive European
Common Reed (herein Phragmites) now comprises about 10% of vegetation found in
LGL coastal wetlands.
Anthropogenic influences such as agriculture and industrial wind turbines are increasing
in presence and their impact on staging and wintering waterfowl is poorly understood.
More than 35 million people (approximately 10% of the US population and >30% of the
Canadian population) live in the LGL region.
Lake St. Clair by the Numbers
Lake St. Clair is a shallow, productive lake that is approximately 42 km long × 38 km
wide, with 210 km of shoreline. The average depth of the lake is 3 m.
Lake St. Clair accounts for 23% of the coastal wetlands that remain within the LGL.
Over 90% of wetlands in the Lake St. Clair region have been lost or severely degraded.
The St. Clair river delta covers approximately 13,642 ha and is the largest coastal
wetland complex in the Great Lakes.
Lake St. Clair supplies approximately 5 million people with fresh drinking water every
year.
Approximately 97% of the water entering Lake St. Clair comes from the St. Clair River.
Average water residence time in Lake St. Clair is 9 days but ranges from 2 – 30 days.
Commercial ships pass through Lake St. Clair’s dredged shipping channel >3,000 times a
year.
There are 201 cities, towns, and villages within 15 km of the lake, accounting for >3
million residents on the US side and >1 million on the Canadian side.
During migration, >1 million waterfowl have been estimated in peak numbers and the
area is especially important for migrating Mallards, American Black Ducks, Canada
Geese, Tundra Swans, and more than 25% of the continental populations of Canvasback
and Redhead.
7
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION TO THE LAKE ST. CLAIR REGION
© Matthew Palumbo
Lake St. Clair is the smallest lake within the Laurentian Great Lakes system. Located
between the upper and lower Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair connects Lake Huron and
Lake Erie via the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers (Figure 1.1). The lake shares international
borders between Canada and the United States of America (US), with the northwestern
one-third of the heart shaped lake in Michigan, US and the southeastern two-thirds in
Ontario, Canada. Walpole Island First Nation Reserve is included in the Canadian
portion of the lake, within the St. Clair River Delta. The islands and rivers that make up
the St. Clair River Delta are show in Figure 1.1.
Lake St. Clair is a highly productive 114,900-ha lake with a drainage basin covering
greater than 1,350,000 ha. Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River, and the head of the Detroit
River have a total shoreline of approximately 496 km. The average depth of the lake is
3.5 m with a natural maximum depth of 6.5 m. A dredged (approximately 8 m deep) 29km shipping channel extends from the mouth of the St. Clair River to the head of the
Detroit River (Figure 1.1).!
Figure 1.1 Bathymetry and geographic location of Lake St. Clair
within the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Walpole Island First Nation Reserve is located between Ontario, Canada and Michigan,
US at the mouth of the St. Clair River. The Walpole Island First Nations Reserve is
locally known as Bkejwanong, “where the waters divide” as it encompasses Walpole,
Squirrel, St. Anne, Seaway, Bassett, and Potawatomi Islands. Bkejwanong has been
occupied for thousands of years and now supports greater than 2,000 First Nations
people belonging to Ojibwa, Potawatomi, and Ottawa tribes. The Council of Three Fires
was formed in 796 AD, uniting these three tribes into one governing body for the
reserve. Walpole Island, known for its rare Ontario tall grass prairies, includes 6,900 ha
of some of the richest and most diverse wetlands in the lower Great Lakes ecosystem.
Recreation and tourism is the most important industry in the community as many
citizens of this First Nation still support their families by guiding for and participating in
hunting, fishing, and trapping.
9
History of Lake St. Clair
The Lake St. Clair region was
an important hunting and
fishing area for many First
Nations peoples. European
traders arrived by the 1600s
and began consuming natural
resources within the region.
Until the early 1800s, the land
surrounding Lake St. Clair
was primarily deciduous
forest, tall grass prairie,
extensive wetland complexes, and flooded forests. Given the regions vast natural
resources and the great abundance of game species, it attracted many settlers,
especially for the timber industry and the waterfowling resources. In fact, saw mills
constructed along the St. Clair River were the first in the Northwest Territory (historical
territory bordered by the Mississippi River, Ohio River, and the Great Lakes).
Lake St. Clair’s historic role in
transportation is tied to the timber
industry, which used ships as their
primary mode of transport.
Historically, ships would reach Lake
St. Clair from Lake Huron via the
North Channel of the St. Clair River
Delta. Once in the lake, many ships
would anchor in the appropriately
named Anchor Bay waiting for their
cargo to be unloaded. To improve
access and avoid shipping delays,
major dredging through the lake
from the Delta to the Detroit River
began in 1855. The South Channel
was dredged and established as a
major shipping channel in 1873.
With better access to the St. Clair
Delta, the agricultural industry
began to expand at the northern
end of Lake St. Clair. Hotels, hunt
clubs, and cottages were built along the South Channel shorelines on back fills and
stilts, leading to the nickname ‘Little Venice’ by many of the residents.
10
Industry booms such as ship
building, salt evaporation ponds,
and oil extraction in the 1800s also
brought significant road and
railroad development to the Lake
St. Clair region. One of the most
important developments that
spurred the expansion of rail
transportation to the region was
when the world’s first oil well was
drilled in Lambton County in 1858.
Within the US there was already a
well-developed rail system with
over 200 lines supporting the
major population centers by the
early 1830s. The first rail line in
Canada, the Great Western
Railway, opened from Hamilton to London on December 31, 1853, was connected to
Detroit by June 1854, and was linked with the New York Central
© Barry Lewis
Railway by 1855. The development of the rail system was important to
the region because the degree of hunting and market shooting in the
lake was limited by transportation to markets in Windsor, Detroit, Chicago, and New
York City. Thus, the development of rail lines in the mid-1800s allowed for greater
access to the resources of the region, such as an increased development of significant
waterfowling clubs in the late 1800s.
Major industry development occurring throughout the 1800s and early 1900s was paired
with the sanction and promotion of wetland drainage by the US and Canadian
governments resulting in many changes to the natural habitats of Lake St. Clair. During
this time, landscapes changed from primarily prairie, wetland, and forest habitats to a
rural agricultural landscape. Wetlands along the South Channel were drained, diked,
and converted to agriculture, with approximately half of Harsens Island diked by the late
1800s. Residential and commercial development began to grow in the 1900s in areas
with access to water for transportation and power. Urbanization was particularly strong
in the US and by the mid-1970s most of the lake’s US shorelines were developed as
homes and businesses. The Canadian side of Lake St. Clair remained almost entirely
focused on agricultural development.
11
Waterfowling Heritage at Lake St. Clair
As a shallow water lake with extensive coastal and inland wetlands, Lake St. Clair is
critical to waterfowl for nesting and staging. Historically, the southeastern shoreline of
Lake St. Clair was almost entirely marsh and wet meadow and was especially important
to waterfowl, and thus waterfowl hunting (e.g., St. Luke’s Club shown in Figure 1.2).
Early sporting writers such as Frank Forester and Edwyn Sandys wrote often in novels
and early sport magazines, such as the Spirit of the Times, of the exceptional waterfowl
and upland hunting to be enjoyed in these marshy habitats. As the numbers of settlers
in the region grew, the economic value of great waterfowling habitats increased and
disputes and squabbles over entitlements became frequent. At the time, US and
Canadian governments did not see wetland habitat as profitable and continued to
promote wetland drainage; developing legislation such as the Swamp Lands Act (US in
1849 and Canada in
1885), which encouraged
the conversion of wetlands
to more “useful” purposes.
With hunting pressure
increasing and habitat
decreasing, observant
sportsmen could sense
and see the relative
decline of opportunity and
the need to acquire private
hunting rights. In an effort
to protect some of the
remaining wetland habitat,
several fishing and
hunting clubs were
established on the US and
Figure 1.2 Aerial photo of the St. Luke’s Club, circa 1940.
Canadian sides of the lake.
Some of the first hunt clubs at Lake St. Clair were established along the US and
Canadian shores of the Lake St. Clair Delta in the 1870s. Registry office records show
"group ownership" of various parts of marsh property on the Lake St. Clair’s
southeastern shoreline, implying group waterfowling as early as 1865. The first
documented club record is The St. Clair Flats Shooting Company formed on Walpole
Island in 1872. This 4,046-ha lease was negotiated between Toronto sportsmen (John
Maughan, George Warin, and David Ward) and the Ojibwa and Pottawatomie of
Walpole Island, through the Superintendent and Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Canada. This resulted in the establishment of the historic waterfowling club known as
The St. Clair Flats Shooting Company later known as the Canada Club.
12
St. Luke’s Club log book from September 1893.
Following the development of The St. Clair Flats Shooting Company was the
establishment of the Big Point Club (1876), the Mud Creek Club (1877), the St. Anne's
Club (1881), the Walpole Island Club (1888), and the St. Luke's Club (1893). Bradley
Farms hunt club was established in 1929 at the mouth of the Thames River. Bruce
Bradley originally purchased this land for farmland. Bradley Farms still supports a large
amount of farming, however, high water levels in 1929 destroyed a full years harvest
and convinced Bruce Bradley to create a productive 526-ha marsh. Thus enhancing and
protecting a large portion of coastal wetlands by entering the private hunting club
business. The purchasing trend continued with the majority of hunt clubs along the
southeastern shores of Lake St. Clair purchased and protected in the early 1940s.
Approximately 95% of the coastal wetlands along the southeastern shorelines of Lake
St. Clair were drained since the early 1900s, thus the purchase of these hunt clubs was
paramount to the protection of remaining coastal wetlands (Figure 1.3). Also important
to note is the development of the St. Clair National Wildlife Area in 1974 by Environment
Canada. This property, originally established as a hunt club was purchased to conserve
essential habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife in perpetuity. This National Wildlife Area
contains a significant portion of the remaining coastal wetlands at Lake St. Clair with
244 ha of marsh now protected in the southeast corner of Lake St. Clair (see Chapter 2
for more information).
Conservation movements by sportsmen in the 19th century lead to the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation. This model is based on the principle that wildlife should
be available at optimum population levels for non-commercial use by citizens. The North
13
American Model of Wildlife Conservation focuses on all game species and was the
driving motivation for wildlife conservation starting in the 19th century. Today, it is
broadly known and accepted by both governments and the public that habitat is
necessary to the healthy existence of wildlife. Thus, the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation is used to guide wildlife management and conservation, and as
such, often guides habitat management, in Canada and the US today. These
conservation principles, first developed and promoted by hunters, have now been
adapted by government and wildlife agencies over the past 100 years into the habitat
principals that are recognized and promoted today.
14
CHAPTER 2:
WETLANDS OF LAKE ST. CLAIR
CHAPTER 2: WETLANDS OF LAKE ST. CLAIR
Historic Wetland Loss and Current Extent of Wetland Habitat
During the late 1700s, explorers to the eastern shores of Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair
River Delta described the region as prairie and oak mosaics with extensive open, wet
prairies. Much of the land on the eastern shore was prairie habitat comprised of thick
growths of Blue Joint Grass, sedges and wildflowers. Unfortunately, almost all of these
upland prairies were converted to agriculture and now the remaining prairie/wetland
habitats represent the most threatened terrestrial ecosystem in North America. The first
permanent European settlers arrived in the early 1800s, severely altering the land
through exploitation of timber, as well as agriculture and urban development. As a
result, less than 1% of pre-settlement prairies and savannah’s in Southern Ontario
remain, almost all of which occurred in the Lake St. Clair region.
Drainage of wet prairies and coastal and inland wetlands came later with the
development of extensive draining systems around the 1850s. Since the time of early
settlement, more than 90% of the original wetlands in Southwestern Ontario have been
eliminated from the landscape (Figure 2.1) and less than 6% of upland forests remain in
Southern Ontario. Remaining wetlands within the lower Great Lakes region cover
approximately 73,153 ha based upon the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium
Inventory (GLCWSI) summary of wetland extent in 2005.
Figure 2.1 Map of wetland loss in southern Ontario townships, 1800 – 2002 (source
Ducks Unlimited Canada Southern Ontario wetland conversion analysis, 2010).
16
Between 1873 and 1973, 45% (3,375 ha) of coastal wetlands were lost along Lake St.
Clair’s Michigan shoreline and 34% (4,764 ha) were lost along the Ontario shoreline
(Figure 2.2). Coastal wetland losses along the Michigan shoreline can be attributed to
urban and industrial development. Of the wetland losses along the Ontario shoreline,
89% can be attributed to agricultural development with urban development accounting
for the other 11%.
1873
1968
2011
Figure 2.2 Historic change in distribution of coastal wetlands at Lake St. Clair from 1873, 1968 to
2011 (adapted from Herndendorf et al. 1986).
A study conducted in the early 1980s indicated that Lake St. Clair and its major rivers
accounted for 32% of the total 120,900 ha of coastal wetlands within the Great Lakes
system. These estimates are likely slightly inflated because many of the upper Great
Lakes wetlands were not yet quantified. In 1981, the Lake St. Clair River Delta and
wetlands within Lake Huron were, on average, the largest wetland complexes within the
Great Lakes. When including the shoreline of the St. Clair River and its distributary
channels and the head of the Detroit River, the total shoreline was 496 km with
approximately 38% classified as coastal wetlands, representing a total area of 38,390
ha (Michigan = 15,260 ha and Ontario = 23,130 ha).
More recent research, specific to the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair, suggests high
levels of land conversion have resulted in only 4.4% of natural cover remaining in the
Municipality of Chatham-Kent and 7% remaining in Essex County. In Chatham-Kent,
wetland coverage decreased from 56% pre-settlement to less than 1% in 2002. Almost
all remaining wetlands along Lake St. Clair either fall within the St. Clair National
Wildlife Area or are managed by private hunt clubs. Essex County alone has lost 98% of
its original wetlands, going from wetlands representing 83% of the landscape in the presettlement era to 2% in 2002. The majority of Essex County’s remaining wetlands occur
along the Detroit and Canard River and on Fighting Island within the Detroit River
(Figure 2.3).
17
Figure 2.3 Map of Ontario municipal boundaries around Lake St. Clair, delineating Essex,
Chatham-Kent and Lambton Counties.
Most recently, the Michigan Technological Research Institute (MTRI) used satellite
imagery from 2007 – 2011 to classify land use within 10 km of the Great Lakes
shorelines (Canada and US included; Figure 2.4). Of the coastal wetlands identified in
the two studies, 83% were in the St. Clair River Delta in 2005 and 81% were in the delta
in 2011. Summary data from the GLCWSI and the MTRI indicate that coastal wetlands
at Lake St. Clair have increased by 13% from 2005 to 2011, with an increase of 11%
wetland coverage in the St. Clair River Delta and 23% in the remainder of Lake St. Clair
(Table 2.1). The increase in wetland coverage within the St. Clair Delta from 2005 to
2011 are likely attributable to different boundaries set to define the delta. Increased
wetland coverage could also be attributed to changing water levels in the lake basin and
restoration work conducted locally.
18
Table 2.1 Extent of coastal wetland habitat at Lake St. Clair. Data from 2005 were obtained from
the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium Inventory and the 2011 data were from the Michigan
Technological Research Institute’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetland layer.
!!
2005!
2011!
Difference(
Lake!St.!Clair!River!Delta!
13,642!ha!
15,148!ha!
+1,506(ha(
Lake!St.!Clair!
2,809!ha!
3,460!ha!
+651(ha(
Total!
16,451!ha!
18,608!ha!
+2,157(ha(
Figure 2.4 Map of Lake St. Clair with the 1-km boundary used to identify coastal wetlands and the
St. Clair River Delta boundary used to identify the delta from the summary of the Michigan
Technological Research Institute’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands layer (2011).
Although this region has experienced significant wetland loss, it continues to support
large numbers of waterfowl each year and protection of remaining wetlands is of utmost
importance. For instance, the 244 ha of internationally significant Ramsar Wetlands at
19
the St. Clair National Wildlife Area support over 150,000 migratory waterbirds during
spring migration and 360,000 migratory waterbirds during autumn migration each year.
Chapter 1 highlights the desire to protect and preserve waterfowl habitats to increase
hunting opportunity as one of the driving factors for historical wetland protection.
However, preservation goals in the late 1900s were increasingly shaped by knowledge
of wetland benefits such as flood control, shore erosion protection, and water level
management. Wetland loss and degradation in the past can be primarily attributed to
changes in land use. Specifically, anthropogenic influences including conversion to
agricultural lands, development, introductions of invasive species, regulation of water
levels, and nutrient loads from surrounding waterways. These threats are still present
today, especially those associated with urban and agricultural development along the
lake shorelines. Continued anthropogenic threats increase concerns that the remaining
wetlands at Lake St. Clair will continue to be lost and degraded.
20
Wetland Profiles at Lake St. Clair
Lake St. Clair’s coastal wetlands consist of three physiognomic types: open water;
dense continuous marsh and swamp; and emergent marsh zones interspersed with
open ponds, bays, and channels (Figure 2.5). Bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.; herein
Bulrush), Bur-reed, Pickerelweed, Yellow and White Water Lily, Eurasian Water-milfoil,
Coontail, and stands of pondweed (Potamogeton spp.; herein Pondweed) are found in
shallow water habitats. In the emergent marshes the principal plant species are cattail
(Typha spp.; herein Cattail) in association with sedge meadows, although the nonnative European Common Reed (herein Phragmites) has invaded many areas. Many of
these plant species found in shallow water zones are valuable to waterfowl for food
(e.g., Wild Celery and Sago Pondweed), cover, or breeding habitat (e.g., Cattail).
Figure 2.5 Plant communities found in the Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Source Environment
Canada.
21
!
Upland
Upland areas are neither underwater nor seasonally flooded but are an important part of
the wetland ecosystem with soils that are moist enough to allow for some facultative
wetland plant species. Upland areas include grasslands, deciduous and evergreen
forest, mixed forested habitats, as well as scrub/shrub habitats. These areas also
include lands that have been converted to agriculture or for urban and industrial areas.
Species that benefit from natural upland habitats or that are of conservation concern
include the Blazing-star, Common Five-lined Skink, Monarch Butterfly, and Northern
Bobwhite.
Based on satellite data from the 2013 Lake St. Clair Coastal Conservation Action Plan
(C-CAP), over 273,000 ha of uplands exist within the Chatham-Kent municipality. The
C-CAP determined that upland forest habitats in the region are in fair overall condition
based upon the presence of reproducing forest interior birds, extent of forest cover, and
the quality of forest communities (see Figure 2.6 for the C-CAP ranking definitions).
Based upon the 2011 MTRI wetland layer data, there are approximately 14,813 ha of
forest and shrub land occurring within 10 km of Lake St. Clair (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.6 Quality Rank defintions from the Lake St. Clair Coastal Conservation Action Plan.
Deciduous Hardwoods: Stands of hardwood trees occur along portions of the Lake St.
Clair shoreline, including species such as Red Ash, Swamp White Oak, Pin Oak, Burr
Oak, Silver Maple, American Elm, Shagbark Hickory, and Eastern Cottonwood. This
habitat type was abundant in the upper portions of Dickinson, Harsens, Squirrel,
Walpole, and St. Anne Islands prior to agricultural development in the 1980s.
Island Shorelines and Transgressive Beaches: Areas with fine sands and stands of
emergent vegetation, often only 100 m wide. Generally, the ridges are slightly above
water level. Vegetation primarily consists of Eastern Cottonwood, Staghorn Sumac,
Reed Canary Grass, Bluejoint Grass, Tussock Sedge, Touch-me-not Jewelweed,
Swamp Thistle, Stinging Nettle, Morning Glory, and Black Bindweed.
22
Swamp
Swamps are dominated by shrubs or trees and may be seasonally flooded for long or
short periods of time. Swamps are nutrient rich, highly productive, and may be
composed of coniferous or deciduous forests or tall thickets. Species that occur in
swamp and moist forest habitats include American Ginseng, Blanding’s Turtle, Dwarf
Hackberry, Eastern Fox Snake, Eastern Prairie-fringed Orchid, Kentucky Coffee-tree,
Least Bittern, Loggerhead Shrike, Red-shouldered Hawk, Spotted Turtle, Wood Duck,
and Wood Frog. Species that occur in wet meadows include Marsh Fern, Marsh
Marigold, Swamp Beggar-tick, Swamp Milkweed, and Wild Rye.
The Lake St. Clair C-CAP indicated swamp and moist forest habitats within the
Chatham-Kent region are in poor condition (Figure 2.6). This rating was based upon
groundwater recharge, presence and characteristics of indicator species such as Wood
Frogs and salamander diversity, overall extent, extent/presence of tile drains around
patches, presence/persistence of ephemeral pools and presence of deep organic soils.
Based upon the MTRI data, it appears that approximately 10,660 ha of swamp habitat
still occur within 10 km of the Lake St. Clair shoreline (Figure 2.7).
© Katelyn Weaver
Wet Meadows: Transitional zones between sedge
marsh and hardwood communities that are
subjected to infrequent flooding but are most often
found above the water table. Vegetation primarily
consists of a mixture of grasses, herbs, shrubs,
and water-tolerant trees and includes Quaking
Aspen, Red Ash, Red Osier Dogwood, Swamp
Rose, Goldenrods, Bluejoint Grass, Fowl Meadow
Grass, Rice Cutgrass, Rattlesnake Grass, Panic
Grass, Tussock Sedge, Swamp Milkweed, Soft
Rush, Marsh Fern, and Silverweed.
Shrub Ecotones: Transitional habitats with a water depth of 0.5 – 1 m that lead to
upland hardwood vegetation. Vegetation primarily consists of shrubs, water-tolerant
trees and some meadow typical plants including Eastern Cottonwood, Quaking Aspen,
Red Ash, Red Osier Dogwood, Gray Dogwood, and Wild Grape.
23
Marsh
Marsh habitats are periodically or permanently covered by standing or slow moving
water. Marshes are nutrient rich and are the most productive type of wetland habitat,
characterized by emergent vegetation such as cattails, reeds, rushes, and sedges.
Species present in marsh habitats include Bald Eagle, Forster’s Tern, Prothonotary
Warbler, Least Shrew, Eastern Fox Snake, Eastern Hognose Snake, Eastern Prairie
Fringed-orchid, Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle, Spotted Turtle, Fowler’s Toad,
Orangespotted Sunfish, Spotted Gar, Swamp Rose, and Queensnake.
The quality of marsh habitats within the municipality of Chatham-Kent was rated as
good based upon water quality, composition of benthic organisms, extent of naturallyvegetated buffers, connectivity to other wetlands, composition of native and non-native
species, as well as species diversity, and hydrology (Figure 2.6). Non-impounded
coastal wetlands were rated as fair, with their size rating as good. Although the overall
condition was fair for non-impounded coastal wetlands, this depended on water levels;
conditions were found to be better in the north with serious Phragmites, Mute Swan,
and Common Carp impacts in the south. The landscape context was also rated as fair,
although non-native Phragmites negatively impacts connectivity and the middle portion
of the eastern shoreline showed poor connectivity.
Calculations using the MTRI data suggest that approximately 16,919 ha of marsh
habitat remains within 10 km of the Lake St. Clair US and Canadian shoreline (Figure
2.7). Definition of marsh using the MTRI habitat analysis included aquatic beds, species
of bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.; herein Bulrush), species of cattail (Typha spp.; herein
Cattail), Phragmites, and all other wetland habitats not previously accounted for (i.e.,
not swamp or open water habitat).
© Katelyn Weaver
© Katelyn Weaver
Abandoned Channels: Distributary channels less
than 1m deep with silt or peat sediments.
Vegetation primarily consists of Yellow and White
Water Lily, Eurasian Water-milfoil, Common
Arrowhead, Cattail, Hard-stem Bulrush, Threesquare Bulrush, and Buttonbush.
Cattail Marsh: Water depths greater than 15 cm and often found in lower portions of the
delta islands, on shoulders of river channels and bottoms of shallow ponds and bays.
Colonies of cattail are associated with peat or clay soils and these colonies also host
abundant Duckweeds, Water-milfoils, and Bladderwort.
© Michael Schummer
Sedge Marsh: Transitional zone between cattail marsh and
meadow or shrubs. Sedge marshes are found along river
channels and eroding shorelines. Although occasionally flooded,
these habitats have a permanent water depth ≤15 cm.
Vegetation primarily consists of Bluejoint Grass, Common
Comfrey, Nightshade species, and Tussock Sedge.
24
Open Water
Open water habitats include ponds, and shorelines of rivers and lakes. These habitats
are usually bodies of standing or flowing water and most commonly represent a
transitional stage between lakes and marshes, or between spring high water levels and
lower levels during the remainder of the year. Species within open water habitats
include Riverbank Wild Rye, Blanding’s Turtle, Eastern Musk Turtle, Eastern Sand
Darter, and Round Hickorynut and by coastal wetlands include Black Tern, Northern
Map Turtle, Spiny Softshell, and Round Pigtoe.
The Lake St. Clair C-CAP rated riverine habitats and associated riparian vegetation as
poor within the Chatham-Kent municipality based upon water quality, composition of
benthic organisms, extent of naturally-vegetated buffers, composition of native and nonnative species as well as species diversity, and hydrology.
Summary data from the MTRI indicates there are 126,045 ha of open water habitat
within 10 km of Lake St. Clair, which includes 111,400 ha of open water habitat within
the lake itself (Figure 2.7). Open water habitat does not include areas with emergent
aquatic vegetation because these regions were already classified as marsh habitat.
© Katelyn Weaver
Canals and Ponds: Areas in canals or open marshes with
water depths of 0.3 – 0.6 m and clay or organic soils.
Vegetation primarily consists of Yellow and White Water Lilies,
Duckweed, Pickerelweed, Waterweed, Water Smartweed,
Buttonbush, Muskgrass, Curly-leaf Pondweed, and other
Pondweed species.
Coastal Embayments: Consist primarily of submergent and emergent aquatic
vegetation, exposed to low-wave action, and has a bay depth from 0.3 – 1.5 m. Plant
species that withstand moderate wave energy often persist, such as Cattails and
Bulrushes. Other common plants include Wild Celery, Yellow Water Lily, Pickerelweed,
Water Smartweed, Eurasian Water-milfoil, Sago Pondweed, and Muskgrass.
© Michael Schummer
Open Water Marshes: Often found in areas with open water
and sandy sediments such as abandoned channels, cattail
marshes and shallow water along shorelines. Water depths
range from 0.6 – 1.2 m and vegetation primarily consists of
Hard-stem Bulrush, Buttonbush, Muskgrass, and various
emergent and submergent aquatic species.
To learn the status of animal and plant species discussed in this section, please see
Appendix A, which gives all Latin names and species.
25
Figure 2.7 Wetland type delineation at Lake St. Clair based upon the Michigican Technological Research Institute's Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland layer, 2011.
Practice of Diking Coastal Wetlands
Great Lakes coastal wetlands are classified separately from inland wetlands as any
wetland within 1 km of the shoreline of the Great Lakes that have open access to large
bodies of water. Coastal wetlands are important to the ecological and hydrological
health of aquatic systems as they moderate erosion from storms and absorb heavy
metals, nutrients, and other contaminants. These wetlands also provide habitat for a
diverse group of plants and animals. Moreover, coastal wetlands are important for their
recreational opportunities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, boating, and bird watching,
as well as for general aesthetic enjoyment.
The naturally occurring
coastal wetlands of Lake St.
Clair differ from diked coastal
wetlands in a number of
ways. Coastal wetlands are
subjected to short-term water
level changes and often,
considerable wave action
(Figure 2.8). These cyclic
changes in water levels may
result in the establishment or
die-off of vegetation, erosion
of wetlands, or lateral
displacement of vegetative
zones. Due to constant
fluctuation of water levels
and thus increased exposure
© Michael Schummer
of substrate materials,
coastal wetlands have
Figure 2.8 Picture showing wave action in a coastal wetland
considerably less inorganic
along the eastern shoreline of Lake St. Clair.
and organic deposition (i.e.,
little to no formation of peat deposits) than diked wetlands. In general, coastal wetlands
exhibit a more gentle topographical profile with more gradually sloping edges than diked
wetlands that results in more distinct vegetation zonation. Finally, water levels in coastal
wetlands follow a different seasonal pattern than diked wetlands. Naturally occurring
coastal wetland water levels are determined by climatic factors over several years
rather than varying primarily in response to management regimes as seen in diked
wetlands. Coastal wetlands experience seasonal highs in late summer and lows in
January whereas water levels in diked wetlands are managed to maximize productivity
and waterfowl use. Moreover, the contribution of groundwater is more significant in
diked wetlands and thus the impact of a wet or dry summer is more distinct. Due to
diking, many wetlands within 1 km of Lake St. Clair no longer function as traditional
coastal wetlands and are now managed to function similar to inland wetlands.
Diking of wetlands within the Great Lakes is a popular management tool to conserve
coastal wetlands for wildlife. The majority of dikes in Lake St. Clair were constructed in
the 1960s when the lakes were experiencing below-average lake levels. Diking
wetlands allow wetland managers to control water levels, and increase wetland
productivity by managing for the growth and production of certain plant species. Partial
drawdowns encourage hemi-marsh conditions for robust emergent vegetation like
Cattail and elevated water levels to control for some non-native invasive species like
Purple Loosestrife or Phragmites. However, dikes also prevent natural disturbances
such as flooding, wave action and drought. The benefits associated with diking are
offset somewhat by altering hydrological regimes, negative influences on the storage of
floodwater, movement of sediments and cycling of nutrients. However, proper wetland
management with properly planned drawdowns of diked wetlands decreases most of
the negative impacts of diking wetland habitats.
Due to the extensive presence of diked wetlands in the Great Lakes, the influence of
diking wetland habitat has been researched extensively in recent years. In particular,
studies of invasive species have shown that diked coastal wetlands are more
susceptible to invasion by certain non-native invasive plants. Specifically, Purple
Loosestrife and Reed Canary Grass were more abundant in the standing vegetation
and seed bank inventories of diked wetlands than in surrounding non-diked wetlands.
However, Phragmites, a non-native invasive species that is particularly prevalent in the
Great Lakes, was shown to favour shallow non-diked wetlands in comparison to diked
wetlands. Diked wetlands were also shown to have a greater abundance of organic
matter and higher pH and nutrient
levels than those observed in
nearby non-diked wetlands.
Drawdowns can be used as a
management tool to reduce
nutrient loading and breakdown
biotic materials, which in turn
lowers pH levels in diked wetlands
and influences both the flora and
fauna that occupy coastal
wetlands.
A 2014 study of breeding bird use
of diked and non-diked coastal
wetlands at Saginaw Bay and the
Lake St. Clair Delta showed that
species richness and abundances
were comparable during the
breeding season between the two
habitats. Species that were shown
to favour diked wetlands were
28
Canada Goose, Wood Duck, American Bittern, Least Bittern, and Common Gallinule.
Those that favoured non-diked wetlands were American Coot, Forster’s Tern, Ringbilled Gull, and Herring Gull. Researchers attributed the differential use of diked and
non-diked wetlands by the above species to differences in habitat variables, with diked
wetlands composed primarily of deep-water Cattail marsh and aquatic beds and nondiked wetlands representing a more shallow, open water wetland habitat with greater
densities of Phragmites and Bulrush. Diked wetlands are also known to be critically
important to many waterbird species during staging because they provide much of the
available aquatic food as they migrate through the Lake St. Clair region.
Diking has resulted in the retention of internationally significant wetlands at Lake St.
Clair. However, the fact that most wetlands are diked also contributes to their threat of
loss to agriculture and development. Relative to non-diked wetlands, diked wetlands are
easily drained for development, which has happened to several St. Clair wetlands in the
last decade. Because approximately half of the wetlands at Lake St. Clair are diked, the
threat of drainage is of major concern. Ontario needs better wetland protection
legislation to ensure that these remnant coastal wetlands are not drained for agricultural
or other developments.
© Matthew Palumbo
Aerial photo of diked wetlands at Lake St. Clair. Dikes can be identified in this
photo as the straight line of upland habitat between wetlands and between
wetlands and other terrestrial habitats such as forest and agricultural fields.
29
Lake St. Clair – Extent of Wetland Systems
Mitchell’s Bay to the Thames River
Aside from the St. Clair Delta, the best coastal marshes are found on the lake’s east
shore and in Anchor Bay. Along the eastern shoreline south of St. Anne Island and the
islands managed marshes is Mitchell’s Bay. Mitchell’s Bay consists mainly of open
water and emergent vegetation, with a few managed marshes. The eastern shore is
subjected to heavy agricultural cultivation up to the lakeshore and therefore wetlands
are primarily composed of open water, submergent vegetation communities and diked
wetlands. Marshes south of Mitchell’s Bay to the Thames River are diked and managed
for waterfowl hunting, except for the 244 ha St. Clair National Wildlife Area (NWA),
which is not open to hunting. Summaries from MTRI data suggest there are 2,305 ha of
coastal wetlands between Mitchell’s Bay and the Thames River and 2,432 ha of
agricultural land. The 2,305 ha of coastal wetlands in this region are made up of 19%
aquatic beds, 38% Cattail, 33% Phragmites, 9% shrub wetland, 1% forested wetland,
and 1% other (Figure 2.7).
St. Clair National Wildlife Area
Originally established in 1978, the St. Clair NWA is one of southern Ontario’s most
important resting and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl and other aquatic bird
species. Hundreds of other wetland dependent species and 20 species at risk use the
St. Clair NWA, including a number of rare or threatened amphibians and reptiles. During
autumn and spring, this important waterfowl refuge supports thousands of waterfowl
including significant portions of the Southern James Bay Population of Canada Geese,
large concentrations of puddle ducks, diving ducks, and Eastern Population Tundra
Swans.
© Michael Schummer
The St. Clair NWA is managed by the Canadian
Wildlife Service and is made up by two properties,
St Clair (244 ha) and Bear Creek (111 ha). The
majority of the St. Clair NWA consists of dense
and emergent marsh zones interspersed with
dune ridges and islands where patches of tallgrass prairie and scrub-shrub communities can
exist. Specifically, the MTRI data shows that the
St. Clair NWA (excluding Bear Creek) is
composed of submerged aquatic plants, Cattail,
Phragmites, and shrub wetlands (Figure 2.7).
The St. Clair NWA is a Ramsar Site of international importance, receiving this
designation in 1985 through the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance
(i.e., Ramsar Convention). The St. Clair NWA is also an International Butterfly Reserve
and comprises part of the Eastern Lake St. Clair Important Bird Area.
30
Detroit River
Peach Island and Belle Isle are located at the head of the Detroit River and host small
patches of riverine wetlands, palustrine wetlands (i.e., inland, non-tidal wetlands with
trees, shrubs, and/or emergent vegetation) and open water submergent aquatic beds.
This portion of Lake St. Clair is especially important to wintering waterfowl because it is
the only portion of the lake that is ice-free from mid-December to February, except
during exceptionally severe winters. Fighting Island also hosts significant wetland
coverage. The MTRI data summaries suggest that the Detroit River boasts 4,235 ha of
coastal wetlands; 42% aquatic beds, 9% Cattail, 11% Phragmites, 22% shrub wetland,
14% forested wetlands, and 2% other (Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.9 Wetland type delineation at the Detroit River based upon the Michigican Technological
Research Institute's Great Lakes Coastal Wetland layer, 2011.
31
Grosse Pointe to Clinton River
Shoreline between Grosse Pointe and Clinton River is intensively developed with
seawalls, piers and marinas and the only wetland habitat that exists is pollution-tolerant
submersed aquatics such as Coontail and Eurasian Water-milfoil. The mouth of the
Clinton River boasts two coastal wetlands, the Metropolitan Beach (4 ha of palustrine
emergent and open water wetlands) and the sedge meadow, Cattail, and open water
community at Black Creek. The MTRI summaries indicate that there is only 2% (328 ha)
wetland coverage throughout the entire stretch from Grosse Pointe to Clinton River,
approximately half of which are in aquatic beds (Figure 2.7).
Anchor Bay
While shoreline in Anchor Bay is primarily urbanized with residential development,
marinas and boat docks, patches of emergent Cattails and submersed aquatic beds
exist around bulkheads and along river and creek mouths. Unlike the main body of Lake
St. Clair, the bottom of Anchor Bay is protected from wave-action thus is almost entirely
covered with plants. The MTRI data suggests that there are 979 ha of wetland habitat in
Anchor Bay, which does not include open water habitats where submergent aquatic
plants are present. Of the 979 ha of wetland present, the following represents the
proportion of each wetland type: 20% aquatic bed, 9% Cattail, 28% Phragmites, 25%
shrub wetland, 14% forested wetland, and 4% other (Figure 2.7).
Shoreline at Grosse Point, Michigan demonstrating forms of urbanization around the lake.
32
St. Clair River Delta – Extent of Wetland Systems
St. Clair River Delta in the early 1980s
The St. Clair River Delta is a transitional region between the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair. The outflow of water from the St. Clair River slows around the many islands that
comprise this delta.
Bouvier Bay
Commonly referred to as the St. John’s Marsh, plant communities within this ~1,000 ha
wetland complex were dominated by palustrine emergent species, including sedge
meadow, Cattails, Bulrushes, and floating and submersed aquatic plants. In 1981 this
wetland was already impacted by construction of major highways and coastal access
roads and by filling for residential development (Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.10 Adaptation of Raphael and Jaworski’s map of wetland, plant communities and urban
development at the St. Clair River Delta in 1982.
33
Dickinson Island
At 1,200 ha, this island was the largest, undeveloped wetland complex along Lake St.
Clair. The northern portion of the island had higher elevations of 1.5 – 3 m above North
Channel and included swamp forests and dogwood shrub communities. The middle
region had several abandoned river channels that would cross sedge meadow and
Cattail communities and the shoreline consisted of emergent wetlands transitioning
southward to open water wetlands (Figure 2.10).
Harsens Island
The majority of Dickinson Island and the lower half of Harsens Island made up the St.
Clair Flats Wildlife Area, which was managed for waterfowl hunting. Therefore, the
centre of Harsens Island, which is within the St. Clair Flats, was planted in corn or other
cereal grains and flooded to make available for waterfowl. The remainder of Harsens
Island consisted of hybrid Cattail colonies and floating-leaved and submersed aquatic
communities (Figure 2.10).
The St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area is managed by Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and includes Dickinsons Island, St. John’s Marsh, Algonic State Park, and
Harsens Island.
Basset Island
Basset Island was composed primarily of Cattail marsh and open water ponds with
small beaches covered in shrub and herbaceous plants (Figure 2.10). The Canada
Club, a privately leased duck-hunting club, was also managed for wetland habitat on
Basset Island.
Squirrel Island
Wetland habitat on Squirrel Island was very similar to that found on Basset Island.
However, the region in the north where sedge would naturally occur was diked and
cultivated for agricultural purposes (Figure 2.10).
Walpole Island
Walpole Island contained the most major wetland complexes within the Canadian side
of the delta, especially around Goose Lake and Johnston Bay. The northern part of the
island consisted of deciduous woodlands, shrubs, and sedge meadows. However, much
of this area had begun to be cleared for row-crop agriculture and dikes regulated the
Cattail marsh occurring north of Goose Lake. Wetlands to the south of Goose Lake
were dominated by Cattails and sedge and those near Johnston Bay were open to Lake
St. Clair (Figure 2.10). A number of hunt clubs were established on the island, including
34
the Walpole Island Rod and Gun Club, formerly the Chematogan Big Shooter’s Club,
which was established on this island in the early 1900s. The Walpole Island Rod and
Gun Club features 664 ha of natural wetland habitats and is bordered on the east and
west by Goose Lake and Chematogan Channel, respectively.
St. Anne Island*
Wetlands on St. Anne Island were managed for waterfowl hunting, with large corn fields
present on the upper portion of the island that extend to the diked Cattail marshes in the
middle portion of the island. Marshes on this island were diked for the benefit of private
waterfowl clubs and only the shoreline wetlands transition to open water habitats.
Mitchell’s Bay*
Mitchell’s Bay is bordered on the north by St. Anne Island and by heavily cultivated
fields in Kent and Lambton counties to the east. In 1981, Mitchell’s Bay consisted
primarily of open water and submerged communities. Considerable diking had also
occurred along Mitchell Point.
*St. Anne Island and Mitchell’s Bay are not included in Figure 2.10 because
wetland extent was not mapped for these regions in the 1982 study. Therefore, no
data that describes changing wetland area over time exists for these regions.
© Katelyn Weaver
Expansive Cattail marsh similar to those found in the middle of St. Anne Island.!
35
!
St. Clair River Delta 21st Century Conditions
Wetland habitats between 1982 and 2006 at the St. Clair River Delta are fairly similar.
There appears to be increased wetland cover on the US portion of the Delta in 2006
and almost no change between 1982 and 2006 on the Canadian portion (Figure 2.11).
The only discernable change on the Canadian portion of the delta is that much of the
area previously classified as forest habitat is now classified as wooded wetland.
The MTRI data provided a recent summary of habitat conditions in the St. Clair River
Delta. Results indicate that agricultural lands occupy 15% of the delta (4,879 ha),
wetlands occupy 45% (15,148 ha), urban development accounts for only 4% (1,415 ha),
and forest for 6% (2,043 ha), with the remaining 30% in open water. Of the wetland
habitat present, the following is a breakdown of habitat type: aquatic beds 1,353 ha,
Bulrush 24 ha, Cattail 3,908 ha, Phragmites 5,469 ha, shrub wetland 1,718 ha, forested
wetland 1,917 ha, and 759 ha of other (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.11 Map of wetland conditions at the Lake St. Clair River Delta in 1982 and 2011. The 1982
map portion is adapted from Raphael and Jaworski 1982 and the 2011 portion is based upon the
Michigan Technological Research Institute’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetland layer.
36
Wetland Biodiversity as it Relates to Waterfowl
Lake St. Clair occurs
within Ontario’s
southernmost ecodistrict
that is largely composed
of the Lake St. Clair clay
plains. Ecozones,
ecoregions and
ecodistricts are zoning
classifications used in
agricultural and
environmental reporting.
Ecodistricts specifically
are categorized based
upon information such as
landforms, vegetation
cover, precipitation, and
temperature. The 7E-1
ecodistrict where Lake St.
Clair resides supports
one of the highest
concentrations of globally
rare species and
communities in Ontario,
yet is one of Ontario’s
most threatened
ecodistricts. Specifically,
coastal Lake St. Clair
currently has 14 terrestrial
and aquatic Species At
Risk (SAR), including the
rare Four Angled Spike-rush, the rare Eastern Prairie White-fringed Orchid, and the
Hairy Fimbristylis. Another 15 SAR species have been extirpated from the lake’s coastal
areas.
Coastal wetlands within Lake St. Clair also support 39 different reptile and amphibian
species and several fish that are considered to be SAR. Of the 70 species of resident
and migrant fish at Lake St. Clair, greater than 60% use the lake and its coastal
wetlands for spawning. These fish are an important food source for many other animal
species, including waterfowl. Despite its global significance to many SAR, this region is
still at great risk for habitat loss.
37
Waterfowl Aquatic Foods
Plants
Open water and wetland habitat at Lake St. Clair support an array of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) that provides food and habitat for a diversity of fish and wildlife. The
composition and biomass of SAV can influence the carrying capacity and use by
waterfowl and other species. Moreover, the abundance and community structure of SAV
are used as indicators of ecosystem health. A study of SAV at Lake St. Clair between
2003 and 2007 indicated that 4 species accounted for approximately 75% of all SAV in
Lake St. Clair. Those SAV species were Muskgrass, Wild Celery, Richardson’s
Pondweed, and Naiad species (Najas spp.) and are all considered important to foraging
waterfowl (Figure 2.12). Other SAV at Lake St. Clair include water-milfoil, pondweed,
waterweed, and bulrush species, among others.
% Composition of SAV in Lake St. Clair
Muskgrass
Wild Celery
Pondweed (various spp.)
Naiad (various spp.)
Unidentified Algae
Watermilfoil (various spp.)
Other
Figure 2.12 Percent of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) species that were recovered at Lake
St. Clair by hook sampling from 2003 – 2007. Source Thomas and Haas 2012.
38
Twenty-two different species of SAV have been identified in Lake St. Clair. Studies
suggest that species richness is greatest in Anchor and Mitchell’s Bay, at the inlet of the
Thames River, at the mouth of the Detroit River, and at the Grosse Pointe Yacht Club
(Figure 2.13).
11
Number of submerged plant species
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
Meters
Figure 2.13 Contour map showing the number of submerged aquatic vegetation species
based upon hook tosses at 95 stations in Lake St. Clair between 2003 – 2007. Number of
tosses at a station ranged from 1 – 8 depending upon sampling effectiveness. Source Thomas
and Haas 2012.
Figure 19.–Contour map of the number of submerged
plant species from hook tosses at 95 stations in
39
Lake St. Clair. Number of tosses at a station ranged from 1 to 8 depending upon sampling effectiveness.
Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate distribution and abundance depends on the plant community
structure of the wetland among other factors. Benthic fauna (macrozoobenthos) are an
important food source for fish and waterfowl. Surveys in the 1980s of Lake St. Clair by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that benthic fauna are most diverse and
abundant in the St. Clair River and Delta and least diverse and abundant in the open
lake; with worms from the subfamily Oligochaeta being the most abundant at 55% in the
Delta and representing from 25% in Anchor Bay to 49% elsewhere. Two subclasses of
gastropods, Prosobranchia and Pulmonata, are present in unpolluted embayments,
marshes, beach ponds and river mouths in Lake St. Clair. Three families of bivalve
molluscs, Unionidae, Sphaeriidae, and Corbiculidae, exist at Lake St. Clair and are
most abundant nearshore, especially in water less than 2 m deep with gravel or sand
substrates.
Zebra Mussels are an
exotic invasive species
that was first introduced
to Lake St. Clair in 1988.
Zebra Mussels were the
first dreissenid mussel
introduced in North
America. Quagga
Mussels were
subsequently introduced
to the Great Lakes in
1989, first observed near
Port Colbourne, Ontario
in Lake Erie. Following
their introduction, the
abundance of dreissenid
mussels (i.e., Zebra and
Quagga mussels) within the Great Lakes system increased exponentially, gradually
leveling off and experiencing significant population declines in the early 2000s. Because
of the great availability of this novel food source, and the positive influence these
mussels have on the presence of submergent aquatic vegetation, Lake St. Clair’s
carrying capacity for waterfowl increased. Therefore, the number of diving ducks staging
and overwintering on Lake St. Clair began to significantly increase as well. However, as
dreissenid mussels are filter feeders with an especially high fat content, they also
bioaccumulate toxic substances more efficiently than native mussels. The influence of
dreissenid mussels on waterfowl and wetlands of Lake St. Clair will be discussed further
in the Invasive Species section of Chapter 4.
40
Aquatic Birds
Expansive coastal and inland marshes of Lake St. Clair provide habitat for 40+ species
of migratory and resident aquatic birds that depend on these wetlands to breed, roost,
and forage. Birds dependent on coastal wetlands for breeding habitat are most strongly
influenced by changing availability and conditions of shoreline habitats at Lake St. Clair.
In total, there are 11 provincially significant bird species that breed in Lake St. Clair’s
coastal wetlands. Some non-waterfowl species that are dependent upon coastal
wetlands for breeding habitat include Pied-billed Grebe, American Bittern, Least Bittern,
Yellow Rail, King Rail, Virginia Rail, Sora Rail, Common Moorehen, American Coot,
Forster’s Tern, Black Tern, Common Snipe, Spotted Sandpiper, Eastern Kingbird,
Marsh Wren, and Swamp Sparrow. Lake St. Clair is also a hot spot for migratory bird
watchers as it supports a diverse array of migratory songbirds. Despite substantial
reduction in the size, coverage and number of wetlands, Lake St. Clair remains
continentally and internationally important to wetland-dependent bird species. Due to
this significance, the region contains 2 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) totaling >280,000 ha
of wetlands and shoreline habitat.
© Mike Moynihan
© Mike Moynihan
© Mike Moynihan
41
Lower Detroit River Important Bird Area
The Lower Detroit River IBA refers to the rivers, streams and freshwater marsh systems
that adjoin the southern end of Lake St. Clair to the northern end of Lake Erie. This IBA
is globally significant for waterfowl, colonial waterbird, and seabird concentrations.
Because the Detroit River freezes only occasionally, this is a significant autumn staging
and wintering area with large numbers of waterfowl aggregating here during winter. For
instance, the average abundance of Canvasbacks observed on the Detroit River during
the January aerial surveys was ~17,000 from 2009 – 2013, with an average abundance
of ~1,900 for both Scaup and Redheads during this time period.
Eastern Lake St. Clair Important Bird Area
The Eastern Lake St. Clair IBA includes all of the open
waters south of the St. Clair River delta under Canadian
jurisdiction, excluding areas under the jurisdiction of Walpole
Island First Nation, and adjacent farmland and inland habitats
from Wallaceburg to the mouth of the Thames River. Overall,
this IBA is 124,458 ha and supports globally significant
numbers of waterfowl, such as Canvasbacks, Redheads,
Ruddy Ducks, and Tundra Swans and nationally significant
numbers of several marsh species including the Blackcrowned Night Heron and the endangered King Rail.
Agricultural fields along the east shoreline also support large
numbers of Black-bellied Plovers and American Golden
Plovers during spring migration. As many as 5,000 Blackbellied Plovers have been reported, representing as much as
3% of the estimated North American population.
In addition to being significant as a staging area, the shallow waters, bays, and open
marshlands at Lake St. Clair provide excellent foraging habitat for breeding populations
of several bird species. One of the largest breeding concentrations of Black Terns in
Ontario is present, representing 28% of Canadian Great Lakes population, along with
over 4% of the estimated North American Forster’s Tern population. The Lake St. Clair
Region also supports the highest diversity and density of rail species within Ontario.
Specifically, 15% of the endangered King Rail breeding population, the largest known
Canadian population, has been recorded, along with significant numbers of Least
Bitterns (a threatened species). This area also provides important breeding habitat for a
number of waterfowl species (e.g., Wood Duck, Canada Geese, Mallard, and
Redheads), which will be discussed further in Chapter 3.
Although the Eastern Lake St. Clair IBA contains portions managed as protected areas
(e.g., St. Clair and Bear Creek National Wildlife Areas, Tremblay Beach, Ruscom
Shores Conservation Areas), there is ongoing loss and degradation of marsh habitat
due to land use change. As this IBA is important to many migratory and residential bird
species, its protection should be considered a priority for the Lake St. Clair region.
42
CHAPTER 3:
WATERFOWL OF LAKE ST. CLAIR
© Brendan Shirkey
CHAPTER 3: WATERFOWL OF LAKE ST. CLAIR
Migratory Crossroads
Despite the drastic loss and degradation of wetlands in the last 50 years, Lake St. Clair
and its adjacent wetlands provide one of the most important waterfowl staging areas in
Ontario. The Lake St. Clair region provides a rich diversity of both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats for waterfowl. Agricultural grain fields adjacent to aquatic habitats provide a
good source of metabolizable energy and aquatic habitats (e.g., shallow bays and
creeks, swamps, and marshes) provide a natural source of seeds, plant material, and
invertebrates. This region is an area of continental importance as it is a migratory
crossroad between the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways, and supports over 800,000
ducks that pass through annually (Figure 3.1). Walpole Island and the St. Clair River
Delta, in particular, are one of the most important wetland complexes for migrating
waterfowl in southern Canada.
Figure 3.1 North American Flyway delineation, highlighting the migration crossroads of the
Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways within the Lake St. Clair region (in red). Adapted from
Wildfowl Flyways of North America in Bellrose 1980.
44
Large numbers of ducks, geese, and swans stage on Lake St. Clair twice annually
between traveling to wintering and breeding grounds and comprise a significant portion
of the birds migrating through the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. For instance, Tundra
Swans, Northern Pintails, Greater Scaup, and Lesser Scaup that breed as far north and
west as Alaska, refuel while staging in this region on their way to marshes along the
Atlantic or Gulf coasts. To the east, ducks and geese from the St. Lawrence River
Valley refuel prior to migrating to their wintering grounds in southern locales of the
Mississippi Flyway.
In total, over 12 million waterfowl use the lower Great Lakes in autumn, 7 million during
spring, and approximately 1 million in winter. Specific to Lake St. Clair, an estimated
peak abundance of 60,000 waterfowl use the region during spring migration and
150,000 during autumn migration. As these peak abundances are one-day counts, they
provide a minimum estimate of the number of birds migrating through the St. Clair
region in spring and autumn. The Canadian Wildlife Service’s 2011 decadal spring and
autumn waterfowl migration survey indicates that there were 2,221,000 waterfowl-usedays (number of waterfowl ×
number of days present) in spring
and 7,073,000 waterfowl-use-days
in autumn on the Canadian portions
of Lake St. Clair and the Detroit
River (Figure 3.2). Peak
abundances in these regions were
observed in spring in late March
(59,546 birds) and in autumn in midNovember (71,139 birds). Bay
ducks were the most abundant
group of waterfowl observed during
spring, with geese and swans also
numbering in great abundances
(Figure 3.2). During autumn, over
half of the waterfowl population at
Lake St. Clair is made up of large
dabbling ducks, with bay ducks
dominating the Detroit River during
spring (Figure 3.2).
45
Detroit River and the southern
shore of Lake St. Clair
Eastern Lake St. Clair
St. Clair River Delta
Figure 3.2 Waterfowl-use-days on the Canadian portions of Lake St. Clair from spring and fall waterfowl surveys completed by the
Canadian Wildlife Service showing trends in use-days and species composition for the Detroit River and the southern shore of
Lake St. Clair, eastern Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River Delta. Adapted from Smith et al. 2013. Categories are as follows:
Swans – Mute Swan, Trumpeter Swan, and Tundra Swan; Geese – Atlantic Brant, Canada Goose, and Snow Goose; Large
Dabblers – American Black Duck, Gadwall, Mallard, Mallard/Black Duck hybrid, Northern Pintail, and Northern Shoveler; Bay
Ducks – Canvasback, Greater Scaup, Lesser Scaup, Redhead, and Ring-necked Duck; Sea Ducks – Black Scoter, Long-tailed
Duck, Surf Scoter, King Eider, and White-winged Scoter; Mergansers – Common Merganser, Hooded Merganser, and Redbreasted Merganser; Bucephala spp. – Bufflehead and Common Goldeneye.
46
When investigating the abundances of waterfowl at Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River
in winter and summer, results indicate that an average of 118,000 waterfowl overwintered at Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River yearly from 2006-2012. Breeding data
indicates the coastal wetlands of Lake St. Clair and the Detroit and St. Clair rivers
support approximately 4,500 breeding pairs of dabbling ducks (primarily Mallards, Wood
Ducks, and Blue-winged Teal) as well as large numbers of breeding Canada Geese.
Large numbers of breeding Redheads are also found on the St. Clair River Delta,
specifically at Walpole Island.
In recent years, the importance of Lake St. Clair and associated rivers has increased
substantially. For instance, the area has been particularly important to migrating Tundra
Swans, with 25% of the North American population migrating through in spring. In this
chapter, we will address the distribution and abundance of waterfowl species found on
Lake St. Clair (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Common waterfowl species present at Lake St. Clair and their residence status.
Subfamily
Anserinae
Tribe
Common Name
Tundra Swan
Swans
Trumpeter Swan
Mute Swan
Geese
Canada Goose
Anatinae
Dabbling Ducks
Mallard
American Black Duck
American Wigeon
Northern Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Green-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
Wood Duck
Bay Ducks
Canvasback
Redhead
Lesser Scaup
Greater Scaup
Ruddy Duck
Ring-necked Duck
Sea Ducks
Long-tailed Duck
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
* Adapted and updated from Herdendorf et al. 1986
47
Residence Status
Migrating
Migrating
Year Round
Year Round
Year Round
Wintering/Migrating
Migrating
Breeding/Migrating
Breeding/Migrating
Migrating
Migrating
Migrating
Breeding/Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Year Round
Wintering/Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Breeding/Migrating
Migrating
Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Wintering/Migrating
Waterfowl Distribution and Abundance on Lake St. Clair
Conservation and management of a species is not possible without a firm
understanding of the population dynamics and habitat use of the species. This section
addresses the different methods used to measure population dynamics at Lake St. Clair
and provides insight into how and why the distribution and abundance of waterfowl may
have changed over time. The winter waterfowl surveys, distribution maps, and banding
and recovery maps described below provide the framework for the waterfowl family
descriptions to follow in this chapter.
Winter Waterfowl Surveys
The Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey conducted in
January each year is a nationwide survey of
major waterfowl wintering areas. This survey
provides information on winter distribution and
habitat affiliations and serves as a primary
source of information on population trends for
Arctic-breeding species that are difficult to
survey using traditional methods. This survey
data is summarized in graphs for each subfamily
of waterfowl in the sections below.
Distribution Maps
This section will discuss the change in
distribution and abundance of each subfamily of
waterfowl during the nonbreeding period
(autumn, winter, and spring) within the Lake St.
Clair region. Maps in this section use kernel
density to estimate waterfowl density. Kernel density is a way to estimate the density of
populations in an area based upon a finite data sample. These kernel density maps
were developed from aerial surveys conducted by Brendan Shirkey, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. Aerial survey transects were flown 1.6 km apart and
covered both the Canadian and US portions of Lake St. Clair.
When possible, we compared kernel density maps from aerial surveys with maps
created from satellite telemetry locations of Tundra Swans, Mallards, and Lesser and
Greater Scaup tracked by Long Point Waterfowl and partnering organizations. These
maps provide locations for individual birds marked with satellite telemetry units that are
accurate to within 1.5 km.
48
© Matthew Palumbo
Banding and Recovery Maps
Bird banding is essential to avian conservation and involves the attachment of metal or
plastic bands to millions of birds annually to allow individual identification based on
unique serial numbers. Individual identification allows biologists to gather information
such as movement patterns, habitat use, and survival through band recovery/reporting.
Banding and Recovery Maps in this document include all waterfowl that were banded
and/or recovered in Ontario within 48 km of Lake St. Clair (Figure 3.3). Records are
current to June 2013 and were developed from the US Geological Survey’s Game Bird
Banding and Recording Program. The 48 km radius was based upon the maximum
daily movement distance of dabbling ducks, thus representing the average distance
waterfowl may fly in one days time. Using the 48 km radius ensured all waterfowl
possibly using the Lake St. Clair region the day before or after banding/recovery were
included in the maps.
49
Figure 3.3 Banding and recovery data from the US Geological Survey’s Game Bird Banding and
Recovery Program, 1929 – 2013. Yellow dots represent locations where waterfowl were banded
within 48 km of Lake St. Clair; blue dots represent locations where waterfowl were recovered (i.e.,
harvested or sighted) within 48 km of Lake St. Clair.
Since the beginning of the waterfowl banding program at Lake St. Clair in 1929, a total
of 17 different waterfowl species have been banded. The most frequently banded
species within 48 km of Lake St. Clair, starting with the most numerous, are Mallard,
Canada Goose, American Black Duck, Lesser Scaup, and Blue-winged Teal. These 5
species represent 89% of all waterfowl banded in the Lake St. Clair region since 1929.
Other banded species around Lake St. Clair include Canvasback, Redhead, and Wood
Duck. Although banding at Lake St. Clair did not start until 1929, the first banded birds
were recovered in this region in 1917. Out of 23,166 waterfowl banded within 48 km of
Lake St. Clair between 1929 and 2013, almost half (49%) of the birds were recovered in
this same area (Figure 3.4). This 49% recovery rate for the region is indicative of fairly
high harvest pressure within Michigan and Ontario and suggests that local breeding
success is important for local harvest. The high harvest pressure is further illustrated by
the fact that 16% of 239,622 waterfowl recovered in Ontario and Michigan since 1917
were recovered within 48 km of Lake St. Clair. Substantial declines in recoveries since
2008 are likely due to a reduction in banding effort during that time.
50
Number of Waterfowl Banded
1000
All birds banded and recovered at Lake St. Clair
All birds banded at Lake St. Clair
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Figure 3.4 Comparison between the number of all waterfowl banded within 48 km of Lake St. Clair
between 1927 and 2012 (red line) and the number of waterfowl that were both banded and
recovered within 48 km of Lake St. Clair (blue line). A total of 23,166 waterfowl were banded at
Lake St. Clair during this time period, 11,260 (49%) of which were also recovered at Lake St. Clair.
Recovery Location Maps: The yellow dot maps on the left-hand side of the page depict
the recovery locations of birds that were banded within 48 km of Lake St. Clair.
Generally recovery reports are from hunters who have harvested the birds, however
some are also band sightings or recaptures during subsequent banding operations.
Recovery maps can be used to determine where birds present at Lake St. Clair in the
summer are located throughout the rest of the year.
Banding Location Maps: The orange dot maps on the right-hand side of the page depict
the banding locations of birds that were recovered within 48 km of Lake St. Clair.
Banding maps can be used to tell us where birds that are harvested or sighted at Lake
St. Clair in autumn or winter are located during the banding season.
51
Swans
There are three swan species in North
America, the native Trumpeter Swan and
Tundra Swan and the non-native Mute Swan.
All three species of swans have white
plumage with black bills and feet; however,
the Mute Swans can be differentiated by an
orange knob on their bill and Tundra Swans
by a yellow eye lore at the edge of their bill.
Swans are known to be primarily herbivorous,
feeding on roots, tubers, stems, and leaves of
submerged and emergent aquatic plants.
Tundra Swans consume supplementary
waste agricultural grains in neighbouring
fields throughout the nonbreeding period.
Although Trumpeter and Mute Swans are known to periodically field feed in other
regions of the world, they rarely, if ever, do so in the Great Lakes region.
During the early 1900s, Trumpeter Swans were extirpated from the Central, Mississippi
and Atlantic Flyways, but have since been reintroduced to the Great Lakes region and
may occasionally be found at Lake St. Clair. Tundra Swans pass through the St. Clair
region in spring and autumn on their way to and from Arctic breeding grounds. Because
Tundra Swans migrate approximately 6,000 km between wintering and breeding
grounds, Lake St. Clair represents an important staging location where these birds can
rest and replenish body fat during early spring and late autumn migration. In fact, spring
and autumn surveys completed by the Canadian Wildlife Service indicated that Lake St.
Clair and the Detroit River accounted for 63%
of swan-use-days within the lower Great
Lakes. Although many of these swans were
not identified to species, at least 36% of the
swan-use-days were attributed to the nonnative invasive Mute Swan. Mute Swans are
non-migratory and populations at Lake St.
Clair have increased substantially in the past
20 years (see Chapter 4 for more information
on Mute Swans).
During mid-winter waterfowl surveys Tundra, Tumpeter and Mute Swans are grouped
together due to the difficulty of differentiating them from airplanes. The combined
average abundance of Tundra, Trumpeter and Mute Swans over the past 12 years has
been highly variable, with a peak abundance of 10,891 individuals in 2006 and 2007
and a low of 748 swans in 2014 (Figure 3.5). These variable estimates can likely be
attributed to large numbers of Tundra Swans overwintering during warm winters and
substantially less overwintering at Lake St. Clair during cold winters.
52
15000
Swans Wintering on Lake St. Clair and Detroit River
Abundance
12000
9000
6000
3000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure 3.5 Combined abundance of Mute, Trumpeter and Tundra Swans during mid-winter aerial
surveys at Lake St. Clair and Detroit River. Surveys conducted in January on US and Canadian
sides of the lake.
The combined distribution of Mute and Tundra Swans from aerial survey data is shown
in Figure 3.6 and appears to be fairly similar between autumn, winter, and spring.
Swans are often found around the mouth of the Detroit River, at Gross Pointe, Clinton
River, within Anchor Bay, and along the shores from the St. Clair Delta down to the
Thames River outlet (Figure 3.6). Autumn and winter abundances of swans were
greatest along the southeastern
edge of the St. Clair Delta and
Mitchell’s Bay and spring
abundances were more spread
out along the lakes shores.
Tundra Swan satellite telemetry
data (featured below in “Long
Point Waterfowl Research
Highlights”) shows that Tundra
Swans are primarily focused on
the eastern edge of Lake St.
Clair. These satellite data
suggest that swan locations
observed in Figure 3.5 in highly
urbanized areas, such as the
Michigan coast and the Detroit
River, were likely Mute Swans.
53
Figure 3.6 Kernel density maps showing seasonal abundance and distributions of swans (Cygnus
spp.) on Lake St. Clair and lower Detroit River, autumn 2012 – spring 2013; calculated from aerial
survey observations flown by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The majority
of swan distributions on Lake St. Clair were based upon Mute and Tundra Swans, but may also
include some Trumpeter Swans. Map by Brendan Shirkey, Michigan DNR.
Historically Tundra Swans were a hunted species, however, they are no longer
harvested in Canada. As a result, there are no Tundra Swan band returns for this region
(Figure 3.7). The few birds banded at Lake St. Clair appear to be most often recorded at
the Atlantic Coast wintering grounds where there is a hunting season on Tundra Swans.
Tundra Swans are also recovered on their western Canadian Arctic breeding grounds,
where birds are hunted by Aboriginal peoples and where there is more intensive
research on breeding and flightless birds.
54
Figure 3.7 Banding and Recovery Maps of Tundra Swans at Lake St. Clair developed from the US
Geological Survey’s game bird banding and recording program. Records from these maps date
from the first birds banded at Lake St. Clair from 1920 to 2013.
55
Geese
© Lena Vanden Elsen
Geese are the second largest species of
waterfowl and are grouped in the sub-family
Anserinae with swans. Geese are a very diverse
taxonomic group and true geese are separated
into three different genera based upon
anatomical, morphological, biogeographical, and
molecular differences. The three living genera of
true geese are Grey geese (Anser; e.g., Greater
White-fronted Goose), white geese (Chen; e.g.,
Snow Goose), and black geese (Branta; e.g.,
Canada Goose). Geese are herbivorous and
feed in a number of different aquatic and
terrestrial habitats such as open water, marsh,
salt-water flats and agricultural fields.
The most common goose species found at Lake St. Clair is the Canada Goose,
however, there have been reports of Snow Geese, Cackling Geese, Barnacle Geese,
Greater White-fronted Geese, and Brant occurring periodically in the region. Mid-winter
survey abundance estimates of Canada Geese over the last 12 years at Lake St. Clair
show an overall peak of 17,015 geese in 2004 and 2005, followed by a decline from
2005 – 2008 (Figure 3.8). Despite low abundances of Canada Geese in 2014, goose
numbers appear to have stabilized since 2008 with an average abundance of 2,622
geese (Figure 3.8).
20000
Canada Geese Wintering on Lake St. Clair and Detroit River
18000
Abundance
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure 3.8 Number of Canada Geese recorded during mid-winter aerial surveys of Lake St. Clair
and Detroit River. Survey occurred in January and were conducted on the US and Canadian
sides of Lake St. Clair.
56
As the Canada Goose has such a wide distribution and variable morphologies and
genetics, they are grouped into a number of different subspecies. Those subspecies
found at Lake St. Clair are part of the migratory Interior Canada Goose and the resident
Giant Canada Goose populations. Giant Canada Geese found in southern Ontario (also
referred to as temperate breeders) are associated with numerous social and economic
challenges such as crop damage, aircraft collisions, and increased presence at parks
and golf courses. As the majority of Canada Geese are extremely abundant, especially
the Giant Canada Goose population, they are often managed to maximize harvest.
However, the Southern James Bay Population (SJBP) of the Interior Canada Goose
subspecies is of conservation concern due to habitat alterations and loss of foraging
areas caused by an
overabundance of breeding
Snow Geese in James Bay.
Because of the SJBP status,
management goals are set to
reduce harvest of this
population. However, as the
Interior population mixes with
the Giant population during
autumn, specific harvest
objectives are difficult to
obtain. Since the beginning of
the SJBP banding program in
1950, almost 40,000 geese
have been banded. Of the
Canada Geese harvested
within 48 km of Lake St. Clair,
7.5% were from the SJBP.
Canada Geese are the most abundant waterfowl species in North America and are
often the most frequently harvested waterfowl species. For instance, the 2012 waterfowl
harvest within Canada and the US was composed of 15.4% Canada Geese (34.4% of
the waterfowl harvest in Canada and 13.3% in the US) and the 2013 waterfowl harvest
was 17.4% Canada Geese (31.8% in Canada and 15.5% in the US). Because of their
potential as an agricultural and urban pest, the US Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife
Service has been conducting lethal culls of Canada Geese since 1999. Also, the
addling/oiling of goose eggs are used as population control methods in Canada and the
US. Harvest opportunities have been substantially increased in many states and
provinces in an attempt to reduce the number of Giant Canada Geese breeding in
temperate regions.
Canada Geese are the only species of goose banded at Lake St. Clair and represent
25% of all waterfowl banded within 48 km of the lakeshore. There were 10,511 geese
57
recovered at Lake St. Clair, 99.9% of which were Canada Geese. Of the 23,166
waterfowl banded and recovered within 48 km of Lake St. Clair, 29.7% were Canada
Geese. Since the first Canada Goose banded at Lake St. Clair in 1962, 5,840 geese
have been banded and 56% (3,286) of those geese were also recovered within 48 km
of the lake. Recovery locations from Canada Geese banded at Lake St. Clair indicate
that geese breeding within the Lake St. Clair region are most heavily harvested at
James Bay, the Great Lakes, Ohio and Chesapeake Bay. Banding Maps indicate that
the primary summer locations of geese recovered at Lake St. Clair are James Bay,
northwestern Quebec, southern Ontario, southern Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee,
northern Alabama and the Atlantic Coast (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9 Banding and Recovery Maps of Canada Geese at Lake St. Clair developed from the US
Geological Survey’s game bird banding and recording program. Records from these maps date
from the first birds banded at Lake St. Clair from 1920 to 2013.
58
Dabbling Ducks
Dabbling ducks are primarily herbivorous, feeding on aquatic vegetation on the water
surface, on shallow water bottoms by upending on the water surface, or by feeding on
waste cereal grains on land. Many dabbling ducks will also seasonally incorporate
invertebrates into their diet to meet certain nutritional demands, especially during egglaying and duckling development. While dabbling ducks are able to dive to feed, this is
seldom observed. Species within this group have legs placed toward the centre of their
body, which means they can walk with ease on land and they are often observed
feeding on agricultural grains.
Dabbling species at Lake St. Clair include Mallard, American Black Duck, American
Wigeon, Northern Pintail, American Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Northern
Shoveler, Gadwall, and Wood Duck but is comprised of approximately 80% Mallards,
Black Ducks, and American Wigeon. Dabblers at Lake St. Clair feed primarily on wild
celery, widgeon grass and seeds of sedges, bulrush, wild rice, pondweeds, and
smartweeds. Some species, especially Mallards, Black Ducks, and Northern Pintails
also forage heavily on waste agricultural grains. The annual number of dabbling duck
waterfowl-use-days at Lake St. Clair has been estimated as high as 5,123,000. During
autumn migration the Eastern Lake St. Clair Important Bird Area supports 46% of the
southern Great Lakes dabbling duck waterfowl-days. St. Clair marshes are also of great
importance to moulting dabblers in summer, particularily Mallards and Wood Ducks.
59
Winter abundance of dabbling ducks
between 2002 and 2013 follows a
similar distribution to that of Canada
Geese; with peak abundances of
64,441 and 64,486 in 2004 and
2005, respectively, followed by a
decline to an absolute low of 6,316
individuals in 2009. Population levels
remain stable and relatively low
between 2008 and 2011 and then
gradually increase in 2012 and 2013
to 21,813 individuals (Figure 3.10).
75000
Dabbling Ducks Wintering on Lake St. Clair and Detroit River
Abundance
60000
45000
30000
15000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure 3.10 Number of dabbling ducks (American Black Duck, Mallard, Northern Pintail, Gadwall,
American Wigeon, and unidentified dabblers) recorded during mid-winter aerial surveys of Lake
St. Clair and Detroit River. Survey occurred in January and were conducted on the US and
Canadian sides of Lake St. Clair.
60
Dabbling duck distribution is fairly similar in winter and spring, with ducks found at
Grosse Point and along the Delta edge. Dabblers are also found along the eastern
shore of Lake St. Clair in spring. In autumn the greatest abundances of dabbling ducks
are found along the eastern third of the lake (Figure 3.11). Overall, open water wetlands
along the Delta’s edge appears to be a very important region within the lake for dabbling
ducks.
Figure 3.11 Kernel density maps showing seasonal abundance and distributions of dabbling
ducks on Lake St. Clair and lower Detroit River, autumn 2012 – spring 2013; calculated from aerial
survey observations flown by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The majority
of dabbling duck distributions on Lake St. Clair were based upon Mallard and Black Duck but may
also include Gadwall, Blue-winged and Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Wigeon, and Wood
Duck; however, identification to species is difficult at the distances recorded. Maps created by
Brendan Shirkey, Michigan DNR.
61
Banding and Recovery Data for Dabbling Ducks
Dabbling ducks, especially Mallards and American Black Ducks, are heavily hunted at
Lake St. Clair. Therefore, banding at Lake St. Clair focuses on dabbling ducks, with
dabblers representing 59% of all waterfowl banded in the region. On average, 48% of
birds that were banded within 48 km of Lake St. Clair were also recovered in the region,
totalling 11,260 birds both banded and recovered at Lake St. Clair since 1927. A total of
13,748 dabblers were banded in the region, with 6,432 of those birds recovered within
48 km of Lake St. Clair. Overall, dabbling ducks represented 57% of species both
banded and recovered at Lake St. Clair. When investigating the harvest rate by species,
Mallards alone represented 32% of the recovered waterfowl and American Black Ducks
representing 17%. The recovery and banding maps for dabbling ducks look almost
identical and suggests that birds in the Lake St. Clair region have a wide distribution
over the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways (Figure 3.12). However, a few species at Lake
St. Clair also appear to use the Central Flyway, e.g., Mallards, American Wigeon,
Northern Pintail, and Blue-winged Teal.
Figure 3.12 Banding and Recovery Maps of dabbling ducks at Lake St. Clair developed from the
US Geological Survey’s game bird banding and recording program. Records from these maps
date from the first birds banded at Lake St. Clair from 1920 to 2013. Dabbling ducks include
American Black Duck, American Green-winged Teal, American Wigeon, Blue-winged Teal,
Gadwall, Mallard, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, and Wood Duck.
62
63
64
65
66
Diving Ducks
As suggested by their name, diving ducks (which includes bay and sea ducks) feed
underwater by diving to the bottom of water bodies in search of submerged vegetation
and a variety of aquatic animals. Diving duck species can be physically distinguished
from dabbling ducks by their lobed hind toe, larger feet for propulsion, and general
further back placement of their legs on their body, making it difficult to walk on land.
Therefore, diving ducks rarely take advantage of agricultural forage.
© Taylor Finger
Bay Ducks
Common bay duck species at Lake St. Clair include Canvasback, Greater and Lesser
Scaup, Redhead, Ruddy Duck, and Ring-necked Duck. The Eastern Lake St. Clair
Important Bird Area covers the southeastern two-thirds of the lake and supports 25% of
the North American population of Canvasback and Redhead with an estimated 1.14
million waterfowl-days each year for these two species. Canvasback and Redhead use
Lake St. Clair as a staging area between prairie breeding locales and wintering locales,
located primarily along the Atlantic Coast with some birds over-wintering at Lake St.
Clair. In 2000 it was estimated that 45% of the continental Canvasback population
staged at Lake St. Clair during autumn migration. Data from the Coordinated
Canvasback Survey, designed to estimate abundances of Canvasback during peak
autumn migration, indicates an average of 137,414 Canvasback at Lake St. Clair and
the Detroit River in early November from 2006–2010. Because Canvasback and Lesser
Scaup have been identified as conservation priorities, this area is especially important
for conserving and studying bay ducks.
Recent research indicates autumn bay duck-use-days at Lake St. Clair increased from
approximately 11.9 million in autumn and spring 2010/11 to 16.2 million in 2012/13. Bay
ducks are much more abundant at Lake St. Clair in autumn with an average of 11.7
million use-days in autumn in comparison to an average of 2.7 million in spring, 2010–
2013.
67
Bay ducks at Lake St. Clair can often be found in the
unfrozen waters at the mouth of the Detroit River in
late autumn and winter. Over 15,000 bay ducks
commonly over-winter in the Detroit River near Belle
Isle, feeding on waterweed, duckweed, wild celery,
dreissenid mussels, and other invertebrates. Midwinter surveys from Lake St. Clair and the Detroit
River show an average abundance of 136,850 bay
ducks between 2002 and 2006, increasing to a peak
abundance of 265,386 in 2007, after which the
abundance decreases to an average of 59,198 bay
ducks between 2008 and 2010, and decreased further
in the last 4 years to an average of 21,950 birds
(Figure 3.13). The drop in abundances of bay ducks and other waterfowl species during
the last decade is quite large and is discussed in the “Winter Waterfowl Surveys”
section above.
Bay Ducks Wintering on Lake St. Clair and Detroit River
320000
Abundance
240000
160000
80000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 3.13 Number of bay ducks (Canvasback, Redhead, Greater and Lesser Scaup, Ruddy Duck,
and unidentified bay ducks) recorded during mid-winter aerial surveys of Lake St. Clair and
Detroit River. Survey occurred in January and were conducted on the US and Canadian sides of
Lake St. Clair.
68
During autumn and spring bay ducks can be found almost anywhere on Lake St. Clair,
with the greatest abundances found across the lower third of the lake (Figure 3.14).
Areas of increased bay duck abundances match quite closely with locations of great
abundances of submerged aquatic plant (see Figure 2.10 in Chapter 2). During winter,
bay ducks are concentrated along the western shore of Lake St. Clair, within Mitchell’s
Bay, and within the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.14 Kernel density maps showing seasonal abundance and distributions of bay ducks on
Lake St. Clair and lower Detroit River, autumn 2012 – spring 2013; calculated from aerial survey
observations flown by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Bay ducks included are
Canvasback, Redhead, and Greater and Lesser Scaup. Maps created by Brendan Shirkey.
69
Sea Ducks
Sea ducks that stage and winter on Lake St. Clair include Bufflehead, Common
Goldeneye, Long-tailed Duck, and Hooded, Common and Red-breasted Mergansers.
Mergansers have serrated edges on their bills to help catch fish, whereas the majority of
other sea ducks found at Lake St. Clair consume primarily molluscs and crustaceans
from the lake-bottom.
Sea duck numbers using Lake St. Clair
declined from a peak of 13,304 birds in
2004/05 to an average of approximately
1,707 ducks during 2006 – 2013 (Figure
3.15). This decline can likely be at least
partially attributed to a decline in the
availability of Zebra and Quagga
mussels within Lake St. Clair. Sea duck
distribution was spread throughout the
lake in autumn 2012, with the exception
of an area of low sea duck abundance
© Philip Wilson
where we found the highest diving duck
autumn abundance. Winter distribution was almost evenly distributed throughout the
lake, with less sea ducks found along the eastern shore. In spring sea ducks
concentrated on the northern shores and along the Delta with a sparse distribution
throughout the lake (Figure 3.16).
15000
Sea Ducks Wintering on Lake St. Clair and Detroit River
Abundance
12000
9000
6000
3000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure 3.15 Number of sea ducks (Long-tailed Duck, Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead, Common
Merganser, Red-breasted Merganser, and unidentified mergansers) recorded during mid-winter
aerial surveys of Lake St. Clair and Detroit River. Survey occurred in January and were conducted
on the US and Canadian sides of Lake St. Clair.
70
Figure 3.16 Kernel density maps showing seasonal abundance and distributions of sea ducks on
Lake St. Clair and lower Detroit River, autumn 2012 – spring 2013; calculated from aerial survey
observations flown by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Sea ducks included
are Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Long-tailed Duck, and Common and Hooded Mergansers.
Maps created by Brendan Shirkey, Michigan DNR.
71
Banding and Recovery Data for Diving Ducks
Seven species of diving ducks were
banded at Lake St. Clair between 1927
and 2013; Canvasback, Greater Scaup,
Lesser Scaup, Redhead, Ring-necked
Duck,
Bufflehead,
and
Common
Goldeneye. Of those seven species, the
majority of ducks banded were bay
ducks due to the capture techniques
utilized. In fact, only 9 sea ducks were
banded in the Lake St. Clair region since
1927 (4 Bufflehead and 5 Common
Goldeneye). There were slighly more
diving duck species recoverd at Lake St.
Clair than were banded there, with
Ruddy Duck, Hooded Merganser,
Common Merganser, Red-breasted
Merganser, Black Scoters, and Whitewinged Scoters joining the list of species
from above. Again, very few sea ducks
were recovered at Lake St. Clair (31
Bufflehead, 14 Common Goldeneye, 11
Mergansers, and 2 Scoters). Because of
the low number of sea ducks banded
and recovered at Lake St. Clair, species
recovery and banding maps were not
created for this group as was done for
other waterfowl groups within the Lake
St. Clair region.
Of 39,263 waterfowl harvested at Lake St. Clair with leg bands, 13% were diving ducks
(99% of those diving ducks were bay ducks). Redheads, Scaup, and Canvasbacks were
the most commonly harvested species, representing 40%, 32%, and 25% of the diving
duck harvest, respectively. Altough there were very few sea ducks banded at Lake St.
Clair (0.03% of all waterfowl banded), 4 of 5 Common Goldeneyes banded in the Lake
St. Clair region were also recovered there.
Diving ducks banded at Lake St. Clair in the summer were primarily recovered along the
Atlantic Coast from Nova Scotia to Florida, with large numbers also being recovered in
the Great Lakes region. In contrast, birds that were recovered at Lake St. Clair had
been banded throughout the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways as well as in the prairies
(Central Flyway) and Alaska (Pacific Flyway; Figure 3.17).
72
Figure 3.17 Banding and Recovery Maps of bay and sea ducks at Lake St. Clair developed from
the US Geological Survey’s game bird banding and recording program. Records from these maps
date from the first birds banded at Lake St. Clair from 1920 to 2013. Bay and sea ducks banded
include Buffleheads, Canvasbacks, Common Goldeneyes, Greater and Lesser Scaup, Redheads,
and Ring-necked Ducks and bay and sea ducks recovered include the aforementioned 7 species
and Black Scoters, White-winged Scoters, Common Mergansers, and Hooded Mergansers.
73
74
75
76
Summary of Winter Waterfowl Surveys
Data from the winter waterfowl survey is included in line graphs in the sections above
and depicts the historical change in wintering abundance of each subfamily of waterfowl
(swan, goose, dabbling duck, bay duck, and sea duck) at Lake St. Clair. Data were
obtained from aerial surveys flown by Long Point Waterfowl, the Canadian Wildlife
Service, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The number of waterfowl observed in the mid-winter survey at Lake St. Clair and the
Detroit River declined by 73% between 2002 – 2007 and 2008 – 2013. This declining
trend was observed across all species of waterfowl but was especially prominent in
geese and diving ducks. Potential explanations include population decline, changing in
timing of migration, changing distribution of birds across flyways, or a decrease in the
abundance of food resources (e.g., dreissenid mussels). This decline in waterfowl
abundances from 2002 – 2013 represents a large difference in the number of overwintering waterfowl and should be further investigated to determine its cause.
Continent-wide increases in many waterfowl populations were observed in 2012 and
2013 following increased spring rainfall in 2011 and 2012 leading to particularly
favourable breeding conditions for 2 consecutive years, especially for upland nesting
species.
77
Long Point Waterfowl Research Highlights at Lake St. Clair
Long Point Waterfowl has been conducting research in the lower Great Lakes since
1989, contributing to waterfowl and wetland science through 62 publications in peerreviewed journals, the supervision and support of 14 graduate students, and the
education of hundreds of undergraduate students in wildlife ecology and management.
Specifically Long Point Waterfowl research focuses on the importance of the lower
Great Lakes watershed to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. The first
Long Point Waterfowl project focused solely on Lake St. Clair was initiated in
September 2013 and focuses on Mallard habitat selection and movement patterns in
the region (see pages 81 – 83 below for more information).
Below we discuss three studies by Long Point Waterfowl and our partners that use
different forms of telemetry to remotely track waterfowl. Remote tracking of waterfowl by
telemetry involves attaching a transmitter that can weigh no more than 3% of the birds
body weight, and using this transmitter to determine latitudinal and longitudinal locations
of the birds throughout the year. The three forms of telemetry used in wildlife research
are: 1) radio telemetry, which involves tracking individual animals using radio trackers
that emit signal tuned to a specific frequency and radio receivers to detect the
transmitters; 2) satellite telemetry, which involves tracking individual animals via a
transmitter that emits a
signal detected by
satellites orbiting earth,
which then interpret the
location of the transmitter,
and 3) Global Positioning
System (GPS) telemetry,
which uses the relative
position of multiple
satellites orbiting the earth
and the location of the
transmitter to determine
where the transmitter is
located. Through use of
telemetry researchers are
now able to remotely track
individual animals to
inaccessible locations to
identify information such
as migration routes,
habitat use/selection and
areas/habitats of special
Greater Scaup hen with an implanted radio transmitter.
importance.
78
Tracking Tundra Swans
Tundra Swans that stage at Lake St. Clair are part of the Eastern Population, which
winter from North Carolina to the Great Lakes and breed in the tundra from Alaska’s
North Slope to eastern Hudson Bay, including the Fox Islands off Alaska and north of
Hudson Bay on Baffin Island (Figure 3.18). During migration, most of the Eastern
Population follows a relatively narrow corridor between the Atlantic Coast and northern
Prairies, with a large portion of the population passing through Lake St. Clair (Figure
3.18). These large birds stage at Lake St. Clair in spring just as ice begins to thaw,
foraging heavily on the regions waste agricultural grains and wetland plants. Because
Tundra Swans migrate approximately 6,000 km between wintering and breeding
grounds, Lake St. Clair represents an important staging location where these birds can
rest and replenish body fat during early spring and late autumn migration.
Adult Tundra Swan with a satellite telemetry unit attached to the swans plastic neck collar.
79
Figure 3.18 Eastern Population Tundra Swan migratory and wintering movements as determined
by satellite telemetry from 63 Tundra Swans (1998 – 2012). Black connecting lines represent
migration paths taken by individual Tundra Swans, showing the narrow migration corridors to the
Arctic breeding grounds. Data from C. R. Ely (2008 – 2011), K. Wilkins (2001 – 2005), and Long
Point Waterfowl (1998 – 2000). These 63 Tundra Swans were marked in Alaska (n = 10), Ontario (n
= 12) and throughout – northeastern US states (n = 41).
Long Point Waterfowl, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Geological Survey
marked 63 Eastern Population Tundra Swans. Satellite telemetry data indicate that in
addition to wetland habitat, Tundra Swans rely heavily on agricultural habitats,
especially in winter and spring (Figures 3.6 and 3.19). Thus it is important to monitor
trends in agricultural practices to ensure adequate foods are available to Tundra Swans
and other waterfowl species during times when aquatic foods are less readily
available/accessible due to ice cover, winter senescence and foraging pressures.
80
Almost all Tundra Swan satellite-tracking locations are on the eastern side of Lake St.
Clair. This eastern shore is the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair and is primarily
agricultural based, whereas the US side of the lake is highly urbanized. This difference
in aquatic and terrestrial land use likely explains the higher Tundra Swan use on the
Canadian side of the lake. Therefore, conservation of staging habitats on the Canadian
side of Lake St. Clair is especially important to Eastern Population Tundra Swans.
Figure 3.19 Map of Tundra Swan seasonal locations based upon satellite telemetry data from 63
Eastern Population Tundra Swans (1998 – 2011). Land cover data is included to delineate
terrestrial habitat use, highlighting Tundra Swan use of agricultural fields in the Lake St. Clair
region.
81
Tracking Mallards
In the Great Lakes region, Mallards are
the most harvested waterfowl species
and harvest information suggests the
Great Lakes population should be
managed separately from the midcontinent population. Research also
suggests that the Great Lakes Mallard
population may be particularly
influenced by non-breeding season
survival of adult females, yet relatively
little is known about this population’s
movements during this time. To learn
more about Mallard non-breeding
movements at Lake St. Clair, Long Point
Waterfowl equipped 59 adult female
Mallards with Global Positioning Satellite
backpack transmitters during August
and September 2014 and 2015. This
technology provides accurate locations
of both day and night use of different
habitats and provided information about
Mallard hen released by Long Point Waterfowl with
migration chronology and wintering
a GPS backpack transmitter in 2014.
movements.
Preliminary habitat analyses of tracked females suggest that they used a diversity of
wetland, agricultural, open water, and developed habitats within southwestern Ontario
and Michigan prior to autumn departure in November (Figure 3.20). Assessing which
habitats Mallards are using seasonally will provide area managers with important
information on how to best manage the remaining waterfowl habitat.
82
Figure 3.20 Map depicting the GPS locations and autumn movement paths of adult female
Mallards marked at Lake St. Clair prior to autumn migration from the area (tracked 20 adult
Mallards during autumn/winter 2014).
The GPS locations of adult female Mallards and their migration paths are depicted in
Figure 3.21. Preliminary results suggest that Mallards that spend the summer in the
Lake St. Clair region subsequently over-winter in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia and
West Virginia (Figure 3.21).
83
Figure 3.21 Map of GPS locations and 2014 autumn/winter movements of adult female Mallards
marked at Lake St. Clair. Migration lines shown are not representative of all marked Mallards as
some died prior to autumn departure or during autumn migration.
84
Lesser Scaup Migration Movements
Long Point Waterfowl, the US Geological Survey, and the Pennsylvania Game
Commission marked 78 Lesser Scaup at Long Point, ON, Pool 19 of the Mississippi
River, and Presque Isle Bay, PA between 2005 and 2010. Tracked scaup migrated
through the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways from their prairie, boreal, and arctic
breeding grounds to wintering grounds along the Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the
Caribbean (Figure 3.22).
Figure 3.22 Map of Lesser Scaup spring and autumn migratory movements as determined by
satellite telemetry from 78 Lesser Scaup (2005 – 2010). The black connecting lines represent
migration paths taken by individual Lesser Scaup, showing the migration corridors between
wintering and breeding grounds. Data from Long Point Waterfowl, the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, and the USGS; marked at Long Point, ON, Presque Isle Bay, PA, and Pool 19, MI.
85
Of the 78 scaup tracked, 15% (12 scaup) used open water habitats at Lake St. Clair.
Satellite telemetry locations from these 12 Lesser Scaup were used to depict
movements of scaup at Lake St. Clair during spring and autumn. Telemetry locations
suggest that Lesser Scaup use similar habitats in spring and autumn at Lake St. Clair
(Figure 3.23). Patterns shown by telemetry data are similar to those observed in bay
duck kernel density maps in spring and autumn at Lake St. Clair. Further, scaup
locations on the satellite telemetry map match up closely with areas of high bay duck
density in spring and autumn at Lake St. Clair (Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.23).
Conclusions from this research suggest open water habitats at Lake St. Clair, especially
in Anchor Bay and the southern portion of the lake are especially important to Lesser
Scaup.
Figure 3.23 Map of Scaup spring and autumn staging locations based upon satellite telemetry data
from 12 Lesser Scaup (2005 – 2010). Satellite telemetry locations for Lesser Scaup are typical of
movements of other diving ducks in that they are primarily located in open water habitats.
86
CHAPTER 4
THREATS, CONSERVATION, AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES
This chapter addresses the many factors that are negatively impacting coastal habitats
and species in the St. Clair Region. Environmental stressors such as non-native
invasive species, changes in land use, shoreline alteration resulting in loss of habitat
and hardened shorelines, and nutrient and chemical contamination are persistent in the
ecosystem. Although there are many conservation concerns in the area, focus will be
given to those that are most closely related to wetlands and waterfowl in the region.
Non-native Invasive Species
A non-native species is any plant or animal that is introduced to a new location outside
their native range. Non-native species can be either invasive or non-invasive, and
invasive non-native species are especially problematic as they have the ability to outcompete native species and spread causing damage to their environment. Non-native
invasive species that enter lakes and wetlands can directly influence the abundance of
native plants and wildlife by competing for food and space, foraging on native species,
or becoming food for other animals. Indirectly, non-native species can change several
habitat features, including nutrient and contaminant cycling, hydrology, and water
clarity. These changes can alter relationships among wetland plants and animals. Nonnative species are a primary cause of wetland degradation in the Great Lakes and are a
growing concern. Unfortunately, there is currently insufficient effort to prevent the
spread of non-native species into the Great Lakes system. Data from 2012 indicates
there are over 180 non-native aquatic species established in the Great Lakes.
Dreissenid mussels covering a cement structure within the Great Lakes.
Non-native species of concern in the Lake St. Clair region include, but are not limited to,
fish, such as the Asian Carp, aquatic vegetation such as Eurasian Water Milfoil,
European Frog-bit, and European Common Reed (herein Phragmites), invertebrates
such as Rusty Crayfish, and dressined mussels, reptiles such as the Red-eared Slider,
and birds such as the Mute Swan. With Lake St. Clair’s role as a major shipping route
connecting the upper and lower Great Lakes, this ecosystem is at continued high risk
for introduction of aquatic non-native invasive species. Through study of direct and
indirect impacts of non-native species, researchers are trying to develop the best
management practices to deal with current and potential non-native species at Lake St.
Clair. This section highlights the history, influence, and potential impacts of introduced
species that are currently the most imminent threats to waterfowl and wetlands Lake St.
Clair.
88
Phragmites
Phragmites is considered to be
Canada’s worst invasive plant.
In North America there is the
native Phragmites australis
americanus and the
problematic non-native
invasive Phragmites australis
australis that is outcompeting
native plants including native
Phragmites. When speaking of
Phragmites in this document,
we are referring to the nonnative subspecies. As one of
the most aggressive marsh
invasive species in North
America, stands of Phragmites
can reach greater than 5 m in
height and a density of 200 stems/m2. Due to its incredible competitive ability,
Phragmites has replaced much of the cattail and meadow marsh habitats within the
Lake St. Clair region. In fact, one of the first discoveries of Phragmites in Ontario was
on Walpole Island in 1948. Today there is a major Phragmites infestation at Lake St.
Clair and throughout southwestern Ontario.
Phragmites covers the landscape, out competing native species and forming large
monotypic stands, which impair wetland functions such as hydrology and nutrient
cycling. These monotypic stands are incredibly dense and negatively impact native
plant species by shading, overcrowding and inhibiting seed germination through release
of a mild root toxin, resulting in the loss of native plant diversity and greatly decreased
community composition. Phragmites stands also change animal diversity by altering
habitat structure and accessibility of wetland interiors. These stands prevent access to
many open marsh and meadow-marsh habitats that were previously used by fish and
wildlife species. Research has shown that as Phragmites stands increase in size,
wildlife use of the habitat decreases. For example, as monotypic Phragmites stands
increase, less edge habitat is available. As habitat edge disappears, abundance and
diversity of bird species decline because they are known to be highest at habitat edges.
Calculations from the Michigan Technological Research Institute’s Great Lakes Coastal
Wetland layer (2007–2011) indicate that coastal habitats at Lake St. Clair include over
6,250 ha of Phragmites (Figure 4.1). Greater than 80% (5,469 ha) of coastal Phragmites
coverage occurs on the St. Clair Delta and approximately 10% (751 ha) occurs between
Mitchell’s Bay and the Thames River. Outside of coastal habitats, Phragmites occurs at
much lower intensities and coverage only increases by 590 ha when including habitats
up to 10 km from Lake St. Clair’s edge.
89
A
B
© Michael Schummer
Figure 4.1 Distribution of Phragmites stands greater than 0.2 ha in size. Map A shows the extent of
Phragmites throughout the entire lake. Map B shows the extent of the Phragmites invasion at the
St. Clair River Delta where 80% of St. Clair's coastal Phragmites is found. Shapefile on
Phragmites extent from the Michigan Technological Research Institute's Great Lakes Coastal
Wetland Map (2007 – 2011).
Phragmites reproduces sexually and asexually, and once established, stands are very
difficult to control. Management of Phragmites is difficult because each stalk produces
thousands of seeds that are easily spread by wind and water. Moreover, Phragmites
roots or rhizomes can also regenerate entire plant stands. Because the roots spread
both horizontally and vertically and can extend up to 1.8 – 2.4 m deep, removal by hand
is almost impossible. Management practices are expensive and resource-intensive and
therefore difficult to maintain and finance over long periods of time. Current
management techniques include herbicide applications, which are not species-selective,
and controlled burns. Unfortunately, legislation in Canada prevents the application of
surfactant free herbicides over water, which greatly restricts efficacy of chemical
treatment.
90
Managers and biologists on the Michigan side of Lake St. Clair aerially apply herbicides
to control Phragmites. It is estimated that mechanical and chemical control of this nonnative invasive plant costs $4.6 million / year in the US. Despite this economic
investment in Phragmites management in the US, there has been no statistical decline
in Phragmites distribution. Unfortunately these control efforts are often unsuccessful
because treatments are often not continued in the long term.
Phragmites treatment in Ontario costs $865 – $1,112 per ha and efforts have been
successful when well-developed short- and long-term control plans are implemented.
These plans are designed by the Ontario Phragmites Working Group and combine
repeated treatment efforts with effective public education and awareness campaigns.
The longer that stands of Phragmites are left unmanaged the more expensive and
difficult they are to control. By controlling Phragmites through use of proper tools and
large scale and well-coordinated efforts, managers can help protect biodiversity and
species at risk, support more natural wetland ecosystems, and decrease economic
impacts of this non-native invasive species.
© Janice Gilbert
New shoots of Phragmites plants growing out of the rhizome from one parent plant. Picture taken
by Janice Gilbert on St. Joseph’s Island, Lake Huron.
91
Dreissenid Mussels
One of the most tangible
threats to Lake St. Clair
was the introduction of
dreissenid mussels
(Zebra and Quagga),
which were first detected
in the lake in 1988
(Figure 4.2). Dreissenid
mussels have been
accidentally introduced in
many countries
worldwide, mostly
through water in the
ballast tanks of ships.
These invasive mussels
act both as competitors to
native mussels and as a
food source for many species of wildlife. Dreissenid mussels also have the ability to
affect water quality and clarity, which directly influences the composition of species and
biomass of native invertebrates and plants, thereby altering the food web. Following the
introduction of Dreissenid mussels in Lake St. Clair, dramatic ecological changes
including the collapse of native mussel populations and an overall decrease in lake
productivity have occurred. Moreover, extremely fast growth patterns of these mussels
quickly cover any available surface, causing damage to harbors, waterways, boats, and
water treatment and power plants.
Each dreissenid mussel filters up to 3.8 L of water per day, thus large amounts of algae
and other suspended particles are removed from the water column, improving water
clarity. The introduction of these filter-feeding mussels was followed by a two-fold
increase in water clarity at Lake St. Clair between 1986 and 1994. For example, the shift
in lake transparency went from 0.9 – 1.9 m in 1976 – 1988 to 1.2 – 4.0 m in 1989 –
1993. This increase in water clarity has resulted in greater light penetration into deeper
waters. Improved light penetration along with high nutrient loads of phosphates and
nitrates entering Lake St. Clair from nearby agricultural or urban areas has resulted in
an increase in submerged aquatic vegetation abundances in the mid-1990s. As a result
of all of these factors combined, dreissenid mussels greatly altered the ecosystem at
Lake St. Clair, and the impact of these changes on waterfowl is discussed below.
Following the introduction of dreissenid mussels to the Great Lakes in the mid-1990s,
scientists recorded an increased use of lower Great Lake open water habitats by
molluscivorous diving ducks. Some species such as the Bufflehead, Common
Goldeneye, and Lesser and Greater Scaup appeared to alter migration routes to take
advantage of this novel food source. Specifically in Lake St. Clair, use-days for diving
92
ducks during autumn migration increased from 1.1 million before dreissenid
establishment to 2.1 million after. This increase in diving duck use-days was primarily
due to an increase in Canvasback and scaup numbers at Lake St. Clair during autumn
despite the stability of continental Canvasback populations and decline in continental
scaup populations at the time of the study. Increased presence of Canvasback and
scaup appears to be linked to increased food availability, with scaup consuming
dreissenid mussels as a novel food source and Canvasbacks taking advantage of the
increased submerged aquatic vegetation foods.
Dreissenid mussels are filter
feeders and thus filter
pollution out of water and
enrich lake-floor food
supplies for bottom-feeding
species and the fish that
feed on them. Since the
introduction of dreissenid
mussels to Lake St. Clair,
the catch of Yellow Perch
has increased 5-fold.
However, dreissenid
mussels can also cause a
bioaccumulation of
contaminants and pollutants
for animals, such as fish and
waterfowl that consume
these mussels. In particular,
bay ducks such as
Canvasbacks and scaup, as
well as sea ducks, such as
scoters and Long-tailed
Ducks, have higher levels of
Figure 4.2 Location of dreissenid mussel sightings within Lake contaminants than those
St. Clair from 1988 – 2008. Layer developed by the Great Lakes species that primarily eat
Information Network (2011).
plant foods (e.g., dabbling
ducks). In addition,
dreissenid mussels are thought to be the source of avian botulism, which has poisoned
and killed thousands of birds in the Great Lakes since the late 1990s. High levels of
contaminants are also known to impair breeding success. However, studies have shown
that when waterfowl are not constantly exposed to high levels of these toxins they are
able to metabolize them. As a result reproduction and survival are not likely impacted by
the levels of toxicity received from consuming dreissenid mussels at the Great Lakes
during migration and winter.
93
The great abundance of dreissenid mussels was short lived at Lake St. Clair and many
areas have experienced significant population declines since the early 2000s.
Specifically, dreissenid mussels have declined in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, likely
due to the fact that sandy bottoms are not their preferred substrate. However, colonies
are still well established in Lake Ontario and Lake Huron, particularly in areas with rocky
substrate. While the rapidly growing mussel population attracted waterfowl to the region,
the region is now experiencing another potential shift in community structure. For
instance, Long Point Bay, Ontario experienced a 96% decrease in dreissenid mussel
abundance from 1991 – 2009. Decreased abundance of dreissenids as a result of
control efforts corresponded with a decreased abundance and distribution of some
important submerged aquatic vegetation species (Richardson’s Pondweed, Eurasian
Watermilfoil, Naiad spp., Wild Celery, and Muskgrass). As these are also some of the
most common submerged aquatic vegetation species at Lake St. Clair, it can be
assumed that submerged aquatic vegetation community structure in Lake St. Clair
would have followed a similar pattern. A decreased diving duck population at Lake St.
Clair also followed decreased dreissenid mussel abundance. For instance, combined
numbers of Canvasbacks, scaup, and Redheads from the mid-winter waterfowl survey
decreased from an average of 72,000 birds in 1995 – 2000 to an average of 42,500
birds in 2001 – 2008.
94
Mute Swan
Mute Swans were introduced to North America from Eurasia through intentional
releases to city parks and accidental escapes from avicultural collections and estates in
the late 1800s and early 1900s. The first feral pair of Mute Swans was introduced to
Michigan in Charlevoix County in 1919 and the first documented nest in Ontario was in
1958 at a golf course in Georgetown. Mute Swans established resident populations at
the Great Lakes, with approximately 2,000 wild birds in Michigan by 1990 and 120 wild
swans in Ontario by 1987.
Adult Mute Swans can be differentiated from North America’s two native swan species,
the Tundra Swan and the Trumpeter Swan, by their orange, knobbed bills (Figure 4.3).
Both native swan species have a fully black bill (Figure 4.3). Other more subtle
differences include an “S”-shaped curve in the Mute Swans neck compared to a “C”shaped curve in Trumpeter and Tundra Swans. Mute Swans are also generally quieter
than Trumpeter Swans, which have a loud trumpet-like call. Mute and Trumpeter Swans
(9 – 12 and 7 – 14 kg, respectively) are much larger than the Tundra Swan (4 – 10 kg).
Figure 4.3 Anatomical differences between Mute, Trumpeter, and Tundra
Swans. Created by the Trumpeter Swan Society.
Mute Swan populations in North America have been growing at an exponential rate and
have expanded along the northeastern Atlantic Coast, portions of the Pacific Coast and
the southern half of the Great Lakes basin. Mute Swans were first observed in the
1960s on the Great Lakes and are now found along the coasts of Lake Ontario, Lake
Erie, Lake St. Clair, and southern Lake Huron. Mute Swans are now expanding their
distribution into inland lakes, ponds and wetlands. Michigan currently has the highest
Mute Swan densities in North America, with an estimated population of over 15,500
swans in 2010. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has estimated the
annual growth rate of the population to be 9 – 10% throughout the state. Within Ontario,
Mute Swan densities are greatest in coastal marshes at western Lake Ontario and from
the western end of Lake Erie to the St. Clair River. The Mid-summer Mute Swan Survey
(1968 – 2014) estimates Ontario’s lower Great Lakes Mute Swan. The Ontario Mute
Swan population increased by an average of 15% each year, from 615 swans in 1986 to
95
3,200 swans in 2014. At Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River, summer Mute Swan
numbers more than doubled from 2002 to 2014 (Figure 4.4). Winter populations varied
greatly between years and there was only an increase of 217 wintering swans between
2002 and 2014 (Figure 4.4). This could be due to Mute Swans crossing to the US side
of the lake in winter. Spring and autumn decadal surveys completed by the Canadian
Wildlife Service in 2011 show similar numbers of Mute Swans on the Canadian side of
Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River, with a peak abundance of 2,493 swans in spring
and 2,322 swans in autumn. Because of the optimal foraging and nesting habitat within
the St. Clair Delta, this area supports the highest density of Mute Swans occurring
throughout the Canadian lower Great Lakes.
Abundance of Mute Swans
2500
Summer
Winter
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
Figure 4.4 Abundance of Mute Swans during summer (black) and winter (red) at Lake St. Clair and
the Detroit River from 2002 – 2014. Abundance estimates were obtained during summer (April –
May) for breeding Mute Swans through the Midsummer Mute Swan Survey and during winter from
the Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey (early January).
With their increasing presence at Lake St. Clair, Mute Swans have the capacity to
negatively impact waterfowl and other wetland dependent organisms in four ways: 1)
competition with native waterfowl for food, 2) displacement of native waterbirds, 3)
physical danger to native waterbirds, and 4) direct threat to humans. As Mute Swans
are a large waterfowl species, they can consume and uproot substantial quantities of
aquatic vegetation when foraging, and are known to consume approximately 3.8 kg of
aquatic plants per swan per day. However, Mute Swans often uproot and kill
approximately 50% more vegetation than they consume. Because these birds do not
migrate, their impact on Lake St. Clair wetland habitats occurs throughout the year.
Thus, Mute Swans have the capacity to greatly reduce the availability of aquatic
vegetation, which may result in a reduced carrying capacity of wetlands for native
96
wildlife species. For instance, resident Mute Swans in Chesapeake Bay were shown to
reduce the abundance of aquatic vegetation by 75% in two years.
Mute Swans are also a highly territorial species, especially during the breeding season
(March – August) when they establish and aggressively defend territories from 0.2 – 5.0
ha in size. This territoriality and aggression reduces the amount of coastal wetland
habitat available to native waterbirds by displacing native waterfowl from nesting and
feeding areas, often resulting in injuring or killing other birds. Examples of negative
Mute Swan/ wildlife interactions include records of Mute Swans trampling eggs and
nests, and killing Mallard ducklings and Canada Goose goslings. Because they are a
large, aggressive bird with little fear of humans, people are periodically attacked during
the breeding season. These attacks most often occur on the water when people are
canoeing or kayaking close to Mute Swan territories. With such great potential for
negative impacts to wildlife, humans, and aquatic habitats, the Mute Swan is a major
conservation concern in North America.
Protection and control of Mute Swans in North
America was originally governed by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which issued protection
for all migratory birds in Canada and the US. In
2004, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act was
issued to remove the non-native invasive Mute
Swan from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This act
effectively removed protection of Mute Swans in
the US; however, Mute Swans remain protected
by the Migratory Bird Convention Act (1994) in
Canada. In the US, Mute Swans are currently
managed by state jurisdiction. Because they are
a protected species in Canada, the Canadian
Wildlife Service controls Mute Swans populations
on National Wildlife Area properties only and
landowners must request a permit to lethally
control swans. Mute Swans are not controlled in
urban areas or within provincial parks in Canada.
In these urban areas, public perception of Mute
Swans is generally positive and results in the feeding and protection of swans in these
locations. Unless increased control efforts are implemented, it is anticipated that the
Great Lakes population will continue to increase.
97
Land Use Change
This section addresses land use change with respect to wetland and agricultural
habitats and the potential impacts upon waterfowl populations. As discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2, there have been extensive changes to habitats in the Lake St. Clair
region over the past few centuries. Along the American side of Lake St. Clair,
urbanization intensified during World War II and then rapidly expanded in the mid1970s. Today, most of the American coastline and the St. Clair River is currently
developed and hardened with structures such as retaining walls. In contrast, most of the
Canadian side was spared from commercial development as most of the land adjacent
to the lake was drained for agriculture. Upland areas associated with wetland
complexes or riparian areas that buffer flooded landscapes are equally as important to
conservation efforts and should be included in any assessment of wetland quality for
waterfowl or other wildlife. For instance, waterfowl often forage on agricultural waste
grain to supplement their traditionally aquatic based diets.
The estimated change in land cover
within 48 km of the shoreline of Lake St.
Clair has been determined using GIS
layers from the National Land
Classification Dataset (US 1992 and
2006), Agriculture Resource Inventory
(Canada 1983) and Ducks Unlimited’s
Hybrid Wetland Layer (Canada 2006).
Habitat type have been defined as
follows:
1) Agricultural Crops – all types of
agriculture including grain crops,
vegetables, and livestock
2) Developed – buildings, concrete/paved
areas, and other open developed areas
3) Undeveloped – forest, abandoned
agricultural fields, and barren land
4) Open Water – open water such as
ponds, lakes, and riverine habitats
5) Wetlands – all other aquatic habitats.
Results suggest that there has been little change in land cover on the Canadian side of
Lake St. Clair in the 20 year span examined, although approximately 1% of the overall
land coverage was converted from wetlands to agricultural lands. Unfortunately, this 1%
change in overall land cover represented a 34% loss of wetlands within Canada’s Lake
St. Clair region (Figures 4.5 and 4.6).
98
Land cover on the USA side of Lake St. Clair has changed substantially, as developed
land increased by 20% between 1992 and 2006. The increase in developed land
resulted in a 11% loss of agricultural land and a 10% loss of undeveloped land. During
this time, wetland habitat increased by 2% (Figures 4.5 and 4.6).
It is important to recognize that these numbers are only estimates based on land cover
GIS layers. While these estimates provide a good stepping-stone for habitat measures,
future habitat delineation and mapping is required to obtain accurate habitat
assessments for conservation and management of the Lake St. Clair region.
99
Figure 4.5 Change in land use on the US and Canadian sides of Lake St. Clair. Land cover data for the US obtained from the
National Land Cover Dataset in 1992 and 2006. Canadian land cover data obtained from the Agriculture Resource Inventory
(Circa 1983) and Ducks Unlimited Hybrid Wetland Layer for 2006.
100
Figure 4.6 Graphical representation of land change within 48 km from the shoreline of Lake St. Clair, estimated in ArcGIS using
shapefiles from the National Land Classification Dataset (US 1992 and 2006), Agriculture Resource Inventory (Canada 1983) and
Ducks Unlimited’s Hybrid Wetland Layer (Canada 2006).
101
Wetland Loss and Degradation
The shallow nature of Lake St. Clair and associated wetlands provides ideal growth
conditions for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and thus provides important habitat
for breeding, staging and wintering waterfowl. Unfortunately, most of the wetlands
associated with Lake St. Clair have been drained due to the value of these lands for
growing cereal grains and vegetables. As the remaining coastal wetlands at Lake St.
Clair still provide internationally important staging and wintering habitat for thousands of
waterfowl each year, it is important to document the change in wetland habitat and
preserve the remaining wetlands in the region.
More than 90% of the original wetlands in Southwestern Ontario have been drained.
Wetland loss can primarily be attributed agricultural conversion (Canadian side) and
urban development (US side). It is currently estimated that 75 – 80% of the original
wetlands have been lost or
severely degraded throughout
the Lake St. Clair region.
Investigation of land cover
within 48 km of Lake St. Clair
indicates less than 10% of the
landscape is covered by
wetland habitat (2% of
Canadian habitats and 8% on
the US side). Most of the
remaining wetlands at Lake St.
Clair are diked and maintained
by hunt clubs (see Chapter 1).
Calculations of coastal wetland
cover within 1 km of Lake St.
Clair’s Canadian and US
shoreline using the MTRI Great
Lakes Coastal Wetlands layer
© Michael Schummer
indicates that 37,216 ha of
Seed corn planted in a drained marsh at Lake St. Clair
wetlands remain. Non-native
species, sedimentation, erosion, eutrophication, point source pollutants, and other
threats to the landscape have degraded many of the remaining coastal wetlands. For
instance, 17% of remaining wetlands at Lake St. Clair are now monotypic stands of nonnative Phragmites.
Although major industry and oil production has declined, the dredged channel
connecting the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers remains an important international shipping
lane while recreational boating and fishing have become more important to the region’s
economy. At the current state of demands on the landscape, it will be a challenge to
meet ecological commitments and recreational and economical goals.
102
One of the most important factors in wetland development is hydrology (water level
fluctuation), affecting organic matter accumulation, nutrient cycling, productivity, and
vegetation dynamics, establishment and distribution. Hydrologic changes occur as a
result of temporary, seasonal, or annual fluctuations in water levels. The duration,
frequency, and magnitude of water level changes significantly influence plant life, which
in turn influence wildlife, such as waterfowl. Unpredictable and variable water levels are
known to result in greater wetland
biodiversity, providing higher quality
habitats for the wildlife using these
systems. Temporary fluctuations are
caused by wind and atmospheric
pressures, and seasonal fluctuations
occur over a longer temporal scale,
reflecting hydrological cycle related to
the seasons. For example, during late
autumn and winter, low water levels are
a result of warm lake water and cool air
causing evaporation, whereas the
highest water levels are found in the
early summer as a result of the snowmelt and spring run-off. Multi-year
fluctuations are related to changes in
climate, most specifically to levels of
precipitation, and are essential to
maintaining biodiversity in aquatic
systems. However, as over 50% of
coastal wetlands at Lake St. Clair are
diked, the hydrology of these wetlands
no longer fluctuates naturally with the
lake and instead relies on proper
management techniques to promote
wetland health and biodiversity.
With a population greater than 4 million
people in the Lake St. Clair watershed,
a major concern for remaining coastal
wetlands is the continuous pressure
from urbanization and agriculture. As
© Michael Schummer
human populations continue to grow
Drainage tile (drains circled in red) in agricultural around Lake St. Clair, the demand for
field to permit conversion from wetland habitat to more land to be converted to
anthropogenic use.
agricultural, industrial, and urban areas
will continue to rise. Adding to direct wetland loss, the cumulative impact of continually
increasing boat traffic will increase turbidity, physical damage, uprooting aquatic
103
vegetation, and could result in an overall decline in waterfowl food availability.
Increased use will also elevate the level of disturbance to staging waterfowl and
potentially diminish one of the critical functions of Lake St. Clair’s wetlands.
Unfortunately, the value of coastal wetlands is often underappreciated, or not realized
by the general public. Socioeconomic values of wetlands include flood prevention,
sediment trapping, waste treatment, food production, and recreation stem. In addition to
the above socioeconomic values, abundant vegetation provides diverse community
structure offering food and cover for many wildlife species. Moreover, coastal wetlands
also hold cultural or auxiliary value for both consumptive and non-consumptive users.
Coastal wetlands also play an essential role in water quality improvement, a major
concern in the Great Lakes basin.
At present, there are insufficient protective measures in place to ensure the
preservation of coastal wetlands. Although diked impoundments provide high quality
spring and autumn staging areas for migratory waterfowl, they are easily drained for
agriculture and development. Unfortunately, dike wetlands on the Canadian side of
Lake St. Clair continue to be drained for agricultural use. This can be attributed to the
fact that Ontario has insufficient wetland protection legislation as well as the high
economic value of these lands for agriculture. If remaining wetlands are to be protected
in perpetuity, better legislation needs to be developed and enforced.
© Doug Beckers
Wetland ring drain used as a flood gate to control water level of wetlands.
104
Agricultural Practices at Lake St. Clair
Changes in agricultural practices have the potential to greatly influence the availability
of food for many waterfowl species, particularly swans, geese, and dabbling ducks.
Many species of waterfowl rely on agricultural grains to meet energetic demands,
especially during winter and spring when aquatic foods may be inaccessible due to ice
cover or have reduced availability due to foraging and winter senescence. Agricultural
crops that are frequently consumed by waterfowl include corn, winter wheat, barley,
oats, and soybeans.
© Michael Schummer
Lake St. Clair’s moderate climate and nutrient rich soils makes it especially attractive for
the production of fruits, vegetables, and grain crops. The principle crops currently
produced on the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair are corn and vegetables such as
beans, beets, celery, peas, onions, and tomatoes. Because waterfowl generally do not
consume vegetables, the availability of supplementary agricultural forage for waterfowl
has decreased in the region as farmers convert fields from cereal grains to vegetables.
Moreover, vegetables are often grown close to the lakeshore due to more moderate
climates and increased availability of water. Thus, the availability of agricultural forage
for waterfowl species is further decreased due to relatively increased travelling
distances required to field feed. Over the past 10 years, the number of hectares devoted
to growing fruits and vegetables (e.g., apples, grapes, peaches, strawberries, tomatoes,
carrots, beans, onions, peppers, and peas) along the lakeshore has increased by 30 –
40%, which has reduced the amount of grain crops available for foraging waterfowl.
Corn agricultural practices have changed substantially in the past century. Farmers are
no longer using the seed from previous corn crops to plant their fields for the next
season, but instead are planting hybrid corn seeds. The establishment of hybrid seeds
has allowed for selective breeding to increase yield, increase disease/insect/drought
resistance, and promote early maturity. Because companies pay more for seed corn
than they do for other commercial corn varieties (i.e., sweet corn and cattle/dry corn;
here in commercial corn), the trend has been to move toward growing seed corn over
commercial corn whenever possible. In Ontario, the only region with the necessary
105
moderate climate to grow seed corn is the southwestern tip of the province. Thus, seed
corn is a very popular crop in the Lake St. Clair region.
The production and harvesting of seed corn is much different than that of other
commercial corn as it involves the removal of tassels and the harvesting of fully intact
husks using specialized harvesters. These altered practices have significant impacts on
waterfowl as there is very little waste grain left behind for waterfowl. At Lake St. Clair,
the move toward seed corn production started in the 1970s and accelerated in the
1980s. This resulted in decreased availability of waste corn forage for waterfowl.
However, in the past 5 years, the yield for seed corn has grown so significantly that the
number of hectares planted has begun to decrease. Seed corn companies have
reduced their production down and are moving productions away from the lakeshore
and closer to inland processing facilities. For instance, Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. (Chatham,
Ontario) has reduced the number of hectares of seed corn planted by 71% between
2013 and 2015 (10,521 ha to 3,237 ha, respectively).
Overall, increased production of vegetable/fruit and seed corn in the Lake St. Clair
region over the past 30 years has resulted in less land being devoted to cereal or grain
crops that benefit waterfowl. Based on Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
statistics for Chatham-Kent and Essex Counties (2003-2012), there was a 4% annual
increase in hectares of commercial and seed corn planted (2,988 ha/year; Figure 4.7).
The amount of hectares of winter wheat and other grains (barley, oats and mixed
grains) seeded decreased by approximately 10% (1,478 ha/year) and 20% (74 ha/year),
respectively each year (Figure 4.7).
100000
10000
Winter wheat
Corn
Other grains
8000
80000
6000
60000
4000
40000
2000
20000
0
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 4.7 Number of hectares seeded in grain crops each year; winter wheat and corn are
represented on the primary y-axis and hectares of barley, oats and mixed grains are on the
secondary y-axis. Agricultural statistics obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and
Food for Chatham-Kent and Essex Counties from 2003 – 2012.
2003 2004
106
Hectares of Other Grains Seeded/
Year
Hectares of Winter Wheat and Corn
Seeded/Year
Grain Crops: Hectares Seeded/Year
120000
To calculate the change in availability of waste grain to foraging waterfowl, we used the
average corn yield (kg/ha) as an index of harvester efficiency. On average, yield
increased by 211.5 kg/ha each year (Figure 4.8), suggesting that the availability of
waste agricultural grain to waterfowl has been decreasing. Increased harvester
efficiency has coincided with a decline in hectares planted in commercial corn, thus
decreasing the availability of agricultural forage to waterfowl at Lake St. Clair. It is
important to note that yield changes are not a direct reflection of harvester efficiency as
other factors may also contribute to corn yield, such as genetics, environmental factors,
percent moisture of harvested corn, and other anthropogenic effects. Thus, these
values can only be used as an index of waste grain availability to foraging waterfowl.
Grain Corn Yield
11500
Corn Yield (kg/ha)
11000
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 4.8 Change in corn yield (kg of harvested corn / hectare) by year; used as an index for
harvester efficiency where an increased yield represents increased effciency. Agricultural
statistics obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food for Chatham-Kent and Essex
Counties from 2003 – 2012.
While Canada Geese and Tundra Swans have been observed foraging on certain
vegetables such as carrots, dabbling ducks such as Mallards or Northern Pintails do not
exploit these food sources. As the availability of waste grain along the lakeshores of
Lake St. Clair decrease, the occurrence of dabbling ducks foraging in agricultural fields
has also declined. The provision of flooded corn and baited areas has likely
compensated somewhat for declining field-feeding opportunities. As changing
agricultural practices have the capacity to alter waterfowl habitat movements and
foraging strategies, it is important to continue to monitor agricultural trends into the
future in the Lake St. Clair region.
107
Industrial Development and Contaminants
As one of the most
industrialized and
environmentally altered
areas in the Great Lakes
basin, Lake St. Clair and
its major rivers have been
subjected to an arsenal of
pollutants for decades.
With a population of
greater than 4 million
people within the Lake St.
Clair watershed, this
region is subjected to
substantial industrial
development, urban
sprawl, agricultural run-off,
and shipping traffic that
contribute to contaminate
loading. One of the major
sources of contaminants in
the lake is the major
petrochemical industrial
region present upstream
along the St. Clair River.
The regions 15
© Michael Schummer
petrochemical plants use
river water and contribute
significant loading of chemicals such as organochlorines, metals and other
contaminants, which can be found up to 35 km downstream. In addition to these
emissions, shipping traffic also presents an imminent threat to the health of Lake St.
Clair. Between 1974 and 1986, a total of 32 major spills and hundreds of minor spills
resulted in more than 10 tons of pollutants entering the waterways.
Although contamination of Lake St. Clair was a concern as early as the 1940s, it was
during the 1960s and 1970s that contaminant inputs from urbanization, industry, and
farming led to major degradation of water quality and biodiversity in the Lake St. Clair
watershed. In 1979 the St. Clair National Wildlife Area was contaminated by the
herbicide Atrazine, which reduced invertebrate populations and decreased marsh
quality. In the 1980s there was elevated levels of organochlorines found in caged clams
and in algae in the St. Clair River after only 3 weeks of exposure. With increased
concerns from the public and government about growing contamination in the region,
Lake St. Clair was officially identified as an Area of Concern (AOC) in 1985. There are
108
four areas within the Lake St. Clair watershed that have been so greatly degraded that
they are now considered AOC. These AOC are the St. Clair River, Clinton River, Detroit
River, and the Detroit River basin (Figure 4.9). The Detroit River alone has 2,097 km2 of
tributaries and sewers that drain large industrial and urban areas, often containing
elevated levels of sediments, nutrients, bacteria, metals, and chemicals. Although not
officially designated as an AOC, the Thames River also contributes to the level of
contaminants in Lake St. Clair, particularly through the runoff of agricultural
contaminants. These AOC and their contributing hydrological units are shown in Figure
4.9, which highlights the specific contaminants of concern for each AOC.
Figure 4.9 Areas of Concern in the Lake St. Clair watershed as designated by the US-Canada Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
109
Since its designation as an AOC in 1985, numerous sources of contaminants to the
Lake St. Clair system were identified, with the St. Clair River’s petrochemical plants
identified as the primary source of chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), ostachlorostyrene (OCS), and mercury. Following the
designation of the region and identification of sources of contaminants, several remedial
efforts were taken to decrease contaminant loading in the lake. For instance, upgrades
to industrial infrastructure resulted in decreased volumes of waste discharges (e.g.,
HCB discharges decreased by 50% between 1988 and 2001), chlorine industry in the
region began to decrease in the 1970s and direct discharges of OCS was terminated in
1993, and sediment in the St. Clair River was dredged to reduce chemicals such as
mercury and chlorinated organic compounds in 1996, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Other
contributing factors to decreased contamination in Lake St. Clair were the closing of the
chlor-alkali plant in the St. Clair River in the early 1970s (previously a major source of
mercury contamination), the restriction of PCB discharges in Sarnia in the 1970s, and
the ban on production of PCBs and DDT in North America in the 1970s. Recent studies
of the St. Clair River indicate concentrations of metals, chlorine compounds, and
several pesticides are declining, while contaminants such as phosphorus and bacteria
show no change.
Contamination with Respect to Wildlife
Eutrophication and chemical contaminants (e.g., herbicides and pesticides) negatively
impact the wildlife at Lake St. Clair. Eutrophication occurs through nutrient loading from
agricultural and residential runoff in Lake St. Clair and has resulted in high levels of
bacteria, frequent algae blooms at river mouths and reduced water quality. Chemical
contaminants (discussed above) are detrimental to aquatic invertebrate populations,
which negatively impact waterfowl and other wildlife that feed on these species.
Elemental contamination occurs in wildlife but the impacts depend upon the availability
of pollutants and where the animal is in the food web (Figure 4.10). Through
bioaccumulation, environmental contaminants have been linked to decreased
reproduction, changes in behaviour, and mortality in wildlife, and thus, these elements
are commonly monitored in wetlands and wildlife. Organic (e.g., PCBs, Mirex) and
inorganic (e.g., mercury, cadmium, selenium, copper) contaminants have been a
concern for human and wildlife health for decades (Figure 4.10).
110
Figure 4.10 Bioaccumulation of PCBs in the Great Lakes food web; source US Environmental
Protection Agency.
In 1969, the first fish with levels of elevated mercury was discovered at Lake St. Clair,
resulting in a commercial ban on fish in the 1970s. Because fish are consumed by
humans and have been shown to be valuable indicators of ambient levels of
contamination in the environment, contaminant levels in a variety of sports fish at Lake
St. Clair have been monitored since the 1970s. Studies have shown that concentrations
of mercury, PCBs, OCS, HCB, and DDT declined significantly between the 1970s and
1990s and most have stabilized since that time. Initial declines were likely due to
decreased contaminant inputs to Lake St. Clair, as discussed above. However, as
levels began to stabilize (1980s for mercury and 1990s for PCBs, OCS, HCB, and
DDT), it is thought that atmospheric contributions and residual contaminants in the
sediment became the primary contaminant source in fish, rather than direct sources as
previously observed.
Contaminant burdens in waterfowl have also been studied at Lake St. Clair because
their foraging strategies put them at risk of exposure. Despite the decreased level of
contamination in Lake St. Clair in recent years, waterfowl collected from the lake and its
major rivers have identified elevated levels of contaminants. For instance, herbivorous
Mute Swans collected at Lake St. Clair (2001 – 2004) had elevated levels of selenium
and copper and Lesser and Greater Scaup had elevated levels of selenium (1999 –
2000). Selenium is a semi-metallic trace element that is nutritionally required by
111
waterfowl in small amounts but that can cause reproductive (liver concentrations greater
than 10 µg/g) and health impairments (liver concentrations greater than 33 µg/g) at
elevated levels. The level of selenium observed in Mute Swans was on average
6.55µg/g in females and 11.59µg/g in males, and level of selenium in scaup during
spring was 15.6µg/g in Lesser Scaup and 22.6µg/g in Greater Scaup. The influence of
copper on toxicity in waterfowl is unknown, however, copper poisoning has been
observed in birds with an average blood concentration of 3,957 µg/g. Levels of copper
recorded in Mute Swans were below this level. Studies have shown that when selenium
and copper occur simultaneously within a bird, these elements bind and become
essentially unavailable to the bird. For scaup, it was shown that selenium burdens
increased throughout the spring staging period through consumption of Zebra Mussels.
However, further field and captive studies determined that these elevated Selenium
burdens were in all likelihood not deleterious to the health of scaup staging or wintering
on the Great Lakes. Because Mute Swans are non-migratory, this non-native and
resident species is a good indicator of contaminants available to other species of
herbivorous waterfowl that use Lake St. Clair.
Capturing Greater Scaup in Hamilton Harbour with the industrial development along the harbours
edge in the background.
112
A study on overwintering Canvasbacks
and resident Mallards at Lake St. Clair
detected low concentrations of
organochlorines (e.g., PCB, DDE),
brominated flame retardants, and
mercury in both species. A comparison
of organochlorine levels in Mallards
collected on Lake St. Clair in 2010 to
levels in Mallards collected in 1985/86
showed a decline of 80 – 100 % of
organochlorine levels present.
However, when comparing levels of
HCB (an organochlorine pesticide) in
Canvasbacks from Lake St. Clair and
the St. Clair River to those measured in
Canvasbacks and Redheads in the
Detroit River in 1993/94, it was
discovered that levels exceeded
concentrations by 10 times. Levels of
selenium detected in Canvasbacks in
the study exceeded the reproduction
threshold (blood concentration of
10µg/g) in 33% of the birds collected,
with one bird (3%) exceeding the
threshold for health impairments (blood
concentration of 33µg/g). Mallards did not show elevated levels of selenium. The study
also demonstrated that contaminant levels of mercury, selenium, and organochlorines
increased the longer that Canvasbacks spent at Lake St. Clair. The majority of
Canvasbacks arrive at Lake St. Clair in fall with undetectable levels of these
contaminants and leave in spring with contaminant levels at least 5 times greater than
arrival. Specifically, increases were linked to the switch from foraging within the open
water in Lake St. Clair to foraging within the St. Clair River following freeze-up of the
lake. It is likely that dietary changes and declines in lipid reserves also contributed to
increased contaminant loadings from fall to spring.
More recently, a study of waterfowl that died of starvation during the exceptionally cold
winter of 2013/14 was completed at Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Lake St. Clair.
Herbivorous Mute Swans and Canvasbacks in this study were found to have hepatic
concentrations of selenium, lead, and zinc that were greater than concentrations known
to cause toxicosis and death in waterfowl. Levels of contamination were lower in
Canvasbacks than Mute Swans, suggesting migratory waterfowl may accumulate less
toxic concentrations of metal than non-migratory Mute Swans. Molluscivorous Greater
Scaup from this study had elevated contaminant levels of cadmium, mercury, and lead
and the highest levels of selenium than any other species in this study. Finally,
113
piscivorous Red-breasted Mergansers were found to have greater levels of selenium
than those shown to cause mortality in waterfowl and the greatest level of mercury than
any other species in this study. Because these birds died of starvation, it is impossible
to know whether elevated levels of hepatic metal concentrations resulted in emaciation,
or emaciation resulted in greater hepatic concentrations.
Overall, studies on contaminants in waterfowl suggest that, while a few contaminants
are elevated, survival does not appear to be compromised. However, studies do
indicate that herbivorous and omnivorous waterfowl species may be acquiring unhealthy
contaminant burdens at Lake St. Clair prior to the breeding season. It also appears that
contaminant loading might be most problematic for over-wintering waterfowl at Lake St.
Clair that are compromised by poor nutrition. These combined sources of stressors
have implications to wildlife and the habitat that remains.
114
Alternative Energy Development
The lakeshore and coastal wetlands at Lake St. Clair provide critically important habitat
for waterfowl, yet continue to face wetland drainage and conversion for anthropogenic
purposes. One recent change in the region that may be impacting waterfowl is the
construction of thousands of industrial wind turbines (IWTs) along the lakeshore and
adjacent to coastal wetlands.
The rapidity with which IWT developments are being proposed and constructed in
Ontario raises concerns about the potential impacts on waterfowl and other wildlife.
Some species, such as raptors, passerines, Monarch Butterflies, and bats, have
difficulty avoiding IWT blades and can suffer considerable collision mortality. While
collision mortality does occur in waterfowl, European studies have shown instead that
ducks, geese and swan tend to avoid IWTs in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. In fact,
various European researchers have determined that waterfowl rarely occur within 150 m
of IWTs and have identified this 300 m (diameter) area as an “Exclusion Zone”.
European researchers also identified a 500 m “Avoidance Zone” (1 km diameter) in
which waterfowl tend to avoid and large flocks rarely occur (Figure 4.11). Therefore,
IWTs that are constructed at a suitable distance from important waterfowl habitats likely
do not have significant
impacts on migratory
movements or foraging
habitats for waterfowl.
However, when IWTs
are constructed close to
coastal wetlands, in
closely associated and
traditionally used
agricultural fields, or in
shallow offshore waters,
it is possible that
waterfowl habitats could
© Katelyn Weaver
be compromised.
Currently Ontario regulations and guidelines require that IWTs cannot be placed within
550 m from human habitations and within 120 m of significant wildlife habitat. There is
also a moratorium on offshore IWT development in Ontario, but this could change in the
near future. Biologists have suggested that IWTs must be located away from sensitive
natural habitats, including wetlands and important migratory corridors, foraging habitat,
and known daily movement flyways between roosting and feeding areas. However, if a
Natural Heritage Assessment is completed and the results are favourable, Ontario
currently permits the placement of IWTs in Important Bird Areas. For example, Lake St.
Clair currently has 22 IWTs active in the Eastern Lake St. Clair Important Bird Area,
many of which are within 120 m of coastal wetlands. Given the above guidelines, the
115
chosen placement for IWTs is often in agricultural fields. Unfortunately, flocks of staging
and wintering ducks, geese, and swans use these agricultural fields and avoidance of
IWTs may reduce food accessibility. As there has been little research done in Canada
to determine the impacts of IWTs on habitat use or movements of staging or wintering
waterfowl, the continued construction of IWTs at Lake St. Clair is of concern for
waterfowl in the region.
As of mid 2014, there were 941 IWTs constructed, approved and proposed for Essex
and Kent Counties (Figure 4.11). Of the 941 IWTs within these two counties, 13% (121
IWTs) are located within 5 km of coastal wetlands and 15% (142 IWTs) are within
Important Bird Areas, including within agricultural fields traditionally used by large flocks
of foraging waterfowl. When factoring in the 500 m Avoidance Zone created by these
IWTs, the constructed, approved and proposed IWTs in Ontario may result in 9% of
agricultural habitats becoming effectively unavailable to waterfowl within 8 km of Lake
St. Clair (results are specific to the Ontario side of Lake St. Clair). As the majority of
these “unavailable” agricultural habitats are along the eastern shore of the lake where
waterfowl tend to congregate (Figures 4.12 and 4.13), there is concern that construction
of these IWTs will reduce food accessibility to field feeding waterfowl that stage and
winter in the Lake St. Clair region.
116
Figure 4.11 Locations of approved, active, and proposed Industrial Wind Turbines within 48 km of
the shore of Lake St. Clair. Exclusion Zones around each turbine is the 150 m distance that 100%
of waterfowl are excluded from due to their avoidance of turbines. The Avoidance Zone is the 500
m distance around turbines that waterfowl tend to avoid.
117
© Greg Dunn
Tundra Swan telemetry data from Long Point Waterfowl, the USFWS, and the USGS
(featured in Chapter 3) was used to investigate how IWTs at Lake St. Clair influenced
the movements of Tundra Swans in the region. Of 63 birds that were tracked, 29% (18
swans) spent time staging on the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair. Prior to IWT
development (1998 – 2003), telemetry locations indicated Tundra Swans were located
throughout the coastal wetlands associated with Lake St Clair as well as within the
agricultural fields adjacent to those wetlands (Figure 4.12). Following the placement of
the first phase of IWTs on the south shore Lake St. Clair all tracked Tundra Swans were
then located on the east side of the lake (8 swans), several km away from the IWT
development (Figure 4.12). Of the 18 tracked swans that spent time on the Canadian
side of Lake St. Clair, there was only one swan that was at Lake St. Clair both before
and after the construction of the turbines. The movement patterns of this swan was
consistent with the movements of Tundra Swans in Figure 4.12, with all but 1 location
on the south side of Lake St. Clair prior to the construction of the IWTs and all
movements on the eastern edge of Lake St. Clair following construction. Tundra Swan
displacement patterns at Lake St. Clair are in keeping with European studies that have
identified IWT avoidance by waterfowl.
118
Figure 4.12 Industrial Wind Turbine locations paired with Tundra Swan locations at Lake St. Clair
as identified by satellite telemetry units attached to 18 Tundra Swans by Long Point Waterfowl,
the USFWS, and the USGS (1998 – 2014).
119
Satellite telemetry data from Chapter 3 was also used to pair waterfowl locations with
the location of constructed, approved and proposed IWTs at Lake St. Clair (Figure
4.14). Because of Lake St. Clair’s importance to waterfowl and the potential threats
posed by onshore and offshore IWTs, it was important to identify areas where IWT
development overlaps with waterfowl habitat use. Based upon movement patterns of
tracked Mallards, Tundra Swans, and Lesser Scaup, it appears that IWT development
along the eastern edge of Lake St. Clair and the suggested placement of offshore
turbines would cause a major displacement of waterfowl at Lake St. Clair (Figure 4.14).
This is problematic based on the international significance of Lake St. Clair for
waterfowl, the fact that most coastal wetlands have already been drained or degraded,
and the continued declines in agricultural grain availability within the region. Further
studies should be conducted to determine the impact of IWTS on breeding, staging, and
wintering waterfowl in Ontario.
120
Figure 4.13 Locations of industrial wind turbines at Lake St. Clair paired with Mallard, Tundra
Swan and Scaup locations obtained from telemetry data obtained by Long Point Waterfowl, the
USFWS and the USGS (1998 – 2015). Turbine avoidance zones associated with approved and
proposed IWTs.
121
Future Conservation Efforts and Research Recommendations
In summarizing information on historic and present conditions of waterfowl and wetlands
within the Lake St. Clair region, this document has provided the necessary tools to
begin to assess the many conservation and management concerns that threaten the
region. The primary threats facing waterfowl and wetlands at Lake St. Clair are habitat
loss and degradation through spread of urban, industrial, and agricultural development,
the introduction of non-native invasive species, and contaminant loading in the basin.
Recommendations for the future:
• Implement best management practices that promote habitat sustainability, and
enhance water quality within the lake
• Enact adequate protective legislation to ensure that remaining wetlands are
protected from drainage and degradation
• Promote and participate in sound land-use management practices and habitat
restoration and protection projects
• Reduce the spread of and impact from non-native invasive species and
implement plans to prevent future introductions
• Identify contaminants of particularly dangerous levels and implement activities to
eliminate or greatly reduce their input to the lake and to remove or greatly reduce
contaminant remnants from the lake
Research priorities on loss and degradation of wetland habitat:
• Habitat selection by wetland wildlife for use in conservation planning
• Determine food availability and quality in wetland habitats for waterfowl and other
wildlife
• Characterize dominant habitat types in the region and their change through time
• Adopt and implement effective wetland restoration and management planning
• Identify implications of increased number of waterfowl overwintering at Lake St.
Clair, e.g., impact on food availability for spring migrants.
122
•
Monitor affect of alternative energy sources on wetland function and use by
waterfowl and other wildlife
Research priorities to understand perceptions of wetlands and wetland
conservation
• Determine factors influencing motivation for wetland conservation by consumers
(e.g. hunters, fisherman, bird watchers), non-consumers (local public), and
private landowners
• Determine factors leading to future conservation, restoration, and securement of
wetlands
• Determine factors influencing ecological goods and services produced by
wetlands in the area and how best to secure those services into the future
Research priorities to address environmental contaminants
• Monitor environmental contaminants in sediment, water, plants, and wildlife
• Determine relationships between contaminant levels and health of wildlife
• Determine the spatial and temporal availability of environmental contaminants
• Investigate the interactions among environmental contaminants and wildlife
In conclusion, Lake St. Clair is a region of conservation concern and faces many
challenges, most of which, are brought on by anthropogenic sources. In order to
maintain and improve biologic function within the region, scientifically guided
government policy will need to be developed and adhered to. All levels of government
on the Canadian and US sides of Lake St. Clair need to work together to best mitigate
against anthropogenic stressors and develop international policy that will govern the
future conservation of this region. Without government policy in place, the region’s
biological functioning and potential to provide ecological goods and services will be
permanently compromised, potentially to the point of collapse. Future research,
management and planning of government policy should occur regularly and
collaboratively and build upon identified threats to the region.
123
Literature Cited
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American
Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
Appel, L. M., J. A. Craves, M. Kehoe Smith, B. Weir and J. M. Zawiskie. 2002. Explore our natural
world: A biodiversity atlas of the Lake Huron to Lake Erie corridor. M. Kehoe Smith and B. Weir (eds.),
P. Schade/Schade Design Inc. Accessed from www.schadedesign.com (October 2014).
Badzinski, S. S. and S. A. Petrie. 2006. Diets of lesser and greater scaup during autumn and spring on
the lower Great Lakes. Wildlife Society Bulleting 34: 664-674.
Badzinski, S. S. 2008. Mute Swan (Cygnus olor). Pages 64-65 in M. D. Cadman, D. A. Sutherland, G.
G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A. R. Couturier, editors. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2007.
Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada / Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Field Ornithologists,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature.
Barrios, L., and A. Rodriguez. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring bird mortality
at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81.
Bedford, B. L. 1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the
United States and Southern Canada. Wetlands 19: 775-788.
Bellrose F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA, USA.
Bolsenga, S. and C. E. Herdendorf. 1993. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair handbook. Wayne State
Univerisyt Press, Detroit, MI. USA 467 pp.
Bookhout, T. A., K. E. Bednarik, and R. W. Kroll 1989. The Great Lakes marshes. Pages 131-156 in L.
M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski (eds.), Habitat Management for Migrating and
Wintering Waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech Univ. Press, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Bowen, J. E., and S. A. Petrie. 2007. Incidence of artifact ingestion in Mute Swans and Tundra Swans
on the lower Great Lakes. Ardea 95:135-142.
Brown, D. A., C. A. Bawden, K. W. Chatel, and T. R. Parson. 1977. The wildlife community of Iona
Island jetty, Vancouver, B. C. and heavy-metal pollution effects. Environmental Conservation 4: 213216.
Canadian Lake St. Clair Watershed Coordination Council. 2008. The Lake St. Clair Canadian
Watershed Technical Report: An examination of current conditions. Upper Thames Conservation
Authority.
Carlton, J. T. 2008. The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha found in North America in 1986 and 1987.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 34: 770-773.
Catling, P. M. 2005. New “top of the list” invasive plants of natural habitats in Canada. Botanical
Electronic News 345 pp.
Catling, P. M. 2007. Additional notes on the identification of invasive Canadian Phragmites. Botanical
Electronic News 370: 1-3.
Catling, P. M. and S. Carbyn. 2006. Recent invasion, current status and invasion pathway of European
Common Reed, Phragmites australis subspecies australis, in the souther Ottawa district. Canadian
Field Naturalist 120: 207-312.
124
Catling, P. M. and G. Mitrow. 2005. A prioritized list of the invasive alien plants of natural habitats in
Canada. Canadian Botanical Association Bulletin 38: 55-57.
Caras, R. 1967. North American Mammals. New York Galahad Books, New York, NY, USA.
Cheskey, E. D., and W. H. Wilson. 2001. Eastern Lake St. Clair Important Bird Area Conservation Plan.
Canadian Nature Federation, Bird Studies Canada, Federation of Ontario Naturalists 50 pp.
Chow-Fraser, P. 2006. Development of the Wetland Water Quality Index (WQI) to assess effects of
basinwide land-use alteration on coastal marshes of the Laurentian Great Lakes. In Simon, T.P and
Stewart, P.M. (eds.) “Coastal wetlands of the Laurentian Great Lakes: health, habitat and indicators”.
Chapter 5. Indiana Biological Survey, Bloomington, Indiana. p. 137-166.
Coluccy, J. M., T. Yerkes, R. Simpson, J. Simpson, L. Armstrong, and J. Davis. 2008. Population
dynamics of breeding mallards in the Great Lakes States. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 11811187.
Cordts, S. 2010. Coordinated November Canvasback inventory. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Bemidji, MN, USA.
Cox, R. R. and A. D. Afton. 1996. Evening flights of female Northern Pintails from a major roost site.
Condor 98: 810-819.
Crowder, A. A., and J. M. Bristow. 1988. The future of waterfowl habitats in the Canadian lower Great
Lakes wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 14: 115-127.
Custer, C. M., and T. W. Custer. 1996. Food habits of diving ducks in the Great Lakes after the zebra
mussel invasion. Journal of Field Ornithology 67: 86-99.
Dennis, D. G. and N. R. North. 1984. Waterfowl use of Lake St. Clair prior to and immediately after
th
zebra mussel invasion. 37 Conference of the International Association for Great Lakes Research and
Estuarine Research Federation: Program and Abstracts. IAGLR, Buffalo, NY, USA 166 pp.
Dennis, D. G., G. B. McCullough, N. R. North, and R. K. Ross. 1984. An updated assessment of migrant
waterfowl use of Ontario shorelines of the southern Great Lakes. Pages 37-42 in Waterfowl Studies in
Ontario, S.G. Curtis, D.G. Dennis and H. Boyd, editors. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper
No 54.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2013. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources Confirm Detection of One Grass Carp in the Grand River near Lake Erie. Accessed
from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2013/ca09-eng.htm (March 2014).
Desholm, M. 2006. Wind farm related mortality among avian migrants – a remote sensing study and
model analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.
Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2010. Southern Ontario wetland conversion analysis: Final report. Ducks
Unlimited Canada: Conserving Canada’s Wetlands.
Dufour, K. W., C. D. Ankney and P. J. Weatherhead. 1993. Condition and Vulnerability to Hunting
among Mallards Staging at Lake St. Clair, Ontario. The Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 209-215.
Edsall, T. A., B. A. Manny and C. N. Raphael. 1988. The St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan: An
ecological profile. National Fisheries Research Center-Great Lakes, Ann Arbor, MI (USA): Eastern
Michigan University Ypsilanti (USA). Department of Geography and Geology 130 pp.
125
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of chemical risk assessment: health hazards to humans, plants, and animals.
Volume 1: Metals. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. State of the Great
Lakes 2005. Environment Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Environment Canada. 2013. How much habitat is enough? Third Edition. Environment Canada, Toronto,
ON, Canada.
Finger, T. A. 2014. Environmental factors influencing spring migration chronology of Lesser Scaup,
Aythya affinis. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Frank, R., Holdrinet, M., Braun, H. E., Thomas, R. L., Kemp, A. L. W. & Jaquet, J. M. (1977)
Organochlorine insecticides and PCBs in sediments of Lake St. Clair (1970 and 1974) and Lake Erie
(1971). Science of The Total Environment 8: 205-227.
Gewurtz, S.B., S.P. Bhavsar, D.A. Jackson, R. Fletcher, E. Awad, R. Moody and E.J. Reiner. 2010.
Temporal and spatial trends of organochlorines and mercury in fishes from the St. Clair River/Lake St.
Clair corridor, Canada. J. Great Lakes Res. 36: 100-112.
Gillis, P. L. & Mackie, G. L. (1994) Impact of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, on populations
of Unionidae (Bivalvia) in Lake St. Clair. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1260-1271.
Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium (a project of the Great Lakes Commission). 2008. Great
Lakes Coastal Wetlands Monitoring Plan. Burton, T. M., J. C. Brazner, J. J. H. Ciborowksi, G. P.
Grabas, J. Hummer, J. Schneider and D. G. Uzarski (eds.). United States Environmental Protection
Agency Great Lakes National Program Office.
Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes Rivermouth Collaboratory. 2013. Great Lakes Rivermouths:
A primer for managers. V. Pebbles, J. Larson and P. Seelbach (eds.).
Griffiths, R. W. 1993. Effects of zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha, on the benthic fauna of Lake St.
Clair. Pages 415-437 in “Zebra mussels: biology, impacts, and control” T. F. Nalepa and D. W.
Schloesser (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Hamilton, D. J. and C. D. Ankney. 1994. Consumption of zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha, by
diving ducks in Lakes Erie and St. Clair. Wildfowl 45: 159-166.
Hanson, M. A. and M. G. Butler. 1994. Responses to food web manipulation in a shallow waterfowl lake.
Hydrobiologica 279/280: 457-466.
Hartig, J. H., T. M. Heidtke, M. A. Zarull, and B. Yu. 2004. The management lessons learned from
sediment remediation in the Detroit River – western Lake Erie watershed. Lake Reserve Manage 9:
163-170.
Heinz, G. H., G. W. Pendleton, A. J. Krynitsky, and L. G. Gold. 1990. Selenium accumulation and
elimination in Mallards. Archives of Environmental Contaminant Toxicology 19: 374-379.
Herbert, P. D. N., B. W. Muncaster and G. L. Mackie. 1989. Ecological and genetic studies on
Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas): A new mollusk in the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fish and
Aquatic Science 46: 1587-1591.
Herdendorf, C. E., and C. N. Raphael. 1986. The ecology of Lake St. Clair Wetlands: a community
profile. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85: 187 pp.
Herdendorf, C.E. 1992. Lake Erie coastal wetlands: an overview. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 18:
533-551.
Herrick, B. M., M. D. Morgan, and A. T. Wolf. 2007. Seed banks in diked and undiked Great Lakes
coastal wetlands. American Midland Naturalist 158:191–205.
Herrick, B. M., and A. T. Wolf. 2005. Invasive plant species in diked vs. undiked Great Lakes wetlands.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 31: 277–287.
126
Horak, K., R. Chipman, L. Murphy, and J. Johnston. 2014. Environmental contaminant concentrations in
Canada Goose muscle: probabilistic risk assessment for human consumption. Journal of Food
Protection 77: 1634-1641.
Hughes, K. D., P. A. Martin and S. R. de Solla. 2014. Contaminants in overwintering Canvasbacks,
Aythya valisineria, and resident Mallards, Anas platyrhynchos, in the Lake St. Clair/St. Clair River Area.
Environment Canada: Ecotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division.
Hunter, R. D. and K. A. Simons. 2004. Dreissenids in Lake St. Clair in 2001: Evidence for population
regulation. Journal of Great Lakes Research 30: 528-537.
Ingram, J., Dunn, L, Albert, D. 2005. Coastal wetland area by type (Indicator #4510) In: State of the
Great Lakes 2005, pages 191-193.
Ingram, J., K. Holmes, G. Grabas, P. Watton, B. Potter, T. Gomer and N. Stow. 2004. Development of a
Coastal Wetlands Database for the Great Lakes Canadian Shoreline. Final Report to: The Great
Lakes Commission (WETLANDS2-EPA-03).
IUCN.org (2013). Red List of Threatened Species. Accessed from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22028/0 (April 2014).
Jalava, J. V., D. Koscinski, M. Fletcher, P. A. Woodliffe and the Lake St. Clair Coastal CAP
Development Team. 2013. Lake St. Clair Coastal Conservation Action Plan (CAP). Carolinian Canada
Coalition. London, ON, Canada 47 pp.
Jorde, D. G., G. L. Krapu and R. D. Crawford. 1983. Feeding ecology of mallards wintering in Nebraska.
Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 1044-1053.
Kadlec, R. H., J. Pries and H. Mustard. 2007. Muskrats, Ondatra zibethicus, in treatment wetlands.
Ecological Engineering 29: 143-153.
Leach, J. H. 1991. Biota of Lake St. Clair: habitat evaluation and environmental assessment.
Hydobiologia 219: 187-202.
Leach, J. H. 1993. Impacts of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, on water quality and fish
spawning reefs in Western Lake Erie. Pages 381-397 in “Zebra mussels: biology, impact and control”
T.F. Nalepa and D.W. Schloesser (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Loomis, D. G. 2013. The Potential Economic Impact of Offshore Wind Energy in the Great Lakes.
Center for Renewable Energy, Illinois State University, IL, USA.
Luukkonen, D. R., S. R. Winterstein, E. N. Kafcas, and B. T. Shirkey. 2013. Impacts of Dreissenid
mussels on the distribution and abundance of diving ducks on Lake St. Clair. Pages 647-660 in
nd
“Quagga and Zebra Mussels: Biology, Impact, and Control 2 Edition” T. R. Nalepa and D. W.
Schloessor (eds.).
Mackie, G. L. 1991. Biology of the exotic zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in relation to native
bivalves and its potential impact in Lake St. Clair. Pages 251-268 in “Environmental Assessment and
Habitat Evaluation of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels”, M. Munawar and T. Edsall (eds.).
Springer, Netherlands.
Madge, S. and H. Burn. 1987. Wildfowl: an identification guide to the ducks, geese and swans of the
world. Christopher Helm, London, United Kingdom.
Manville, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind
rd
turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation: Proceedings 3
International Partners in Flight Conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 2: 10511064.
Marks, M., B. Lapin and J. Randall. 1999. Element stewardship abstract for Phragmites australis. The
Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VI, USA.
Marks, M., B. Lapin and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): Threats, management,
and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285-294.
127
Martins, P. 1997. Threats to Terns nesting in the Great Lakes. Environment Canada. Accessed from
http://www.on.ed.gc.ca/wildlife/gl-factsheet/terns/threats.html (March 2015).
Mayne, G. 2008. St. Clair River Remedial Action Plan Progress Report. Volume 1. Synthesis report and
environmental conditions and implementation actions (1998-2003). 164 pp.
Meyer, S. W., S. S. Badzinski, M. L. Schummer and C. M. Sharp. 2012. Changes in summer
abundances and distribution of Mute Swans along the Lower Great Lakes of Ontario, 1986-2011.
Ontario Birds 30: 48-60.
Meyer, S. W., S. S. Badzinski, S. A. Petrie and C. D. Ankney. 2010. Seasonal abundance and species
richness of birds in common reed habitats in Lake Erie. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 15591567.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1991. Stage 1
Remedial Action Plan for the Detroit River Area of Concern. Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing,
MI, USA.
Miller, J. E. 1972. Muskrat and beaver control. Proceedings of the First National External Wildlife
Workshop, Estes Park, CO, USA pages 35-37.
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2014. Area, production, value, price and yield by crop
(1979-2014). Accessed from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/hort/index.html (March 2015).
Monfils, M. J., P. W. Brown, D. B. Hayes, G. J. Soulliere, and E. N. Kafcas. 2014. Breeding bird use and
wetland characteristics of diked and undiked coastal marshes in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife
Management 78: 79-92.
Nalepa, T. F. and J. M. Gauvin. 1988. Distribution, Abundance, and Biomass of Freshwater Mussels
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) in Lake St. Clair. Journal of Great Lakes Research 14: 411-419.
Nalepa, T. F. and D. W. Schloesser. 2013. Quagga and Zebra Mussels: Biology, impoacts and control,
nd
2 edition. CRC Press, 815 pp.
Nalepa, T. F. 1994. Decline of Native Unionid Bivalves in Lake St. Clair After Infestation by the Zebra
Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2227-2233.
Nalepa, T. F., D. J. Hartson, G. W. Gostenik, D. L. Fanslow, and G. A. Lang. 1996. Changes in the
freshwater mussel community of Lake St. Clair: From Unionidae to Dreissena polymorpha in eight
years. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22: 354-369.
Nalepa, T. F., Cavaletto, J. F., Ford, M., Gordon, W. M. and Wimmer, M. 1993. Seasonal and Annual
Variation in Weight and Biochemical Content of the Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in Lake St.
Clair. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19: 541-552.
Nalepa, T. F., Gardner, W. S. & Malczyk, J. M. (1991) Phosphorus cycling by mussels (Unionidae:
Bivalvia). Pages 239-250 in Lake St. Clair. Environmental Assessment and Habitat Evaluation of the
Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels, M. Munawar & T. Edsall (eds.). Springer, Netherlands.
Nalepa, T. F., D. J. Hartson, G. W. Gostenik, D. L. Fanslow, and G. A. Lang. 1996. Changes in the
freshwater mussel community of Lake St. Clair: from Unionidae to Dreissena polymorpha in eight
years. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22: 354-369.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Great Lakes aquatic non-indigenous species
information system. Accessed from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glansis/glansis.html (May
2015).
National Wetlands Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System, 2nd Edition.
Warner, B.G. and C.D.A. Rubec (eds.), Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
ON, Canada. 68 pp.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl
Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian
128
Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales,
22 pp.
Nriagu, J. O. 1979. Copper in the atmosphere and precipitation. Pages 45-75 in “Copper in the
environment. Part I: ecological cycling” Nriagu J. O. (eds.). Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
North–South Environmental Inc. 2003. St. Clair River RAP Progress Report. Volume 1–Synthesis
Report.
NOAA. 2011. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Geophysical Data Center.
Accessed from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/gdas/gd_designagrid.html (June 2014).
Petrie, S. A., S. S. Badzinski and K. G. Drouillard. 2007. Contaminants in Lesser and Greater Scaup
staging on the lower Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52: 580589.
Petrie, S. A. and C. M. Francis. 2003. Rapid increase in the Lower Great Lakes population of feral Mute
Swans: a review and recommendation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 407-416.
Petrie, S. A. and K. L. Wilcox. 2003. Migration chronology of Eastern Population Tundra Swans.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 861-870.
Petrie, S.A., S. Badzinski, and K.L. Wilcox. 2002. Population trends and habitat use of Tundra Swans
staging at Long Point, Lake Erie. Waterbirds: 25:143-149.
Petrie, S.A. 1998. Waterfowl and Wetlands of Long Point Bay and Old Norfolk County: Present
Conditions and Future Options for Conservation. Unpublished Norfolk Land Stewardship Council
Report. Long Point Waterfowl, Port Rowan, ON, Canada.
Prince, H. H., Padding, P. I., and R. W. Knapton, 1992. Waterfowl use of the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 18: 673-699.
Riley, J. L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The natural heritage of southern Ontario’s settled landscapes. A review
of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report,
TR-001. 78 pp.
Ross, R. K., S. A. Petrie, S. S. Badzinski and A. Muillie. 2005. Autumn diet of greater scaup, lesser
scaup and long-tailed ducks on eastern Lake Ontario prior to zebra mussel invasion. Wildlife Society
Bulletin. 33: 81-91.
Hygnstrom, S. E., R. M. Timm and G. E. Larson. 1994. Prevention and control of wildlife damage.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE, USA.
Schmidt, P.R. 2003. Canada Geese in North America: Past Success and Future Challenges. Canada
Goose Symposium.
Schummer, M. L., S. A. Petrie, S. S. Badzinski, M. Deming, Y-W. Chen, and N. Belzile. 2011. Elemental
contaminants in livers of mute swans on lakes Erie and St. Clair. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology.
Schummer, M. L. 2005. Comparisons of resource use by Buffleheads, Common Goldeneyes and LongTailed Ducks during winter on northeastern Lake Ontario. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Western
Ontario. London, ON, Canada.
Shirkey, B. T., D. R. Luukonnen and S. R. Winterstein. 2014. Application of distance sampling
techniques for diving ducks on Lake St. Clair and western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research
40: 274-280.
Smith, P., S. Badzinski, S. Meyer, C. Sharp, and B. Campbell. 2013. Migrant Waterfowl use of the
Ontario Shorelines of the Southern Great Lakes. Unpublished Data Summary, Environment Canada,
Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario. Ottawa, ON, Canada.
129
SOLEC 2004 Presentations, Toronto, Ontario. 2004. St. Clair: Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels.
Accessed from http:www.epa.gov/solec/solec_2004/presentations/index.html (June 2014).
Stewart, G. B., and A.S. Pullin. 2004. Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance; Systematic Review
No.4: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, University of Birmingham, England, 49 pp.
Tatu, K.S., J. T. Anderson, L. J. Hindman, and G. Seidel. 2007. Mute Swans’ impact on submerged
aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1431-1439.
The Ontario Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Atlas: Summary of Information (1983-1997). Environment
Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. March 2003.
Thomas, M. V., and R. C. Haas. 2012. Status of Lake St. Clair submerged plants, fish community, and
sport fishery. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 2099, Lansing,
MI, USA.
United States Department of Health, Human Services. 2004. Toxicology profile for copper. USDHHS,
Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. Atlanta, GA, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Waterfowl population status, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Washington, DC, USA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In press. St. Clair River–Lake St. Clair Binational Comprehensive
Management Plan.
van Zyl, J. 2015. Starvation thresholds and metal burdens in waterfowl wintering on the Great Lakes.
University of Western Ontario, Honours Thesis. London, ON, Canada.
Weaver, K. H. A. 2013. Tundra Swan, Cygnus columbianus columbianus, habitat selection during the
nonbreeding period. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Western Ontario. London, ON, Canada.
Wilcox, D. A. 1993. Effects of water-level regulation on wetlands of the Great Lakes. Great Lakes
Wetlands 4(1–2): 11.
Wilcox, D. A., and T. H. Whillans. 1999. Techniques for restoration of disturbed coastal wetlands of the
Great Lakes. Wetlands 19: 835–857.
Woodliffe, P. A. 1989. Inventory, assessment, and raking of natural areas of Walpole Island.
Proceedings of the Eleventh North American Prairie Conference. Chatham, ON, Canada.
130
!
Appendix
status of all plants listed in the document.
Plants
Order
Alismatales
Apiales
Asparagales
Asterales
Blechnales
Caryophyllales
Ceratophyllales
Charales
Commelinales
Cornales
Ericales
Fagales
Gentianales
Lamiales
Malpighiales
Malvales
Myrtales
Nymphaeales
!
Common Name
Common Arrowhead
Curly-leaf Pondweed
European Frog-bit
Naiad
Pondweed
Richardson's Pondweed
Sago Pondweed
Wild Celery
American Ginseng
Eastern Prairie-fringed Orchid
Dense Blazing-star
Goldenrod
Swamp Beggar-tick
Swamp Thistle
Marsh Fern
Black Bindweed
Water Smartweed
Coontail
Muskgrass
Pickerelweed
Gray Dogwood
Red Osier Dogwood
Touch-me-not Jewelweed
Bur Oak
Kentucky Coffee-tree
Pin Oak
Shagbark Hickory
Swamp White Oak
Buttonbush
Swamp Milkweed
Bladderwort
Common Comfrey
Red Ash
Eastern Cottonwood
Quaking Aspen
Swamp Rose-mallow
Purple Loosestrife
White Water Lily
Scientific Name
Sagittaria latifolia
Potamogeton crispus
Hydrocharis morsus-ranae
Najas spp.
Potamogeton spp.
Potamogeton richardsonii
Potamogeton pectinatus
Vallisneria americana
Panax quinquefolius
Platanthera leucophaea
Liatris spicata
Solidago spp.
Bidens connata
Cirsium muticum
Thelypteris palustris
Fallopia convolvulus
Polygonum coccineum
Ceratophyllum demersum
Chara spp.
Pontederia cordata
Cornus racemosa
Cornus sericea
Impatiens capensis
Quercus macrocarpa
Gymnocladus dioicus
Quercus palustris
Carya ovata
Quercus bicolor
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Asclepias incarnata
Utricularia spp.
Symphytum officinale
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Populus deltoides
Populus tremuloides
Hibiscus moscheutos
Lythrum salicaria
Nymphaea alba
131
Conservation Status
Secure
Non-native
Non-native/Invasive
Secure
Secure
Secure
At Risk
Endangered
Threatened
Secure
Secure
Secure
Non-native
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Least Concern
Threatened
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Exotic
Secure
Secure
Secure
Special Concern
Non-native/Invasive
Secure
!
Poales
Ranunculales
Rosales
Sapindales
Saxifragales
Solanales
Vitales
!
Yellow Water Lily
Blue Joint Grass
Bulrush
Bur-reed
Cattail
European Common Reed
Four Angled Spike-rush
Fowl Meadow Grass
Hairy Fimbristylis
Hard-stem Bulrush
Panic Grass
Rattlesnake Grass
Reed Canary Grass
Rice Cutgrass
Riverbank Wild Rye
Soft Rush
Three-square Bulrush
Tussock Sedge
Wild Rye
Marsh Marigold
American Elm
Dwarf Hackberry
Silverweed
Stinging Nettle
Silver Maple
Staghorn Sumac
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Morning Glory
Nightshade
Wild Grape
Nuphar lutea
Calamagrostis canadensis
Schoenoplectus spp.
Sparganium spp.
Typha spp.
Phragmites austrialis
Eleocharis quadrangulata
Poa palustris
Fimbristylis puberula
Schoenoplectus acutus
Panicum spp.
Briza maxima
Phalaris arundinacea
Leersia oryzoides
Elymus riparius
Juncus effusus
Schoenoplectus americanus
Carex stricta
Elymus spp.
Caltha palustris
Ulmus americana
Celtis tenuifolia
Argentina anserina
Urtica dioica
Acer saccharinum
Rhus typhina
Myriophyllum spicatum
Lpomoea spp.
Solanaceae spp.
Vitis spp.
132
Secure
Non-native/Invasive
Extremely Rare
Secure
Extremely Rare
Secure
Non-native
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Threatened
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Invasive
!
status of all animals listed in the document.
Animals
Order
Accipitriformes
Anseriformes
Anura
Bivalvia
Charadriiformes
!
Common Name
Bald Eagle
American Black Duck
American Wigeon
Barnacle Goose
Blue-winged Teal
Brant
Bufflehead
Cackling Goose
Canada Goose
Canvasback
Common Goldeneye
Common Merganser
Gadwall
Greater Scaup
Greater White-fronted Goose
Green-winged Teal
Hooded Merganser
Lesser Scaup
Long-tailed Duck
Mallard
Mute Swan
Northern Pintail
Northern Shoveler
Red-breasted Merganser
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Ruddy Duck
Snow Goose
Trumpeter Swan
Tundra Swan
Wood Duck
Fowler's Toad
Wood Frog
Round Pigtoe
American Golden Plover
Black Tern
Black-bellied Plover
Common Snipe
Forster's Tern
Herring Gull
Scientific Name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Anas rubripes
Anas americana
Branta leucopsis
Anas discors
Branta bernicla
Bucephala albeola
Branta hutchinsii
Branta canadensis
Aythya valisineria
Bucephala clangula
Mergus merganser
Anas strepera
Aythya marila
Anser albifrons
Anas carolinensis
Lophodytes cucullatus
Aythya affinis
Clangula hyemalis
Anas platyrhynchos
Cygnus olor
Anas acuta
Anas clypeata
Mergus serrator
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Oxyura jamaicensis
Chen caerulescens
Cygnus buccinator
Cygnus columbianus
Aix sponsa
Anaxyrus fowleri
Lithobates sylvaticus
Pleurobema sintoxia
Pluvialis dominica
Chlidonias niger
Pluvialis squatarola
Gallinago gallinago
Sterna forsteri
Larus argentatus
133
Conservation Status
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Vulnerable
Least Concern
Non-native/Invasive
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Endangered
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
!
Cypriniformes
Decapoda
Falconiformes
Galliformes
Gruiformes
Lepidoptera
Passeriformes
Pelecaniformes
Perciformes
Podicipediformes
Soricomorpha
Squamata
Testudines
Unionoida
Veneroida
!
Ring-billed Gull
Spotted Sandpiper
Asian Carp
Common Carp
Rusty Crayfish
Red-shouldered Hawk
Northern Bobwhite
American Coot
Common Gallinule
Common Moorhen
King Rail
Sora
Virginia Rail
Yellow Rail
Monarch Butterfly
Spotted Gar
Eastern Kingbird
Loggerhead Shrike
Marsh Wren
Prothonotary Warbler
Swamp Sparrow
American Bittern
Black-crowned Night Heron
Least Bittern
Eastern Sand Darter
Orangespotted Sunfish
Yellow Perch
Pied-billed Grebe
Least Shrew
Common Five-lined Skink
Eastern Fox Snake
Eastern Hognose Snake
Queensnake
Blanding's Turtle
Eastern Musk Turtle
Northern Map Turtle
Red-eared Slider
Spiny Softshell Turtle
Spotted Turtle
Round Hickorynut
Quagga Mussel
Zebra Mussel
Larus delawarensis
Actitis macularius
Hypophthalmichthys spp.
Cyprinus carpio
Orconectes rusticus
Buteo lineatus
Colinus virginianus
Fulica americana
Gallinula galeata
Gallinula chloropus
Rallus elegans
Porzana carolina
Rallus limicola
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Danaus plexippus
Lepisosteus oculatus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Lanius ludovicianus
Cistothorus palustris
Protonotaria citrea
Melospiza georgiana
Botaurus lentiginosus
Nycticorax nycticorax
Ixobrychus exilis
Ammocrypta pellucida
Lepomis humilis
Perca flavescens
Podilymbus podiceps
Cryptotis parva
Plestiodon fasciatus
Elaphe gloydi
Heterodon platirhinos
Regina septemvittata
Emydoidea blandingii
Sternotherus odoratus
Graptemys geographica
Trachemys scripta elegans
Apalone spinifera
Clemmys guttata
Obovaria subrotunda
Dreissena bugensis
Dreissena polymorpha
134
Least Concern
Least Concern
Non-native/Invasive
Vulnerable
Least Concern
Least Concern
Near Threatened
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Near Threatened
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Special Concern
Threatened
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Special Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Special Concern
Near Threatened
Least Concern
Endangered
Endangered
Least Concern
Least Concern
Non-native
Least Concern
Vulnerable
Endangered
Non-native/Invasive
Non-native/Invasive
Citation:
Weaver, K. H. A., S. A. Petrie, S. E. Richman, M. D. Palumbo, M. E. Dyson, P.
Briscoe and T. S. Barney. 2015. Waterfowl and wetlands of the Lake St. Clair
region: present conditions and future options for research and conservation.
Long Point Waterfowl, unpublished report. 134 pp.
For more information about Long Point Waterfowl visit:
http://www.longpointwaterfowl.org
For more information about Wildlife Habitat Canada visit:
http://whc.org
Long Point Waterfowl, P.O. Box 160, Port Rowan, Ontario, N0E 1M0

waterfowl and wetlands of the lake st clair region

Transcription

Similar documents

Fitger`s Lake View Office

Captain Geech

Presented by:

Brant Lake Getaway

to the article. - The FUND for Lake George

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

chantecler 16-a, las fuentes — $118,00 usd steffen features

PARK MAP - Huron-Clinton Metroparks