Lake Ontario (ID: 1515)

Project last modified by dsalzer on December 23, 2010. Project Created By: The Nature Conservancy.

Download Project
See Associated Info (3)

Basic
Viability
Threats
Viability Assessment
Action Plan
Strategy Effectiveness
Indicators

Project Info

Contact Name:
David Klein

Contact the project owner using:
Contact project owner.

ConPro's Form Emailer

Contact Organization:
The Nature Conservancy

Data Effective Date:
July 27, 2009

Sharing Status:
This project may be shared outside of
The Nature Conservancy.

Go To ·Objectives
·Targets
·Threats
·Strategies

Operational Unit(s):

New York

Ecoregion(s):

Laurentian Great Lakes
Great Lakes

Country(ies):

Canada
United States of America

Team Info:
Full Team Compliment:
David Klein; The Nature Conservancy; Team Member, Team Contact, Leader/Manager

Objectives

Name
Adapt Regulations : Adapt the regulation of Lake Ontario and watershed management regulations to accommodate the impacts of climate change. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) IJC adaptive management of Lake Ontario regulation incorporates climate change into 5‐year reviews. • In 2009, ensure adoption of regular adaptive management review as part of a new regulation plan. • Key partners develop monitoring program for regular reporting to the IJC of water management impacts on coastal habitats. • Shoreline management agencies in both countries develop policy to protect and maintain "new" shoreline that may emerge if water levels decline, including restrictions on moving existing shoreline protection structures. 2.) By 2009, create Lake Ontario LaMP environmental adaptive management working group to assess impacts of climate change on biodiversity and inform water management policies and actions. • Organize multi‐stakeholder working group. • Create impact assessment process and establish baseline, using scientific research from IJC study. 3.) By 2012, New York and Ontario take steps to manage streams as natural systems - watershed‐based base flow monitoring programs that incorporate natural range of variability (NRV) and expected impacts under climate change scenarios. • Develop funding sources and support services for watershed approaches to water management. • Generate watershed‐based baseline information and guidelines for responses to low water conditions. • In Ontario, review outcomes of instream flow requirement studies and water budgets (major partners in these efforts include Conservation Ontario, Ministry of Environment, MNR, Conservation Authorities, and DFO). • Develop report on "How much water is enough" to support stream flow management. 4.) By 2012, Ontario and New York revise stormwater regulations to accommodate NRV and climate change impacts. • In Ontario, establish a working group to develop stormwater and instream flow regulations to address both flood and drought conditions in a coordinated manner. • In NY, re‐assess regional rule curves to incorporate climate change, assess frequency of water events, and inform municipalities. • In NY, develop an instream flow numerical standard incorporating NRV.
Barrier Removal / Mitigation : Remove or mitigate the impacts of priority dams and barriers to restore fish passage and natural processes. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) LaMP agencies form a bi‐national barrier mitigation task force to define criteria for prioritization, and develop a bi‐national consensus on priority barriers for near‐term mitigation action, by 2011. • Update the current database and map of barriers to lake‐to‐tributary connectivity to achieve a bi‐national inventory of dams, identifying the status, ownership, and use of each dam. • Define criteria for prioritizing dams for action: possible criteria include first barrier; relative habitat gain for fish; Species at Risk benefits; diadromous fish habitats; ownership; community support, and renewable energy needs. • Among all non‐functional dams, prioritize dams for removal or mitigation (this process is complete in NY, and will be completed in Ontario - many Conservation Authorities have this information). 2.) By 2015, remove and/or mitigate a minimum of 10 high priority dams and barriers to restore fish passage and riverine processes. • Project leads must be identified for each project, to seek necessary approvals and funding. • In each case, assessment will be necessary to determine how to prevent spread of invasive species or pathogens. 3.) By 2015, assemble existing education materials and create a standard education package for dams on private lands. • Hundreds of small dams in the bi‐national watershed are on private land. • Increasing the awareness of landowners about the impact and liabilities of private dams may encourage mitigation. • The goal is to reach 75% of private owners, and receive feedback from 30% of those reached.
Facilitate Species Movements : Through watershed planning and management, provide corridors and linkages to facilitate species migrations and shifts in ecological communities. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) Develop linked reserves: By 2011, plan and begin to implement a single, basin‐wide natural heritage system to accommodate habitat shifts. • By 2011, assemble and employ GIS tools to identify key habitats and corridors connecting zones of natural cover, both terrestrial and aquatic. • Complete LIDAR bathymetry of nearshore zone, and model how declining lake levels may affect coastal wetlands and fish spawning areas, by 2012. • Develop land use policies to support a natural heritage system that will protect coastal areas most impacted by hydrologic change. • Share results with municipalities, to increase understanding and influence on local land‐use decisions. • As part of IJC process, develop basin‐wide monitoring of coastal wetlands and other nearshore habitats. 2.) Buffer streams and coasts ‐ by 2020, protect and restore an additional 10,000 ha (24,700 acres) and 100 stream kilometers (62 miles) of critical habitats identified in the bi‐national natural heritage system. • Refine goals for protection based on the analysis described above. • As a component in watershed plans, complete scenarios to determine feasibility of habitat corridors.
Halt Species Introductions - Boating : Halt new introductions of aquatic invasive species due to recreational boating activities by 2015. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2010, assemble an inventory of all boat landings and major water access points that may provide access to Lake Ontario for AIS. As part of this inventory process, identify the boat landings with the highest probability of new invasions. • This inventory will require development by a contractor of a geospatial database of all boat landings, and an existing program of DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources) can serve as a model. Quantification of use patterns through active monitoring at boat landings will be necessary to identify the landings that present the highest risk for new introductions. DFO will be conducting a pilot study during the next two years. 2.) By 2011, design and implement surveillance monitoring and rapid‐response techniques at the highest‐risk boat landings and access points. • DFO has a draft AIS monitoring plan for the Great Lakes that, when implemented, will focus on highest‐risk sites. 3.) By 2012, establish a comprehensive public awareness program, focused on the highest‐risk sites. 4.) By 2015, complete the steps to halt introductions via the boating pathway by finding support for boat washing stations and inspection stations on major transportation routes and water access points.
Halt Species Introductions - Live Organism Trade : Halt new introductions of aquatic invasive spection via live trade in animals and plants by 2015. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2011, LaMP agencies and partners develop and implement risk assessment procedures to assess the full range of species in live trades. • DFO's Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment (CEARA) is currently developing risk assessment and screening protocols for all of the major freshwater AIS pathways and several specific AIS, with emphasis on the Great Lakes. David Lodge, Notre Dame University, is proposing similar assessments, as well as the development of a standardized RA framework for the GL basin. The Great Lakes Commission has a program on AIS pathways. 2.) By 2012, agencies and partners complete an inventory of species involved in live trades and apply the risk assessment procedures to identify live‐trade species that pose the highest risk of ecosystem damage. • DFO CEARA has nearly completed such an inventory. 3.) LaMP agencies and partners form a working group, including stakeholders and industry representatives, to build public support for regulating trade in live species. • As a preparatory step, the agencies link with other agencies in the Great Lakes basin and the Great Lakes Commission to coordinate efforts to identify stakeholders and recruit their participation in determining the scope and goals of a regulatory process. 4.) By 2015, legislation is introduced in both countries with a comprehensive list of prohibited species. • An NGO or other partner will need to be found to propose legislation, which could be supported by the working group mentioned above. 5.) By 2015, an agency/NGO team will design and implement a consistent public information program, including workshops for stakeholders such as bait harvesters, to educate the public and the industry on species that can be safely and legally traded. • Ontario is already conducting workshops.
Halt Species Introductions - Shipping : Halt introductions of aquatic invasive species via shipping through coastal and oceanic shipping pathways (ballast water, hull fouling, anchors) by 2015. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) State/provincial/federal governments adopt a consistent set of standards for management of AIS in the ballast tanks of all saltwater vessels. These standards should encompass ballast water exchange and sediment management, achieving environmentally protective standards for ballast treatment by 2011. 2.) By 2011, support a study to quantify risks of AIS introduction posed by hull fouling and other ship‐borne vectors and current ballast water mitigation measures. Support investigations to quantify these issues, and identify hull management solutions. 3.) LaMP agencies consider support to update a cost‐benefit analysis considering all transportation alternatives to meet the objective of halting saltwater introductions of AIS.
Hydropower Guidelines : Enhance environmental guidelines for siting and operations of all new hydropower facilities. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2011, the bi‐national barrier mitigation task force will develop guidelines/criteria on how all new facilities should be sited and operated to maintain and enhance habitats for fish. 2.) Meet with Ontario Waterpower Association (OWPA) to present guidelines and ensure conservation‐based input into new projects.
Management : Ensure that all public lands in priority areas are managed for the benefit of the native species and natural habitats (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2011, appropriate agencies identify public lands in priority watersheds that are most in need of management plans. 2.) Appropriate agencies identify and share "best example" management plans. 3.) NGO partners seek Lake Ontario coastal conservation funds to support land conservation and management. • This action is part of the effort to assemble $10 million per year for land conservation (see Strategy 1.1).
Planning : Complete watershed planning in both countries encouraging development and conservation in appropriate areas. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) Secure funding for completion of watershed plans in Ontario and New York, incorporating protection of sensitive lands. • Fund and initiate community‐based watershed planning in New York, resulting in watershed plans for all priority watersheds by 2015. The new emphasis on Ecosystem‐based Management provides a mechanism to assist this process. 2.) By 2012, Complete watershed planning in Ontario. • Comments from Conservation Authorities on an earlier draft of this report point out that sourcewater protection plans are scheduled for completion in 2012, but that more comprehensive biodiversity conservation planning will require additional funding. 3.) Link watershed plans to nearshore ecosystem health. By 2012, develop a pilot study in the western basin that links watershed planning to nearshore ecosystems. • Opportunity for Conservation Authorities to add actions to restore nearshore water quality and natural processes (sediment transport) to all new and updated watershed plans. 4.) Update the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy (Ontario). • Greenway Strategy will incorporate priority land protection and steps to restore nearshore areas, as reflected in Conservation Authority watershed plans.
Protection : By 2015, secure 50% of unprotected and vulnerable coastal wetlands, tributary floodplains, and terrestrial systems as identified in watershed and other conservation plans. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years: 1.) By 2010, prioritize conservation efforts on public and private lands based on biodiversity values and threats to natural resources. • A first iteration of this priority‐setting was completed during this project's fourth workshop with identification of recommended action sites (watersheds and coastal reaches) for implementation of place‐based strategies. Section 6 illustrates and describes the results of this discussion. 2. ) By 2010, develop procedures for identifying key lands within priority watersheds or coastal reaches. Coastal wetlands, tributary floodplains, and vulnerable terrestrial habitats such as beaches and dunes have been proposed as priorities for protection. • Consistent, scientifically valid procedure will be used in both countries to highlight lands within a watershed that have high impact on Lake Ontario. This procedure will inform watershed planning. 3.) Link land protection priorities to existing land conservation strategies at the province/state level. • In NY, focus funds through the state's Open Space Plan to protect undeveloped shorelines and 5,000 acres (2,024 ha) of lands buffering aquatic systems in priority watersheds and coastal reaches. In Ontario, priority lands will be reflected in ongoing watershed and conservation planning. For example, Credit Valley Conservation Authority seeks to protect 12% of the land area of Mississauga in natural areas, with 6% protected to date. 4,) Allocate more funding for land securement - by 2012, work in both countries to secure $10 million per year in a dedicated Lake Ontario fund for conservation of riparian and coastal areas. • See Strategy 1.4: public relations key step.
Rapid Response Plan : Pool resources to develop and implement a rapid‐response plan for newly discovered aquatic invasive species. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) Form interagency, bi‐national early detection‐rapid response (ED‐RR) team to develop protocols for monitoring, identify places of high vulnerability (ports, canal connections, major recreational boating locations), and cooperate with agencies throughout Great Lakes region on eradication techniques. • Form a bi‐national early detection team, with participation by DFO, MNR, DEC, USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), and Conservation Authorities. • Develop a basin‐wide rapid response framework to coordinate interjurisdictional response to early detection of aquatic invasive species, pooling the resources of the aforementioned partners. • Nick Mandrak of DFO has proposed this strategy, which reflects a similar recommendation by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. The actions of this bi‐national team might initially focus on the Welland Canal, New York Barge Canal, and Hamilton Harbour. In NY, the PRISM network and the Invasive Species Task Force provide mechanisms for forming and implementing this team. 2.) Explore funding mechanisms for the ED‐RR team, including the State Clean Water Revolving Fund (NY), the Canada‐Ontario Agreement, and federal invasive species legislation.
Re-establish Biological Separation : Re‐establish biological separation at strategic points currently connected by canals. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2011, the LaMP agencies support an objective assessment of the risks of different management options (including the status quo) for biological separation of major catchments currently connected by canals to Lake Ontario. • This strategy is consistent with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's aquatic invasive species milestones 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. 2.) By 2009, LaMP agencies establish a working group, including all stakeholders, for a consultative process to identify issues and consider options for biological separation between Lakes Ontario and Champlain and the Hudson River. 3.) By 2015, begin implementation of the steps recommended by the working group for permanent barriers (cargo transfer stations, small watercraft lifts, cleaning stations) with the goal of halting AIS introductions without interrupting transport of goods or recreation
Reduce Impact of Existing Aquatic Invasives : Reduce the dominance and impact of existing aquatic invasive species to permit increased spawning by lake trout and other native species. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) LaMP agencies support development of a technical working group (TWG) to identify priority AIS for management, and identify national and international partners working on aquatic pest management. • This step repeats a recommendation by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC), which highlights the need for an Integrated Management Program for rapid response, control, and management. 2.) EPA's Targeted Watershed Grants program designs an international conference to assess feasibility of integrated pest management on the Lake Ontario scale, and define a long‐term research agenda for development of control or eradication tools for priority species. • Agreement on priority steps to develop control tools, and identification of target species. The need for coordinated research on control methods "for uncontrolled species of concern" is also a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration action step.
Restore & Maintain Native Fish Community Elements : By 2020, restore and maintain elements of the native fish community, including top and middle level predators that can act as biological control agents for key invasive species. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2010, make LaMP ecosystem indicators consistent with the measures of the lake trout, sturgeon, American eel, cisco, and Atlantic salmon Great Lakes Fisheries Commission management plans. 2.) By 2012, work with sport‐fishing interests to develop support for the restoration of native species. • DFO is conducting an inventory, evaluation and gap analysis of aquatic protected areas in a study for GLFC. 3.) By 2012, establish fish habitat partnerships, including partnership with sport‐fishing groups, to raise funds to assist in native fish species restoration.
Restore Hydrologic Periodicity : Restore more natural hydrologic periodicity to Lake Ontario through a new regulation plan, and monitor impacts on coastal habitats. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) In 2009, bi‐national partners work with the IJC to assemble working group to build on existing information and models in proposing a regulation plan for LOSL. 2.) By 2010, New York agencies develop shoreline restoration plan, with comprehensive approaches to shoreline property and infrastructure. • LaMP agencies organize a bi‐national group to consider best management practices for shoreline hardening. Consider organizing a symposium engaging representatives from other lakes and shoreline property interests. 3.) By 2010, LaMP agencies work with IJC staff to refine adaptive management program to complement a new regulation plan.
Rural Measures : Target best management practice efforts in rural areas of priority watersheds to restore natural sediment and phosphorus cycles in nearshore waters. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) Prioritize watersheds: by 2010, complete prioritization of Lake Ontario quaternary/11‐digit watersheds for restoration or conservation action. • An initial version of this prioritization was an outcome of the fourth workshop and subsequent discussion, and is presented in Figure 6.3. 2.) Allocate more funds for stream restoration. Target resources for BMP assistance to priority watersheds - increase BMP funding by 25% by 2010 in both countries. • Conservation Authorities question whether a percentage increase is a useful measure of progress, and recommend basing this goal on the costs of the Healthy Watersheds/Healthy Great Lakes programs. • Conservation Ontario notes: Watershed plans, rural water quality improvement programs, and stewardship programs led by Conservation Ontario and local Conservation Authorities and municipalities are examples of positive efforts to reduce rural and urban water quality impacts. However, a lack of funding for non‐Area of Concern (AOC) watersheds has limited opportunities for progress in implementing best management practices (Written comments, January 18, 2009). 3.) By 2015 reduce phosphorus loading from 5‐6 priority tributaries to achieve nearshore concentrations of 15 ug/L. • Conservation Authorities point out that the goal of 15 ug/L has already been achieved for many areas in the Durham region, and propose that the nearshore goal be revised to 10ug/L. • Complete watershed plans by 2012, targeting specific priority areas through stressed stream analysis. • Provide soil testing and nutrient management services to priority farms. • Purchase or lease sensitive lands, with emphasis on stream buffers - buffer active river areas identified through floodplain analysis.
Stewardship : Encourage coastal and riparian stewardship on private lands. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) Project partners identify coastal areas adjacent to biodiversity targets (coastal wetlands, key coastal terrestrial habitats, priority tributaries) with little natural cover that are in private ownership, to highlight areas where targeted public outreach is most needed. Initial focus will be on priority watersheds. • Data‐bases assembled for this LaMP‐based process provide the information necessary to complete this step. NCC, Conservation Authorities, MNR, DEC, and TNC can combine efforts to complete this step. 2.) Update Province of Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and Provincial Policy Statement to provide additional protection for all Lake Ontario coastal wetlands and coastal systems, by 2010. 3.) By 2011, employ diverse methods (e.g. electronic, print, mass media) to increase understanding of the lake ecosystem so that New York watershed plans incorporate actions to preserve aquatic biodiversity. This action step mirrors a similar nearterm recommendation in Our Waters, Our Communities, Our Future - the report of NY's Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council (OGLECC). • Develop a compelling publication and presentation on the biodiversity of Lake Ontario. • Share information with coastal municipalities and NGOs to inform watershed actions. • Credit Valley Conservation Authority's Save the Leopard Frog campaign provides an example of a successful campaign to increase understanding of ecosystem needs.
Urban Measures : Within urban areas of targeted watersheds, reduce sediment and phosphorus from urban nonpoint sources through three‐prong approach - controls at source, conveyance, and end‐of‐pipe levels. (more info) Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2010, prioritize watersheds for action (see Strategy 5.1 above) 2.) Complete watershed plans in 5‐6 priority watersheds by 2012 (see Strategy 5.1 above) 3.) Develop urban stormwater standards for water balances that will be used in all new developments in target watersheds, by 2015. • Appropriate partners develop standards, using widely accepted LEEDS standards, and propose these standards through LaMP and agency channels. • Partners present and discuss standards with municipal governments - standards ideally adopted by 80% of municipalities in targeted watersheds. • Partners conduct outreach to developers, seeking 80% agreement and use. • MOE updates Ontario stormwater objectives - opportunity to introduce and adopt Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater techniques. • Partners in targeted watershed promote concepts and methods of low impact development (LID). 4.) Outreach programs to municipal governments and homeowners adjacent to high‐risk stream reaches reduce peak flows by 10% by 2015 • Conservation Authorities propose that these outreach programs should emphasize the effects of shoreline hardening, and provide alternatives to this practice, as a step toward a lake‐wide goal of less than 20% hardened shorelines in priority watersheds by 2020. • Shoreline conservation could be promoted through Official Plans in Ontario. 5.) Increase riparian and coastal natural cover - by 2015, restore stream and coastal buffers and wetlands to reduce peak flows in 20% of stream miles • Watershed plans identify high‐risk stream reaches. • Conservation Authorities incorporate fisheries management objectives into CA watershed planning. • Project partners secure funding for protection and restoration from federal and provincial/state sources.

Targets

Focal Conservation Target	Target Type	Habitat Type
Benthic and pelagic offshore system (more info) Description: This target represents the bottom and open waters of the lake in permanently cold water greater than 20 m in depth. The benthos of the lake harbours the twin pillars of the native food web: Diporeia and Mysis, in addition to other important benthic invertebrates, and prey fish such as the deep‐water sculpin. Lake trout and burbot are the native top predators. A diverse array of native Coregonid fishes previously dominated pelagic waters, with the Atlantic salmon as the top predator, but these species have been almost entirely eliminated from the system.	-	-
Coastal terrestrial systems (more info) Description: This target includes natural cover from the line of wave action to two kilometers inland. These systems include the dunes and beaches that protect inshore lagoons and major wetlands in the Prince Edward peninsula and eastern shore of the lake in Jefferson and Oswego Counties, New York. Remnant barrier beaches and cobble bars still shelter embayments and ponds along the southern shore of the lake.	-	-
Coastal wetlands (more info) Description: This target includes wetlands that have, or historically had, a hydrologic link to Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River. An array of different natural communities, shaped by the longterm hydrologic periodicity of the lake and river, provides breeding, nursery, and migratory habitat for many species of native fish, birds, amphibians and reptiles.	-	-
Islands (more info) Description: This target includes both natural and artificial islands. Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River have almost 2000 islands, primarily in the eastern basin. The islands of Lake Ontario are important for colonial nesting waterbirds, migratory birds and support many rare species. Islands in the eastern basin and the upper St. Lawrence River provide "stepping stones" in the linkage between Ontario's Algonquin Park and the Adirondacks in New York.	-	-
Native migratory fish (more info) Description: This target is defined as fish that depend on migration to satisfy their life cycle. Examples of native migratory fish include lake sturgeon (lake to tributaries), American eel (lake to ocean), lake trout (deep lake to reefs), white sucker (lake to tributaries), walleye (lake to tributaries), and northern pike (lake to shallow wetlands)	-	-
Nearshore zone (more info) Description: This target represents the open waters of the lake from the 20 m depth contour to the mean high water mark along the coast. These shallow, productive waters provide the link between the land and open lake, and support submerged aquatic vegetation critical for waterfowl and many fishes such as smallmouth bass and yellow perch.	-	-
Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels (more info) Description: This target includes tributaries to the lake and their associated riparian zones and estuaries. There are hundreds of streams and rivers that flow into Lake Ontario. These systems and their associated riparian areas provide habitat for many fishes and other aquatic species, and have a significant influence on the diversity and health of nearshore waters.	-	-

Threats

Threat (Common Taxonomy) ^*	Targets Threatened
Incompatible Development (Residential & Commercial Development :: Housing & Urban Areas )	Coastal terrestrial systems Coastal wetlands Islands Native migratory fish Nearshore zone Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
Invasive Species (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species )	Benthic and pelagic offshore system Coastal terrestrial systems Coastal wetlands Islands Native migratory fish Nearshore zone Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
Dams & Barriers (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use )	Benthic and pelagic offshore system Coastal wetlands Native migratory fish Nearshore zone Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
Non‐point Source Pollution (Pollution :: Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water )	Coastal wetlands Native migratory fish Nearshore zone Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
Climate Change (Climate Change & Severe Weather :: Habitat Shifting & Alteration )	Benthic and pelagic offshore system Coastal terrestrial systems Coastal wetlands Islands Native migratory fish Nearshore zone Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels

^* For information on the common taxonomy of threats, see http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/.

Strategies

Strategy (Common Taxonomy)	Threats Addressed
Conserve Critical Lands and Waters ( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection )	Invasive Species Incompatible Development
Plan & Adapt for Climate Change ( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management )	Climate Change
Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species ( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control )	Invasive Species
Restore Connections and Natural Hydrology ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Dams & Barriers
Restore Native Fish Communities, Native Species, and Aquatic Ecosystems ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Invasive Species
Restore the Quality of Nearshore Waters ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Non‐point Source Pollution

Viability Summary

Conservation Targets		Landscape Context		Condition		Size		Viability Rank
Conservation Targets		Grade	Weight	Grade	Weight	Grade	Weight	Viability Rank
1	Benthic and pelagic offshore system	-	1.0	Poor	1.0	Poor	1.0	Poor
2	Coastal terrestrial systems	Fair	1.0	Good	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair
3	Coastal wetlands	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair
4	Islands	-	1.0	Good	1.0	Good	1.0	Good
5	Native migratory fish	-	1.0	-	1.0	Poor	1.0	Poor
6	Nearshore zone	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	-	1.0	Fair
7	Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	-	1.0	Fair
Project Biodiversity Health Rank								Fair

Note:

Threat Summary

Project-specific Threats (Common Taxonomy *)	Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Coastal terrestrial systems	Coastal wetlands	Islands	Native migratory fish	Nearshore zone	Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels	Overall Threat Rank
Incompatible Development (Housing & Urban Areas)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Invasive Species (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Dams & Barriers (Dams & Water Management/Use)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Non‐point Source Pollution (Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Climate Change (Habitat Shifting & Alteration)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Threat Status for Targets and Project	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Assessment of Target Viability

Conservation Target	Key Attribute (Category)	Indicator	Current Indicator Measurement	Rating Comments: (Poor, Fair Good Very Good)	Current Rating and Date	Desired Rating and Date
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Atlantic salmon recruitment (Condition)	Proportions of recruits from wild origin	very low	Poor: - Fair: - Good: - Very Good: -	Poor	-
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Condition of lake trout population (Condition)	CPUE for all age/sex categories	<20	Poor: <20 Fair: - Good: - Very Good: >50	Poor	-
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Condition of lake trout population (Condition)	proportion of recruits from wild origin	<10%	Poor: <10% Fair: - Good: - Very Good: >50%	Poor	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Diporeia condition (Condition)	density of individuals in grab samples at 30‐90 m	<500/m2	Poor: <500/m2 Fair: 500-1000/m2 Good: 1000-4000/m2 Very Good: >4000/m2	Poor	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Diporeia condition (Condition)	density of individuals in grab samples at >90 m	500-1000/m2	Poor: <500/m2 Fair: 500-1000/m2 Good: 1000-2000/m2 Very Good: >2000/m2	Fair	Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Diporeia condition (Condition)	proportion of grab samples from lakewide survey with >700/m²	40-60%	Poor: <40% Fair: 40-60% Good: 60-80% Very Good: >80%	Fair	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Zooplankton condition ¹ (Condition)	Mean length	400-700	Poor: - Fair: - Good: 400-800 Very Good: >800	Good	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Burbot population size (Size)	total numbers per 60 gill net lifts	10-30	Poor: <10 Fair: 10-30 Good: 30-40 Very Good: >40	Fair	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Emerald shiner population size (Size)	total catch per 100 bottom trawls	500-1000	Poor: - Fair: - Good: 500-1000 Very Good: >1000	Good	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Lake herring population size (Size)	total catch per 350 bottom trawls	<10	Poor: <10 Fair: - Good: - Very Good: >45	Poor	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Lake whitefish population size (Size)	numbers per 350 bottom trawls	50-100	Poor: <50 Fair: 50-100 Good: 100-400 Very Good: >400	Fair	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Mysis population size (Size)	density of individuals	350/m2	Poor: - Fair: - Good: ?-350/m2 Very Good: >350/m2	Good	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Slimy sculpin population size (Size)	numbers per 350 bottom trawls	<4,000	Poor: <4,000 Fair: - Good: - Very Good: >10,000	Poor	Very Good
Benthic and pelagic offshore system	Three-spine stickleback population size (Size)	total catch per 100 bottom trawls	2500-5000	Poor: - Fair: - Good: 2500-5000 Very Good: >5000	Good	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Soil/sediment stability and movement (condition) ² (Condition)	Piers & other constructions	120-200	Poor: >200 Fair: 120-200 Good: 40-120 Very Good: <40	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Soil/sediment stability and movement (condition) (Condition)	Shoreline hardening	20-30%	Poor: >40% Fair: 30-40% Good: 20-30% Very Good: <20%	Good	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Connectivity among communities and ecosystems (Landscape Context)	Distance of land areas from roads	60-80% of land area within 375m of roads	Poor: >80% of land area within 375m of roads Fair: 60-80% of land area within 375m of roads Good: 20-60% of land area within 375m of roads Very Good: <20% of land area within 375m of roads	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Connectivity among communities and ecosystems (Landscape Context)	Road density	1.25-2km/km2	Poor: >2km/km2 Fair: 1.25-2km/km2 Good: 0.5-1.25km/km2 Very Good: -0.5km/km2	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Landscape pattern (mosaic) & structure ³ (Landscape Context)	Building density along coast	1-2 buildings/ha	Poor: >2 buildings/ha Fair: 1-2 buildings/ha Good: 0.5-1 buildings/ha Very Good: <0.5 buildings/ha	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Water level fluctuations (Landscape Context)	Annual range and timing of lake level	Limited variation in annual water levels (magnitude of seasonal fluctuations of 0.6m)	Poor: - Fair: Limited variation in annual water levels (magnitude of seasonal fluctuations of 0.6m) Good: - Very Good: Mimics natural, unregulated water level cycles	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Water level fluctuations (Landscape Context)	Annual range of lake level (long-term fluctuations)	No long-term cycling	Poor: - Fair: No long-term cycling Good: - Very Good: 30-40 yr cycle	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Size/extent of characteristic communities (Size)	Mean patch size of coastal forests	20-100 ha	Poor: <20 ha Fair: 20-100 ha Good: 100-200 ha Very Good: >200 ha	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Size/extent of characteristic communities (Size)	Forest cover	20-35%	Poor: <20% Fair: 20-35% Good: 35-60% Very Good: >60%	Fair	Very Good
Coastal terrestrial systems	Size/extent of characteristic communities (Size)	Percent natural cover	40-60%	Poor: <40% Fair: 40-60% Good: 60-80% Very Good: >80%	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Abundance and diversity of wetland-dependent bird species (Condition)	Marsh bird IBI	33-67	Poor: <33 Fair: 33-67 Good: 67-100 Very Good: -	Fair	Good
Coastal wetlands	Community architecture (Condition)	Amphibian IBI	25-50	Poor: <25 Fair: 25-50 Good: 50-75 Very Good: 75-100	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Fish habitat quality (Condition)	Wetland fish index	-1-0	Poor: <-1 Fair: -1-0 Good: 0-1 Very Good: 1-3	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Presence/abundance of keystone species (Condition)	Muskrat house density	0.5-1.5/ha	Poor: <0.5/ha Fair: 0.5-1.5/ha Good: 1.5/ha Very Good: >1.5/ha	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Primary productivity (Condition)	Biomass of algae	High-moderate (PC1 0-2.5)	Poor: High (PC1 >2.5) Fair: High-moderate (PC1 0-2.5 Good: Moderate (PC1 is -2.5-0) Very Good: Low (PC1 <-2.5)	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Trophic structure (Condition)	Wetland zooplankton index	-1-0	Poor: <-1 Fair: -1-0 Good: 0-1 Very Good: 1-3	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Coastal land use (Landscape Context)	Shoreline hardening	20-30%	Poor: >40% Fair: 30-40% Good: 20-30% Very Good: <20%	Good	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Water level fluctuations (Landscape Context)	Annual range and timing of lake level (seasonal fluctuations)	Limited variation	Poor: - Fair: Limited variation Good: - Very Good: Mimics natural, unregulated water level cycles	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Water level fluctuations (Landscape Context)	Long-term lake level cycle	No long term cycle	Poor: - Fair: No long term cycle Good: - Very Good: 30-40 yr cycle	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Water quality (Landscape Context)	Water quality index	-1-0	Poor: <-1 Fair: -1-0 Good: 0-1 Very Good: 1-3	Fair	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Size/extent of characteristic communities (Size)	Area of meadow marsh	Highly restricted in extent/frequency	Poor: Highly restricted in extent/frequency Fair: - Good: - Very Good: Extensive in response to lo lake levels in growing season	Poor	Very Good
Coastal wetlands	Size/extent of characteristic communities (Size)	Area of all wetlands	Most wetlands 20-200 ha	Poor: Most wetlands <20 ha Fair: Most wetlands 20-200 ha Good: Most wetlands 200-1500 ha Very Good: Most wetlands >1500 ha	Fair	Very Good
Islands	Human influence (Condition)	Docking sites	While many larger islands are heavily developed, most are still natural	Poor: - Fair: - Good: While many larger islands are heavily developed, most are still natural Very Good: <0.5 docking sites/ha	Good	Very Good
Islands	Population size & dynamics (Size)	Consistency of colonial waterbird use	Most islands that are suitable for colonial nesting waterbirds remain in use, although there have been major changes in species composition	Poor: - Fair: - Good: Most islands that are suitable for colonial nesting waterbirds remain in use, although there have been major changes in species composition Very Good: Consistent use (2-3 times since the 1970s or consistently during the 1990s)	Good	Very Good
Islands	Population size & dynamics (Size)	Productivity of colonial waterbird nests	Most colonies are productive	Poor: - Fair: - Good: Most colonies are productive Very Good: >25% of nests produce 1+ fledglings	Good	Very Good
Native migratory fish	American eel population size (Size)	Number of returning adults ascending ladder per day during 31‐day peak period	<1,000	Poor: <1,000 Fair: - Good: - Very Good: >20,000	Poor	Very Good
Native migratory fish	Northern pike spawning population size (Size)	number of spawning fish (catch‐per‐standard gillnet)	2-5	Poor: <2 Fair: 2-5 Good: 6-10 Very Good: >10	Fair	Very Good
Native migratory fish	Sturgeon spawning population size (Size)	number of spawning fish (catch‐per‐standard gillnet)	very low	Poor: - Fair: - Good: - Very Good: -	Poor	-
Native migratory fish	Walleye spawning population size (Size)	number of spawning fish (catch‐per‐standard gillnet)	10-20	Poor: <10 Fair: 10-20 Good: 21-35 Very Good: >35	Fair	Very Good
Native migratory fish	White sucker spawning population (Size)	number of spawning fish (catch‐per‐standard gillnet)	2-4	Poor: - Fair: - Good: 2-4 Very Good: >4	Good	Very Good
Native migratory fish	Yellow perch spawning population size (Size)	number of spawning fish (catch‐per‐standard gillnet)	5-10	Poor: <5 Fair: 5-10 Good: 11-25 Very Good: >25	Fair	Very Good
Nearshore zone	Community architecture (Condition)	Abundance and distribution of exotics	New introductions continue, and it is unclear if the rate of introduction or discovery is changing. Abundance and distribution of existing exotics increasing	Poor: - Fair: New introductions continue, and it is unclear if the rate of introduction or discovery is changing. Abundance and distribution of existing exotics increasing Good: Preventing establishment of new exotics, no net gain in existing exotic distribution Very Good: -	Fair	Good
Nearshore zone	Water chemistry (Condition)	Nutrient concentration and cycles	Some localized water quality issues and loss of biodiversity	Poor: - Fair: Some localized water quality issues and loss of biodiversity Good: - Very Good: Sufficient nutrients to support biodiversity without causing persistent water quality issues	Fair	Very Good
Nearshore zone	Coastal land use (Landscape Context)	Shoreline hardening	30-40%	Poor: >40% Fair: 30-40% Good: 20-30% Very Good: <20%	Fair	Very Good
Nearshore zone	Physical habitat integrity (Landscape Context)	Substrate type	Some substrate diversity; increase level of sediments from harbours/ embayments	Poor: - Fair: Some substrate diversity; increase level of sediments from harbours/ embayments Good: - Very Good: Wide diversity of substrates, predominance of gravel, sand, and silt	Fair	Very Good
Nearshore zone	Physical habitat integrity (Landscape Context)	Erosion and deposition rates	Moderate soil erosion by water risk (11-22t/ha/yr)	Poor: - Fair: Moderate soil erosion by water risk (11-22t/ha/yr) Good: - Very Good: Very low soil erosion by water risk (<6t/ha/yr)	Fair	Very Good
Nearshore zone	Water level fluctuations (Landscape Context)	Long-term lake level cycle	No long term cycle	Poor: - Fair: No long term cycle Good: - Very Good: 30-40 yr cycle	Fair	Very Good
Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels	Connectivity among communities and ecosystems (Condition)	Extent of stream length connected to Lake Ontario	highly variable from east and west	Poor: - Fair: highly variable from east and west Good: - Very Good: Lake-tributary connectivity is sufficient to support viable populations of all native species that require connections between lake and tributary habitats	Fair	Very Good
Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels	Watershed land use (Landscape Context)	Percent natural cover in watershed	highly variable from east and west	Poor: - Fair: highly variable from east and west Good: - Very Good: >80%	Fair	Very Good
Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels	Watershed land use (Landscape Context)	Percent impervious cover in watershed	highly variable from east and west	Poor: - Fair: highly variable from east and west Good: - Very Good: <3%	Fair	Very Good

COMMENTS:

¹ values are in micrometers

² m piers/km of coast

³ number of buildings/ha

Objectives, Strategic Actions and Action Steps

Show all:
Strategic Action Measures
Action Steps Measures
Comments

Objective: Adapt Regulations : Adapt the regulation of Lake Ontario and watershed management regulations to accommodate the impacts of climate change. (comments)

Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) IJC adaptive management of Lake Ontario regulation incorporates climate change into 5‐year reviews. • In 2009, ensure adoption of regular adaptive management review as part of a new regulation plan. • Key partners develop monitoring program for regular reporting to the IJC of water management impacts on coastal habitats. • Shoreline management agencies in both countries develop policy to protect and maintain "new" shoreline that may emerge if water levels decline, including restrictions on moving existing shoreline protection structures. 2.) By 2009, create Lake Ontario LaMP environmental adaptive management working group to assess impacts of climate change on biodiversity and inform water management policies and actions. • Organize multi‐stakeholder working group. • Create impact assessment process and establish baseline, using scientific research from IJC study. 3.) By 2012, New York and Ontario take steps to manage streams as natural systems - watershed‐based base flow monitoring programs that incorporate natural range of variability (NRV) and expected impacts under climate change scenarios. • Develop funding sources and support services for watershed approaches to water management. • Generate watershed‐based baseline information and guidelines for responses to low water conditions. • In Ontario, review outcomes of instream flow requirement studies and water budgets (major partners in these efforts include Conservation Ontario, Ministry of Environment, MNR, Conservation Authorities, and DFO). • Develop report on "How much water is enough" to support stream flow management. 4.) By 2012, Ontario and New York revise stormwater regulations to accommodate NRV and climate change impacts. • In Ontario, establish a working group to develop stormwater and instream flow regulations to address both flood and drought conditions in a coordinated manner. • In NY, re‐assess regional rule curves to incorporate climate change, assess frequency of water events, and inform municipalities. • In NY, develop an instream flow numerical standard incorporating NRV.

Strategic Action: Plan & Adapt for Climate Change
- Action Step: Assemble a detailed bathymetry of nearshore waters linked seamlessly to coastal topography to permit mapping of critical nearshore habitats and modeling of the potential impact of lower lake levels. (Note: this topo‐bathymetry database is already being assembled for New York waters by NOAA Coastal Science Center, in partnership with The Nature Conservancy. This process needs to be matched with a similar effort in Ontario.)
- Action Step: Take steps to manage streams as natural systems - use the natural range of hydrologic variation as the baseline for assessing the impact of proposed withdrawals and climate change. The anticipated legislation in New York and Ontario to implement the Great Lakes Compact provides an excellent opportunity for progress toward this objective.
- Action Step: As a step toward re‐establishing natural flows in the St. Lawrence River, assemble the bi‐national adaptive management working group described under Recommendation #3.

Objective: Barrier Removal / Mitigation : Remove or mitigate the impacts of priority dams and barriers to restore fish passage and natural processes. (comments)

Strategic Action: Restore Connections and Natural Hydrology
- Action Step: Work with International Joint Commission to establish a bi‐national working group to finalize a regulation plan for Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence (LOSL) that "moves toward natural flows, while respecting other interests."
- Action Step: Provincial and state agencies join with federal partners to implement monitoring of key indicators of the impacts of a new regulation plan on coastal wetlands and species. These indicators, and the models that predict their responses, have already been developed by the IJC's (International Joint Commission) LOSL study, and therefore the elements necessary for adaptive management of the lake ecosystem are already in place.
- Action Step: Establish a barrier mitigation task force to prioritize barriers for near‐term mitigation, and to define best practices for operation and siting of hydropower facilities.

Objective: Facilitate Species Movements : Through watershed planning and management, provide corridors and linkages to facilitate species migrations and shifts in ecological communities. (comments)

Strategic Action: Plan & Adapt for Climate Change
- Action Step: Assemble a detailed bathymetry of nearshore waters linked seamlessly to coastal topography to permit mapping of critical nearshore habitats and modeling of the potential impact of lower lake levels. (Note: this topo‐bathymetry database is already being assembled for New York waters by NOAA Coastal Science Center, in partnership with The Nature Conservancy. This process needs to be matched with a similar effort in Ontario.)
- Action Step: Take steps to manage streams as natural systems - use the natural range of hydrologic variation as the baseline for assessing the impact of proposed withdrawals and climate change. The anticipated legislation in New York and Ontario to implement the Great Lakes Compact provides an excellent opportunity for progress toward this objective.
- Action Step: As a step toward re‐establishing natural flows in the St. Lawrence River, assemble the bi‐national adaptive management working group described under Recommendation #3.

Objective: Halt Species Introductions - Boating : Halt new introductions of aquatic invasive species due to recreational boating activities by 2015. (comments)

Strategic Action: Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
- Action Step: NGOs support the effort by New York State to regulate shipping traffic through locks in the St. Lawrence River.
- Action Step: Support the effort by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess feasibility of a barrier to AIS movement in the Champlain Canal, and consider extending this analysis to the NYS Barge Canal.
- Action Step: Assemble a geospatial database of all boat landings, following a template developed by MNR and DFO, to identifyhigh‐risk boat landings for monitoring and rapid response.
- Action Step: Support efforts by DFO and Notre Dame University to develop a standardized risk assessment protocol for live trades in the Great Lakes.
- Action Step: Support formation of an expert technical working group to consider techniques for controlling current AIS. The NYS Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) network may provide a mechanism for assembling such a group of experts.

Objective: Halt Species Introductions - Live Organism Trade : Halt new introductions of aquatic invasive spection via live trade in animals and plants by 2015. (comments)

Strategic Action: Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
- Action Step: NGOs support the effort by New York State to regulate shipping traffic through locks in the St. Lawrence River.
- Action Step: Support the effort by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess feasibility of a barrier to AIS movement in the Champlain Canal, and consider extending this analysis to the NYS Barge Canal.
- Action Step: Assemble a geospatial database of all boat landings, following a template developed by MNR and DFO, to identifyhigh‐risk boat landings for monitoring and rapid response.
- Action Step: Support efforts by DFO and Notre Dame University to develop a standardized risk assessment protocol for live trades in the Great Lakes.
- Action Step: Support formation of an expert technical working group to consider techniques for controlling current AIS. The NYS Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) network may provide a mechanism for assembling such a group of experts.

Objective: Halt Species Introductions - Shipping : Halt introductions of aquatic invasive species via shipping through coastal and oceanic shipping pathways (ballast water, hull fouling, anchors) by 2015. (comments)

Strategic Action: Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
- Action Step: NGOs support the effort by New York State to regulate shipping traffic through locks in the St. Lawrence River.
- Action Step: Support the effort by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess feasibility of a barrier to AIS movement in the Champlain Canal, and consider extending this analysis to the NYS Barge Canal.
- Action Step: Assemble a geospatial database of all boat landings, following a template developed by MNR and DFO, to identifyhigh‐risk boat landings for monitoring and rapid response.
- Action Step: Support efforts by DFO and Notre Dame University to develop a standardized risk assessment protocol for live trades in the Great Lakes.
- Action Step: Support formation of an expert technical working group to consider techniques for controlling current AIS. The NYS Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) network may provide a mechanism for assembling such a group of experts.

Objective: Hydropower Guidelines : Enhance environmental guidelines for siting and operations of all new hydropower facilities. (comments)

Strategic Action: Restore Connections and Natural Hydrology
- Action Step: Work with International Joint Commission to establish a bi‐national working group to finalize a regulation plan for Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence (LOSL) that "moves toward natural flows, while respecting other interests."
- Action Step: Provincial and state agencies join with federal partners to implement monitoring of key indicators of the impacts of a new regulation plan on coastal wetlands and species. These indicators, and the models that predict their responses, have already been developed by the IJC's (International Joint Commission) LOSL study, and therefore the elements necessary for adaptive management of the lake ecosystem are already in place.
- Action Step: Establish a barrier mitigation task force to prioritize barriers for near‐term mitigation, and to define best practices for operation and siting of hydropower facilities.

Objective: Management : Ensure that all public lands in priority areas are managed for the benefit of the native species and natural habitats (comments)

Strategic Action: Conserve Critical Lands and Waters
- Action Step: Fund and initiate community‐based watershed planning in New York.
- Action Step: Complete watersheds plans in Ontario; update new plans for coastal watersheds to include nearshore areas.
- Action Step: Establish a dedicated Lake Ontario coastal conservation fund to support land protection and management in priority areas.

Objective: Planning : Complete watershed planning in both countries encouraging development and conservation in appropriate areas. (comments)

Strategic Action: Conserve Critical Lands and Waters
- Action Step: Fund and initiate community‐based watershed planning in New York.
- Action Step: Complete watersheds plans in Ontario; update new plans for coastal watersheds to include nearshore areas.
- Action Step: Establish a dedicated Lake Ontario coastal conservation fund to support land protection and management in priority areas.

Objective: Protection : By 2015, secure 50% of unprotected and vulnerable coastal wetlands, tributary floodplains, and terrestrial systems as identified in watershed and other conservation plans. (comments)

Strategic Action: Conserve Critical Lands and Waters
- Action Step: Fund and initiate community‐based watershed planning in New York.
- Action Step: Complete watersheds plans in Ontario; update new plans for coastal watersheds to include nearshore areas.
- Action Step: Establish a dedicated Lake Ontario coastal conservation fund to support land protection and management in priority areas.

Objective: Rapid Response Plan : Pool resources to develop and implement a rapid‐response plan for newly discovered aquatic invasive species. (comments)

Strategic Action: Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
- Action Step: NGOs support the effort by New York State to regulate shipping traffic through locks in the St. Lawrence River.
- Action Step: Support the effort by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess feasibility of a barrier to AIS movement in the Champlain Canal, and consider extending this analysis to the NYS Barge Canal.
- Action Step: Assemble a geospatial database of all boat landings, following a template developed by MNR and DFO, to identifyhigh‐risk boat landings for monitoring and rapid response.
- Action Step: Support efforts by DFO and Notre Dame University to develop a standardized risk assessment protocol for live trades in the Great Lakes.
- Action Step: Support formation of an expert technical working group to consider techniques for controlling current AIS. The NYS Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) network may provide a mechanism for assembling such a group of experts.

Objective: Re-establish Biological Separation : Re‐establish biological separation at strategic points currently connected by canals. (comments)

Strategic Action: Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
- Action Step: NGOs support the effort by New York State to regulate shipping traffic through locks in the St. Lawrence River.
- Action Step: Support the effort by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess feasibility of a barrier to AIS movement in the Champlain Canal, and consider extending this analysis to the NYS Barge Canal.
- Action Step: Assemble a geospatial database of all boat landings, following a template developed by MNR and DFO, to identifyhigh‐risk boat landings for monitoring and rapid response.
- Action Step: Support efforts by DFO and Notre Dame University to develop a standardized risk assessment protocol for live trades in the Great Lakes.
- Action Step: Support formation of an expert technical working group to consider techniques for controlling current AIS. The NYS Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) network may provide a mechanism for assembling such a group of experts.

Objective: Reduce Impact of Existing Aquatic Invasives : Reduce the dominance and impact of existing aquatic invasive species to permit increased spawning by lake trout and other native species. (comments)

Strategic Action: Reduce the Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
- Action Step: NGOs support the effort by New York State to regulate shipping traffic through locks in the St. Lawrence River.
- Action Step: Support the effort by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess feasibility of a barrier to AIS movement in the Champlain Canal, and consider extending this analysis to the NYS Barge Canal.
- Action Step: Assemble a geospatial database of all boat landings, following a template developed by MNR and DFO, to identifyhigh‐risk boat landings for monitoring and rapid response.
- Action Step: Support efforts by DFO and Notre Dame University to develop a standardized risk assessment protocol for live trades in the Great Lakes.
- Action Step: Support formation of an expert technical working group to consider techniques for controlling current AIS. The NYS Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) network may provide a mechanism for assembling such a group of experts.

Objective: Restore & Maintain Native Fish Community Elements : By 2020, restore and maintain elements of the native fish community, including top and middle level predators that can act as biological control agents for key invasive species. (comments)

Strategic Action: Restore Native Fish Communities, Native Species, and Aquatic Ecosystems
- Action Step: Pursue restoration of selected native Coregonid species, with monitoring to assess the effectiveness of juvenile stocking compared to egg releases. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, the CWCS, and the OGLECC report all recommend these steps.
- Action Step: Implement restoration plans for the American eel and lake sturgeon.
- Action Step: Engage sportfishing stakeholders in restoration of native species.

Objective: Restore Hydrologic Periodicity : Restore more natural hydrologic periodicity to Lake Ontario through a new regulation plan, and monitor impacts on coastal habitats. (comments)

Strategic Action: Restore Connections and Natural Hydrology
- Action Step: Work with International Joint Commission to establish a bi‐national working group to finalize a regulation plan for Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence (LOSL) that "moves toward natural flows, while respecting other interests."
- Action Step: Provincial and state agencies join with federal partners to implement monitoring of key indicators of the impacts of a new regulation plan on coastal wetlands and species. These indicators, and the models that predict their responses, have already been developed by the IJC's (International Joint Commission) LOSL study, and therefore the elements necessary for adaptive management of the lake ecosystem are already in place.
- Action Step: Establish a barrier mitigation task force to prioritize barriers for near‐term mitigation, and to define best practices for operation and siting of hydropower facilities.

Objective: Rural Measures : Target best management practice efforts in rural areas of priority watersheds to restore natural sediment and phosphorus cycles in nearshore waters. (comments)

Strategic Action: Restore the Quality of Nearshore Waters
- Action Step: Prioritize watersheds for action [Figure 6.3 of "The Beautiful Lake: A Bi‐national Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Ontario" represents a proposed completion of this step].
- Action Step: Increase funding for agricultural best management practices, and target funding in priority watersheds.
- Action Step: Purchase or lease sensitive floodplain lands in priority watersheds
- Action Step: Develop and implement urban stormwater standards for water balance to be applied in all new developments.

Objective: Stewardship : Encourage coastal and riparian stewardship on private lands. (comments)

Strategic Action: Conserve Critical Lands and Waters
- Action Step: Fund and initiate community‐based watershed planning in New York.
- Action Step: Complete watersheds plans in Ontario; update new plans for coastal watersheds to include nearshore areas.
- Action Step: Establish a dedicated Lake Ontario coastal conservation fund to support land protection and management in priority areas.

Objective: Urban Measures : Within urban areas of targeted watersheds, reduce sediment and phosphorus from urban nonpoint sources through three‐prong approach - controls at source, conveyance, and end‐of‐pipe levels. (comments)

Strategic Action: Restore the Quality of Nearshore Waters
- Action Step: Prioritize watersheds for action [Figure 6.3 of "The Beautiful Lake: A Bi‐national Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Ontario" represents a proposed completion of this step].
- Action Step: Increase funding for agricultural best management practices, and target funding in priority watersheds.
- Action Step: Purchase or lease sensitive floodplain lands in priority watersheds
- Action Step: Develop and implement urban stormwater standards for water balance to be applied in all new developments.

Strategy Effectiveness

Show all:
Comments
Objective Measures
Indicator Methods
Indicator Measures
Progress Reports

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Adapt Regulations : Adapt the regulation of Lake Ontario and watershed management regulations to accommodate the impacts of climate change. (comments)

Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) IJC adaptive management of Lake Ontario regulation incorporates climate change into 5‐year reviews. • In 2009, ensure adoption of regular adaptive management review as part of a new regulation plan. • Key partners develop monitoring program for regular reporting to the IJC of water management impacts on coastal habitats. • Shoreline management agencies in both countries develop policy to protect and maintain "new" shoreline that may emerge if water levels decline, including restrictions on moving existing shoreline protection structures. 2.) By 2009, create Lake Ontario LaMP environmental adaptive management working group to assess impacts of climate change on biodiversity and inform water management policies and actions. • Organize multi‐stakeholder working group. • Create impact assessment process and establish baseline, using scientific research from IJC study. 3.) By 2012, New York and Ontario take steps to manage streams as natural systems - watershed‐based base flow monitoring programs that incorporate natural range of variability (NRV) and expected impacts under climate change scenarios. • Develop funding sources and support services for watershed approaches to water management. • Generate watershed‐based baseline information and guidelines for responses to low water conditions. • In Ontario, review outcomes of instream flow requirement studies and water budgets (major partners in these efforts include Conservation Ontario, Ministry of Environment, MNR, Conservation Authorities, and DFO). • Develop report on "How much water is enough" to support stream flow management. 4.) By 2012, Ontario and New York revise stormwater regulations to accommodate NRV and climate change impacts. • In Ontario, establish a working group to develop stormwater and instream flow regulations to address both flood and drought conditions in a coordinated manner. • In NY, re‐assess regional rule curves to incorporate climate change, assess frequency of water events, and inform municipalities. • In NY, develop an instream flow numerical standard incorporating NRV.

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Barrier Removal / Mitigation : Remove or mitigate the impacts of priority dams and barriers to restore fish passage and natural processes. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Halt Species Introductions - Boating : Halt new introductions of aquatic invasive species due to recreational boating activities by 2015. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Halt Species Introductions - Live Organism Trade : Halt new introductions of aquatic invasive spection via live trade in animals and plants by 2015. (comments)

Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2011, LaMP agencies and partners develop and implement risk assessment procedures to assess the full range of species in live trades. • DFO's Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment (CEARA) is currently developing risk assessment and screening protocols for all of the major freshwater AIS pathways and several specific AIS, with emphasis on the Great Lakes. David Lodge, Notre Dame University, is proposing similar assessments, as well as the development of a standardized RA framework for the GL basin. The Great Lakes Commission has a program on AIS pathways. 2.) By 2012, agencies and partners complete an inventory of species involved in live trades and apply the risk assessment procedures to identify live‐trade species that pose the highest risk of ecosystem damage. • DFO CEARA has nearly completed such an inventory. 3.) LaMP agencies and partners form a working group, including stakeholders and industry representatives, to build public support for regulating trade in live species. • As a preparatory step, the agencies link with other agencies in the Great Lakes basin and the Great Lakes Commission to coordinate efforts to identify stakeholders and recruit their participation in determining the scope and goals of a regulatory process. 4.) By 2015, legislation is introduced in both countries with a comprehensive list of prohibited species. • An NGO or other partner will need to be found to propose legislation, which could be supported by the working group mentioned above. 5.) By 2015, an agency/NGO team will design and implement a consistent public information program, including workshops for stakeholders such as bait harvesters, to educate the public and the industry on species that can be safely and legally traded. • Ontario is already conducting workshops.

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Hydropower Guidelines : Enhance environmental guidelines for siting and operations of all new hydropower facilities. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Management : Ensure that all public lands in priority areas are managed for the benefit of the native species and natural habitats (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Planning : Complete watershed planning in both countries encouraging development and conservation in appropriate areas. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Rapid Response Plan : Pool resources to develop and implement a rapid‐response plan for newly discovered aquatic invasive species. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Re-establish Biological Separation : Re‐establish biological separation at strategic points currently connected by canals. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Restore Hydrologic Periodicity : Restore more natural hydrologic periodicity to Lake Ontario through a new regulation plan, and monitor impacts on coastal habitats. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Rural Measures : Target best management practice efforts in rural areas of priority watersheds to restore natural sediment and phosphorus cycles in nearshore waters. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Objective: Stewardship : Encourage coastal and riparian stewardship on private lands. (comments)

Percent Complete: 0%

Comment: Key Steps for the Next Five Years 1.) By 2010, prioritize watersheds for action (see Strategy 5.1 above) 2.) Complete watershed plans in 5‐6 priority watersheds by 2012 (see Strategy 5.1 above) 3.) Develop urban stormwater standards for water balances that will be used in all new developments in target watersheds, by 2015. • Appropriate partners develop standards, using widely accepted LEEDS standards, and propose these standards through LaMP and agency channels. • Partners present and discuss standards with municipal governments - standards ideally adopted by 80% of municipalities in targeted watersheds. • Partners conduct outreach to developers, seeking 80% agreement and use. • MOE updates Ontario stormwater objectives - opportunity to introduce and adopt Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater techniques. • Partners in targeted watershed promote concepts and methods of low impact development (LID). 4.) Outreach programs to municipal governments and homeowners adjacent to high‐risk stream reaches reduce peak flows by 10% by 2015 • Conservation Authorities propose that these outreach programs should emphasize the effects of shoreline hardening, and provide alternatives to this practice, as a step toward a lake‐wide goal of less than 20% hardened shorelines in priority watersheds by 2020. • Shoreline conservation could be promoted through Official Plans in Ontario. 5.) Increase riparian and coastal natural cover - by 2015, restore stream and coastal buffers and wetlands to reduce peak flows in 20% of stream miles • Watershed plans identify high‐risk stream reaches. • Conservation Authorities incorporate fisheries management objectives into CA watershed planning. • Project partners secure funding for protection and restoration from federal and provincial/state sources.

All Monitoring Indicators

Show all:
Methods
Measurement Report
Progress Reports
Objectives
Target KEA Refs
Target Threat Refs
Other Refs

Indicator: Abundance and distribution of exotics
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
New introductions continue, and it is unclear if the rate of introduction or discovery is changing. Abundance and distribution of existing exotics increasing		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Nearshore zone
- Condition: Community architecture

Indicator: Amphibian IBI
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
25-50		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Condition: Community architecture

Indicator: Annual range and timing of lake level
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Limited variation in annual water levels (magnitude of seasonal fluctuations of 0.6m)		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Landscape Context: Water level fluctuations

Indicator: Annual range and timing of lake level (seasonal fluctuations)
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Limited variation		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Landscape Context: Water level fluctuations

Indicator: Annual range of lake level (long-term fluctuations)
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
No long-term cycling		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Landscape Context: Water level fluctuations

Indicator: Area of all wetlands
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Most wetlands 20-200 ha		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Size: Size/extent of characteristic communities

Indicator: Area of meadow marsh
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Highly restricted in extent/frequency		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Size: Size/extent of characteristic communities

Indicator: Biomass of algae
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
High-moderate (PC1 0-2.5)		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Condition: Primary productivity

Indicator: Building density along coast
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
1-2 buildings/ha		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Landscape Context: Landscape pattern (mosaic) & structure

Indicator: Consistency of colonial waterbird use
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Most islands that are suitable for colonial nesting waterbirds remain in use, although there have been major changes in species composition		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Islands
- Size: Population size & dynamics

Indicator: CPUE for all age/sex categories
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
<20		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Condition of lake trout population

Indicator: density of individuals
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
350/m2		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Size: Mysis population size

Indicator: density of individuals in grab samples at 30‐90 m
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
<500/m2		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Diporeia condition

Indicator: density of individuals in grab samples at >90 m
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
500-1000/m2		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Diporeia condition

Indicator: Distance of land areas from roads
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
60-80% of land area within 375m of roads		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Landscape Context: Connectivity among communities and ecosystems

Indicator: Docking sites
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
While many larger islands are heavily developed, most are still natural		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Islands
- Condition: Human influence

Indicator: Erosion and deposition rates
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Moderate soil erosion by water risk (11-22t/ha/yr)		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Nearshore zone
- Landscape Context: Physical habitat integrity

Indicator: Extent of stream length connected to Lake Ontario
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
highly variable from east and west		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
- Condition: Connectivity among communities and ecosystems

Indicator: Forest cover
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
20-35%		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Size: Size/extent of characteristic communities

Indicator: Long-term lake level cycle
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Source	Trend
Target: Nearshore zone, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Water level fluctuations
No long term cycle	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Coastal wetlands, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Water level fluctuations
No long term cycle	Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Landscape Context: Water level fluctuations
Nearshore zone
- Landscape Context: Water level fluctuations

Indicator: Marsh bird IBI
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
33-67		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Condition: Abundance and diversity of wetland-dependent bird species

Indicator: Mean length
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
400-700		Intensive Assessment	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Zooplankton condition

Indicator: Mean patch size of coastal forests
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
20-100 ha		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Size: Size/extent of characteristic communities

Indicator: Muskrat house density
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
0.5-1.5/ha		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Condition: Presence/abundance of keystone species

Indicator: Number of returning adults ascending ladder per day during 31‐day peak period
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
<1,000		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Native migratory fish
- Size: American eel population size

Indicator: number of spawning fish (catch‐per‐standard gillnet)
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Source	Trend
Target: Native migratory fish, Category: Size, KEA: Yellow perch spawning population size
5-10	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Native migratory fish, Category: Size, KEA: Northern pike spawning population size
2-5	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Native migratory fish, Category: Size, KEA: Walleye spawning population size
10-20	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Native migratory fish, Category: Size, KEA: White sucker spawning population
2-4	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Native migratory fish, Category: Size, KEA: Sturgeon spawning population size
very low	Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Native migratory fish
- Size: Sturgeon spawning population size
- Size: Yellow perch spawning population size
- Size: White sucker spawning population
- Size: Walleye spawning population size
- Size: Northern pike spawning population size

Indicator: numbers per 350 bottom trawls
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Source	Trend
Target: Benthic and pelagic offshore system, Category: Size, KEA: Slimy sculpin population size
<4,000	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Benthic and pelagic offshore system, Category: Size, KEA: Lake whitefish population size
50-100	Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Size: Lake whitefish population size
- Size: Slimy sculpin population size

Indicator: Nutrient concentration and cycles
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Some localized water quality issues and loss of biodiversity		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Nearshore zone
- Condition: Water chemistry

Indicator: Percent impervious cover in watershed
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
highly variable from east and west		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
- Landscape Context: Watershed land use

Indicator: Percent natural cover
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
40-60%		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Size: Size/extent of characteristic communities

Indicator: Percent natural cover in watershed
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
highly variable from east and west		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Rivers, estuaries & connecting channels
- Landscape Context: Watershed land use

Indicator: Piers & other constructions
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
120-200		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Condition: Soil/sediment stability and movement (condition)

Indicator: Productivity of colonial waterbird nests
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Most colonies are productive		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Islands
- Size: Population size & dynamics

Indicator: proportion of grab samples from lakewide survey with >700/m²
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
40-60%		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Diporeia condition

Indicator: proportion of recruits from wild origin
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
<10%		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Condition of lake trout population

Indicator: Proportions of recruits from wild origin
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
very low		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Condition: Atlantic salmon recruitment

Indicator: Road density
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
1.25-2km/km2		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Landscape Context: Connectivity among communities and ecosystems

Indicator: Shoreline hardening
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Source	Trend
Target: Coastal terrestrial systems, Category: Condition, KEA: Soil/sediment stability and movement (condition)
20-30%	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Nearshore zone, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Coastal land use
30-40%	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Coastal wetlands, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Coastal land use
20-30%	Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal terrestrial systems
- Condition: Soil/sediment stability and movement (condition)
Coastal wetlands
- Landscape Context: Coastal land use
Nearshore zone
- Landscape Context: Coastal land use

Indicator: Substrate type
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
Some substrate diversity; increase level of sediments from harbours/ embayments		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Nearshore zone
- Landscape Context: Physical habitat integrity

Indicator: total catch per 100 bottom trawls
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Source	Trend
Target: Benthic and pelagic offshore system, Category: Size, KEA: Emerald shiner population size
500-1000	Not Specified	Not Specified
Target: Benthic and pelagic offshore system, Category: Size, KEA: Three-spine stickleback population size
2500-5000	Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Size: Three-spine stickleback population size
- Size: Emerald shiner population size

Indicator: total catch per 350 bottom trawls
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
<10		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Size: Lake herring population size

Indicator: total numbers per 60 gill net lifts
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
10-30		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Benthic and pelagic offshore system
- Size: Burbot population size

Indicator: Water quality index
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
-1-0		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Landscape Context: Water quality

Indicator: Wetland fish index
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
-1-0		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Condition: Fish habitat quality

Indicator: Wetland zooplankton index
(measurement report) (target kea refs)

Measurement Report:

Measure	Date	Source	Trend	Comments
-1-0		Not Specified	Not Specified

Key Attribute

Coastal wetlands
- Condition: Trophic structure

This data is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Lake Ontario (ID: 1515)

Download Project

Associated Files

Associated Links