Rouge River State of the Watershed Report

Terrestrial System

Goal: A healthy terrestrial system that supports a diversity of native habitats and communities, a more natural watershed hydrology, cleaner air and sustainable public use opportunities.

TeTeTerrestrialTe rrestrial System

Key Findings:

• Terrestrial habitats and species found in the Rouge River watershed can be described in association with four broad regions: , South Slope, Peel Plain and Iroquois Plain. Some of the highest quality habitats are clustered in the Jefferson Forest, Bloomington Wetland and the Little Rouge River headwaters on the Oak Ridges Moraine; Robinson Swamp on the Peel Plain; and the Rouge Park and Rouge Marsh on the Iroquois Plain.

• The Rouge River watershed is situated at the transition between the Carolinian forest zone and the -St. Lawrence mixed forest zone. Rouge Park is the only designated Carolinian site in the area.

• Natural cover – forest, meadow, wetland, successional and beach/bluffs– covers about 24% of the Rouge River watershed. Natural cover is highly fragmented and poorly distributed, with the current distribution being weighted towards the southern and eastern portion of the watershed.

• Most habitat patches have been rated as “fair” in quality, because of their small size, linear shape and highly urbanized surroundings. The few high quality habitats remaining are generally vulnerable to changes in hydrology, pollution, refuse dumping, recreational pressures, invasive species and predation by pets.

• Areas of high quality natural cover still exist, however they are few in number, isolated from one another and not linked to other natural features. Isolation results in potentially significant mortality for amphibians that move between forests and wetlands and loss of genetic fitness for many species. The limited number of large patches is of particular concern for birds that require large undisturbed forest tracts as breeding habitat.

• The current quantity, quality and distribution of natural cover are insufficient to provide long-term support for many of the native communities and species present in the watershed now. The landscape analysis model suggests that natural cover should be increased from the present 24% to at least 31% of the watershed’s area, in order to maintain and enhance species diversity.

• Invasive non-native plant species such as dog strangling vine, garlic mustard and purple loosestrife pose a significant risk to the watershed =s existing native biotic communities. Rail and utility corridors, roads and recreational uses facilitate their spread into natural areas.

Summary of Current CondCondiiiitionstions Ratings: ObjectivesObjectives:::: Overall Rating • Protect, restore and enhance natural cover to improve Fair connectivity, biodiversity and ecological function. • Protect, restore and enhance terrestrial natural heritage System quality and function to minimize the negative Fair influences of surrounding land use. • Increase native terrestrial biodiversity. TBD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.0 TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM...... 9-1 9.1 Introduction...... 9-1 9.2 Understanding the Terrestrial System in the Rouge River Watershed...... 9-1 9.3 Measuring and Evaluating the Terrestrial System...... 9-2 9.3.1 Data collection ...... 9-3 9.3.2 Evaluation...... 9-3 9.4 Existing Conditions ...... 9-5 9.4.1 Quantity of Natural Cover ...... 9-5 9.4.2 Quality and Distribution of Natural Cover...... 9-7 9.4.3 Threats ...... 9-12 9.4.4 Vegetation Community and Species ...... 9-14 9.5 Objectives for the Terrestrial System...... 9-21 9.6 Summary and Management Considerations...... 9-24 9.7 References ...... 9-27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 9-1: Existing Natural Cover (2002) ...... 9-6 Figure 9-2: Landscape Analysis – Quality of Natural Cover, 2002 Conditions ...... 9-8 Figure 9-3: Forest Interior ...... 9-11 Figure 9-4: Severe Disturbances to Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Communities (1995- 2005) ...... 9-13 Figure 9-5: Flora Species of Conservation Concern to TRCA within Different Physiographic Regions...... 9-15 Figure 9-6: Fauna Species of Conservation Concern to TRCA within Different Physiographic Regions...... 9-16 Figure 9-7: Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) ...... 9-17 Figure 9-8: Refined Rouge River Watershed Terrestrial Natural Heritage Target System...... 9-22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 9-1: Existing Cover Conditions ...... 9-7 Table 9-2: Average Total Patch Quality Scores...... 9-9 Table 9-3: Disturbances to Natural Areas based on data collected for ELC polygons (1995-2005 data)...... 9-12

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Fauna Species found in the Rouge River Watershed (this appendix can be found under separate cover labeled same as caption)...... 9-29 Appendix B: Flora Species found in the Rouge River Watershed (this appendix can be found under separate cover labeled same as caption)...... 9-30 Appendix C: Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Vegetation Communities (this appendix can be found under separate cover labeled same as caption) ...... 9-31

Unique Rouge River Watershed Feature The Rouge River watershewatershedddd is one of the most floristically biodiverse areas in the region, while also supporting a wide variety of significant fauna species.

CHAPTER TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM 999

9.09.09.0 TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM

9.19.19.1 Introduction

The state of a watershed’s terrestrial natural heritage system, because it has a significant influence on hydrology including the quality of rain and snow-melt that runs off into streams. It provides habitats for valuable native species and natural diversity as well as providing aesthetic diversity, recreation and areas where people can seek renewal. Ultimately, the natural heritage system sustains all life, including human and so demands our concern and attention.

The terrestrial natural heritage system is composed of natural cover (features), natural processes (functions) and the linkages between features and functions. The area of natural cover – forest, meadow, wetland, successional and beach/bluffs - that makes up the Rouge River watershed =s terrestrial system interacts with the hydrological and human systems and serves as habitat for wildlife, birds and plants throughout the watershed. The system includes not only substantial areas set aside as natural habitats of Rouge Park but also the habitats that occur in agricultural and urban areas. The quantity, quality and distribution of natural cover in the watershed, as well as the suite of species supported by these habitats, are excellent indicators of watershed health and tell us a story about the ecological integrity of the system. This chapter introduces the terrestrial natural heritage system in the watershed and describes how it has been shaped by historic and recent land uses. Measures used to assess the system are identified and an understanding of the current state of the watershed =s terrestrial system is provided based on the most recent information and data. Finally, the chapter sets out objectives and management considerations for improving the natural habitat conditions in the watershed.

9.29.29.2 Understanding the Terrestrial System in the Rouge RiverRiver Watershed

The Rouge River watershed was dominated by vast tracts of coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests interspersed with wetlands and native meadows following the last Ice Age several thousand years ago. Prior to European settlement in the 19 th century, this system was largely maintained by climate and occasional fires that allowed forest and meadow regeneration, 9-1 although it is likely that the resident aboriginal groups also influenced the cover distribution. Early European land surveyors recorded vegetation circa 1793-1833 in the Rouge Valley as “an almost continuous forest cover, only occasionally broken by windfalls and open wetlands” (Varga et al., 1991).

Over a century ago, land conversion for small settlements and agriculture began to fragment the once continuous forest eventually leaving only remnant and often isolated habitat fragments by the mid 20 th century. As land clearing for settlement continued, the remnant forests and wetlands were steadily reduced in size, distribution and quality resulting in the situation we find today. Except in the areas of existing Rouge Park, habitat patches are very fragmented and isolated from each other often by extensive agricultural fields or urban developments. Roads and highways frequently preclude or severely compromise the safe passage and distribution of species. Loss of species directly through loss of habitat and cumulatively through fragmentation, by forest removal and drainage of wetlands in is well documented (Riley and Mohr, 1994). Likewise, important natural processes such as disturbance and nutrient cycles, vegetation community succession, pollination and species dispersal that are crucial for the maintenance of bio-diversity were greatly impacted.

Substantial changes to the natural cover of the watershed have continued to occur over the past fifty years as many of the agricultural fields and small settlements have been replaced by urban development. These developments are more disruptive to many of the native biota inhabiting the small remnant patches in the watershed because of increased pollution, refuse dumping, recreational uses, competition from invasive non-native species and predation from roving pets associated with the urban areas. As patch size declines the relative impact and stress of these disturbances on most native species increases. Furthermore, urban land uses provide little opportunity for the movement of native animal and plant species between the remnant patches that rural and agricultural land uses allow.

Rouge Park dominates the central and southern parts of the watershed and may eventually include all stream valleys and channels, as opportunities arise to bring them into public ownership. Assembly of lands, which ultimately formed a basis for the park began following in 1954 and the park, as an entity, was created in 1994-5 with the objective of being “a special place of outstanding natural features and diverse cultural heritage in an urban- rural setting, protected and flourishing as an ecosystem in perpetuity. Human activities will exist in harmony with the natural values of the park. The park will be a sanctuary for nature and the human spirit.” At the time of the writing of this report the park spanned 41 square kilometres of public land and included an active program of meadow, forest and wetland restoration on retired agricultural lands.

9.39.39.3 Measuring and Evaluating the Terrestrial System

The quantity, quality and distribution of natural cover in the watershed are three key indicators of terrestrial system health, which are based on widely recognized principles of landscape ecology (TRCA, 2007d). Information about natural cover conditions together with community and species data contribute to an understanding of the terrestrial biodiversity of the watershed. The following sections outline the methods used to inventory and evaluate the state of the terrestrial natural heritage system. The approach takes into account multiple scales ranging from the complete watershed to local sites. 9-2 9.3.1 Data collection

Watershed Landscape Scale

The most recent colour digital aerial ortho photography available (spring of 2002) was interpreted to delineate natural land cover, including: forest, meadow (usually retired agricultural fields), wetland, successional and beaches and bluffs (coastal habitats). Rural/agricultural and urban land cover in the watershed was also delineated using this method. Urban trees, manicured areas, parks etc. were not considered to be forest cover, unless a group of trees large enough to qualify as a forest patch, was present within the park manicured area. While use of the remotely sensed data allowed for comprehensive coverage of the watershed, it could not be used to detect local scale details and parameters such as species composition. Therefore, site-specific field inventories were conducted to complement and test the accuracy of the photo interpretation.

Local Scale

Field inventory data of site-specific vegetation communities and species presence information took place at selected sites during the appropriate seasons by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) biologists and volunteer observers as follows: vegetation community, 1980-2003; flora inventory 1990- 2005; fauna inventories 1987-2005. Approximately 33% of the watershed =s natural cover has been recently inventoried (2001-2005) for vegetation communities and species using the standard survey protocol of the TRCA Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (TRCA, 2001). In addition, where available, vegetation community and species information from historical records (e.g. records older than 25 years and current Rouge Park surveys) were utilized.. Vegetation communities were mapped according to the OMNR Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System (Lee et al., 1998). Detailed records of biota and disturbances such as trails, invasive non-native plants and dumping were recorded for each community sampled. In addition, species of fauna and flora conservation concern to TRCA (usually those with exacting requirements; see Appendix A and B) and Canadian Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) species were recorded on site-specific maps using the protocols in TRCA (2006). Digital data were all incorporated in the TRCA Arcview Geographic Information System (GIS) and subsequently analyzed with that software.

9.3.2 Evaluation

Watershed Landscape Scale

The quantity, quality and distribution of natural cover were used to measure and evaluate the state of the watershed =s natural cover. Once that was understood specific objectives and targets were determined.

Quantity of Natural Cover Arcview GIS was used to estimate the quantity of natural cover, as interpreted from colour digital aerial ortho photographs. Quantity was measured as a proportion (or per cent) of the total land surface area of the watershed or subwatershed. Quantity is highly correlated to the quality and distribution of natural cover. 9-3 Quality of Natural Cover Habitat patch quality in the watershed was assessed by using the TRCA Landscape Analysis Model (LAM) (TRCA, 2007b). The LAM assigns scores to each natural habitat patch on the basis of size (area), shape (perimeter to area ratio) and the influence of surrounding land use (“matrix influence”; the land use context or “matrix” within 2 km of the patch). The size, shape and matrix influence scores were combined to provide a total quality score for every patch (with a potential of 15 points), and the scores were broken into ranks based on their potential to support species. Each patch then received one of five ranks for quality, either “very poor” (Total score of 0-5.99), “poor” (6-8.99), “fair” (9-10.99), “good” (11-12.99) or “excellent” (13+).

Past observations and analysis of biota distribution suggest that there is a range of species- specific responses to habitat fragmentation and urban/residential development that ranges from tolerant/well adapted to intolerant/averse. TRCA has classified species along that continuum into classes L5 (tolerant) to L1 (intolerant). The five species classes correspond to the five habitat patch quality ranks noted above (i.e. “very poor” habitat supports L5 species, “excellent” habitat supports L1 species, etc.). Based on the LAM, a few species can live in “poor” quality patches, however most Species of Concern require at least “fair” quality habitat (L3 or better). As land use continues to change, habitats will change and will affect the biotic composition and so there is a reasonable risk that the L1-L3 species will decline.

Quality Distribution of Natural Cover Distribution of quality habitat is considered across the landscape. For a watershed to have and maintain a complex, dynamic and more sustainable terrestrial system, good quality habitat should be distributed evenly.

System connectivity which is important for the dispersal and movement of species was assessed qualitatively by the visual interpretation of natural cover maps in comparison with adjacent watershed maps. The degree of interior forest (forest >100 m from the forest edge) and deep interior forest (forest >400 m from the forest edge) was estimated by using Arcview GIS software and through visual inspection of the aerial photographs. Interior forest conditions are important to a variety of plants, animals and birds that are sensitive to disturbances that are often associated with smaller fragmented habitat patches. Some species actually require interior forest conditions as part of their breeding and foraging habitat for their continued success.

Local scale (Vegetation Communities and Species Level)

The species and community type representation, abundance and distribution from selected sites in the watershed landscape are excellent indicators of how the terrestrial system is functioning and responding to the surrounding land use practices. Where available, vegetation community and species information from historical records (e.g. records older than 25 years) were compared to the findings of recently surveyed areas and used to relate species responses to the changing matrix over time. Information about the behaviour and ecology of species present, or in some cases no longer present, in the watershed was also used to make inferences and speculate about the state of the terrestrial system.

Species data are highly correlated with the quantity, quality and distribution of habitat patches at the landscape level, and therefore, in the absence of field data, landscape measures may be 9-4 used as a surrogate for species data. Species and vegetation community checklists are provided in Appendix C.

9.49.49.4 Existing Conditions

9.4.1 Quantity of Natural Cover

Natural habitats which are comprised of forest, meadow, wetland, sucessional and beach/bluff cover approximately 24% (8016 ha) of the watershed, based on 2002 data (Figure 9-1 and Table 9-1). Natural cover tends to be concentrated in the south and east and is primarily associated with Rouge Park, stream corridors and a few localized areas (Jefferson Forest and Bloomington Wetlands) on the Oak Ridges Moraine. In the other portions of the watershed where agricultural and urban land uses are more prevalent, natural cover is sparse, heavily fragmented and limited to riparian corridors.

The forests that historically dominated the terrestrial cover of the watershed were cut to provide agricultural lands in the 19th century. The amount of forest cover increased slightly in the late 20th century in response to increased reforestation and reduction in agriculture intensity. Current forest cover is composed of coniferous, deciduous, mixed, plantation, early successional and swamp forests and amounts to 13% (4336 ha) of watershed area.

There is no complete inventory of wetlands in the watershed, especially ephemeral wetlands and vernal pools. These features would have likely been common in spring and after storms in the clay soil dominated areas of the central watershed. Wetlands that are mapped, including marshes, thicket swamps, bogs and shallow ponds in the Rouge River watershed cover <1 % (about 274 ha) of the watershed area. Forested swamps are not included in this estimate because they are very difficult to distinguish from dry forests on aerial photos. Still, the amount of wetland in the watershed is remarkably low, with the exception of the river-mouth marsh complex which is the largest coastal wetland in the TRCA area of jurisdiction.

A very small portion of the Rouge River watershed historically supported native meadow communities such as tall-grass prairies, savannahs and sand barrens in pre-settlement times and as such, large areas of open meadow habitat would not have occurred in the watershed. The watershed's meadows are mostly marginal lands that were initially cleared for agriculture and are now idle, left to evolve under Aundisturbed @ ecological processes. These “cultural” meadows cover 10% (3403 ha) of the watershed. There are small savannah remnants known to exist in Rouge Park, but no true tall-grass prairie habitats have been documented recently anywhere in the watershed. Rouge Park is re-establishing meadow habitats as part of its restoration plans in the City of Toronto portion of the Park and along the Little Rouge River.

A total of 3 ha, or 0.01 %, of the watershed is beach/bluff habitat, including dynamic communities on the beach-bar system at the mouth of the Rouge River. Given the relatively small contact that the watershed makes with , one would expect this habitat to be a small fraction of the watershed’s overall natural cover, although it is possible that more beach/bluff habitat would be identified through further ground-truthing of coastal areas.

9-5 Figure 999-9---1111:: Existing Natural Cover (2002)

9-6 The fragmented distribution of habitat affects the movement of flora and less mobile fauna species. This becomes a significant issue for promotion of viable and genetically variable populations and the re-colonization of habitats that have undergone temporary disturbance or restoration.

Table 999-9---1111:: Existing Cover Conditions

Existing Land Cover Percent of Rouge Watershed Forests ( including successional ) 13 Wetlands 1 Meadows 10 Beach/Bluffs <.01 Agriculture 41 Urban 35

9.4.2 Quality and Distribution of Natural CoCoveveveverrrr

Overall

The quality of natural cover in the watershed is shown in Figure 9-2. The generally small size, linear shape and highly urbanized context of the remnant patches result in a habitat condition that tends to be “fair” on average. The distribution of patches that score “fair” or better tends to be along the northern, north-western and eastern parts of the watershed as well as in Rouge Park, with very few “fair” patches in the west and south, other than Rouge Park. Table 9-2 examines the distribution of average total patch quality by looking at each of the subwatersheds in the Rouge River.

9-7 Figure 999-9---2222:: Landscape Analysis ––– Quality of Natural Cover, 2002 Conditions

9-8 Table 999-9---2222:::: Average Total Patch Quality Scores Subwatershed Total Score LLL-L---RankRank (Rating) Lower Rouge River 9.4 L3 (Fair) Morningside Creek 8.6 L4 (Poor) Main Rouge/Middle Trib. 8.8 L4 (Poor) Little Rouge River 9.7 L3 (Fair) Upper Rouge/Beaver Crk. 9.2 L3 (Fair) Mean Watershed Scores 9.3 L3 (Fair)

The quality and distribution of natural cover impacts the composition of bird and animal communities as well as influencing the local plant composition. Avian species of TRCA conservation concern have been shown to be present in habitat patches that generally range from “fair” to “excellent” quality (Kilgour, 2003) and begin to be lost where quality is lower. There are a few relatively high quality habitat patches (L2 or higher) remaining in the watershed, but they are generally disconnected from other patches and their form or shape leaves them vulnerable to negative matrix influences including increased encroachment, competition and predation.

According to this analysis, patch quality in the Rouge River watershed as a whole is in an extremely vulnerable position, with the vast majority of patches being fair or poor (overall watershed score is fair). There are only a few good patches (e.g. Jefferson Forest). There is a concern that even if land uses remain unchanged, there will continue to be a decline in native diversity. This is because many species are slow to react and there can be a lag time of several years to decades before the effects of fragmentation, urbanization and increased public use are seen. The existing terrestrial system, although currently supporting numerous sensitive species and communities, needs restoration and enhancement work if objectives are to be met for the watershed. The presence of natural habitats in Rouge Park and continuation of efforts to restore these habitats are crucial to the management and maintenance of native species in the watershed, but unfortunately, unless a watershed wide terrestrial system is enhanced, the areas of higher quality are at risk of continual decline over time and are likely to show a reduction in their current suite of species.

Matrix Influence

The land use context that a habitat patch exists in, often referred to as the “matrix”, influences the value and usefulness of the patch to native biota, because it exposes the plants and animals in the patch to predation, competition from species associated with the matrix as well as encroachment from humans. There also exists an indirect impact of human occupation, such as light, noise, etc. on wildlife. For example some birds and amphibians have difficulty breeding if mates are unable to hear their calls, due to street or highway noise and lighting can increase vulnerability of some species to predation. The patch's score for "matrix influence" reflects the degree to which the surrounding land cover and land uses impact its biological integrity and diversity.

Human land uses account for over 75% of the watershed land area (35% urban, 40% agriculture/rural). The current Landscape Analysis Model (LAM) scores for natural habitat patches in the watershed range from “poor/fair” in the lower and middle reaches, which are in the more urbanized parts of the watershed to “fair/good” in the upper reaches of the watershed where the matrix is still agricultural.... Fifty years ago, rural/agricultural land uses covered most of the Rouge River watershed and most natural cover occurred in an agricultural matrix, but land uses have changed dramatically since then. For example, in 1954 the Rouge Marshes were surrounded by agricultural 9-9 fields, but by 1978 they were surrounded by extensive residential subdivisions (Beak Consultants Ltd., 1988). Agricultural land uses tend to be more benign to native biota than urban. This shift has affected remnant habitat patches and overall ecological function within the watershed and has increased the competitive advantage in favour of species that are adapted to urban land uses rather than those that need more rural or undisturbed habitats.

Habitat Patch Size and Shape

Conversion of the pre-European-contact vegetation of the watershed to a primary agricultural landscape over the past century and, then the subsequent urban development and significant road construction, has left only small patches (ranked by LAM as “poor” to “fair” for size) and narrow riparian corridors as natural cover, except for a few locations in the headwaters and in Rouge Park. The net result is that forests large enough to provide for interior conditions are becoming increasingly rare in the (GTA) generally and Rouge River watershed specifically. For example, the Rouge River watershed contains only seven patches where interior forest is greater than 200 metres from the forest-edge (Figure 9-3). These patches are in the area of Jefferson Forest in the upper Main Rouge and Rouge Park in the lower part of the watershed south of Steeles Avenue. There are no sites where interior cover is greater than 400 m from the edge.

Terrestrial System Connectivity

Island bio-geography principles suggest that habitat quality tends to be better where habitats are in juxtaposition or at least near enough so that biotic species can safely move between habitat areas, meaning that the degree of linkage and connectivity is important. Linkages or connectivity between forested patches within the Rouge River watershed and across watershed boundaries are limited. Connections are almost entirely north-south along riparian corridors with very little connecting cover running east-west between patches (See Figure 9-1). Unfortunately, as with most riparian corridors, much of the continuity is achieved through rather narrow riparian habitat where there is little opportunity for target forest species to persist. Fortunately, the Rouge North Management Plan, Markham OPA 140 and the Ontario Greenbelt Plan require that a 600 metre minimum ecological corridor be maintained along the Little Rouge River with the goal of maintaining connectivity between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Connectivity considerations should not be limited to macro-scale forest linkages, but should also look at local scale links between wetlands and forests important for amphibian lifecycles. There have been observations of significant spring peeper, spotted and Jefferson salamander amphibian mortality occurring, as individuals of those species attempt to move from forest to wetland breeding habitats near Bayview and Stouffville Roads.

9-10 Figure 999-9---3333:: Forest Interior

9-11 9.4.3 Threats

Disturbances in Natural Areas

During field data collection and mapping of ELC vegetative communities, the extent of disturbance to communities was assessed. Disturbance for each community was ranked from 1 (light) to 3 (severe) for each of a number of stresses, including trampling/trails, trash/dumping, and exotic species. Table 9-3 shows the extent of disturbance at visited sites and Figure 9-4 shows visited sites that were ranked as severely disturbed (1995-2005 data). Trash and trampling disturbances are more prevalent in the north-east portion of the watershed. Disturbances of these sorts and others (e.g., logging, grazing) affect the health of natural areas and the quality of nature-based recreational experiences, on those sites where recreation is permitted.

Table 999-9---3333:: Disturbances to Natural Areas based on data collected for ELC polygons (1995(1995----20052005 data)data).... Disturbance Type Ratio of Severely Disturbed Area to % of Evaluated Area that is Total Area Evaluated Severely Disturbed 111 (ha : ha) Trampling/trails 47:2,637 1.8 Trash/dumping 36:2,637 1.4 Exotics 286:2,637 10.8 1 2,637 ha, representing 33% of natural areas have been evaluated (surveyed) in the Rouge watershed (1995-2005).

Invasive Species

Exotics appear to be the most widespread and evenly distributed problem. Of the 2,637 ha of natural areas evaluated, 11% ranked as severely disturbed (Figure 9-4). Invasive species are recognized as one of the top five threats to native biodiversity in the province of Ontario (OMNR, 2005). Many native species and communities in the watershed (forest herbs, in particular) have severe infestations of invasive alien plants and are therefore vulnerable to competition. Dog-strangling vine ( Cynanchum rossicum ) is of particular concern because of extensive infestations that pose a considerable threat to rare and sensitive species and communities throughout the watershed. Likewise, garlic mustard ( Alliaria petiolata ) is an aggressive invasive forest herb that is already present in the forests and may be having a negative impact by reducing soil fungi that play a role in nutrient cycling and uptake by hardwood trees. European buckthorn, an invasive shrub, dominates many of the isolated forest patches throughout the watershed. Aggressive non- native wetland species such as purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria ) and common reed grass ( Phragmites australis ) now dominate several of the wetland communities as well as stormwater ponds.

9-12 Figure 999-9---4444:: Severe Disturbances to Ecological Land ClassificClassificationation (ELC) Communities (1995(1995---- 2005)

9-13 Extremely aggressive invasive insect species such as Asian long-horned beetle and emerald ash-borer present similar potential ecological impacts. These two species have drawn much media attention due to the very obvious nature of their infestation, and required control measures (e.g. Asian long-horned beetle control in the west-central Toronto region) the speed at which they have spread and the economic impacts they could pose for forests and urban canopy trees. Although these insects have not been recorded in the Rouge River watershed, precautions, such as monitoring forest management, should be taken to ensure that they do not colonize. The monitoring, control and management of invasive alien species is recommended as a means to improve and enhance the native biodiversity and the quality of the local terrestrial system. In many cases, invasive plants will need to be dealt with before restoration work is carried out. Care should be taken to monitor the spread of invasive plants along trails in sensitive habitats and infestations should be removed as soon as they become established.

9.4.4 Vegetation Community and Species

The Rouge River watershed lies in a transition zone between two broad floristic regions (also called Life Zones): the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Mixed Forest Zone and the Carolinian Forest Zone. Of the two regions, the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Zone (GLSLZ) covers the greater part of the watershed. The dominant tree species include sugar maple ( Acer saccharum ), white ash (Fraxinus americana ), American beech ( Fagus grandifolia ), white pine ( Pinus strobus ) and eastern hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis ), although other species associations occur where conditions permit.

The very northern extent of the continental Carolinian Zone occurs in the southern parts of the watershed particularly in and around Rouge Park and is often referred to the transition zone between the Carolinian zone to the south and the GLSLZ to the north. Although there are no well developed Carolinian Forest communities that are clearly Carolinian, the Park supports several Carolinian species, such as sycamore ( Platanus occidentalis ) and climbing poison ivy (Rhus radicans ssp. radicans ), particularly on the warmer, southern-facing slopes (Varga et a I., 1991) which greatly adds to the plant and animal species richness and diversity in the Rouge River watershed.

In addition to these floristic region classifications, four broad physiographic regions are recognized in the watershed, including the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), the South Slope, the Peel Plain and the Iroquois Plain. These regions reflect a complex interaction of geology, climate and topography that control the character of the vegetation communities and terrestrial habitats that have formed on the landscape. Descriptions of the vegetation communities and species are presented for each physiographic region. These descriptions are based on field inventories over multiple years, as identified in section 9.3.1. See Appendices A, B and C for flora, fauna and vegetation community checklists. Figure 9-5 and Figure 9-6 illustrate locations of observed species of conservation concern to TRCA in relation to existing natural cover and the physiographic regions. Figure 9-7 illustrates the locations of known wetlands, including Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs).

9-14 Figure 999-9---5555:: Flora SpeciSpecieeeess of Conservation Concern to TRCA within DDifferentifferent Physiographic Regions

9-15 Figure 999-9---6666:: Fauna Species of Conservation Concern to TRCA withiwithinn Different Physiographic Regions

9-16 Figure 999-9---7777:: Provincially SiSignificantgnificant Wetlands (PSWs)

9-17 Oak Ridges Moraine

There are three major clusters of natural cover in the Rouge River headwater areas along the ORM: the Jefferson Forest, around the upper western tributaries; the Bloomington Wetland at Bruce Creek and the headwaters of the Little Rouge River in the Whitchurch-Stouffville area. These areas jointly support some of the watershed's highest quality natural habitats including dry coniferous plantations, sandy meadows, mature sugar maple forests with small kettle wetlands, and ponds surrounded by coniferous swamp. As high quality remnants of the natural system, these areas can serve as in situ examples of the types of habitats that could be created under restoration actions elsewhere in the watershed.

The highest concentration of identified Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) and Wetland Complexes in the watershed occur in the ORM area, including most of the Whiterose-Preston Lake Wetland Complex (including Bloomington Wetland, Whiterose Complex, and Preston Lake), part of the Simeon Forest Complex, Gormley Wetland and most of the Wilcox Lake Wetlands and Uplands (see Figure 9-7). These PSWs are noteworthy for their kettle bogs, high quality kettle lakes, and high concentrations of sensitive flora and fauna species. Natural heritage field inventories have revealed that these remnant sites have high diversity of vegetation communities featuring shallow marsh, thicket swamp, bogs, and deciduous, mixed and coniferous forest swamps. The coniferous swamps are cool, shady habitats usually dominated by white cedar. Some contain regionally uncommon associations of balsam fir, white spruce and tamarack, which are communities with a strong boreal (northern Ontario) character. This forest-wetland combination with boreal affinities is particularly evident at Bloomington Wetland.

The headwater wetland complexes and associated uplands on the ORM support several vegetation communities and TRCA species of concern (L1 to L3) including a tamarack-leatherleaf treed kettle bog, organic willow thicket swamp, broad-leaved cattail organic shallow marsh and several submerged shallow aquatic communities and ponds. Fauna of concern present in these high quality areas include wetland-dependent species such as sora, Virginia rail, wood duck, bullfrog, gray treefrog, and woodfrog, and the nationally and provincially threatened Jefferson salamander (also the only record in York Region). Upland forest and meadow/successional species of interest include ovenbird, bobolink, vesper sparrow, red-shouldered hawk, and the provincially rare burning bush (Euonymus atropurpureus ).

The kettle lakes in the Rouge River watershed are noted for their rich aquatic plant communities, including TRCA flora of concern such as water-weed (Elodea canadensis ), fragrant white water lily (Nymphaea odorata ) and coon-tail ( Ceratophyllum demersum ). The kettle bogs support flora of concern such as tamarack ( Larix laricina ), leatherleaf ( Chamaedaphne calyculata ) and bog buckbean ( Menyanthes trifoliata ). The smaller kettle wetlands support TRCA flora of concern such as water horsetail ( Equisetum fluviatile ), winterberry (Ilex verticillata ), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea).

Several flora species were known to occur in high quality wetland habitats on the Moraine based on historical inventories, but have not been recorded in recent years, despite reinventory of the same areas. These include dragon mouth orchis ( Arethusa bulbosa ), dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium pusillim ) both from White-Rose Preston; and the white fringed orchid ( Platanthera blephariglottis var. blephariglottis ), dwarf mistletoe, and pigweed ( Lechea intermedia ) from Lake Wilcox. These species are not known from locations elsewhere in the watershed. 9-18 Anecdotal field experience and evaluation of past TRCA survey data led to the observation that many Rouge River watershed native flora and fauna species seemed to be inversely related to urban development. This leads to the conclusion that the high quality natural areas in the ORM region of the watershed are rich in species and communities because they are the furthest away from urbanization. It is perhaps very fortunate that these areas are also generally protected from direct development impacts by the ORM Conservation Plan (2002) and Greenbelt Plan (2005), not only to conserve their rich biotic character, but also to provide a reservoir from which emigration can occur. Unfortunately, recent re-surveys of sites inventoried in the past shows that species losses may still be occurring. Despite being protected by policy, these areas may continue to be at risk through insufficient connections to other habitat patches and the rapidly urbanizing matrix to the south and west.

The South Slope

The South Slope occurs as broad bands on the north and south sides of the Peel Plain. The natural habitats on the Slope are highly fragmented with little patches of upland forest scattered throughout a largely agricultural landscape. The region does however contain some relatively high quality valley land such as the Little Rouge River corridor and northern part of Rouge Valley Park. Two provincially significant features, the wetland at Stouffville Marsh and earth science drumlin site at Heise Hill occur here as does the lower half of Jefferson Forest and the majority of the Simeon Forest Complex, both life science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

Recent surveys of several fairly small, remnant riparian habitats on the South slope show that the sites support American woodcock, ruffed grouse, Cooper's hawk, black-billed cuckoo and hooded warbler, which are all sensitive bird species. Cedar swamps and meadow marshes occur where there is groundwater seepage in the Slope and have flora of TRCA concern such as marsh pennywort ( Hydrocotyl americana ), gold thread ( Coptis trifolia ), and golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium americanum ), cinnamon fern ( Osmunda cinnamomea ) and fringed brome grass ( Bromus ciliatus ). Of note is the regionally rare one flower cancer root ( Orobanche uniflora ), for which there were no recent records in the GTA until it was discovered in the Little Rouge River Corridor in 2002. Surveys suggest that competition from non-native invasive plants threatens these species.

Rouge Park (an ANSI and Environmentally Significant Area (ESA)) south of Steeles Avenue, has considerable areas of mature mixed and deciduous upland, lowland forests and woodlands, various wetlands and dry meadows that have sand barren soil conditions and plant species present (MTRCA, 1982). Savannahs are also present in Rouge Park but are impacted by the suppression of fire disturbance as well as by invasion of aggressive non-native species such as dog-strangling vine. As a result, a major reservoir of bio-diversity is maintained in Rouge Park. The Park’s 1994 Management Plan, 2001 Rouge North Management Plan and its Rouge North Implementation Manual (2003) guide the management of lands in the park and contribute to municipal official plans. In addition, the Little Rouge River Corridor plan and ecological criteria recognized in the Greenbelt Plan guide any future urban land uses in the stream corridor areas north of Major Mackenzie to be consistent with Rouge Park guidelines.

9-19 Peel Plain

Much of the middle portion of the watershed, primarily within the Town of Markham, lies in the Peel Plain physiographic region. The region is characterized by land that is mostly flat or gently undulating with the exception of the ravines that carry streams and tributaries of the River. The soils in this region are heavy and somewhat impermeable, especially in areas affected by temporary glacial melt-water ponding during the ice retreat. They are, however, highly fertile and desirable from an agricultural standpoint and therefore very little forest and wetland cover remains. Most of the Peel Plain is still farmed or is being converted to urban development.

The Peel Plain includes two significant wetland areas. Robinson Swamp, a provincially significant wetland between Kennedy and McCowan Roads, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, contains golden saxifrage ( Chrysoplenium americanum ), naked dentate ( Mitella nuda ), wood frog, mink, Wilson’s snipe, and chimney crayfish. The wetland at Milne Pond is locally significant whose flora and vegetation communities have boreal characteristics such as black spruce ( Picea marinara ), tamarack ( Larix laricina ), balsam fir ( Abies balsamea ), and water arum ( Calla palustris ) that occur only on the ORM in the GTA. Recent fauna records for the Milne area include northern red-bellied snake, Virginia rail, northern leopard frog, and northern parula. Elsewhere on the Peel Plain at Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area, surveys have shown that TRCA fauna of concern such as northern waterthrush and golden-crowned kinglet are present.

Iroquois Plain

The Iroquois Plain and Lake Ontario Shoreline have a significant complement of natural and rural land covers and it is this area that is dominated by the presence of the southern portions of Rouge Park. As a result, this portion of the watershed supports significant biodiversity including a variety of vegetation types, such as tableland forest that have been maintained and, in some cases, restored within the Park.

Flora in this part of the watershed such as northern wild rice ( Zizania palustris ), swamp rose ( Rosa palustris ), Goldie’s fern ( Dropteris goldiana ), gentians ( Gentiana spp . and Gentianopsis spp ), and one of the two known Canadian populations of endangered bashful bulrush ( Trichophorum planifolium ) were reported in surveys conducted in the 1970s and 1990s, but none of these species were found during TRCA surveys in 2005, suggesting that conditions may no longer be favorable to these species. Literature (e.g. Friesen et al ., 1995) and TRCA experience suggest that even large areas of natural cover undergo considerable pressure when surrounded by urbanization. Likewise, the once abundant but now regionally rare white goldenrod ( Solidago bicolor ) has been reduced to single plants and is now facing extirpation. Conversely, some species, including the provincially threatened ginseng ( Panax quinquefolia ) were found during the surveys and several specimens of the nationally and provincially endangered butternut ( Juglans cineria – all infected with Butternut canker) exist in the Park. Butternut does occur elsewhere throughout the watershed.

A variety of relatively sensitive wildlife, including veery, winter wren, pine warbler, scarlet tanager, northern flying squirrel, woodfrog, Blandings turtle, red-back salamander, grey treefrog have recently been seen in the Park during OMNR, and TRCA surveys. Unfortunately, some species previously recorded, especially those such as red shouldered hawks that require large tracts of forest, have not been seen during those surveys.

9-20 The Rouge marshes (approximately 70 ha) have formed in the shelter of a dynamic beach-bar where the Rouge River empties into Lake Ontario. This is one of the few remaining coastal marsh areas along the north shore of the Lake and is the largest and most pristine area of lakefront marsh in Toronto (Varga, et al ., 1991). However, like other Lake Ontario coastal marshes, the amount of vegetation cover declined significantly during the second half of the twentieth century, with emergent marsh being replaced by mudflats and open water, possibly because of persistently high Lake water levels and carp activity. Recent efforts to recover the marsh have shown very positive results. There are records of Black terns, American bittern and Blanding’s turtles breeding in the Marsh, as well as spawning by native warmwater fishes.

A very interesting complex of natural communities has developed in the marsh and on the shoreline beach and swales that are becoming increasingly rare in the GTA. The beach and associated marshes and thickets were known to previously support sensitive plant species such as the regionally rare, sweet flag ( Acorus calamus ) and river bulrush ( Scirpus fluviatilis ) as well as breeding blue-winged teal and provincially rare black terns (Varga et al., 1991). None of these were seen during recent surveys, although a beach flora survey did reveal the presence of sea rocket ( Cakile dentate ) and bushy cinquefoil ( Potentilla paradoxa ), both TRCA species of concern.

9.59.59.5 Objectives for the Terrestrial System

There is evidence of change in the existing Rouge River watershed natural heritage system that has resulted from past land cover changes. Literature suggests that it often takes decades for some species to respond to such habitat changes, especially where changes are subtle or protracted. Therefore, to simply maintain and certainly to improve the ecological conditions in the watershed, a more robust terrestrial natural heritage system is needed throughout the watershed. Such a strategy needs to cohesively protect the broader system rather than just establishing local significant areas, and management must occur outside the defined target areas. It is this philosophy that underpins the TRCA’s development of the Regional Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) (TRCA, 2007e). The TNHS Strategy is intended to protect, restore and expand a targeted land base to provide for a robust terrestrial natural heritage system in the GTA watersheds by:

1. Applying a systems approach that emphasizes the importance of the terrestrial natural heritage system as a functional unit within a mosaic of land uses, rather than as separate natural areas; and 2. Determining targets for the quality, distribution and quantity of terrestrial natural heritage needed in the landscape, in order to support native biodiversity, Rouge Park management plans and a sustainable Living City.

The suggested target terrestrial system for the Rouge River watershed is refined from the regional target system presented in the TNHSS (TRCA, 2007e) based on watershed specific information and is shown in Figure 9-8. Methods employed in the development of this refined target system are described in the Rouge River Watershed Scenario Modelling and Analysis Report (TRCA, 2007a).

9-21 Figure 999-9---8888:: Refined Rouge River Watershed Terrestrial NaturalNatural Heritage Target SystemSystem

9-22 The following three objectives with their respective indicators, measures, and targets have been established for the terrestrial system in the Rouge River watershed. Ratings of current terrestrial natural heritage system conditions have been assigned in comparison to conditions that would be expected to exist under the target system.

Objective: Protect, restore and enhance natural cover to improimproveve Overall connectivity, biodiversibiodiversityty and ecological function. Rating Fair Indicator Measure Target Quantity of Percent of natural cover based on Increase natural cover to at least 31% of natural cover interpretation of digital aerial the watershed which is the minimum photographs target defined for the Rouge River (24% cover under 2002 watershed using the Terrestrial Natural conditions) Heritage System methodology.

The 24% natural cover in the watershed under 2002 conditions is rated as “fair” in consideration of its inextricable link to quality, which is also rated “fair” overall.

Objective: Protect, restore and enhance terrestrial natural heritageheritage sssystemsystem Overall quality and function to minimize the negative influences of Rating surrounding land use. Fair Indicator MeasuMeasurererere Target Quality of Average total quality score based on Average total quality score of 10.8 (Fair; L3) Natural Cover the weighted scores for size, shape, for the Rouge River watershed and matrix influence for all patches (based on natural cover interpreted from digital aerial photographs) Total Score 2002: Rouge River watershed………9.3 (Fair; L3) Distribution of Distribution of Total Patch “Quality” Improve the distribution of “good” quality Quality Score across subwatersheds. habitat patches across subwatersheds in accordance with the targeted terrestrial Total Score 2002 – Subwatersheds: natural heritage system for the Rouge River watershed. Lower Rouge 9.4 (Fair; L3) Morningside Crk. 8.6 (Poor; L4) Subwatersheds: Middle Trib. 8.8 (Poor; L4) Little Rouge 9.7 (Fair; L3) Lower Rouge 10.5 (Fair; L3) Upper Rouge/ Morningside Crk. 9.1 (Fair; L3) 9.2 (Fair; L3) Beaver Crk Middle Trib. 10.2 (Fair; L3) Little Rouge 11.6 (Good; L2) Upper Rouge/ 9.9 (Fair; L3) Beaver Crk

9-23 Objective: Protect, restore and enhance terrestrial natural heritageheritage sssystemsystem Overall quality and function to minimize the negative influences of Rating surrounding land use. Fair Disturbances in Ratio of the area of severely disturbed  Maintain or reduce the ratio of severely natural areas ELC patches to the total area of ELC disturbed area to total ELC area patches evaluated annually for trampling/trails, trash/dumping, and exotics.

2002 conditions:

Trampling/ 47:2,637 1.8% trails Trash/ 36:2,637 1.4% dumping Exotics 286:2,637 10.8%

The current quality of the natural system has been assigned an overall rating of “fair” based on the average LAM scores for the quality and distribution of quality indicators (see second column in table above). A “fair” grade is also appropriate for the disturbance indicator (considering the relatively low and localized incidences of trampling and dumping and the notable presence of invasive exotic species).

Objective: InInIncreaseIn crease native terrestrial biodiversity. Overall Rating TBD Indicator Measure Target Biodiversity Possible indices to be recommended Enhance and expanded native habitat and (This indicator based on a new TRCA program that species type representation in the terrestrial is in is currently in development and will system. development) centre around the establishment of permanent fixed plots that will temporally monitor and track a suite of ecological characteristics.

9.69.69.6 Summary and Management Considerations

According to this analysis, the terrestrial ecology and resources of the Rouge River watershed are at a crucial crossroads. There have been, and indeed continue to be, changes in the system that result from past and continuous changes in human land use patterns. Even if land uses remained unchanged in the watershed, future declines in native biodiversity can be expected because many species are slow to react and there can be a lag time of years or decades before the effects of urbanization and increased human disturbance are seen.

The existing terrestrial system throughout the watershed, although currently supporting numerous sensitive species and communities, needs restoration and enhancement work if watershed objectives are to be met. In the long term, the increasing stress on all natural heritage system components caused by construction, habitat fragmentation, contamination, disturbance (invasive species, changes in hydrology, pollution, roving pets, inappropriate 9-24 recreational uses, overuse, etc.) all related to urbanization will result in reduction of the watershed’s native biodiversity and ecological integrity. Many of the biota in the watershed have ecological or behavioural requirements that are impacted by urbanization and so there has been loss or significant decline of sensitive species and that can be expected to continue as patch size and amount of natural cover in the watershed decline in response to further development. Promotion of natural cover through the implementation of Rouge Park’s management plans and the TRCA TNHSS across the watershed will result in improving the health and functioning of the existing and future system. The terrestrial system management strategy should include the securement of an appropriate land base for an improved natural heritage system and the following actions:

1. Protect and enhance existing terrestrial system features and functions remaining in the watershed.

 Ensure that native species and communities are not lost from the system;  Encourage natural disturbance dynamics wherever possible;  Control and manage the spread of invasive alien plant species;  Protect Rouge Park and other existing features in the Carolinian Zone – also restore lands here, as most of this floristic region has been urbanized.

2. Continue to implement Rouge Park’s restoration plans and efforts and add implementation of the TRCA TNHSS and target terrestrial system in the watershed by protecting the land base and restoring/enhancing habitat wherever possible over the next 100 years. Actions to be considered include:

 Secure lands identified in the watershed’s target terrestrial system  Prioritize restoration efforts to buffer the known locations of sensitive vegetation and species  Maximize connections between existing features, plan for species movement corridors; focus on restoring east-west connections on tableland where possible  Restore old fields and manicured areas to forest and wetland communities where possible  Restore connections across watershed boundaries wherever possible  Increase representation of upland communities and wetlands on tableland  Recover species and communities lost from the system

3 Mitigate the negative effects of the matrix (surrounding land use). Actions to be considered include:

 Encourage the naturalization and the use of native plants on industrial properties and public lands wherever possible.  Encourage native species plantings on private lands.  Limit public access to certain areas within the system where sensitive species and communities exist.  Ensure that proposals for trail development take the locations of sensitive species and communities into consideration to mitigate all potential threats.  Use signage to identify formal trails and sensitive areas that should be kept free of public use. Restore new areas to address recreational demands.  Control roving pets (cats and dogs) from residential areas; keep dogs on leashes and cats 9-25 indoors during the bird breeding season.  Control encroachment of human use into sensitive natural areas.  Control and manage the spread of non-native invasive species in the study area.

9-26 9.79.79.7 References

Beak Consultants Ltd. 1988. Environmental Studies – Phase II: The Rouge River Watershed Urban Drainage Study. Submitted to Region Conservation Authority June 1988, Draft Final Report, Beak Ref. 2393.2.

Friesen, L. E., P. F. J. Eagles and R. J. MacKay. 1995. Effects of Residential Development on Forest-dwelling Neotropical Migrant Songbirds. Conservation Biology Vol., 9(6): pp. 1408-1414.

Kilgour, B. 2003. Landscape and patch character as a determinant of occurrence of eighty selected bird species in the Toronto area . A report prepared for the TRCA. Jacques- Whitford Ltd.

Lee, H. T., W. D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for : First Approximation and its Application . Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, South-central Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA), 1982. Environmentally Significant Areas Study. Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2002. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan . Queen’s Printer for Ontario. ISBN: 0-7794-306406.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Greenbelt Plan Queens Printer of Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), 1994. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System – Southern Manual, 3 rd Edition .

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005. www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr.biodiversity. Modified November 14, 2005.

Riley, J. L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario’s Settled Landscapes: A Review of Conservation and Restoration Ecology for Land-Use and Landscape Planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Rouge Park Alliance. 2001. Rouge North Management Plan. A Strategy to Guide the Realization of the Rouge Park from Steeles Avenue to the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Rouge Park Alliance. 2003. Rouge North Implementation Manual.

TRCA. 2001. Development of Regional Monitoring Network.

TRCA. 2006. Data Collection Methodology. 9-27 TRCA. 2007a. Rouge River Watershed Scenario Modelling and Analysis Report.

TRCA. 2007b. Vegetation Community and Species Ranking and Scoring Method.

TRCA. 2007c. Setting Terrestrial Natural System Targets.

TRCA. 2007d. Evaluating and Designing Terrestrial Natural Systems.

TRCA. 2007e. Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy.

Varga, S. J., Jalava and J. L. Riley. 1991. Ecological Survey of the Rouge Valley Park. Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). Open File Ecological Report 9104, Central Region, Aurora, Ontario. Vii + 282 pp + 5 folded maps.

9-28 Appendix AAA:A: Fauna Species found in the Rouge River WWWatershedWatershed ( (thisthis appendix can be found under separate cover lablabeeeelllleded same as caption)

9-29 Appendix BBB:B: Flora Species found in the Rouge River WatershedWatershed (this( this appendix can be found under separate cover lablabeeeelllleded same as caption)

9-30 Appendix CCC:C: Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Vegetation ComCommunitiesmunities (((this(this appendix can be found under separate cover lablabeeeelllleded same as caption)

9-31