Towards c1 Habifof
STraTegy for Thunder Bay


 

 
     

Nofhon Wilson

   

Goals
´  To develop strategic planning for prioritizing habitat projects within the Thunder Bay Area
Of Concern (AOC) and adjacent watershed.
´  Develop a watershed-based habitat strategy for prioritizing habitat projects in Thunder Bay
´  Help inform decisions and possible actions to address the Fish and Wildlife Habitat beneficial use
impairment (BUI) in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern, with a focus on wildlife habitat.
´  Reg Nelson’s report on How Much is Enough (Environment Canada)
´  Input from experts and community groups
´  To harness and support existing capacity and interest in habitat projects
´  To improve community group success at obtaining funding
´  To promote individual projects within an understanding of habitat needs at the city or regional watershed
scale (i.e. to improve watersheds)

´  Strategic outreach
´  Map tool
´  Common language and rational for projects to use as background that an coincide with a range
of programs and goals

 Rationale
Loss of habitat with Thunder Bay shoreline at current position.
Extent of watershed associated with Thunder Bay AOC.
When using Environment and Climate Change Canada’s guidelines from “How much habitat
is enough” (2013), Reg Nelson’s 2016 assessment indicated that Thunder Bay fell slightly below
both riparian zone and wetland habitat minimums for a watershed.
Image of brown field map – there are a number of currently known areas along and within
the T bay AOC. There are a number of groups out there currently working on some of these.
LRCA is mapping Provincially Significant Wetlands
City of Thunder Bay Stormwater Management Plan and the McVicar Creek Restoration Plan
implement strategies that link directly to habitat and vice versa

 Ror?onorle

Thunder Bay shoreline
(1970) To Currenr Thunder
Bay shoreline (2017)

      

 
  

. 1 4- 
my?? -
nu-II, 

g? g?vl??12. 

?F'al 1.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

.Otll
'aulull 
y- 

 

 

mmu,?Lem; 

Illuu. II 5

art? 5 

 

.11" 

 
  

   



?-nluiah?.
i in
:nI..-


   

 
   

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Mapping hobiioi projecis

 

Brown Field Mapping

.--.. [My Wuh-uimnt 
Thundel Bay Watelflont - dewellct/abandoned/Lmused plopelty

. . 0 .
Add - I (an: . iBunv-nmp Av?niysts Suvv - N'mv ~a Punt [)nmhur". .. Mr'duun' Ll] 

7 Nr? 1? 
Detauls Add . Edlt 11.3 Basemap AnalySIs Save Share nu- Pum Directlons .: Measure Ll]

 

 

Area 

Pool 6 snte: Pnnce Anhuv's
Landing development IS
expected to continue south ?0
Pool 6 me. Includes neltheln
pomon of Nonhem Wood
Plesewels sure.

/00.'n K0 (SM Edit

 

 

 

 

 

 

Catch?mer?ttAreas

a 0

Thunder Bay I Dog Dog Watershed
Watershed to include


\n


0 5 10 20


Thunder Bay I Dog
Watershed

entlre Thunder Bay
Area of Concern

 
 
 
  
   

 

 

 

 

 

Thunder Bay Area of Concern
and Thunder Bay I Dog
Watershed

 

Thunder Bay I Dog Watershed -
derived from Ontario Integrated
Hydrology Data. corresponds to





MNR Tertiary, Watershed data

 

City of Thunder Bay -
municipal boundary for the
mainland area of the City of
Thunder Bay

 

 

Thunder Bay AOC -
offshore portion of Area of
Concern in Thunder Bay
Harbour

Additional Catchment Areas -
part of Shuniah north of harbour
and area encompassing most of

the Fort William First Nation south
harbour necessary to include all
of the Thunder Bay Area of
Concern.

 

 

 

Lambert Conformal Conic. NADS3
Sources

ON MNR OIHD 2012 NRC Canvec+ 2014.
Stats Can 2012

Lakehead University]
Geospalial Data Cen
Reg Nelson 2015

 

   

 

 

 

 

Thunder Bay
Area of Concern (AOC)
Study Area intersection of
subwatersheds with Thunder
Bay Area Municipalities

 

AOC Study Area and
subwatersheds

I. Thunder Bay Region
at?? Municipalities within
- :9 AOC Watersheds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lambert Conformal Conic. NA083
Sources:

0 10 20 30 4o

 

 

Note: upon ON MNR OIHD 2012. NRC Canvec+ 2014.
km unjorwaterweye within catchment area and 3?3?5 2012
- Lekeheed Un
are not ot?dal place mates. 5 .H mm

 

 

 

Rec Nelson 2015

 

   

 

‘Tool’ Development
´  Examined habitat projects and attempted to sort based on priority
´  Environment and Climate Change Canada’s St. Marys and Detroit River
AOC Matrix.

 

20 Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods
71 \Umr?knr Aimnrt 

 

 

 

18 Black Oat We 0:5
19 Oakmod Bush

16 LaSaIe MS and Woods
17 Reaume Prairie

15 Ojibway Prairie/Sprig Garden

UPLAND

14 ndsor Sat R'n'er?ront
Arrne'stbarg Docks?

13 Oliawav Sho?es

12 General Chemical Marsh

11 Canard RNer Access

10 Rarta Park

9 Det'o 1 Rser Wetlancs

8 Canard Raver Marshes

1 Fig'itirg Isanc
2 Pecne lsand

ISIANDS

Site Name
4 Grassy Isand

3 Bay Island

?L'ttey Island
7 Channel Trainer

6 Bois Blanc [Bcbioji Islam:

 

194

10

151

279

230

Size (ha)

 



Zone (Upland vs.
Coastal Vs. island)

 

10

10

Overal Score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(shoreline
assessment report)?

(ERNSS
buffer)

shoreline
engineering?

engineering?

Riparian

Coastal Wetland

Terrestrial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



through
long-term
securement?

..'s shoreline in poor
or fair structure
condition?

as a
Rest Opp
High Priority Area
(ranking 3 or higher)?
to
another existing
Important natural
feature (high priority



 

tallgrass Prairie?

 



sic?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is there landowner
support for
restoration?

is there community
support? PAC
rank)

Does the Site otter
access to river and
other recreational

activilties?
is me me Visiole tor

demonstration
purposes?

Does slte require
maintenance?

size of potential
project

 

rank)

Are there any on Mditiond miderations (not inputted into

 

 

 

Original Example of Molrix

Steps in current process
´  Develop a initial list of habitat projects (input from PAC, Nature
Conservancy, Field Naturalists, Stewardship Council, Ecosuperior, NSSA).
(April)
´  Develop initial broad criteria used in habitat project implementation (City
of Thunder Bay, LRCA, ECCC, MNRF, and OMOECC)(July)
´  Present criteria to community stakeholders (PAC Meeting Dec 6th)
´  Refine criteria through feedback from various agencies and authorities
(PAC, Nature Conservancy, Field Naturalists, Stewardship Council,
Ecosuperior, NSSA). (Dec)
´  Refine tool to highlight the various attributes of potential habitat projects in
the Thunder Bay area. (Jan)
´  Seek final input for habitat strategy report. (Feb)
´  Final Implementation Report (March)

 Site Name
COASTAL

Area A
Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Area F
Area G
Size (ha)
Coastal Wetland

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1

Privatly owned?

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
?
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
?

Comments

Community level 
project

requires large federal 
funding/approval

single project vs multi 
projects within area 

size of potential 
project

Does site require 
maintenance?

Is the site visible for 
demonstration 
purposes?

Does the site offer 
access to river and 
other recreational 
activiities?

Are there any 
SAR on site?
Is there community 
support? (e.g., PAC, 
City, etc.)

Is the site...
Is there landowner 
support for 
restoration?

....SAR

0
0
1
1
0
0
0

...adjacent to 
another existing 

..'s shoreline in poor 
or fair structure 
associated with 
existing 
porgram/agencies 
objectives

City owned?

Terrestrial

Wetland

Riparian

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Overall Score

Zone (Upland vs. 
Coastal)

Project list
Additional considerations (not inputted into rank?)

 Habitat Project: Initial Criteria
  
  
  
  

Riparian 
Coastal Wetland 
Wetland 
Terrestrial 
Privately owned? 
City owned? 
..'s shoreline in poor or fair structure condi=on? 
Is the site... 
associated with exis=ng program/agencies 
objec=ves 
...adjacent to another exis=ng important natural 
feature (high priority ERHNSS feature)? 
Are there any SAR on site? 
....SAR 
Is there landowner support for restora=on? 
Is there community support? (e.g., PAC, City, etc.) 
Addi=onal considera=ons 
Does the site offer access to river and other 
(not inpuKed into rank?) 
recrea=onal ac=vi=es? 
Is the site visible for demonstra=on purposes? 
Does site require maintenance? 
 
size of poten=al project 
 
single project vs mul= projects within area  
 
requires large federal funding/approval 
 
Community level project 

 Resulting Metric
Feasibility Selec4on Factors 
Physical
Site 

Ecological Score

Ecological (fish)
0 - No Benefit            
1 - Marginal
1 - Marginal
2 - Improvement
2 - Improvement
3 - Significant Benefit
Total 
Rela4ve 
3 - Significant 
Diversity 
Species  Abundance 
Benefit
(Margelef)
Richness (fish/min)

Economical 
1 - Not Cost Effec4ve
2 - Moderately Cost 
Effec4ve
3 - Cost Effec4ve

Overall Benefit to the Detroit River AOC

Overall Score 

1 - Low
< 8 Least Feasible
2 - Moderate 8 to 9 Moderatetly Feasible 
3 - High
10 + Most Feasible

SAV Index

Water 
Quality 
index 

3

1.28

3
3
3

2

0.65

0.5139

1
1
1

200,000
300,000
390,000

2
2
2

100

3
3
3

9
9
9

2.2

1.17

2

19

24.99

3.02

3

135000**

3

52.4

2

10

Figh4ng Island: Site 4

2.7

0.71

3
3
3

14

4.08

2.823

2
2
2

120,000
170,000
110,000

3
2
3

57

2
2
2

10
9
10

2.5

0.76

3
3
3

11

11.21

1.819

1
1
1

140,000
300,000
900,000

2
2
1

22.5

Figh4ng Island: Site 5

1
1
1

7
7
6

2.4

0.6

2
2
2

18

3

3.76

3
3
3

80,000
95,000
170,000

3
3
2

63

Figh4ng Island: Site 6

2
2
2

10
10
9

2.3

0.79

2
2

22

12.55

3.471

3
3

1,250,000
590,000

1
1

53.8

2
2

8
8

2
2

16

10.35

3.031

2
2

380,000
650,000

2
1

39.8

2
2

8
7

Peche Island:  Site 2

Peche Island:  Site 4

Cost / Ha 

% FCGO's present

Peche Island North East Shore

Boblo Island:  Site 3

Amherstburg Boblo Dock 

2

 Ques?ons and Comments