Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines and Priorities
! 2002 ! November 29, 2002
Published by: The Essex Region Conservation Authority
Prepared by: Dan Lebedyk, Conservation Biologist - Project Co-ordinator
With funding support from:
Copies* of this report may be obtained from:
Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Essex ON N8M 1Y6
* Due to the size and cost of producing this document, some restriction in its distribution may be necessary.
This report may be cited as:
Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). 2002. Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy - Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines (Comprehensive Version). Dan Lebedyk, Project Co-ordinator. Essex, Ontario. 181 pp. Acknowledgements
Many individuals contributed to the development of this Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Essex region. The following individuals and organizations are gratefully acknowledged for their commitment, support, and involvement on the technical steering committee for the project:
Terry Anderson Essex County Woodlot Owners Association Jim Boothby Stewardship Co-ordinator, Essex County Stewardship Network Tom Clark Essex County Federation of Agriculture Bob Clay Manager, Western Ontario Field Office, Ducks Unlimited Canada Ken Colthurst Forester, Essex Region Conservation Authority Lee Anne Doyle County Planning Advisor, County of Essex Jodi Dutz EcoServices, Muddy Creek/Two Creeks Implementation Strategy Mark Emery Stewardship Co-ordinator, Essex County Stewardship Network Geordon Harvey GIS Technician, Essex Region Conservation Authority Don Hector Area Biologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Tom Hurst President, Essex County Field Naturalists Club Dan Lebedyk Biologist and Project Co-ordinator, Essex Region Conservation Authority Janice Leboeuf Soil and Water Quality Technician, Essex Region Conservation Authority Jon Lovett-Doust Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor George McCracken Wildlife Photographer/Naturalist Brian McHattie Contractor to Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund Gary Mouland Park Warden, Point Pelee National Park Ian Naisbitt Little River Enhancement Group Dan Reive Chief Park Warden, Point Pelee National Park Larry Silani Prince, Silani & Associates Limited Urban & Rural Planning Consultants Owen Steele Biologist, Ducks Unlimited Canada Bill Stephenson Regional Conservation Biologist, Parks Canada Ric Symmes President, STERNSMAN International Inc. Lisa Tulen Citizen's Environment Alliance Doug van Hemessen Program Secretary, Carolinian Canada Gerry Waldron Consulting Ecologist, ECSN Landscape Strategy for Wetlands in the Western Basin Al Woodliffe Area Ecologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Richard Wyma Land Management Supervisor, Essex Region Conservation Authority
Special thanks are extended to the following ERCA staff and assistants for their technical work on the project:
GIS technical staff - Geordon Harvey and Christina Small Technical assistants - Michael O’Brien and Larisa Pappas
Finally, thanks to Parks Canada, Environment Canada’s Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Essex County Stewardship Network, and Human Resources Development Canada for providing funding for the strategy.
i Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Table of Contents
List of Figures...... vi
List of Tables ...... vii
Executive Summary...... ix
1. Background ...... 1
2. Purpose...... 4 2.1 Applicability to Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) ...... 4 2.1.1 Detroit River RAP ...... 4 2.1.2 Wheatley Harbour RAP ...... 5
3. Study Areas...... 5
4. Methodology ...... 6 4.1 Database Compilation ...... 6 4.2 Spatial Analysis of Existing Habitat ...... 7 4.2.1 Forest Cover...... 7 4.2.2 Riparian (Streambank) Analysis ...... 7 4.2.3 Imperviousness of Urbanized Areas ...... 8 4.2.4 Wetland Extent ...... 8 4.2.5 Extent of Prairie, Savanna, Alvar ...... 9 4.3 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Development ...... 9 4.3.1 Environmental Guidelines/Local Targets...... 9 4.3.2 Guiding Principles...... 10 4.3.2.1Forest Habitat...... 11 4.3.2.2Riparian Habitat...... 12 4.3.2.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 13 4.3.2.4Fish Habitat ...... 15 4.3.2.5 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 15 4.3.2.6 Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...... 16
5. Results ...... 17 5.1 Southeast Essex Region: Point Pelee, Hillman Marsh, Sturgeon Creek, and Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watersheds ...... 17 5.1.1 Study Area...... 17 5.1.2 Existing Habitat...... 17 5.1.2.1Forest Habitat...... 25 5.1.2.2Riparian Habitat...... 26 5.1.2.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 26 5.1.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 27 5.1.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities ...... 27 5.1.3.1Forest Habitat...... 35 5.1.3.2Riparian Habitat...... 35 5.1.3.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 35 5.1.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 36 5.2 Greater Detroit River Study Area: Detroit River AOC, Little River, Turkey Creek, and River Canard Sub-watersheds ...... 37 5.2.1 Study Area...... 37 5.2.2 Existing Habitat...... 37 5.2.2.1Forest Habitat...... 44 5.2.2.2Riparian Habitat...... 45 5.2.2.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 46 5.2.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 46 5.2.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities ...... 46
iii Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.2.3.1Forest Habitat...... 53 5.2.3.2Riparian Habitat...... 53 5.2.3.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 54 5.2.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 54 5.3 Lake Erie Sub-watersheds: Big Creek, Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, Wigle Creek, Mill Creek and Kingsville Drains ...... 55 5.3.1 Study Area...... 55 5.3.2 Existing Habitat...... 55 5.3.2.1Forest Habitat...... 61 5.3.2.2Riparian Habitat...... 62 5.3.2.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 62 5.3.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 63 5.3.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities ...... 63 5.3.3.1Forest Habitat...... 69 5.3.3.2Riparian Habitat...... 69 5.3.3.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 69 5.3.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 70 5.4 Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds: Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, Duck Creek, Moison Creek, Ruscom River, and Little Creek ...... 71 5.4.1 Study Area...... 71 5.4.2 Existing Habitat...... 71 5.4.2.1Forest Habitat...... 80 5.4.2.2Riparian Habitat...... 81 5.4.2.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 81 5.4.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 82 5.4.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities ...... 82 5.4.3.1Forest Habitat...... 91 5.4.3.2Riparian Habitat...... 91 5.4.3.3 Wetland Habitat ...... 91 5.4.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar ...... 91 5.5 Entire Region...... 92 5.5.1 Study Area...... 92 5.5.2 Existing Habitat...... 92 5.5.2.1Forest Habitat...... 100 5.5.2.2Riparian Habitat...... 100 5.5.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities ...... 101 5.5.3.1Forest Habitat...... 103 5.5.3.2Riparian Habitat...... 103
6. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 104
7. Strategy Implementation...... 105 7.1 Introduction ...... 105 7.2 Terms of Reference...... 106 7.3 Vision...... 107 7.4 Approach ...... 107 7.5 Priority Goals ...... 108 7.5.1 Social Goals ...... 108 7.5.2 Ecosystem Goals ...... 108 7.6 Objectives and Action Plans ...... 108 7.6.1 Planning Goal ...... 109 7.6.2 Community Action Goal...... 110 7.6.3 Education Goal ...... 112 7.6.4 Ecosystem Goals ...... 114 7.6.4.1Forest Goal...... 115 7.6.4.2 Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Goal ...... 116 7.6.4.3 Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Goal ...... 116 7.7 Summary of Actions...... 117
iv Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 8. References ...... 119
9. Appendices ...... 122 Appendix I: Acronym Glossary ...... 122 Appendix II: Steering Committee/Reviewers/Natural Areas Task Force (NATF) Members...... 123 Appendix III: Contributor Backgrounds ...... 128 Carolinian Canada (CC) ...... 128 Citizens Environment Alliance (CEA) ...... 129 Ducks Unlimited Canada (DU) ...... 129 Essex County Federation of Agriculture (ECFA) ...... 130 Essex County Field Naturalists Club (ECFNC) ...... 130 Essex County Stewardship Network (ECSN) ...... 130 Essex County Woodlot Owners Association (ECWOA) ...... 131 Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA)...... 131 Little River Enhancement Group (Lil’Reg) ...... 132 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) ...... 132 Point Pelee National Park/Parks Canada ...... 133 University of Windsor, Department of Biological Sciences ...... 134 Appendix IV: Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species of the Essex Region ...... 135 Appendix V: Southeast Essex Region Detailed GIS Analyses ...... 138 Appendix VI: Greater Detroit River Detailed GIS Analyses...... 150 Appendix VII: Lake Erie Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses ...... 156 Appendix VIII: Lake St. Clair Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses ...... 166 Appendix IX: Forest Bird Associations and Rarity Status ...... 176
v Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy List of Figures
Figure 1: Essex Region Natural Areas...... 3 Figure 2: Southeast Essex Region Study Area Map ...... 18 Figure 3: Point Pelee National Park - Existing Habitat ...... 20 Figure 4: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 21 Figure 5: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 22 Figure 6: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 23 Figure 7: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh - Existing Habitat Map...... 24 Figure 8: Southeast Essex Region - Restoration Concept Map ...... 28 Figure 9: Point Pelee National Park - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 30 Figure 10: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 31 Figure 11: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 32 Figure 12: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . 33 Figure 13: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh/Lloyd - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 34 Figure 14: Greater Detroit River Study Area Map ...... 38 Figure 15: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map ...... 40 Figure 16: Little River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 41 Figure 17: River Canard Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 42 Figure 18: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 43 Figure 19: Greater Detroit River Study Area - Restoration Concept Map ...... 47 Figure 20: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 49 Figure 21: Little River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 50 Figure 22: River Canard Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 51 Figure 23: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 52 Figure 24: Lake Erie Study Area Map ...... 56 Figure 25: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 58 Figure 26: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map ...... 59 Figure 27: Wigle Creek, Mill Creek, Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map ...... 60 Figure 28: Lake Erie Study Area - Restoration Concept Map ...... 64 Figure 29: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 66 Figure 30: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 67 Figure 31: Wigle/Mill Creeks/Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map ..... 68 Figure 32: Lake St. Clair Study Area Map ...... 72 Figure 33: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 74 Figure 34: Puce River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 75 Figure 35: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 76 Figure 36: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map ...... 77 Figure 37: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 78 Figure 38: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map ...... 79 Figure 39: Lake St. Clair Study Area - Restoration Concept Map ...... 83 Figure 40: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 85 Figure 41: Puce River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 86 Figure 42: Belle River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 87 Figure 43: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 88 Figure 44: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 89 Figure 45: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map ...... 90 Figure 46: Entire Region Study Area Map...... 93 Figure 47: Entire Region Study Area - Restoration Concept Map...... 102
vi Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy List of Tables
Table 1: 1994 Essex Region Resource Assessment Estimates ...... 1 Table 2: Study Areas and Funding Sources ...... 6 Table 3: Southeast Essex Region Landuse Summary ...... 17 Table 4: Southeast Essex Region Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions ...... 19 Table 5: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in Southeast Essex Region ...... 26 Table 6: Southeast Essex Region Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions ...... 29 Table 7: Greater Detroit River Landuse Summary ...... 37 Table 8: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions ...... 39 Table 9: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Greater Detroit River Study Area...... 45 Table 10: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions ...... 48 Table 11: Lake Erie Study Area Landuse Summary ...... 55 Table 12: Lake Erie Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions ...... 57 Table 13: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake Erie Study Area...... 62 Table 14: Lake Erie Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions ...... 65 Table 15: Lake St. Clair Study Area Landuse Summary ...... 71 Table 16: Lake St. Clair Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions ...... 73 Table 17: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake St. Clair Study Area...... 81 Table 18: Lake St. Clair Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions ...... 84 Table 19: Entire Region Study Area Landuse Summary ...... 92 Table 20: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions ...... 94 Table 21: Entire Region Study Area Detailed GIS Analysis...... 94 Table 22: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions ...... 101
vii Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Executive Summary
Since the time of European settlement in the 1830's, much of the original natural resources of the Essex region have either been totally destroyed or have become extremely degraded as a direct or indirect result of clearing and drainage for timber, agriculture, and urban development. The overall loss of approximately 97% of the original wetland area and 95% of the original forest area has resulted in a highly fragmented and degraded ecosystem. The remaining small, isolated remnants of natural habitats constitute the lowest percentage of any region in all of Ontario. It has long been realized that the cumulative loss and alteration of the region's natural resources has had profound consequences on the region’s sustainability and ecosystem health, necessitating the need to significantly increase the extent and quality of remaining natural habitats.
Environment Canada, in partnership with other government agencies, has developed "A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern” which provides a methodology to establish habitat restoration guidelines and priorities for degraded ecosystems utilizing geographical information systems (GIS) technology. The purpose of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy is to produce a spatial database of all natural areas in the Essex region and, utilizing the Environment Canada framework, conduct an analysis of the terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitats to identify the extent of existing natural vegetation and prioritize opportunities for habitat rehabilitation and enhancement. The objective is to increase the size, extent, and quality of key natural heritage features, natural corridors, and greenway linkages, thereby improving the ecosystem diversity and ecological functions of the Essex region. In addition, by applying the framework to the Detroit River and Wheatley Harbour Areas of Concern the Strategy will assist in addressing the delisting the impaired beneficial use - loss of fish and wildlife habitat, for these ongoing Remedial Action Plans.
Current habitat conditions in all of the study areas examined to date, reveal that the remaining natural ecosystems of the Essex region are not only far below an amount to be considered healthy and sustainable, but are highly fragmented and degraded and hence, in need of extensive rehabilitation and restoration. The results from this report provide an overall framework to guide where habitat rehabilitation and restoration might be required before the individual sub-watershed ecosystems can be considered healthy and self-sustaining. The high priority restoration opportunity areas mapped in this report are to be used as a guide to concentrate future potential habitat restoration and enhancement works.
Complete restoration of all high priority opportunity areas would lead to an “ideal” ecological condition for our remaining natural resources. However, it is realized that it may be impractical to fulfil this optimal condition, due to the large expanse of land area, large number of private landowners involved, and lack of political will required to reach this goal. It is nevertheless crucial to implement as much restoration as possible in the areas identified in this report, building upon those few remaining ecosystems remaining in the landscape. Therefore, every effort should be made to apply for funding for those landowners within the high priority areas who are willing to undertake some form of habitat restoration on their property. Only through this logical approach can we justify financial spending versus resulting ecological value.
ix Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Essex Region (Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines and Priorities)
“It was realized in the latter half of the nineteenth century that too much timber had been wastefully cut; in many cases only to reveal land that was not profitable to farming. Some criticized earlier generations which had ‘ripped away’ the forest. They believed that the solutions to the problems lay in replacing the trees.” From: Fur Trade To Farmstead (ERCA, 1986) paraphrasing the Bureau of Forestry in 1885
1. Background
Since the time of European settlement in the 1830's, much of the original natural resources of the Essex region have either been totally destroyed or have become extremely degraded as a direct or indirect result of clearing and drainage for timber, agriculture, and urban development (ERCA, 1986; Oldham, 1983). Within the region, there has been an overall loss of approximately 97% of the original wetland area (Snell, 1989) and 95% of the original forest area (Vandall, 1979). This has resulted in a currently degraded ecosystem characterized by an extreme lack of riparian habitat, wetland area and appropriate buffers, forest cover and core natural areas, few green linkages between natural features, and poor water quality and aquatic habitat. The small, isolated remnants of forest, wetland, prairie, savanna, alvar, and riparian habitat shown in Figure 1 now constitute the present extent of the region's natural heritage; the lowest percentage of any region in all of Ontario (Oldham, 1983). Table 1 indicates a 1994 estimate of remaining habitat resources in the Essex region.
Table 1: 1994 Essex Region Resource Assessment Estimates
Land Use Area (Ha) Percent Cover
Developed Lands
Agriculture, Urbanization 161,489.65 93.77%
Natural Habitat
Forest (ERCA, 1992) 6,394.75 3.71%
Wetland (ERCA, 1995) 4,242.00 2.46%
Tallgrass Prairie (Pratt, 1994) 79.00 0.05%
Alvar (Managhan et al., 1990) 16.60 0.01%
Natural Habitat Total 10,732.35 6.23%
All Lands
Total Land Area (ERCA, 1992) 172,222.00 100.00%
1 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy It has long been realized that the cumulative loss and alteration of the region's natural resources (i.e., habitats) since European settlement has had profound consequences on the region’s sustainability and ecosystem health, necessitating the need to significantly increase the extent and quality of remaining natural habitats (Reid and Symmes, 1997).
In 1994, the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA1) and its stakeholders drafted a Strategic Plan to help determine environmental priorities for the Essex region (ERCA, 1994). Those priorities truly reflected community values and aspirations. Stakeholders included more than 75 organizations from member municipalities, environmental, recreation and farm groups to educators, media, real estate and labour representatives. One of the top priorities recognized in the Plan was the need to Enhance Biodiversity Through Restoration and Tree- planting by developing projects to create or restore wetlands in appropriate regional settings, develop management plans to optimize wildlife habitats, and collaborate with community organizations and residents to increase tree-planting in available areas (ERCA, 1994). These priority initiatives formed the basis for completing a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the region.
In March of 1997, the “Natural Areas Task Force” (NATF) was formed; a co-ordinated community-based effort consisting of community volunteers and representatives from various municipalities, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and resource management agencies (see Appendix II). This task force was initiated as a result of the “International Countryside Stewardship Exchange (ICSE) Case Study of Southern Essex County” (Environment Canada, 1996), carried out by an international team of resource management specialists in September 1996. The primary goal of the NATF was to produce a strategy document designed to halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in the size and quality of natural communities characteristic of the Essex region. The NATF has prepared prioritized recommendations for conserving and enhancing natural areas in the Essex region utilizing, as starting points, the ICSE Case Study, as well as the 1997 “Conservation Strategy for Carolinian Canada” (Reid and Symmes, 1997). Other goals of the NATF include sparking local community action, and initiating the implementation of these strategic recommendations. One of the essential, preliminary recommendations made by the NATF was to complete the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy to identify all natural areas in the region and recommend priority restoration2 and enhancement opportunities.
Environment Canada, in partnership with other government agencies, has developed a document entitled "A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern” (Environment Canada et al., 1998), which provides a methodology to establish habitat restoration guidelines and priorities for degraded ecosystems utilizing geographical information systems (GIS) technology. This document provided the technical basis upon which this Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Essex region was developed.
1A comprehensive glossary of all acronyms used in this report may be found in Appendix I. 2The terms restoration and rehabilitation are uses synonymously throughout this document.
2 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 1: Essex Region Natural Areas
3 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2. Purpose
The purpose of this study was to produce a spatial database of all natural areas in the Essex region and conduct an analysis of the terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitats to identify the extent of existing natural vegetation. This was then used to facilitate prioritization of opportunities for habitat rehabilitation and enhancement. Strategic planning for the rehabilitation and restoration of ecosystem features focuses on identifying high priority opportunities to help restore or improve environmental features and ecological functions that have been lost or degraded. The objective of these measures is to increase the size, extent, and quality of key natural heritage features, natural corridors, and greenway linkages, thereby improving the ecosystem diversity and ecological functions of the watersheds. This is the first step to constructing a healthy, self-sustaining, natural heritage system. This holistic approach that works towards restoring, to the extent possible, the functions and diverse species composition that comprise an undegraded natural ecosystem is more likely to ensure that maximum biodiversity is conserved over the long term. The strategic planning for restoration and conservation of biodiversity is based on the premise that all existing natural areas remain intact and that there is no further loss.
2.1 Applicability to Remedial Action Plans (RAPs)
2.1.1 Detroit River RAP
The Habitat Technical Work Group of the Detroit River RAP has developed recommendations to address the loss of fish and wildlife habitat through two objectives: to preserve and protect existing habitat, and to restore and enhance habitat to maintain a healthy, diverse and self- sustaining fish and wildlife community. The following priority recommendations from the Detroit River RAP indirectly address all of the impaired beneficial uses to the Detroit River area of concern (AOC) and directly address impaired beneficial use #14, Loss of fish and wildlife habitat and #3, Degradation of fish and wildlife populations:
! Develop a Habitat Inventory (Upland and Aquatic) for the Detroit River AOC A habitat inventory is needed to obtain baseline information on existing wetland habitat, wildlife, and fishery resources. A habitat inventory would provide the information needed to pro-actively give developers and municipalities some guidance regarding habitat sensitivity and appropriate land zoning and permitted uses. Within the AOC, a wetlands inventory been completed for the Canadian side of the Detroit River (Detroit River RAP, 1996; page 82).
! Develop a Habitat Management Plan for the Detroit River RAP To clearly document strategies and their rationale for the protection, restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat in the AOC. It would pro-actively provide information to municipalities and developers that could be incorporated into planning documents. In addition, the plan could delineate areas suitable for public access development and environmental appreciation and education that would foster a better understanding of the relationship between humans and their environment. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) have completed a wetlands inventory and evaluation of wetlands within the Canadian portion of the AOC (Detroit River RAP, 1996; page 82).
4 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy ! Make more efficient use of staff by coordinating environment protection activities with other agencies To ensure that government agencies continue to find innovative ways of coordinating their environmental protection activities to restore and protect habitat (Detroit River RAP, 1996; page 91).
! Begin remedial actions on the list of proposed habitat candidate sites The U.S. National Biological Survey (NBS) has estimated that over 90% of wetlands in the river (including both Canadian and U.S. sides) in 1873 were destroyed as the shoreline was modified and developed. In the face of these huge losses, restoration activities should begin immediately (Detroit River RAP, 1996; page 103).
Currently, there is no existing habitat management plan for the Detroit River AOC. By applying the restoration guidelines, outlined in "A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern” (Environment Canada et al., 1998), to the Detroit River AOC, in order to establish appropriate local targets, the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will assist the newly formed Detroit River Cleanup Habitat Implementation Subcommittee in the following:
! providing a review of existing habitat conditions; ! defining data gaps; ! developing delisting criteria for impaired beneficial use #14, loss of fish and wildlife habitat; ! developing implementation plans, and; ! prioritizing implementation project proposals.
Furthermore, the Strategy will aid in meeting Canadian-Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets.
2.1.2 Wheatley Harbour RAP
The Wheatley Harbour RAP Team has recommended that vegetated buffer zones be established to address the delisting of the impaired beneficial use, Eutrophication or undesirable algae; and that instream habitat should be preserved and restored to address the delisting of the impaired beneficial use, Loss of fish and wildlife habitat (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1995).
The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will apply the Environment Canada’s restoration guidelines to the Wheatley Harbour AOC, in order to establish appropriate local targets, and subsequent results from the analysis will be incorporated into the Draft Muddy Creek/Two Creeks Implementation Strategy (Dutz, 1998) which is currently being developed. This analysis will assist in developing and prioritizing appropriate restoration plans, and identifying necessary buffer zones to aid in delisting these impaired beneficial uses. Furthermore, the Strategy will aid in meeting Canadian-Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets.
3. Study Areas
The Essex region was divided into five large study areas. This division was due to the availability of funding for individual areas. Table 2 describes the five study areas and the subsequent sources of funding for completing the analyses:
5 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 2: Study Areas and Funding Sources
Study Area Sub-watersheds Funding Source
Southeast Essex Region Point Pelee; Hillman Marsh; Parks Canada Sturgeon Creek; Marentette, East Marsh, West Marsh and Lloyd Drainage Schemes; Atwell Drain; Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC)
Greater Detroit River Detroit River, Little River, Turkey Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund Area of Concern (AOC) Creek, River Canard Ducks Unlimited Canada
Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, Wigle Essex County Stewardship Network Creek, Big Creek Human Resources Development Canada
Lake St. Clair Sub- Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle Essex County Stewardship Network watersheds River, Ruscom River, Little Creek Human Resources Development Canada
4. Methodology
4.1 Database Compilation
The following information was compiled to construct the geographic information system (GIS) database. Digitized electronic maps were obtained using the 1:50,000 National Topographic Series (NTS), 1:10,000 Ontario Base Mapping (OBM) (drainage, roads, vegetation, etc.), and 1:25,000 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) drainage maps prior to the start of this project. Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) and sub-watershed delineations were obtained from ERCA. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and provincially significant wetland boundaries were obtained from the OMNR. Soils and physiography data (1:63,360) were obtained from OMAFRA. Localized wetland boundary mapping (1:2,000) was digitized for the Town of LaSalle. Forest cover and other landcover information was obtained using Landsat Satellite images provided by Parks Canada.
All digital information was imported into ARC/INFO-GIS, a GIS software package, to conduct spatial analysis. This GIS database generates maps and documentation describing the current state of natural vegetation and adjacent land use and, ultimately, areas for possible rehabilitation. A scale of 1:50,000 was used only for a broad view of existing habitat in an area as a first attempt at identifying possible habitat rehabilitation areas. Detailed maps (1:10,000) incorporated information gathered through research with Parks Canada, satellite imagery. 1989 Aerial photography at 1:8,000, landowner contacts, and ground-truthing all provided opportunities to verify and update the documentary record.
6 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 4.2 Spatial Analysis of Existing Habitat
4.2.1 Forest Cover
Forest cover boundaries from the 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 digital base mapping were cross- referenced with existing aerial photography and ESA and ANSI mapping, and wherever possible field validation was conducted to verify unknown boundaries. The limit of 0.5 ha was set as the minimum size of forest patch for inclusion into the forest layer. This limit effectively eliminated those areas too small to provide significant wildlife habitat, as well as many smaller hedgerows.
It was felt that areas such as golf courses, roadside plantings, windbreaks, non-native plantings, or plantations which are treated to reduce understorey growth, should not be included in the calculation of forest cover, as these non-natural habitats do not serve in providing significant ecosystem functions, such as wildlife habitat. However, a small number of golf courses have initiated a program to naturalize sections of their properties, allowing woody and herbaceous vegetation to re-establish beneath the tree canopy. These areas were identified, delimited, and retained in the forest cover.
It was agreed that plantations of native species would not be considered part of the forest layer until such time as they require no maintenance for weeds, have a closed canopy, and have developed a substantial understorey complete with associated wildlife (ERCA, 1992). Detailed records were available for those plantations that were established through the ERCA tree- planting program. These were then mapped onto 1:10,000 OBM’s, digitized and added to the GIS database as a separate layer. Analysis by the ERCA Forester revealed the condition of individual plantations, with respect to the above criteria, and those that were determined to be sufficiently mature were added to the forest cover layer. Those not included were retained in the database for future consideration.
The swamp forest community type also required additional analysis. All areas known to be swamp forest were delineated and included in the wetland area calculations.
Once the data for the forest cover layer had been verified and corrected, spatial analysis on the information was conducted. ARC/INFO-GIS was used to determine the total amount and the relative percentage of forest cover, the size of the largest natural forest patch, and the percent of the study area that is forest cover either 100 m or 200 m from edge (i.e., how much of the forest cover is interior forest). The amount of interior forest was calculated for woodlands greater than 10 ha in size, as smaller woodlands would not contain any interior forest habitat.
4.2.2 Riparian (Streambank) Analysis
The stream and drain coverage in a study area was used to determine the percent riparian habitat. Lengths of all streams, including those of first-, second-, and third-order streams, were determined using the corrected 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 mapping. The stream coverage required extensive editing and correcting (utilizing ERCA drainage maps) before streams could be assigned stream order.
Several length measurements were calculated to determine percentage riparian habitat that is forested. The length of all streams in the study area was calculated, then the stream data were
7 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy overlaid with the forest cover data to extract an estimate of forested streams. The total length of streams flowing through forest cover was calculated and is represented as a percentage of overall stream length. The same procedure was used for first-, second-, and third-order streams. To determine the percent of riparian habitat that is forested within 30 m of a stream, 30 m buffers were placed around the first-, second-, and third-order streams and then overlaid with data for forest cover. This layer was then manually edited to determine which forest woodlands were 30 m wide. The percent riparian habitat having 30 m wide buffers was then calculated. Because the Landsat data only allows for identification of forest vegetation, the percent cover along streams may be somewhat underestimated as grasslands and shrub thickets are not included in the database at this time.
4.2.3 Imperviousness of Urbanized Areas
The percent imperviousness of an urbanized sub-watershed was calculated using a formula developed by Ecological Services for Planning, Ltd. This formula multiplies the percent of urban development of an area (transportation routes and built-up areas) by 0.75; and adds another 2% of imperviousness to account for individual buildings in rural areas (Environment Canada et al., 1998). Because most of the Essex region is highly agricultural, this analysis only applies to areas in and around the City of Windsor.
The GIS database provided the areas occupied by different “urban development” classes. The total area occupied by the following landcover classes was summed and multiplied by 0.75 to calculate percent imperviousness in a study area:
! Commercial, institutional and communications ! Transportation ! Industrial ! Residential
4.2.4 Wetland Extent
Wetland boundaries from the 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 digital base mapping were cross- referenced with existing OMNR provincial wetland mapping, and when possible ground-truthing was conducted to verify unknown boundaries.
As mentioned above, all areas known to be swamp forest were delineated and included in the wetland area calculations.
Once the data for wetland extent had been checked and corrected, spatial analysis on the information was conducted. ARC/INFO-GIS was used to determine the percent of a study area that is occupied by wetland habitat, and the amount of adjacent natural vegetation that is 240 m from the wetland edge. A buffer of 240 m wide was placed around existing wetlands to describe the potential areas for upland nesting habitat. This width provides cover for wildlife species requiring both wetland and upland habitat, reduces the rate of nest predation to moderate levels, and provides very good removal of sediments and nutrients (Environment Canada et al., 1998).
8 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 4.2.5 Extent of Prairie, Savanna, Alvar
Specific details for the current extent of prairie, savanna, and alvar habitat types will be added to the GIS database as new information becomes available. This information will be generated as a result of the recently published Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan produced by the World Wildlife Fund in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Rodger, 1998).
4.3 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Development
The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy was co-ordinated by ERCA Conservation Biologist, Dan Lebedyk and developed in association with a technical steering committee (hereafter referred to as “the committee”) made up of various representatives from the professional and local community (Appendix II). Appendix III describes the backgrounds of the various organizations who were most involved in the development of the Strategy.
Spatial analyses (using overlay and buffering techniques) were carried out throughout this project to determine how the various study areas meet the restoration guidelines developed by the committee. ERCA also utilized its GIS, and existing digital data to model soil loss, and soil loading into watersheds, at 1:50,000 scale. This modelling helped define initial priority restoration areas, and will direct any subsequent landowner contact program to areas which are of particularly high concern. This will focus implementation on areas which are not only “best bets” from a landowner perspective but, more importantly, areas which are high priority for habitat restoration from a biological perspective.
4.3.1 Environmental Guidelines/Local Targets
The habitat guidelines that were devised by Environment Canada et al. (1998) represent the optimum conditions for diverse, healthy, functioning ecosystems. However, if optimum conditions are not present, the current state of affairs may be estimated using "benchmarks", or habitat thresholds. These thresholds represent attempts to indicate how the biological community is affected by only partially meeting the optimality guidelines. Birds tend to be used as indicators of upland habitat status for two reasons: 1) they are easily surveyed and have been studied extensively by ecologists and naturalists; and 2) more is known about details of their habitat requirements and their ranges of distribution, than any other group of wildlife. In contrast, hydrologic parameters tend to be used to monitor wetland function.
Based on input from the committee, the results of ERCA investigations, and practical considerations for long-term ecosystem health these optimal environmental guidelines were adapted to the Essex region yielding appropriate interim local targets. These local targets reflected an overall desire to ensure:
! that ecosystem integrity was protected and maintained; ! that those aspects of the ecosystem which have been lost or degraded over time were restored and enhanced to healthy, self-sustaining, diverse conditions; and ! that the resulting potential and proposed land use changes were practical, feasible, and realistic based on the local context.
9 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 4.3.2 Guiding Principles
Due to the history of land use in the Essex region, especially agricultural land clearing, there are few natural areas remaining. Consequently, further losses should be prevented to the greatest extent possible. Co-ordinated steps should be taken to rebuild a pattern of nodes and corridors of natural features into the landscape. This will improve and greatly diversify the biodiversity of the Essex region. Each of the following principles are comprised of a series of goals, designed to protect and enhance the natural features and ecological functions; to restore those features/functions that have been degraded; and to guide future development in a manner that will ensure the long-term health of the environment. These principles and goals guided the development of the Strategy. Goal achievement will be accomplished through full implementation of the Strategy.
! To stop further losses of significant natural features and to minimize other losses.
Goals: ! Identify and preserve significant environmental features and ecological functions (fish and aquatic habitat, significant woodlands, significant wetlands, and significant habitats of vulnerable, threatened, and endangered species). ! Perpetuate existing significant communities. ! No loss of natural areas. ! No loss of habitat along streams. ! Identify and preserve sensitive water quality and quantity features and hydrologic functions.
! To achieve a net increase in natural cover and enhance the existing ecological resources.
Goals: ! Restore appropriate biological communities to yield diverse composition and age structure of vegetation. ! Natural communities - to increase the area of naturally sustaining or successional vegetation. ! Uplands - to retain and improve the existing woodland communities without losses. ! Wetlands - to retain and improve the existing wetland communities without losses. ! Riparian habitat - to retain existing habitat and restore riparian communities. ! Tallgrass prairie/savanna/alvar habitats - to retain existing habitats and restore/enhance where appropriate. ! Reduce the impacts of existing agricultural and/or urban land uses in an effort to reduce degradation of natural ecosystems.
! To create and improve linkages between natural areas.
Goal: ! Net gain of appropriate, priority linkages and corridors.
10 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy ! To prescribe for the creation/restoration of larger contiguous areas of natural communities.
Goal: ! To identify, protect, and restore (using existing fragments) major natural nodes.
! To monitor guiding principles and goals, as they provide a direct measure of the state of the environment; and modify as appropriate so as to accommodate new information and/or changes that occur.
4.3.2.1 Forest Habitat
Guidelines for the protection and restoration of woodlands are based on objectives to promote healthy, self-sustaining woodland ecosystems. Planting to expand existing areas and/or create new woodland areas responds to the goal to increase the percentage of total forest cover within the Essex region. Enhancement and creation of natural corridors to produce a greenway system involves vegetative plantings that would extend the valleylands and stream corridor systems, connect woodlands and vegetative remnants, and re-establish linkages to major natural nodes. This in turn would create new habitat and terrestrial resource areas, reduce fragmentation, facilitate the movement of native plant and animal species, and increase the percentage of natural cover. It is estimated that for plantation-type tree-planting, the planting of one million trees will yield an increase in forest cover of one percent. An improvement program would include artificial and/or natural vegetation regeneration or plantings at suitable locations identified through further study and consultation during final confirmation of the restoration concept such as:
! regeneration or plantings on retired or marginal lands; ! plantings in high priority areas which would improve connectivity to major natural nodes; ! regeneration or plantings to provide buffers to significant or sensitive areas (eg. ESAs, ANSIs, proximity to endangered species such as Bald Eagle nests, etc.) where needed and where feasible; ! regeneration in areas of high land conversion (i.e., fields to greenhouses).
Wooded areas can be expanded and linked to other woodlands, hedgerows and corridors by active planting and natural regeneration measures. Provision and restoration of vegetated corridors will improve corridor functions and connectivity.
Forest Habitat Guidelines
1) Percent forest cover ! 30% 2) Size of largest forest patch ! more than one 100 ha forest patch which is a minimum 500 m in width 3) Percent of watershed that is forest cover 100 m and 200 m from edge ! 100 m or farther from the edge > 10% ! 200 m or farther from the edge > 5% 4) Forest shape and proximity to other areas ! circular or square in shape ! in close proximity to adjacent patches (within 2 km)
11 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5) Fragmented landscapes and the role of corridors ! corridors designed to facilitate species movement should be a minimum of 100 m in width ! corridors designed for specialist species should be a minimum of 500 m wide and refined to meet the needs of the target species 6) Forest quality - species composition and age structure ! species composition - as naturally diverse as possible ! age structure - ideal basal area (m2/Ha) on average: ! polewood (10 - 24 cm) - 4 ! small (26 - 38 cm) - 6 ! medium (40 - 48 cm) - 5 ! large (50+ cm) - 5 ! Total - 20 (OMNR, 1990; 1993)
Spatial analysis on the landuse information was conducted to determine the percent forest cover across the study area with respect to the recommended habitat guidelines and local interim targets for forest cover. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987) was utilized to determine which breeding birds occurred in each study area (see Appendix IX). From the list of birds for which breeding evidence was noted, forest-dependent birds potentially occurring in the areas based on their breeding range were identified and divided into three categories: forest interior, forest interior/edge and forest edge. Comparisons were made with respect to the expected and actual numbers of forest-dependent bird species occurring in the area.
Possible reforestation areas were then selected. Areas targeted for reforestation include openings in the existing forest woodlands, scrubland near woodlands and forest cover near streams. Woodlands were consolidated in an attempt to increase the amount of interior forest habitat. Measures for reforestation and natural corridor improvement include: vegetative plantings along natural greenway corridor areas, block regeneration on retired or marginal agricultural lands, education and tax incentives for landowners.
The reforestation opportunities that were identified were then digitized and overlain with existing forest cover in the study area. Spatial analysis then showed the predicted effects of reforestation.
4.3.2.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian areas occur immediately adjacent to rivers and streams and are inhabited by diverse plant communities adapted to the hydrology, nutrient-rich soils, and microclimates found in this transition zone between land and water (Daigle and Havinga, 1996). The variation in moisture conditions, plant communities, and natural debris provides habitat, protection, and movement corridors for a wide variety of aquatic, avian, terrestrial fauna, and especially to highly sensitive herptiles (Daigle and Havinga, 1996). There is a need to have adequate vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows. Plant communities in the riparian area are an important source of coarse and large woody debris --- a food source for stream invertebrates and an important structural component. The emphasis of stream and aquatic habitat restoration is to improve the overall physical structure of the stream channels and bordering shorelines while restoring the stream’s natural morphological characteristics.
12 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Riparian Habitat Guidelines
1) Percent of natural vegetation along first to third order streams ! 75% of stream length should be naturally vegetated - either woody or grassy 2) Amount of natural vegetation adjacent to streams ! generally, 30 m naturally vegetated buffer on both sides would be optimal. For specific functions: ! species diversity - 3 to 100 m ! wildlife movement (corridors) - 3 to 200 m ! sediment removal - 10 to 60 m ! nutrient removal - 3 to 90 m ! water temperature moderation - 15 to 30 m 3) Total suspended solids concentrations ! below 25 mg/l for the majority of the year 4) Percent of urbanized watershed that is impervious ! less than 15%
Stream rehabilitation techniques would be employed to achieve a stable equilibrium of erosion and deposition along degraded reaches. Initiatives would be closely associated with specific rehabilitation measures and techniques to restore and enhance aquatic habitats, where they too, have been degraded. Measures to rehabilitate and enhance riparian habitat could include: ! Stabilization of currently eroding streambanks, preferably using natural channel design techniques and natural materials (such as root wads, live-log crib walls, willow brush bundles and live willow stakes). ! Replanting of vegetative buffer zones using native woody plant species to stabilize streambanks, filter nutrients, improve groundwater regime, provide shade and increase vegetative diversity along shorelines, as well as enhance terrestrial habitats. ! Restriction of livestock access to watercourses.
The riparian rehabilitation opportunities that were identified were digitized and overlaid with the existing riparian cover in the study area. Spatial analysis then showed the predicted effects of restoration and enhancement.
4.3.2.3 Wetland Habitat
Guidelines for the protection and restoration of wetlands are based on objectives to return the system to a close approximation of the predisturbance ecosystem (i.e., it would be persistent and self-sustaining although dynamic in its composition and functioning). Goals include the restoration of functional values such as providing persistent vegetative cover, filtration, storage of flood waters, self-maintaining fish and wildlife populations, and de-nitrification.
Wetland Habitat Guidelines
1) Percent wetlands in watershed or sub-watershed ! 10% in each major watershed; 6% in each sub-watershed; or restore to original percentage 2) Amount of natural vegetation adjacent to wetland ! 240 m of adjacent natural habitat (can be herbaceous or woody vegetation)
13 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 3) Wetland type ! marshes and swamps 4) Wetland location ! original headwater swamps ! on-stream or floodplain marshes and swamps on second and third order watercourses ! lacustrine wetlands ! any other location 5) Wetland size ! swamps - as large as possible ! marshes - range of sizes 6) Wetland shape ! swamps - regularly shaped with minimum edge and maximum interior habitat ! marshes - irregularly shaped with maximum interspersion
Spatial analysis of the landuse information was conducted to determine the percent wetland across the study area, in particular with respect to the habitat guidelines for wetland quantity and quality. Potential areas for wetland rehabilitation and restoration were selected. Areas targeted for rehabilitation and restoration included linkages between established wetlands, new wetlands to provide diversity in habitat (e.g., mudflats and swamps), and buffering around all wetlands to reduce sedimentation and other disturbances. Measures for wetland restoration and natural corridor improvement include: creation of dyked impoundments for block regeneration on retired or marginal agricultural lands, vegetative plantings along natural corridor areas and buffer strips, and education and tax incentives for landowners.
Guidelines for protecting, enhancing and creating new wetlands: ! protect and enhance existing wetlands ! create new wetlands
Techniques for restoring wetlands fall into three broad categories: ! re-establishing or managing wetland hydrology, ! eliminating or controlling chemical elements or other contaminants affecting wetlands, and ! re-establishing and managing native biota (may include control of exotic, invasive species).
Wetland areas can be expanded and linked to other wetlands, meadows, woodlands, and riparian habitats by artificial and natural regeneration measures. Provision and restoration of vegetated corridors will improve corridor functions and connectivity throughout the sub- watersheds. In addition, adequate buffering will ensure wetland integrity and stability for long- term ecosystem health.
The wetland restoration opportunities that were identified were then digitized and overlain with the existing wetland habitat in the study area. Spatial analysis then showed the predicted effects of restoration.
14 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 4.3.2.4 Fish Habitat
Guidelines for the protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat are based on objectives to maintain/rehabilitate fish species composition and diversity to promote healthy, self-sustaining populations. These guidelines follow the Toronto Region Conservation Authority Fisheries Management Plan approach to setting target fish communities in the watershed (Environment Canada et al., 1998). The habitats in Essex region sub-watersheds are classified as warmwater and they have been identified for protection. To protect, maintain and enhance fish and aquatic habitats in the sub-watersheds, a minimum buffer should be established for the main watercourses and their tributaries. These buffers will be used as a guide in the development of suitable protection and restoration initiatives. The actual buffer dimensions should be based on criteria established through a site-specific assessment of the existing shoreline characteristics, as well as input from relevant agencies such as the OMNR. It should integrate such aspects as groundwater seepage, geomorphology, streamside vegetation, shoreline and benthic characteristics, barriers, and opportunities for stormwater management that best fit the specific site characteristics for habitat protection/restoration.
Detailed, specific opportunities for fish habitat restoration and enhancement will be made in consultation with OMNR Fisheries habitat specialists as new data becomes available. In the interim, riparian habitat guidelines will be generally employed until specific recommendations regarding fish habitat becomes available.
4.3.2.5 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
Guidelines for tallgrass communities follow the recent Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan produced by the World Wildlife Fund in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Rodger, 1998).
Tallgrass prairies, savannas, and alvars are some of the most endangered ecological communities in the Essex region. Tallgrass communities once covered a significant part of southern Ontario’s landscape. Owing to degradation and destruction through urban development, agriculture, pollution and mismanagement, less than 3 percent of the original southern Ontario extent remains. Most remnants exist in small, isolated patches; with the Windsor region containing some of the most extensive intact remnants in Ontario. As these highly diverse communities themselves are rare and threatened, so too are many of the wildlife species which depend on these communities for their survival (Rodger, 1998).
To make significant strides toward recovering tallgrass communities region-wide, a larger, more coordinated and strategic approach is required. A species-by-species approach to recovering tallgrass communities is unrealistic for the task at hand. Because of this, the Recover Plan produced by the World Wildlife Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources deals with recovering tallgrass communities as a whole, across their range in Ontario. The overall goal of this Recovery Plan is to recover, reconstruct and conserve a representative network of tallgrass communities, and to recover and protect the full complement of plant and animal life that makes up these diverse ecological communities. To do this on a region-wide scale in a strategic and comprehensive manner, the following eight goals for recovery provide key direction:
15 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy ! Improve communication, coordination and information-sharing among those involved in tallgrass community conservation. ! Amass complete information regarding all tallgrass community remnants in southern Ontario. ! Establish and expand a network of protected tallgrass community remnants. ! Encourage protection of tallgrass remnants through sound management. ! Encourage restoration and habitat creation initiatives where appropriate to enlarge existing remnants, make linkages and create new habitat. ! Raise public awareness and appreciation of tallgrass communities. ! Reduce significantly the number of tallgrass community species at risk. ! Encourage basic and applied research relevant to tallgrass community conservation. (Rodger, 1998)
4.3.2.6 Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Vulnerable, threatened, and endangered species (VTEs) are usually dependent on particular habitat conditions which provide species-specific features for certain life processes (e.g., reproduction, feeding grounds, etc.). Identification of such habitats, and any recommendations for their enhancement or management, are usually prescribed in species-specific Recovery Plans. When information from these Recovery Plans becomes available, identified critical habitats should be overlayed and incorporated into habitat restoration plans, and protected in land use plans where feasible. In addition, management plans for sustaining rare and unusual plant communities should be prepared on a watershed-wide basis. A list of VTEs occurring in the Essex region may be found in Appendix IV.
16 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5. Results
5.1 Southeast Essex Region: Point Pelee, Hillman Marsh, Sturgeon Creek, and Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watersheds
5.1.1 Study Area
The study area for the southeast Essex region includes the sub-watersheds/drainage areas of Point Pelee National Park; Hillman Marsh, including Hillman Creek and Lebo Creek; Sturgeon Creek; Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC); Atwell Drain; and the East Marsh/West Marsh/Marentette/Lloyd drainage schemes (i.e., “the polders”) (Figure 2).
5.1.2 Existing Habitat
Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture is the predominant landuse, accounting for approximately 77% of the landuse in the study area (Table 3). Table 4 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Southeast Essex Region study area can be found in Appendix V. In addition, Figures 3 - 7 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions in each of the sub-watersheds.
Table 3: Southeast Essex Region Landuse Summary Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 12942.36 31981.27 77.30% Natural 2245.75 5549.37 13.41% Built-up & Roads 1344.10 3321.34 8.03% Quarries 134.69 332.83 0.80% Recreation 75.97 187.73 0.45%
Atwell Drain 537.81 1328.95 3.21% East Marsh 495.78 1225.11 2.96% Hillman Marsh 7416.05 18325.47 44.29% Marentette 311.32 769.29 1.86% Muddy Creek 847.19 2093.46 5.06% Point Pelee 1481.30 3660.36 8.85% Sturgeon Creek 4124.51 10191.90 24.63% West Marsh 1528.89 3777.96 9.13% Total Study Area 16742.86 41372.51 100.00%
17 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 2: Southeast Essex Region Study Area Map
18 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 4: Southeast Essex Region Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions
Existing (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target East Marsh Point Pelee Atwell Drain Atwell Muddy Creek Muddy Hillman Marsh Sturgeon Creek Marentette Drain Area Total Study West Marsh/Lloyd
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 3.21 2.51 8.78 0.00 6.33 92.60 3.34 0.11 13.41
Size (ha) of largest forest 100 100 6.50 1.62 41.03 0.00 13.57 186.20 9.01 1.62 186.20 patch
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) 30 3.21 2.51 4.28 0.00 5.20 22.18 2.17 0.11 4.84 (upland + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or >10 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.16 5.17 0.00 0.00 0.58 farther from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or >5 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.15 farther from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third- order streams >75 >75 2.69 0.00 12.32 0.00 16.62 N/A 11.97 0.08 9.93 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub- >6 0.00 0.00 4.89 0.00 1.27 73.15 1.36 0.00 9.04 watershed
19 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 3: Point Pelee National Park - Existing Habitat
20 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 4: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
21 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 5: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
22 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 6: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
23 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 7: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh - Existing Habitat Map
24 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.1.2.1 Forest Habitat
Results indicate that there is 13.41% natural cover within the study area and 4.84% is forested woodlands (Table 3). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitat guideline of 30%, which would support most bird species expected. The current forest cover falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Although ecologically- speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should be set by the organizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.
The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. There is 1 polygon (1.11% of the study area) greater than 100 ha in area. The largest forest patch is part of Point Pelee National Park and is 186.20 ha in size (Figure 3). This large forest patch will support almost 80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There is 1 polygon greater than 50 ha in area which is also located in Point Pelee National Park. This forest patch will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forest cover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershed with forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. With the exception of Point Pelee National Park (5.17% 100 m interior forest, 1.64% 200 m interior forest), all of the sub- watersheds within the southeast Essex region study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that Point Pelee National Park is the only location capable of supporting 80 to 90% of forest-interior and edge bird species.
Table 5 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that approximately 45% of the forest- associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the above that Point Pelee National Park is most likely the only site within the study area where these 9 forest interior bird species are found.
25 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 5: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in Southeast Essex Region
% Forest Cover 4.84 Total Number of Species within Range 102 Number of Species Occurring 72 % of Total Number of Species within Range Present 70.59 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range 66 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 29 Percent of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 43.94 Number of FI Species within Range 20 Total FI Species Present 9 Percent of FI Species within Range Present 45.0 FIE = Forest Interior/Edge FI = Forest Interior
5.1.2.2 Riparian Habitat
In the study area, the total length of all streams is 250.85 km. Of that, 24.92 km of these streams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first- to third-order streams is therefore 9.93% (Table 4). This is under the habitat guideline of 75% forested riparian habitat. At 9.93%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measure indicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Only 8.40% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forest cover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix V). This means that the stream may be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
5.1.2.3 Wetland Habitat
In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two pieces of information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the southeast Essex region study area are from the inventory of evaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existing conditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small, isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.
26 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.1.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No information is currently available on the current extent of tallgrass prairie remnants within the study area. Known savanna habitat occurs within Point Pelee National Park as a result of natural succession and active management of retired residential and agricultural lands within the park. These areas are identified in the GIS database and included in the potential/ongoing restoration opportunities layer.
5.1.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities
Major nodes and linkages were identified by the steering committee to determine the highest priority habitat rehabilitation opportunities (Figure 8). Table 6 lists the resulting habitat percentages if all the identified areas were restored. Figures 9 - 13 illustrate the high priority areas where habitat restoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collective expertise of the steering committee and the GIS analysis using overlay and buffering techniques. If all these areas are restored, the amount of habitat in the study area would increase by approximately 15%.
27 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 8: Southeast Essex Region - Restoration Concept Map
28 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 6: Southeast Essex Region Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions
Proposed (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target East Marsh Point Pelee Atwell Drain Atwell Muddy Creek Muddy Hillman Marsh Sturgeon Creek Marentette Drain Area Total Study West Marsh/Lloyd
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 14.56 99.26 21.42 92.43 25.20 92.91 12.92 8.25 28.05
Size (ha) of largest forest 100 100 9.66 1.62 65.52 0.00 56.97 214.68 16.37 4.89 214.68 patch
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) 30 3.87 2.51 5.41 0.00 6.78 22.40 3.09 0.42 5.72 (upland + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or >10 0.02 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.13 3.90 0.06 0.00 0.77 farther from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or >5 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.04 2.09 0.00 0.00 0.26 farther from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third- order streams >75 >75 96.41 0.00 86.33 0.00 83.67 N/A 68.33 88.91 77.11 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub- >6 0.00 96.75 4.89 92.43 1.27 73.15 1.36 0.00 13.62 watershed
29 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 9: Point Pelee National Park - Restoration Opportunities Map
30 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 10: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
31 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 11: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
32 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 12: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
33 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 13: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh/Lloyd - Restoration Opportunities Map
34 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.1.3.1 Forest Habitat
The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 4.84% to 5.72% (Table 6), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would still be only 1 woodland greater than 100 ha in area, located in Point Pelee National Park, which would have an area of 214.68 ha (1.28% of the study area) (Figure 9). This large forest patch will support more than 80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition, there would be 4 woodlands greater than 50 ha in area (1 additional in Point Pelee National Park, Kopegaron Woods ESA, White Oak Woods ESA, and Hillman Sand Hills ESA). These forest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase the interior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 8), the amount is by only 0.31% of the study area. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.77% of the area, up from only 0.58% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge would also increase, from the existing 0.15% to 0.26%. With the exception of Point Pelee National Park all of the sub-watersheds within the southeast Essex region study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that Point Pelee National Park will still be the only location capable of supporting forest-dependent bird species.
5.1.3.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas were restored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-order streams should increase from 9.93% to 77.11% which should maintain functional warmwater streams (Table 6). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated buffers will also increase, from 8.40% to 79.09% which should maintain functional warmwater streams and relatively good wildlife corridors (Figures 10 - 13).
5.1.3.3 Wetland Habitat
To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell (1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for some sub- watersheds, the original wetland per cent exceeded the six per cent guideline, while other sub- watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage at all. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were proposed to restore wetlands to the original percentage and only for the East Marsh and Marentette drainage schemes, where large expanses of historic wetlands once occurred between Point Pelee and Hillman Marsh. Restoration of this area would increase wetland coverage by nearly 767.41 ha, or by 4.58% of the study area. This represents a potential future value of 13.62% wetlands in the study area.
35 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.1.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No specific Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and/or Alvar restoration sites have been identified in this study area. However, opportunities to create prairie and/or savanna habitat would most likely occur on those lands within the potential 30 m riparian buffer along first- to third- order streams, or within the 240 m upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands. Every effort should be made to increase these habitat types across the landscape.
36 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.2 Greater Detroit River Study Area: Detroit River AOC, Little River, Turkey Creek, and River Canard Sub-watersheds
5.2.1 Study Area
The greater Detroit River study area includes the Detroit River AOC, and the sub-watershed areas of Little River, Turkey Creek, and the River Canard (Figure 14).
5.2.2 Existing Habitat
Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture and urbanization are the predominant landuses, accounting for approximately 68% and 25% of the landuse, respectively, in the study area (Table 7). Table 8 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Greater Detroit River study area can be found in Appendix VI. In addition, Figures 15 - 18 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions in each of the sub-watersheds.
Table 7: Greater Detroit River Landuse Summary Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 40302.23 99588.99 67.93% Natural 3562.46 8803.03 6.01% Built-up & Roads 14931.34 36896.15 25.17% Quarries 156.57 386.89 0.26% Recreation 372.62 920.77 0.63%
Detroit River 12249.39 30268.90 20.65% Little River 6737.26 16648.14 11.36% River Canard 34257.95 84653.24 57.75% Turkey Creek 6080.61 15025.53 10.25% Total Study Area 59325.22 146595.82 100.00%
37 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 14: Greater Detroit River Study Area Map
38 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 8: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions
Existing (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target Little River Detroit River River Canard Turkey Creek Turkey Total Study Area Total Study
% Natural cover (all 12 8.21 2.51 5.09 10.59 6.01 habitats)
Size (ha) of largest forest 100 100 62.41 24.49 57.22 62.41 62.41 patch
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) 30 2.62 2.51 4.54 10.22 4.49 (upland + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or >10 0.18 0.04 0.37 0.80 0.34 farther from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or >5 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.04 farther from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third-order streams >75 >75 7.18 3.06 7.89 13.95 7.87 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub- >6 5.59 0.06 0.60 0.38 1.55 watershed
% Imperviousness < 15 22.67 13.55 22.91
39 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 15: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map
40 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 16: Little River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
41 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 17: River Canard Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
42 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 18: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
43 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.2.2.1 Forest Habitat
Results indicate that there is 6.01% natural cover within the study area and 4.49% is forested woodlands (Table 8). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitat guideline of 30%, which would support most bird species expected. The current forest cover falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Although ecologically- speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should be set by the organizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.
The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. Currently there area no woodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest forest patch is part of the Ojibway Prairie Complex (Spring Garden ANSI/ESA) and is 62.41 ha in size (0.11% of the study area) (Figure 18). In addition, there are 4 other woodland polygons greater than 50 ha in area (Canard Valley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA, New Canaan Valley ESA (2 polygons), and a woodland located near the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township of Colchester South). These forest patches will support some forest-interior and area-sensitive bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
The next habitat guideline indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forest cover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershed with forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within the greater Detroit River Study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Table 9 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that approximately 35% of the forest- associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the above that the Ojibway Area, and forested areas along the River Canard are most likely the only sites within the study area where these 7 forest interior bird species are found.
44 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 9: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Greater Detroit River Study Area
% Forest Cover 4.49 Total Number of Species within Range 102 Number of Species Occurring 74 % of Total Number of Species within Range Present 72.55 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range 66 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 27 Percent of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 40.91 Number of FI Species within Range 20 Total FI Species Present 7 Percent of FI Species within Range Present 35.0 FIE = Forest Interior/Edge FI = Forest Interior
5.2.2.2 Riparian Habitat
In the study area, the total length of all streams is 568.19 km. Of that, 44.70 km of these streams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first- to third-order streams is therefore 7.87% (Table 8). This is under the habitat guideline of 75% forested riparian habitat. At 7.87%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measure indicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Only 9.61% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forest cover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix VI). This means that the stream may be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
The percent imperviousness for the urbanized sub-watersheds are as follows: Detroit River: 22.67%, Little River: 13.55%, and Turkey Creek: 22.91%. Only the Little River sub-watershed does not exceed the habitat guideline of less than 15% imperviousness. This indicates that the Detroit River and Turkey Creek sub-watersheds are likely to lose their integrity and become degraded (Environment Canada et al., 1996). However, the method for determining imperviousness only takes into account urban development in the watershed and does not touch on the physical attributes of the watershed such as soil type, surficial geology and groundwater movement. As a result, the measure of imperviousness for the Detroit River AOC is probably underestimated.
45 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.2.2.3 Wetland Habitat
In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two pieces of information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the greater Detroit River study area study area are from the inventory of evaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existing conditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small, isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.
5.2.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
The Ojibway Complex contains some of the most significant tracts of remnant tallgrass prairie and savanna habitats in all of southern Ontario. These areas are identified in the GIS database and included in the potential/ongoing restoration opportunities layer.
5.2.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities
Major nodes and linkages were identified by the steering committee to determine the highest priority habitat rehabilitation opportunities (Figure 19). Table 10 lists the resulting habitat percentages if all the identified areas were restored. Figures 20 - 23 illustrate the high priority areas where habitat restoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collective expertise of the steering committee and the GIS analysis using overlay and buffering techniques. If all these areas are restored, the amount of habitat in the study area would increase by approximately 8%.
46 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 19: Greater Detroit River Study Area - Restoration Concept Map
47 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 10: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions
Proposed (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target Little River Detroit River River Canard Turkey Creek Turkey Total Study Area Total Study
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 12.81 10.83 13.66 19.64 13.77
Size (ha) of largest forest 100 100 123.21 59.62 179.01 156.20 179.01 patch
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) 30 2.96 2.66 4.82 10.73 4.80 (upland + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or >10 0.53 0.24 0.74 1.88 0.76 farther from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or >5 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.49 0.20 farther from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third- order streams >75 >75 91.90 97.38 92.44 83.23 91.99 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub- >6 5.59 0.00 0.55 0.37 1.51 watershed
48 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 20: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map
49 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 21: Little River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
50 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 22: River Canard Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
51 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 23: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
52 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.2.3.1 Forest Habitat
The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 4.49% to 4.80% (Table 10), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would be 2 woodlands (representing 0.5% of the study area) greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be part of the Canard Valley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA located along the River Canard and would be 179.01 ha (Figure 22). The other woodland would be the LaSalle Woods ESA and would be 114.75 ha (Figure 23). Each of these large woodlands will support between 60% and 80% of the forest interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition, there would be 6 woodlands greater than 50 ha in area. These would be located at the New Canaan Valley ESA (2 polygons), the woodland located near the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township of Colchester South, the Ojibway Prairie Complex (2 polygons - Spring Garden and Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park), and 1 woodland formed from the linking of Town of LaSalle Candidate Natural Heritage Areas M3, M4, and M5 (LaSalle, 1996). These forest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase the interior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 19), the amount is by only 0.58% of the study area. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.76% of the area, up from only 0.34% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge would also increase, from the existing 0.04% to 0.16%. All of the sub-watersheds within the greater Detroit River study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations - the Ojibway area and forested areas along the River Canard.
5.2.3.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas were restored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-order streams should increase from 7.87% to 91.99% which should maintain functional warmwater streams (Table 10). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated buffers will also increase, from 9.61% to 93.75% which should maintain functional warmwater streams and relatively good wildlife corridors (Figures 20 - 23).
If all identified areas were reforested, the percent imperviousness of the watershed, as measured, will remain the same since reforestation would occur in areas previously classified as agricultural. This analysis calculated that the imperviousness of the watershed would not change. However, these areas would likely be reforested over a period of time and urban development across the AOC would probably increase. Accordingly, the imperviousness of the study area, as measured, could increase. The imperviousness of the watershed may also change if the physical attributes of the watershed were taken into account.
53 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.2.3.3 Wetland Habitat
To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell (1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for all of the sub- watersheds, the original wetland per cent fell below the six per cent guideline. Some sub- watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage at all. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were not proposed at this time but should be considered on a site by site basis within the areas identified as potential areas for restoration of upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands.
5.2.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No specific Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and/or Alvar restoration sites have been identified in this study area. However, opportunities to create prairie and/or savanna habitat would most likely occur on those lands within the potential 30 m riparian buffer along first- to third- order streams, or within the 240 m upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands. Every effort should be made to increase these habitat types across the landscape.
54 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.3 Lake Erie Sub-watersheds: Big Creek, Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, Wigle Creek, Mill Creek and Kingsville Drains
5.3.1 Study Area
The Lake Erie study area includes the sub-watershed areas of Big Creek, Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, Wigle Creek, Mill Creek and the Kingsville Drains (Figure 24).
5.3.2 Existing Habitat
Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture is the predominant landuse, accounting for approximately 82%, in the study area (Table 11). Table 12 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Lake Erie study area can be found in Appendix VII. In addition, Figures 25 - 27 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions in each of the sub- watersheds.
Table 11: Lake Erie Study Area Landuse Summary Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 27119.87 67014.66 81.89% Natural 3570.49 8822.87 10.78% Built-up & Roads 1884.75 4657.32 5.69% Quarries 298.27 737.04 0.90% Recreation 245.35 606.27 0.74%
Big Creek 7174.18 17727.79 21.66% Colchester Drains 3859.20 9536.29 11.65% Fox/Dolson Creek 1288.51 3183.98 3.89% Cedar Creek 13175.97 32558.53 39.78% Wigle Creek 3061.32 7564.69 9.24% Mill Creek 2214.08 5471.11 6.69% Kingsville Drains 2345.47 5795.78 7.08% Total Study Area 33118.73 81838.17 100.00%
55 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 24: Lake Erie Study Area Map
56 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 12: Lake Erie Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions
Existing (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target Big Creek Mill Creek Wigle Creek Cedar Creek Kingsville Drains Total Study Area Total Study Colchester Drains Fox/Dolson Creek
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 17.26 5.33 9.90 10.94 8.29 6.45 6.85 10.78
Size (ha) of largest forest 100 100 61.21 38.55 42.93 90.93 42.09 17.75 19.86 90.93 patch
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) 30 7.53 5.14 8.80 9.93 7.80 6.45 6.85 8.16 (upland + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or >10 0.31 0.34 0.96 1.36 0.40 0.17 0.02 0.74 farther from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or >5 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 farther from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third- order streams >75 >75 6.74 2.30 10.27 9.07 8.42 10.11 16.90 8.43 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub- >6 10.36 0.42 1.60 1.02 0.56 0.00 0.00 2.81 watershed
57 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 25: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
58 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 26: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map
59 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 27: Wigle Creek, Mill Creek, Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map
60 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.3.2.1 Forest Habitat
Results indicate that there is 10.78% natural cover within the study area and 8.16% is forested woodlands (Table 12). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitat guideline of 30%, which would support most bird species expected. The current forest cover falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Although ecologically- speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should be set by the organizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.
The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. Currently there area no woodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest forest patch is part of the Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA and is 90.93 ha in size (0.27% of the study area) (Figure 26). In addition, there are 5 other woodland polygons greater than 50 ha in area (Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA, Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA - ERCA owned Arner Woods, Marshfield Woods ESA and 2 woodland polygons within the Big Creek ANSI/ESA). These forest patches will support some forest-interior and area-sensitive bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forest cover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershed with forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within the Lake Erie study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Table 13 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that 50% of the forest- associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the above that the forested areas along the Cedar Creek and Big Creek are most likely the only sites within the study area where these 10 forest interior bird species are found.
61 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 13: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake Erie Study Area
% Forest Cover 8.16 Total Number of Species within Range 102 Number of Species Occurring 75 % of Total Number of Species within Range Present 73.53 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range 66 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 31 Percent of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 46.97 Number of FI Species within Range 20 Total FI Species Present 10 Percent of FI Species within Range Present 50.0 FIE = Forest Interior/Edge FI = Forest Interior
5.3.2.2 Riparian Habitat
In the study area, the total length of all streams is 508.68 km. Of that, 42.90 km of these streams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first- to third-order streams is therefore 8.43% (Table 12). This is under the habitat guideline of 75% forested riparian habitat. At 8.43%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measure indicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Only 9.99% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forest cover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix VII). This means that the stream may be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
5.3.2.3 Wetland Habitat
In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two pieces of information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the Lake Erie study area study area are from the inventory of evaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existing conditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small, isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.
62 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.3.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No information is currently available on the current extent of tallgrass prairie remnants within the study area.
5.3.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities
Major nodes and linkages were identified by the steering committee to determine the highest priority habitat rehabilitation opportunities (Figure 28). Table 14 lists the resulting habitat percentages if all the identified areas were restored. Figures 29 - 31 illustrate the high priority areas where habitat restoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collective expertise of the steering committee and the GIS analysis using overlay and buffering techniques. If all these areas are restored, the amount of habitat in the study area would increase by approximately 11%.
63 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 28: Lake Erie Study Area - Restoration Concept Map
64 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 14: Lake Erie Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions
Proposed (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target Big Creek Mill Creek Wigle Creek Cedar Creek Kingsville Drains Total Study Area Total Study Colchester Drains Fox/Dolson Creek
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 36.87 12.38 22.65 20.81 17.62 14.43 13.33 22.13
Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 191.58 72.85 42.93 132.81 42.09 17.75 19.86 191.58
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) (upland 30 9.98 5.18 8.80 11.13 7.80 6.45 6.85 9.17 + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or farther >10 1.45 0.36 0.96 2.21 0.40 0.17 0.03 1.33 from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or farther >5 0.65 0.11 0.00 0.92 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.52 from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third- order streams >75 >75 57.12 89.00 71.95 83.33 87.23 86.53 78.55 77.15 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub-watershed >6 10.36 0.42 1.60 1.32 0.56 0.00 0.00 2.93
65 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 29: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
66 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 30: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map
67 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 31: Wigle/Mill Creeks/Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map
68 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.3.3.1 Forest Habitat
The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 8.16% to 9.17% (Table 14), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would be 4 woodlands (representing 1.7% of the study area) greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be located on Knapp’s Island within the Big Creek sub-watershed and would be 192.16 ha in area (Figure 29). The other woodlands would be located in Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (111.74 ha), Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA - ERCA owned Arner Woods (132.94 ha), and Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA (127.60 ha) (Figure 30). Each of these large woodlands will support between 60% and 80% of the forest interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition, there would be 7 woodlands greater than 50 ha in area. These would be located at the Balkwill Woods ESA, Marshfield Woods ESA, New Settlement Woods ESA, Big Creek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons), Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (east side of Arner Townline), and in the 4th Conc. of the former Township of Colchester South east of Marshfield Woods ESA. These forest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase the interior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 28), the amount is by only 1.01% of the study area. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 1.33% of the area, up from only 0.74% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge would also increase, from the existing 0.10% to 0.52%. All of the sub-watersheds within the Lake Erie study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations.
5.3.3.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas were restored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-order streams should increase from 8.43% to 77.15% which should maintain functional warmwater streams (Table 14). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated buffers will also increase, from 9.99% to 77.33% which should maintain functional warmwater streams and relatively good wildlife corridors (Figures 29 - 31).
5.3.3.3 Wetland Habitat
To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell (1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for the Big Creek sub- watersheds, the original wetland per cent exceeded the six per cent guideline, while other sub- watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage at all. The Big Creek sub-watershed currently exhibits 10.36% wetland coverage. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were proposed to restore wetlands to an approximate original percentage and only for the area at the mouth of the Cedar Creek where historical riverine mouth marsh habitat once existed. Restoration of this area would increase wetland coverage by 39.29 ha, or by 0.12% of the study area. This represents a potential future value of 2.93% wetlands in the study area.
69 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.3.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No specific Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and/or Alvar restoration sites have been identified in this study area. However, opportunities to create prairie and/or savanna habitat would most likely occur on those lands within the potential 30 m riparian buffer along first- to third- order streams, or within the 240 m upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands. Every effort should be made to increase these habitat types across the landscape.
70 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.4 Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds: Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, Duck Creek, Moison Creek, Ruscom River, and Little Creek
5.4.1 Study Area
The Lake St. Clair study area includes the sub-watershed areas of Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, Duck Creek, Moison Creek, Ruscom River, and Little Creek (Figure 32).
5.4.2 Existing Habitat
Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture is the predominant landuse, accounting for approximately 92% of the landuse in the study area (Table 15). Table 16 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Lake St. Clair study area can be found in Appendix VIII. In addition, Figures 33 - 38 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions in each of the sub-watersheds.
Table 15: Lake St. Clair Study Area Landuse Summary Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 55267.87 136569.89 91.80% Natural 1638.65 4049.19 2.72% Built-up & Roads 3009.20 7435.90 5.00% Quarries 70.41 173.99 0.12% Recreation 221.46 547.24 0.37%
Pike Creek 9927.12 24530.45 16.49% Puce River 9166.87 22651.83 15.23% Belle River 11973.00 29585.93 19.89% Duck & Moison Creek 4204.39 10389.28 6.98% Ruscom River 19452.87 48069.09 32.31% Little Creek 5483.34 13549.63 9.11% Total Study Area 60207.59 148776.21 100.00%
71 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 32: Lake St. Clair Study Area Map
72 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 16: Lake St. Clair Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions
Existing (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target Pike Creek Puce River Little Creek Belle River Ruscom River Total Study Area Total Study Duck/Moison Creek
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 3.63 3.48 3.88 0.78 2.18 0.71 2.72
Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 50.59 31.73 26.98 7.98 31.14 4.71 50.59
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) 30 3.49 3.48 3.81 0.76 2.04 0.33 2.61 (upland + swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or farther >10 0.34 0.26 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.15 from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or farther >5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third- order streams >75 >75 0.96 0.17 1.18 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.44 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub-watershed >6 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.14 0.39 0.14
73 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 33: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
74 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 34: Puce River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
75 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 35: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
76 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 36: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map
77 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 37: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
78 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 38: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map
79 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.4.2.1 Forest Habitat
Results indicate that there is 2.72% natural cover within the study area and 2.61% is forested woodlands (Table 16). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitat guideline of 30%, which would support most bird species expected. The current forest cover falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Although ecologically- speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should be set by the organizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.
The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. There are no polygons greater than 100 ha in size and only 1 polygon greater than 50 ha. This feature is known as the Fairplay Woods (ESA) and is 50.59 ha in size (Figure 33). This size forest patch will support some forest-interior and area-sensitive bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forest cover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershed with forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within the Lake St. Clair study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Table 17 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that only 15% of the forest- associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the above that the Fairplay Woods ESA is the only forest patch capable of potentially supporting these 3 forest interior bird species.
80 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 17: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake St. Clair Study Area
% Forest Cover 2.61 Total Number of Species within Range 102 Number of Species Occurring 54 % of Total Number of Species within Range Present 52.94 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range 66 Number of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 17 Percent of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 25.76 Number of FI Species within Range 20 Total FI Species Present 3 Percent of FI Species within Range Present 15.0 FIE = Forest Interior/Edge FI = Forest Interior
5.4.2.2 Riparian Habitat
In the study area, the total length of all streams is 1139.02 km. Of that, only 4.97 km of these streams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first- to third-order streams is therefore 0.44% (Table 16). This is under the habitat guideline of 75% forested riparian habitat. At 0.44%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measure indicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Only 1.01% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forest cover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix VIII). This means that the stream may be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
5.4.2.3 Wetland Habitat
In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two pieces of information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the Lake St. Clair study area study area are from the inventory of evaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existing conditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small, isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.
81 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.4.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No information is currently available on the current extent of tallgrass prairie remnants within the study area.
5.4.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities
Major nodes and linkages were identified by the steering committee to determine the highest priority habitat rehabilitation opportunities (Figure 39). Table 18 lists the resulting habitat percentages if all the identified areas were restored. Figures 40 - 45 illustrate the high priority areas where habitat restoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collective expertise of the steering committee and the GIS analysis using overlay and buffering techniques. If all these areas are restored, the amount of habitat in the study area would increase by approximately 7%.
82 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 39: Lake St. Clair Study Area - Restoration Concept Map
83 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 18: Lake St. Clair Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions
Proposed (Based on GIS Analysis)
Parameter Guideline Local Target Pike Creek Little Creek Belle River Puce River Ruscom River Total Study Area Total Study Duck/Moison Creek
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 11.82 9.54 10.89 9.67 9.25 8.91 10.04
Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 79.85 38.31 28.51 15.06 57.14 4.84 79.85
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) (upland + 30 3.74 3.73 3.97 0.93 2.21 0.33 2.78 swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or farther >10 0.52 0.44 0.23 0.07 0.20 0.00 0.27 from edge
% Forest cover 200 m or farther >5 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 from edge
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third-order streams >75 >75 70.73 66.31 56.97 77.79 65.99 73.79 66.82 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
% Wetlands in a sub-watershed >6 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.14 0.39 0.14
84 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 40: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
85 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 41: Puce River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
86 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 42: Belle River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
87 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 43: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map
88 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 44: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
89 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 45: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map
90 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.4.3.1 Forest Habitat
The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 2.61% to 2.78% (Table 18), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would be no woodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be located at Fairplay Woods ESA within the Pike Creek sub-watershed and would be 79.85 ha in area (Figure 40). In addition, there would be only 1 other woodland greater than 50 ha in area. This would be located in Conc. 10 of the former Township of Mersea (Figure 44). These forest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase the interior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 39), the amount is by only 0.13% of the study area. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.27% of the area, up from only 0.15% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge would also increase, from the existing 0.00% to 0.02%. All of the sub-watersheds within the Lake St. Clair study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations - the Fairplay Woods ESA.
5.4.3.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas were restored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-order streams should increase from 0.44% to 66.82% which should maintain functional warmwater streams (Table 18). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated buffers will also increase, from 1.01% to 100.00% which should maintain functional warmwater streams and relatively good wildlife corridors (Figures 40 - 45).
5.4.3.3 Wetland Habitat
To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell (1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for all of the sub- watersheds, the original wetland per cent fell below the six per cent guideline. Some sub- watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage at all. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were not proposed at this time but should be considered on a site by site basis within the areas identified as potential areas for restoration of upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands.
5.4.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar
No specific Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and/or Alvar restoration sites have been identified in this study area. However, opportunities to create prairie and/or savanna habitat would most likely occur on those lands within the potential 30 m riparian buffer along first- to third- order streams, or within the 240 m upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands. Every effort should be made to increase these habitat types across the landscape.
91 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.5 Entire Region
5.5.1 Study Area
The entire region portion of the analysis includes all of the previous study areas and is composed of the watersheds within the mainland portion of Essex County, Point Pelee National Park, and the City of Windsor (Figure 46). This portion of the analysis does not include any of the Lake Erie islands or that portion of Essex County within the Township of Lakeshore that falls within the watershed jurisdiction of the Lower Thames Region Conservation Authority.
5.5.2 Existing Habitat
Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire region. Agriculture is the predominant landuse, accounting for approximately 80%, in the study area (Table 19). Figure 46 illustrates the existing natural habitat conditions. Table 20 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. In addition, detailed results from the GIS analysis are shown in Table 21.
Table 19: Entire Region Study Area Landuse Summary Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 135632.33 335154.81 80.07% Natural 11017.35 27224.47 6.50% Built-up & Roads 21169.39 52310.71 12.50% Quarries 659.94 1630.75 0.39% Recreation 915.40 2262.00 0.54%
Southeast 16742.86 41372.51 9.88% Detroit River 59325.22 146595.82 35.02% Lake Erie 33118.73 81838.17 19.55% Lake St. Clair 60207.59 148776.21 35.54% Entire Region 169394.40 418582.71 100.00%
92 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 46: Entire Region Study Area Map
93 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Table 20: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions
Existing (Based on GIS Analysis) Parameter
Guideline Entire Region Local Target
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 6.50
Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 186.20
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) (upland + 30 4.57 swamp)
% Forest cover 100 m or farther from edge >10 0.37
% Forest cover 200 m or farther from edge >5 0.05
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third-order streams >75 >75 4.76 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
Table 21: Entire Region Study Area Detailed GIS Analysis
Summary of Existing Forest Area (greater than 0.5 Ha) Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Southeast 732.73 1810.62 4.38% Detroit River 2643.27 6531.66 4.46% Upland Lake Erie 2638.67 6520.30 7.97% Lake St. Clair 1556.19 3845.43 2.58% Total Upland Forest 7570.86 18708.00 4.47% Southeast 78.16 193.14 0.47% Detroit River 22.31 55.13 0.04% Lake ErieSwamp 63.86 157.80 0.19% Lake St. Clair 12.47 30.81 0.02% Total Swamp Forest 176.80 436.88 0.10% Southeast 810.89 2003.75 4.84% Detroit River 2665.58 6586.79 4.49% Upland + Swamp Lake Erie 2702.53 6678.10 8.16% Lake St. Clair 1568.66 3876.24 2.61% Total Forest Cover 7747.66 19144.89 4.57%
94 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Wetland Area Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Southeast 544.89 1346.45 3.25% Detroit River 526.02 1299.82 0.89% Open Water Lake Erie 735.62 1817.76 2.22% Lake St. Clair 12.16 30.05 0.02% Total Open Water Wetland 1818.69 4494.08 1.07% Southeast 889.96 2199.14 5.32% Detroit River 370.86 916.42 0.63% Marsh Lake Erie 132.33 326.99 0.40% Lake St. Clair 57.83 142.90 0.10% Total Marsh Wetland 1450.98 3585.45 0.86% Southeast 78.16 193.14 0.47% Detroit River 22.31 55.13 0.04% Lake ErieSwamp 63.86 157.80 0.19% Lake St. Clair 12.47 30.81 0.02% Total Swamp Wetland 176.80 436.88 0.10% Southeast 968.12 2392.28 5.78% Detroit River 393.17 971.54 0.66% Vegetated Wetland Lake Erie(Marsh + Swamp) 196.19 484.80 0.59% Lake St. Clair 70.30 173.72 0.12% Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 1627.78 4022.33 0.96% Southeast 1513.01 3738.73 9.04% Detroit RiverAll Wetlands 919.19 2271.37 1.55% Lake Erie(Open Water + Marsh + 931.81 2302.55 2.81% Swamp) Lake St. Clair 82.46 203.76 0.14% Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 3446.47 8516.41 2.03%
Summary of Existing Natural Area (All Types) Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Southeast 2245.74 5549.34 13.41% Detroit River 3562.46 8803.03 6.01% All Natural Areas Lake Erie(Forest + Wetlands) 3570.48 8822.85 10.78% Lake St. Clair 1638.65 4049.19 2.72% Total Natural Area 11017.33 27224.42 6.50%
95 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Interior Forest Area Sub-watershed Buffer (m) Ha Ac Percent Southeast 96.28 237.91 0.58% Detroit River 198.98 491.69 0.34% 100 Lake Erie 243.58 601.90 0.74% Lake St. Clair 91.90 227.09 0.15% Total 100 m Interior Forest 630.74 1558.59 0.37% Southeast 25.62 63.31 0.15% Detroit River 25.53 63.09 0.04% 200 Lake Erie 33.74 83.37 0.10% Lake St. Clair 0.38 0.94 0.00% Total 200 m Interior Forest 85.27 210.71 0.05% Total 100 m + 200 m Interior Forest 716.01 1769.30 0.42%
Size of Largest Existing Forest Patch Existing Area Area After Proposed Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Southeast 186.20 460.11 214.68 530.49 Detroit River 62.41 154.22 179.01 442.34 Lake Erie 90.93 224.69 191.58 473.40 Lake St. Clair 50.59 125.01 79.85 197.31
Largest Contiguous Natural Area Existing Area After Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Southeast 1246.32 3079.72 1276.42 3154.10 Detroit River 372.33 920.05 376.90 931.34 Lake Erie 572.11 1413.71 1504.30 3717.21 Lake St. Clair 50.59 125.01 79.85 197.31
% of 1st to 3rd Order Streams with 30 m Buffer of Forested Riparian Habitat Forested Riparian Habitat Area of 30 m Buffer % of Sub-watershed within 30 m Riparian Buffer Habitat Ha Ac Ha Ac Southeast 1470.22 3632.99 123.51 305.20 8.40% Detroit River 3721.09 9195.01 357.52 883.45 9.61% Lake Erie 3159.46 7807.20 315.56 779.77 9.99% Lake St. Clair 4033.27 9966.43 40.88 101.02 1.01% Total 12384.04 30601.63 837.47 2069.43 6.76%
96 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Proposed Riparian % Riparian Riparian % Riparian Stream Order Total Length (m) Forest (m) Forest Forest (m) Forest 1 8078.29 160408.96 5.04% 129769.70 80.90% 2 5928.28 60941.64 9.73% 46283.45 75.95% Southeast 3 10911.81 29502.14 36.99% 17379.94 58.91% 1 to 3 24918.38 250852.74 9.93% 193433.09 77.11% 1 18139.63 337344.34 5.38% 316687.61 93.88% 2 16189.10 179141.61 9.04% 162156.17 90.52% Detroit River 3 10369.43 51701.47 20.06% 43830.38 84.78% 1 to 3 44698.16 568187.42 7.87% 522674.16 91.99% 1 16899.23 300451.16 5.62% 248931.36 82.85% 2 12128.90 137146.95 8.84% 98167.79 71.58% Lake Erie 3 13872.35 71086.88 19.51% 45364.36 63.82% 1 to 3 42900.48 508684.99 8.43% 392463.51 77.15% 1 1072.19 740549.07 0.14% 475222.93 64.17% 2 498.81 245230.13 0.20% 172666.81 70.41% Lake St. Clair 3 3396.67 153236.86 2.22% 113224.40 73.89% 1 to 3 4967.67 1139016.06 0.44% 761114.14 66.82% Total 117484.69 2466741.21 4.76% 1869684.90 75.80%
Restoration Opportunities - Riparian Buffers (30 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Southeast 1039.21 2567.94 70.68% Detroit River 3131.04 7736.97 84.14% Lake Erie 2127.78 5257.86 67.35% Lake St. Clair 3992.39 9865.41 98.99% Total 10290.42 25428.18 83.09%
Restoration Opportunities - Wetlands*/Wetland Buffers (240 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Southeast 1229.06 3037.07 7.34% Detroit River 1246.96 3081.31 2.10% Lake Erie 1250.72 3090.60 3.78% Lake St. Clair 244.88 605.11 0.41% Total 3971.62 9814.09 2.34%
97 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - 100 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Southeast 129.44 319.85 0.77% 33.16 81.94 0.20% Detroit River 449.36 1110.39 0.76% 250.38 618.70 0.42% Lake Erie 439.08 1084.99 1.33% 195.50 483.09 0.59% Lake St. Clair 161.07 398.01 0.27% 69.17 170.92 0.11% Total 1178.95 2913.25 0.70% 548.21 1354.66 0.32%
Restoration Opportunities - 200 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Southeast 44.20 109.22 0.26% 18.58 45.91 0.11% Detroit River 119.25 294.67 0.20% 93.72 231.59 0.16% Lake Erie 173.14 427.84 0.52% 139.40 344.46 0.42% Lake St. Clair 13.62 33.66 0.02% 13.24 32.72 0.02% Total 350.21 865.39 0.21% 264.94 654.68 0.16%
Recent Forest Plantations and Areas Currently in Natural Succession Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Southeast 34.78 85.94 0.21% Detroit River 50.23 124.12 0.08% Lake Erie 43.23 106.82 0.13% Lake St. Clair 62.58 154.64 0.10% Total 190.82 471.53 0.11%
Restoration Opportunities - Qualitative Addition to Upland Forests Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Southeast 147.09 363.47 0.88% Detroit River 180.96 447.16 0.31% Lake Erie 336.09 830.50 1.01% Lake St. Clair 106.81 263.93 0.18% Total 770.95 1905.06 0.46%
Total Restoration Opportunities - All Natural Areas Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Southeast 2450.14 6054.43 14.63% Detroit River 4609.19 11389.56 7.77% Lake Erie 3757.82 9285.78 11.35% Lake St. Clair 4406.66 10889.09 7.32% Total 15223.81 37618.86 8.99%
98 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Southeast 810.89 2003.75 4.84% 147.09 363.47 0.88% 957.98 2367.22 5.72% Detroit River 2665.58 6586.79 4.49% 180.96 447.16 0.31% 2846.54 7033.95 4.80% Forest* Lake Erie 2702.53 6678.10 8.16% 336.09 830.50 1.01% 3038.62 7508.59 9.17% Lake St. Clair 1568.66 3876.24 2.61% 106.81 263.93 0.18% 1675.47 4140.18 2.78% Total Forest Cover 7747.66 19144.89 4.57% 770.95 1905.06 0.46% 8518.61 21049.95 5.03% Southeast 1434.85 3545.59 8.57% 1229.06 3037.07 7.34% 2663.91 6582.67 15.91% Detroit River Wetland**/ 896.88 2216.24 1.51% 1246.96 3081.31 2.10% 2143.84 5297.54 3.61% Wetland Lake Erie Buffers (240 867.95 2144.75 2.62% 1250.72 3090.60 3.78% 2118.67 5235.35 6.40% Lake St. Clair m) 69.99 172.95 0.12% 244.88 605.11 0.41% 314.87 778.06 0.52% Total Wetland 3269.67 8079.53 1.93% 3971.62 9814.09 2.34% 7241.29 17893.62 4.27% Southeast 123.51 305.20 8.40% 1039.21 2567.94 70.68% 1162.72 2873.14 79.08% Detroit River 357.52 883.45 9.61% 3131.04 7736.97 84.14% 3488.56 8620.42 93.75% Lake Erie Riparian 315.56 779.77 9.99% 2127.78 5257.86 67.35% 2443.34 6037.63 77.33% Lake St. Clair 40.88 101.02 1.01% 3992.39 9865.41 98.99% 4033.27 9966.43 100.00% Total Riparian 837.47 2069.43 6.76% 10290.42 25428.18 83.09% 11127.89 27497.62 89.86% Southeast 0.00 0.00 0.00% 34.78 85.94 0.21% 34.78 85.94 0.21% Detroit River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 50.23 124.12 0.08% 50.23 124.12 0.08% Other Lake Erie Upland*** 0.00 0.00 0.00% 43.23 106.82 0.13% 43.23 106.82 0.13% Lake St. Clair 0.00 0.00 0.00% 62.58 154.64 0.10% 62.58 154.64 0.10% Total Other Upland 0.00 0.00 0.00% 190.82 471.53 0.11% 190.82 471.53 0.11% Southeast 2245.74 5549.34 13.41% 2450.14 6054.43 14.63% 4695.88 11603.77 28.05% Detroit River 3562.46 8803.03 6.01% 4609.19 11389.56 7.77% 8171.65 20192.59 13.77% Lake Erie All Types 3570.48 8822.85 10.78% 3757.82 9285.78 11.35% 7328.30 18108.63 22.13% Lake St. Clair 1638.65 4049.19 2.72% 4406.66 10889.09 7.32% 6045.31 14938.29 10.04% Total Natural Area 11017.33 27224.42 6.50% 15223.81 37618.86 8.99% 26241.14 64843.27 15.49% * Forest = Upland + Swamp ** Wetland = Marsh + Open Water *** Other Upland = Natural Succession, Meadows, Prairie, Shrub Thickets, Plantations
99 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.5.2.1 Forest Habitat
Results indicate that there is 6.50% natural cover within the entire Essex Region study area and 4.57% is forested woodlands (Table 20). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitat guideline of 30%, which would support most bird species expected. The current forest cover falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Although ecologically-speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should be set by the organizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.
The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. Currently, there is only 1 polygon greater than 100 ha in area. This is the largest existing forest patch in the region at 186.20 ha in size, and is located in Point Pelee National Park (Figure 3). This large forest patch will support almost 80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition, there are a total of 12 other woodland polygons greater than 50 ha in area. They are found at the following locations: Point Pelee National Park, Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons), Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA, Marshfield Woods ESA, Big Creek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons), Canard Valley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA, New Canaan Valley ESA (2 polygons), Fairplay Woods ESA, and a woodland located near the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township of Colchester South. These forest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forest cover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershed with forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within the entire region fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
5.5.2.2 Riparian Habitat
For the entire region, the total length of all streams is 2466.74 km. Of that, 117.48 km of these streams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first- to third-order streams is therefore 4.76% (Table 20). This is under the habitat guideline of 75% forested riparian habitat. At 4.76%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measure indicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Only 6.76% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forest cover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (Table 21). This means that the stream may be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
100 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.5.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities
Figure 47 is a composite map illustrating all high priority areas where habitat restoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collective expertise of the steering committee and the GIS analysis using overlay and buffering techniques. Table 22 lists the resulting habitat percentages if all the identified areas were restored. If all these areas are restored, the amount of habitat in the entire region would increase by approximately 9% (Table 21).
Table 22: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions
Proposed (Based on GIS Analysis) Parameter
Guideline Entire Region Local Target
% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 15.49
Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 214.68
% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) (upland + swamp) 30 5.03
% Forest cover 100 m or farther from edge >10 0.70
% Forest cover 200 m or farther from edge >5 0.21
% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated along first- to third-order streams >75 >75 89.86 (guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not less than 3 - 10 m wide)
101 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Figure 47: Entire Region Study Area - Restoration Concept Map
102 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 5.5.3.1 Forest Habitat
The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 4.57% to 5.03% (Table 22), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
There would be 7 woodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be located in Point Pelee National Park, which would have an area of 214.68 ha. This large forest patch will support more than 80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (Environment Canada et al., 1996). The other woodlands would be found in the following locations: Big Creek ANSI/ESA - Knapp’s Island (192.16 ha), Canard Valley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA (179.01 ha), Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA - ERCA owned Arner Woods (132.94 ha), Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA (127.60 ha), LaSalle Woods ESA (114.75 ha), and Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (111.74 ha). Each of these large woodlands will support between 60% and 80% of the forest interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
In addition, there would be 19 woodlands greater than 50 ha in area. These would be located in the following areas: Point Pelee National Park; Kopegaron Woods ESA; White Oak Woods ESA; Hillman Sand Hills ESA; New Canaan Valley ESA (2 polygons); the woodland located near the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township of Colchester South; the Ojibway Prairie Complex (2 polygons - Spring Garden and Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park); 1 woodland formed from the linking of Town of LaSalle Candidate Natural Heritage Areas M3, M4, and M5 (LaSalle, 1996); Balkwill Woods ESA; Marshfield Woods ESA; New Settlement Woods ESA; Big Creek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons); Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (east side of Arner Townline); in the 4th Conc. of the former Township of Colchester South east of Marshfield Woods ESA; Fairplay Woods ESA, and in Conc. 10 of the former Township of Mersea. These forest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase the interior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 47), the amount is by only 0.48% of the entire region. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.70% of the area, up from 0.37% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge would also increase, from the existing 0.05% to 0.21%. All of the sub-watersheds within the entire Essex Region still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996).
5.5.3.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas were restored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-order streams should increase from 4.76% to 75.80% which should maintain functional warmwater streams (Table 21). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated buffers will also increase, from 6.76% to 83.09% which should maintain functional warmwater streams and relatively good wildlife corridors (Figure 47).
103 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Current habitat conditions in all of the study areas examined to date, reveal that the remaining natural ecosystems of the Essex region are not only far below an amount to be considered healthy and sustainable, but are highly fragmented and degraded and hence, in need of extensive rehabilitation and restoration. The results from this report provide an overall framework to guide where habitat rehabilitation and restoration might be required before the individual sub-watershed ecosystems can be considered healthy and self-sustaining. The high priority restoration opportunity areas mapped in this report are to be used as a guide to concentrate future potential habitat restoration and enhancement works.
Habitat restoration within the Essex region should emphasize riparian habitat and buffering opportunities. This is due to the large expanse of existing agricultural land use and drainage systems. This specific restoration priority will not only yield a substantial improvement in water quality and aquatic habitat, but will create the necessary linkage between the major nodes. Due to the extensive removal of forest cover since European settlement, the forest guidelines for forest-interior birds cannot be practically met. There will be however, several major forest nodes which should support at least low population numbers of the majority of forest-dependent bird species found within our range. In addition, opportunities for tallgrass prairie creation are in those areas identified as wetland or riparian buffer.
Complete restoration of all high priority opportunity areas would lead to an “ideal” ecological condition for our remaining natural resources. However, it is realized that it may be impractical to fulfil this optimal condition, due to the large expanse of land area, large number of private landowners involved, and lack of political will required to reach this goal. It is nevertheless crucial to implement as much restoration as possible in the areas identified in this report, building upon those few remaining ecosystems remaining in the landscape. Therefore, every effort should be made to apply for funding for those landowners within the high priority areas who are willing to undertake some form of habitat restoration on their property. Only through this logical approach can we justify financial spending versus resulting ecological value.
104 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 7. Strategy Implementation (NATF - A Conservation Strategy for Natural Areas in the Essex Region.)
7.1 Introduction
The Natural Areas Task Force (NATF) for the Essex region was formed in March, 1997, in response to a recommendation of the International Countryside Stewardship Exchange, an international group of volunteer resource management specialists who visited southern Essex County in September 1996 (Environment Canada, 1996). A list of agencies and individuals invited to sit on the task force, as well as a list of active members is provided in Appendix II. The task force brings together agencies, groups and individuals with an interest in the natural environment of the Essex region.
The Essex region contains significant natural areas that provide habitat for diverse, unusual and often rare plant and animal species. Noteworthy natural areas in the region include Point Pelee National Park, the Cedar Creek basin, the large forest, savanna and tall grass system near Windsor, the Canard River watershed, Pelee Island and twelve other important wetlands and deciduous woodlands in Mersea Township. The Detroit River plus Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair all attract and serve as reservoirs for biodiversity in the region.
Reports by the Essex Region Conservation Authority, the International Countryside Stewardship Exchange (Environment Canada, 1996), and others, have identified the importance of natural areas on Pelee Island. It is indeed a different category of natural resource from others in the region, being significantly larger, more isolated and thus far, less developed than anywhere else in the region. Seven environmentally significant sites occur on Pelee Island and one each on East Sister and Middle Islands, both of which are in Pelee Township. Known as the Erie archipelago, these islands include fine examples of deciduous forest, savanna, and alvar, in many cases dependent upon the limestone bedrock which reaches the surface in contrast to most of the region.
The Essex region ecosystem lies within an area referred to as the Carolinian zone. This zone occurs in Canada only in a narrow band found south of an imaginary line running roughly from Toronto to Grand Bend in extreme southwestern Ontario. The Essex region ecosystem is found in the most southwesterly portion of the Carolinian zone and contains plants and animals that rarely occur even within this zone. In fact, Essex County is the southern most locale in Canada and contains the greatest variety of plants and animals in the entire country.
The Carolinian zone or “Banana Belt” is unique due to its mild climate. The area experiences the warmest average annual temperatures, longest frost-free seasons, and mildest winters in Ontario. Due to these mild conditions, plants and animals characteristic of the southerly “Carolina” States are found here.
Carolinian Canada contains less than one per cent of Canada’s total land area and yet supports a greater number of both floral and faunal species than any other ecosystem in Canada. It is estimated that some 2,200 species of indigenous herbaceous plants are found here, including 64 species of ferns, at least 110 species of grasses, and more than 130 different sedge species. There are also more than 70 species of indigenous trees. This same zone harbours one third of the rare, threatened and endangered species found in all of Canada.
105 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy The Essex region ecosystem contains some of the most significant biological communities in all of Ontario. These include remnant tracts of Carolinian forest, tallgrass prairie, oak savanna and wetlands. This region in the Carolinian zone is one of Canada’s most significant landscapes.
Natural communities which are very rare in Ontario and Canada occur in the Carolinian eco- region of Southern Ontario. Yet it is in the Carolinian region that destruction of natural ecosystems is most advanced and land use conflicts are most serious. Many townships in Essex, Kent and Elgin counties have lost more than 99% of their original natural vegetation. It is recognized that in Ontario, a variety of programs, often uncoordinated or relatively ineffective, are the only protection measures for natural areas and the biodiversity they contain.
The first goal of this group is to prepare a strategy for the long term conservation of biodiversity in the Essex region. This report includes prioritized action plans to achieve this objective. One of the essential preliminary recommendations, completion of the Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy, is underway now. This study will characterize all natural areas using GIS technology and mapping, and prioritize areas for restoration initiatives. Information produced by the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will be an important component in the NATF Strategy action plans. In addition, the NATF strategy will be completed in the context of analysis by three other task force groups, including the Eco-Tourism, and Land Use Task Forces.
Upon completion of this strategy, it is anticipated that all member agencies and groups will work in a coordinated effort to implement the highest priority objectives identified in this report. In the long run, it will be the combined efforts and shared ideas that will result in the greatest protection for Essex region’s significant and precious natural areas. For more information, contacts are provided in Appendix II.
7.2 Terms of Reference
1. Determine principles for conserving biodiversity and associated natural areas in the Essex region using the “Carolinian Canada Strategy” (Reid and Symmes, 1997) as a starting point and model. 2. Prepare recommendations for conserving and enhancing natural areas in the Essex region in order of priority using the “International Countryside Stewardship Exchange Case Study of Southern Essex County”, the “Carolinian Canada Strategy” and the “Essex Region Conservation Authority Environmentally Significant Areas Report” as a starting point. 3. Suggest mechanisms for implementing recommendations. 4. Correct and update data on natural areas in the Essex region.
The Committee recognized that Step 4, involving detailed descriptions of the many natural areas in the region, will take months, if not years to complete. However, abundant data is available to identify the present state of natural areas in the region, for purposes of preparing the strategy.
It was also agreed that the “Carolinian Canada Strategy” document provides an excellent background for the relevant issues, and justification for the conservation of natural ecosystems in the Carolinian zone. Readers are referred to this document for information on Carolinian ecosystems and the issues affecting them. The Vision, Approach, and Priority Goals described
106 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy below for the Essex region are taken from the Carolinian Canada Strategy, modified slightly to reflect the particular needs and priorities in this area.
7.3 Vision
The over arching principle guiding this strategy is to halt the loss and then achieve a substantial increase in the size and quality of natural communities characteristic of the Essex region.
While all elements of the region’s landscape merit attention, special emphasis is recommended for: < Forest cover, in particular interior forest and linkages between separate forest patches; < Tall grass prairie, savanna, and alvar systems; < Stream water, wetland, and aquatic habitat quality; < Great Lakes shorelines and; < Native species and natural areas in urban settings.
7.4 Approach
The strategy will be developed using five principles:
Education: undertaking extensive education and communication promoting biodiversity, natural communities in the Essex region, threatened and endangered species and the benefits of ecosystem restoration including greater use of native species in urban green space;
Science: using scientific findings and results from landscape ecology to make sound choices and to design effective measures for the protection and restoration of habitats;
Cooperation: finding common cause with farmers to develop programs that benefit both agriculture and nature, and with other landowners, to develop programs that benefit both their properties and nature;
Community Action: sparking local community action through a range of stewardship opportunities and activities;
Planning: encouraging and supporting community planning and legislation that supports, protects and enhances biodiversity and natural areas in the Essex region. Generally:
< The Conservation Authority, County of Essex and City of Windsor should work together to carry out a region-wide vision that includes as many different view points as possible, and considers a range of issues, including the region’s environment and natural areas. < Municipal support for local environmental programs should continue in the form of financial support for the Conservation Authority, purchase of native trees from nurseries with the Natural Habitat Restoration Program (NHRP), in-kind support for volunteer groups working to better the environment, etc. < The County should recognize a system of protected parks or areas that represent viable samples of each major natural community (deciduous forest, tallgrass system, wetland, shoreline, and alvar). This system may consist of publicly or privately owned lands that are protected in perpetuity. The system should be added to wherever possible.
107 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy < The community should continue support for the “Its Our Nature” campaign of the Essex Region Conservation Foundation, that will provide a trust fund for public acquisition of the LaSalle Woodlot, Cedar Creek properties and the Greenway. < Municipalities should incorporate environmental policies for protecting and wherever possible, enhancing natural heritage and linkages into municipal plans and zoning by- laws.
7.5 Priority Goals
Certain goals flow directly from the above principles:
7.5.1 Social Goals
Planning Goal: Achieve protection of designated natural areas in the Essex region, by means of long-term planning and political action that includes legislation and associated incentives such as tax rebates and land trusts.
Community Action Goal: Achieve support of conservation of natural communities, and protection of endangered species throughout the Essex region through various means, but especially through public initiatives, and long-term community action.
Education Goal: Achieve general awareness of the importance and value of natural ecosystems and biodiversity, and the specific importance of endangered populations in the Essex region by all residents and stakeholders, particularly rural and urban landowners, and municipal representatives.
7.5.2 Ecosystem Goals
These goals place emphasis on protecting ecological function viability of an ecosystem achieving connections between patches of natural communities, restoring communities in appropriate locations, maintaining native species, and protecting the ecological function of ecosystems.
Forest Goal: Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase including an appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections between forests.
Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Goal: Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in quality and extent of stream, wetland, and shoreline habitats.
Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Goal: Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats and restore the full range of native prairie/savanna communities in appropriate locations.
7.6 Objectives and Action Plans
Objectives for each goal are described below along with preliminary Action Plans which will be refined and expanded based on experience and needs identified during implementation.
108 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 7.6.1 Planning Goal
Achieve protection of designated natural areas in the Essex region, by means of long-term planning and political action that includes legislation and associated incentives such as tax rebates and land trusts.
Planning Objective 1:
Involve municipal officials in the NATF strategy and therefore, in the process of protecting natural areas.
Action: < Appear as a delegation at an ERCA Board meeting. Provide copies of draft strategy with questionnaires for each board member to take back to their respective council. < Appear as a delegation at municipal meetings. Wherever possible, incorporate municipal comments into strategy.
What do we need? < Collaboration to prepare the presentation and questionnaire. < NATF members to make the presentations to ERCA Board, and/or municipal councils. < Analysis of comments, responses to them, incorporation in NATF strategy, and follow-up presenations.
Planning Objective 2:
Protect and enhance natural areas by incorporating environmental policies for natural heritage and linkages into municipal plans and zoning by-laws in order to ensure a viable system of protected natural areas.
Action: < NATF and LUTF members develop language (using successful official plans such as Windsor and LaSalle as examples) to include in upcoming official plan revisions and the Essex County official plan. < ERCA continues to provide technical support to municipalities with respect to protecting natural areas during development. < A core of LUTF and NATF members provide municipalities with “landowner outreach” support to help educate landowners about the importance and positive impact of new environmental policies. For example, volunteer members, preferably landowners from the same municipality, could attend open houses, or where needed, meet with landowners.
What do we need? < Discussion with the LUTF or other parties in order to develop further action plans.
Planning Objective 3:
Prepare a report on the feasibility of developing legislation or a land trust where levies from development projects and real estate transactions are used to acquire and/or restore natural areas.
109 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Action: < Prepare a report as outlined above. < Develop a communication plan and engage in dialogue to reach suitable consensus.
Planning Objective 4:
Recommend that the County of Essex produce and implant “natural area conservation” by-laws for Essex County.
Action: < NATF members to prepare presentation, and draft example(s) of “natural area conservation” by-law(s) in consultation with ERCA’s Forester Biologist, County administration, and others. < NATF members to make presentation regarding benefits and need for such by-laws to County Council (could be done in conjunction with other topics as discussed under Education Objective 6, and Forest Objective 1)
What do we need? < Discussion with appropriate parties to determine best approach, best organization to implement these by-laws. < Preparation of draft by-laws and the presentation for County Council by NATF members
7.6.2 Community Action Goal
Achieve support of conservation of natural communities, and protection of endangered species throughout the Essex region through various means, but especially through public initiatives, and long-term community action.
Community Action Objective 1:
Involve the public in the NATF strategy.
Action: < Prepare a newsletter or paper insert that outlines: < the data, status, values and purpose with maps, < the draft actions with an invitation to provide input at an open house, or to provide written comments.
Community Action Objective 2:
Encourage community advocacy for natural areas by developing and distributing “landowner information packages” on the protection/enhancement of natural areas and biodiversity in the Essex region. Packages should include information on:
-responsible landscaping for homeowners, -use of native species in landscaping, -wildlife habitat improvements for landowners, -reasons for restoration and enhancement, -incentives and programs to protect and carry out enhancement, etc.
110 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Action: < After developing pamphlets, distribute to every nature centre, libraries, schools, Windsor Park & Rec office, ERCA office, County Fairs, other special functions etc. < Have ERCA technicians distribute appropriate pamphlets when visiting landowners and homeowners. < Incorporate information from pamphlets (and the pamphlets as well ) into seminars on tree planting, back yard habitat enhancement, etc. < Work with EWSWA to include pamphlets (or portions of ) with the blue box schedule, or other materials that they distribute.
What do we need? < Funding to prepare pamphlets and distribute. < Commitment from NATF members to distribute, or keep pamphlets up to date in their offices, nature centres, etc.
Community Action Objective 3:
Promote and market Essex region Natural Areas to urban residents, and rural residents who own one half of an acre or less in land.
Action: < Prepare multi-media marketing package (using the strategy being developed by Carolinian Canada with examples from Essex region added), to promote the importance of natural areas to various groups including churches, service clubs, school boards, municipal councils, etc. < Use a core of volunteers to make presentations to the above list, and hold Open House meetings. < Ensure that all Nature centres, libraries, etc. have a “landowner information kit” to promote good stewardship and incentives/programs to assist with achieving this goal. < ERCA technicians (others?) distribute “landowner information packages” that include reasons for protection and restoration and incentive programs when visiting homeowners (see also Objective 2).
What do we need? < Volunteers. < Funding to prepare materials and organize efforts.
Community Action Objective 4:
Support and provide programs for rural landowners who own large tracts of natural areas to promote continued stewardship and protection through education, and wherever possible, incentive programs.
Action: < Implement a landowner contact program for owners of natural areas. The program should include the “Landowner Information Package”, mentioned under Objective 2. Priority of areas to contact should be determined as much as possible by the “Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy” discussed under Ecosystems Objective 1.
111 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy < Work with landowner groups, such as the Woodlot Owners Association and farm organizations, to promote this program, and other information to their members. < Have ERCA technicians (others?) distribute “landowner information packages” that include reasons for protection and restoration and incentive programs when visiting landowners. < Work with OMAFRA, and ERCA’s Soil and Water Conservation Technician to incorporate information on natural areas and incentive programs into farm plans, or other documents.
What do we need? < Funding to design and implement a landowner contact program. < Meetings with OMAFRA, ERCA’s SWC Technician, and other farm/landowner groups as discussed above.
7.6.3 Education Goal
Achieve general awareness of the importance and value of natural ecosystems and biodiversity, and the specific importance of endangered populations in the Essex region by all residents and stakeholders, particularly rural and urban landowners, and municipal representatives.
Education Objective 1:
Use a marketing analysis approach (audience analysis, priority message development, targeting delivery mechanism) to examine and refine current messages regarding natural areas, and the importance of their protection as a basis for educating students, the general public, researchers, decision makers and other influential groups.
Action: Develop the marketing analysis including the following as some of the priority messages: 1) The Essex region has lost more natural areas than any other county in Ontario. 2) The protection of the natural areas that are left is important because of the high frequency of rare species that they contain. 3) To sustain diversity we have to protect our remaining natural areas and restore more, as outlined in the Habitat Strategy.
What do we need? < Funding and input from NATF members to prepare the analysis and messages.
Education Objective 2:
Encourage school boards, staff and parents to participate, or increase participation in natural area education.
Action: Using ideas and messages from the analysis in Education Objective 1, numerous programs could be implemented including the following: < ERCA and PPNP continuing work with school boards in their education programs. < NATF representatives making presentations to school boards.
112 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy < NATF members preparing a package promoting natural area education and making presentations to school PAC’s/SAC’s (advisory committees) and staff.
What do we need to accomplish our objective? < Funding to prepare materials and organize presentations
Education Objective 3:
At the elementary and high school levels, encourage development of nature programs, additions to existing programs, and use of tools that promote awareness of natural areas and their importance in the Essex region by means of the Ontario curriculum.
Action: Using ideas and messages from the analysis in Education Objective 1, numerous programs could be implemented including the following: < Programs that teachers can implement close to school, such as taking a class for a walk to learn about “nature on the street”, or “in the park.” < Web sites to help children learn about natural areas and biodiversity, with a supplementary information kit for teachers. < Ensuring that existing programs teach children about the loss of habitat in the Essex region and the solutions to this problem. < Distributing videos on natural areas and their importance to schools, possibly using videos created by Carolinian Canada, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists or by students from the Communication Studies program at University of Windsor. < A portable display and/or kit on natural areas that can be shared among schools. < Assistance for schools to naturalize their school yards (the current ERCA program could be expanded).
What do we need? < Funding to prepare programs, and web site information package.
Education Objective 4:
At University and College level, direct research towards important regional conservation issues, and ensure wherever possible that relevant courses include natural areas information in their curriculum. Research needs would be derived from the analysis discussed in Education Objective 1.
< Develop relationships through collaboration on NATF with the faculty at University of Windsor including the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research. < Work with St. Clair College and University representatives to incorporate, where needed and relevant, information on Essex region natural areas and native species in their curriculum.
What do we need? < Continued (and additional) commitment from various members, organizations. < Funding or other means of support to work with educational institutions to review and possibly add to or change curriculums.
113 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 7.6.4 Ecosystem Goals
Forest: Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase including an appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections between forests.
Stream/Wetland/Shoreline: Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in quality and extent of stream, wetland, and shoreline habitats.
Prairie/Savanna/Alvar: Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats and restore the full range of prairie/savanna communities in appropriate locations.
There are several objectives that pertain to each of the Forest, Stream/Wetland/Shoreline and Prairie/Savanna/Alvar goals as identified below.
Ecosystem Objective 1:
Support the continuing work on the “Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy”, a technical document that identifies and maps priority areas for protection and restoration, and outlines measures needed to restore the Essex region natural environment to a healthy, self-sustaining state and provides the capability to monitor changes and improvements over time.
Action: < NATF members continue developing the “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy” (This report is available from the Essex Region Conservation Authority).
What do we need? < Continued commitment from NATF members to develop this strategy.
Ecosystems Objective 2:
To develop and implement new or enhanced incentive and securement programs.
Action: < Analyze alternative programs, tailor them for the Essex region, and develop an implementation proposal.
What do we need? < Funding/in-kind contributions to prepare proposal
Ecosystems Objective 3:
Develop acquisition, restoration and rehabilitation programs based on recommendations of the “Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy”, described under Ecosystems Objective 1.
Action: < ERCA incorporates the strategy into current programs. < ERCA, ECFNC, (and any other organization who may purchase natural areas) consider
114 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy acquisition recommendations from the “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy” before purchasing natural lands. < Work with OMAFRA to incorporate “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy” recommendations in farm plans.
What do we need? < Continued commitment from NATF partners. < Action plans (very brief!) to incorporate recommendations into current and future acquisition and restoration programs.
Ecosystem Objective 4:
Support the Pelee Island Natural Heritage Committee, Municipal Council, and other appropriate parties to develop natural area conservation initiatives on Pelee Island and the Lake Erie archipelago.
Action: < Support efforts to develop the “Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy” for Pelee Island. < Support National Marine Conservation Area feasibility initiative. < Support efforts of the Pelee Island Natural Heritage Committee, and assist if needed. This could be done by letter to Committee members.
What do we need? < Funding to complete the Habitat Strategy (proposal submitted) and continued technical input from NATF members once strategy preparation is underway. < Preparation of letter to the Committee as described above.
7.6.4.1 Forest Goal
Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase including an appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections between forests.
Forest Objective 1:
Encourage and promote the use of native species.
Action: < Continue to support the Natural Habitat Restoration Program (NHRP), working with the Carolinian Canada feasibility study to expand markets for native species. < Continue to promote native species through the ERCA tree planting program. Develop an information pamphlet on local nurseries who sell native trees to provide to home and land owners. < Encourage and work with municipal councils to develop programs to include a native tree on each new subdivision lot, and to use native species in parks and municipal properties. < Action plans, based on discussion with NATF partners to ensure that NHRP continues to thrive.
115 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy What do we need? < Funding and/or in-kind contributions to develop displays and web site listings for nurseries. < NATF members to make presentations to municipal councils (in conjunction with presentation listed under Community Action Objective 6).
7.6.4.2 Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Goal
Halt the loss of wetland, shoreline, and stream habitats and achieve a substantial increase in the quality and extent of these habitats.
Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Objective 1:
Use innovative designs for storm water management (both quality and quantity) which also incorporate habitat creation.
Action: < ERCA, through its permit process, should continue working with municipalities, industries, developers, etc. to design and implement projects that manage storm water and create habitat. < Wherever possible, ERCA should work with municipalities to develop sub-watershed plans that incorporate these types of projects.
What do we need? < Funding for sub-watershed plans. < Continued commitment to innovative projects. < (Support from municipalities? Ask Stan)
Stream/Wetlands/Shorelines Objective 2:
Encourage availability of local wetland plants for restoration projects in the region.
Action: < Support or wherever possible, assist wetland “nursery” recently started by ERCA, but which still needs additional work to produce a regular supply of wetland plants.
What do we need? < A meeting to discuss with ERCA’s Biologist (Dan Lebedyk) what is needed to further the nursery, and determine what assistance, if any, can be provided by other NATF members.
7.6.4.3 Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Goal
Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats and restore the full range of native prairie/savannah communities in appropriate locations.
116 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Objective 1:
Follow implementation guidelines from the “Tall Grass Prairie Communities Recovery Plan” (now in progress) wherever possible.
Action: < Continue management of prairie/savannah habitats in public ownership. < Determine further steps upon completion of the Recovery Plan.
What do we need? < Continued financial support for prairie habitat management. < Further discussion once Recovery plan is complete.
Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Objective 2:
Support and work with groups involved with alvar restoration.
7.7 Summary of Actions
Prepare presentation to ERCA Board and Municipal Councils to elicit comments from municipalities on the Draft Strategy.
Prepare newsletter and arrange community open house (or other means?) to receive comments from the general public on the Strategy.
Prepare funding requests for priority objectives.
Develop a marketing study that analyses audiences, develops priority messages, and prepares targeted delivery mechanism as per Education Objective #1.
Meet with LUTF members to discuss strategies to incorporate protection of natural areas into municipal plans.
Make presentations to municipalities regarding: -the importance of natural areas, -planting native trees on new subdivision lots
Finish Habitat Strategy (ongoing; some parts now finished).
Prepare landowner information packages.
Make presentations to school boards regarding: -importance of natural areas education, -need to incorporate natural areas education into curriculum
Prepare various education programs, web site, etc. as per Education Objective 3.
117 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Make presentations to various groups including: -rural groups (farm groups, Woodlot Owners Assoc., etc.) -urban groups (church groups, service clubs, etc.) -school PAC/SAC’s and staff
Meet with ERCA administration to discuss: -incorporating Natural Areas messages into education programs, -having ERCA technicians distribute landowner education pamphlets, -keeping pamphlets in office, -discuss results of habitat strategy and its impact on various programs/acquisition plans
Meet with County Administration/ERCA Forester and Biologist to prepare strategy for “natural area protection” by-law.
Meet with OMAFRA and farm organizations regarding impacts of Habitat Strategy on farms plans.
Develop web site/information pamphlet on local nurseries who supply native trees.
Obtain funding for and implement a landowner contact program(s).
118 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 8. References
Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press. 617 pp.
Daigle, J. and D. Havinga. 1996. Restoring Nature’s Place: A Guide to Naturalizing Ontario Parks and Greenspace. Ecological Outlook Consulting and Ontario Parks Association Publication. 226 pp.
Detroit River Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 1996. 1996 Detroit River Remedial Action Plan Report. Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment & Energy, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Publication. 420 pp.
Dutz, J. 1998. Draft Muddy Creek/Two Creeks Implementation Strategy.
Environment Canada, 1996. International Countryside Stewardship Exchange in Ontario, Canada - 1996 Report: Essex County, Mono Township, Quinte Country. 72 pp.
Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. 1996. Identifying Habitat Rehabilitation Targets and Priorities in Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Upland Systems. An Interim Report for Circulation and Comment. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee.
Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. 1998. A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee.
Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). 1983. Conservation Plan. Essex Region Conservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 41 pp.
ERCA. 1986. Fur Trade to Farmstead: A History of Renewable Natural Resources in the Essex Region 1750-1900. Compiled by A. P. Pegg. Essex Region Conservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 115 pp.
ERCA. 1992. Forest Cover Survey for the Essex Region. Essex Region Conservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 34 pp.
ERCA. 1994. Strategic Plan. Essex Region Conservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 16 pp.
ERCA. 1995. Provincially significant wetland area analysis. Dan Lebedyk, Biologist. Essex, Ontario.
Ewel, J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. In Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Edited by W. Jordan, M. Gilpin, and J. Aber. Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 31-33.
119 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy LaSalle, Town of. 1996. Town of LaSalle Official Plan Review - Candidate Natural Heritage Area Biological Inventory and Land Use Planning Policy Direction (Discussion Paper No. 1). Prepared by Prince, Silani & Associates Ltd., Urban and Rural Planning Consultants and G. Waldron, Consulting Biologist. 104 pp.
Managhan, S., D. Kirk, and J. Kamstra. 1990. Stone Road Alvar Research/Management Report. Essex Region Conservation Authority, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Publication. 119 pp.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems - Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 552 pp.
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 1998. NHIC Database. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario.
Oldham, M. 1983. Environmentally Significant Areas of the Essex Region. Essex Region Conservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 426 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OmoEE). 1995. Wheatley Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) - Stage 1/Stage 2 Report (Draft). Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. Delisting Strategy. 233 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1990. A Silvicultural Guide for the Tolerant Hardwoods Working Group in Ontario. Science and Technology Series, Vol. 7. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto. 178 pp.
OMNR. 1993. A Tree-marking Guide for the Tolerant Hardwoods Working Group in Ontario. Science and Technology Series, Vol. 87. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto. 227 pp.
Pratt, P. 1994. Personal Communication. City Naturalist - Corporation of the City of Windsor, Department of Parks and Recreation, Ojibway Nature Centre. June, 1994.
Reid, R. and R. Symmes. 1997. Conservation Strategy for Carolinian Canada. Prepared for: The Carolinian Canada Steering Committee. London, Ontario.
Rodger, L. 1998. Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan. World Wildlife Fund Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Publication. 66 pp.
Snell, E. A. 1989. Recent wetland loss trends in southern Ontario. In Proceedings of the Conference on Wetlands: Inertia or Momentum. Edited by M. J. Bardecki and N. Patterson. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. Toronto, ON. pp. 183-197.
Sutherland, D.A. 1994. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Birds. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre. Peterborough, Ontario. 24 pp.
120 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Vandall, P. E. 1979. A brief history of Essex County. In Field Studies in the Detroit-Windsor- Essex County Region. Department of Geography, University of Windsor Publication. Windsor, Ontario.
121 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 9. Appendices
Appendix I: Acronym Glossary
ANSI # Area of Natural and Scientific Interest AOC # Area of Concern CEA # Citizens Environment Alliance DU # Ducks Unlimited Canada ECFA # Essex County Federation of Agriculture ECFNC # Essex County Field Naturalists Club ECWOA # Essex County Woodlot Owners Association ERCA # Essex Region Conservation Authority ESA # Environmentally Significant Area GIS # Geographical Information Systems ICSE # International Countryside Stewardship Exchange NATF # Natural Areas Task Force NAWMP # North American Waterfowl Management Plan NHRP # Natural Habitat Restoration Program NBS # National Biological Survey NGO # Non Government Organization NHIC # Natural Heritage Information Centre NTS # National Topographic Series OBM # Ontario Base Mapping OMAFRA # Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs OMNR # Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources PSW # Provincially Significant Wetland RAP # Remedial Action Plan VTE # Vulnerable, Threatened, or Endangered Species
122 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix II: Steering Committee/Reviewers/Natural Areas Task Force (NATF) Members
(NATF Members are indicated with an asterisk (*)) Role
Name Title Contact Information Steering Interested Resource Committee Participant/ Person Member Reviewer
Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Chair, Natural Areas Task Force T Chris Allsop* Essex ON N8M 1Y6 (519) 776-5209 ext. 351
Agriculture and Agrifood Canada Research Centre Essex County Woodlot Owners Harrow ON N0R 1G0 T Terry Anderson* Association (519) 738-2251 [email protected]
13150 Harvest Lane Chair, CAW Windsor Regional Tecumseh ON N8N 4N7 Ken Bondy* Environmental Council (519) 979-2336
c/o Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Stewardship Co-ordinator, P.O. Box 1168 Essex County Stewardship T Jim Boothby* 1023 Richmond St. Network Chatham ON N7M 5L8 (519) 354-6274
R.R. #3 Essex County Federation of Comber ON N0P 1J0 T Tom Clark* Agriculture (519) 687-3632 [email protected]
Ducks Unlimited Canada 566 Welham Rd. Manager, Western Ontario Field R.R. #8 Bob Clay T Office Barrie ON L4M 6E7 (705) 721-4444 [email protected]
Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Ken Colthurst Forester T Essex ON N8M 1Y6 (519) 776-5209 ext. 377
County of Essex 360 Fairview Ave. W. County Planning Advisor T Lee Anne Doyle* Essex ON N8M 1Y6 (519) 776-6441 ext. 329
407-85 Fiddlers Green Rd. Biologist London ON N6H 4S9 Jodi Dutz T EcoServices (519) 474-7619 [email protected]
123 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Role
Name Title Contact Information Steering Interested Resource Committee Participant/ Person Member Reviewer
2071 Willistead Cres. Diane Furlong* Windsor ON N8Y 1K6 (519) 254-2312
Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Geordon Harvey GIS Technician Essex ON N8M 1Y6 T (519) 776-5209 ext. 378 [email protected]
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P.O. Box 1168 1023 Richmond St. Area Biologist T Don Hector* Chatham ON N7M 5L8 (519) 354-8210 [email protected]
Essex County Field Naturalists Club P.O. Box 23011 Devonshire P.O. Tom Hurst* President 3100 Howard Ave. T Windsor ON N8Y 3X3 (519) 839-4635
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P.O. Box 1168 1023 Richmond St. Acting Area Supervisor T Fred Johnson* Chatham ON N7M 5L8 (519) 354-7340 [email protected]
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy 1094 London Rd. Gary Johnson Senior Project Advisor T Sarnia ON N7S 1P1 (519) 383-3794 [email protected]
Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Dan Lebedyk* Conservation Biologist Essex ON N8M 1Y6 T (519) 776-5209 ext. 409 [email protected]
Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Janice Leboeuf Soil and Water Quality Technician T Essex ON N8M 1Y6 (519) 776-5209 ext. 369
Department of Biological Sciences University of Windsor 401 Sunset Blvd. Professor T Jon Lovett-Doust* Windsor ON N9B 3P8 (519) 253-4232 ext. 2699 [email protected]
124 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Role
Name Title Contact Information Steering Interested Resource Committee Participant/ Person Member Reviewer
P.O. Box 231 Comber ON N0P 1J0 Wildlife Photographer/Naturalist T George McCracken* (519) 687-3606 [email protected]
465 Gideon Drive P.O. Box 490, Lambeth Station Gary McCullough Canadian Wildlife Service London ON N6P 1R1 T (519) 472-5750 [email protected]
Contractor to Environment Canada 1 Barclay St. - Hamilton ON L8S 1P1 Brian McHattie T Canadian Wildlife Service and (905) 540-1441 Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund [email protected]
Point Pelee National Park 1118 Point Pelee Dr. R.R. #1 Gary Mouland Park Warden T Leamington ON N8H 3V4 (519) 322-2365 [email protected]
Little River Enhancement Group 399 Woodridge Dr. Ian Naisbitt* Windsor ON N8N 3A7 T (519) 735-2087 [email protected]
Natural Heritage Information Centre P.O. Box 7000 (2nd Floor, N. Tower, 300 Water St.) Botanist/Herpetologist T Michael Oldham* Peterborough ON K9J 8M5 (705) 755-2160 [email protected]
Environmental Conservation Branch, Ontario Region Restoration Program Division Canada Centre for Inland Waters Janet Planck 867 Lakeshore Road T PO Box 5050 Burlington ON L7R 4A6 (905) 336-6282 [email protected]
Ojibway Nature Centre City Naturalist, 5200 Matchette Rd. Department of Parks and Windsor ON N9C 4E8 T Paul Pratt* Recreation (519) 966-5852 Corporation of the City of Windsor [email protected]
5950 Malden Rd. Judy Recker* Councillor, Town of LaSalle LaSalle ON N9H 1S4 (519) 969-7770
125 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Role
Name Title Contact Information Steering Interested Resource Committee Participant/ Person Member Reviewer
Point Pelee National Park 1118 Point Pelee Dr. R.R. #1 Chief Park Warden T Dan Reive* Leamington ON N8H 3V4 (519) 322-2365 [email protected]
OMAFRA Canada-Ontario RAP Steering Peter Roberts 1 Stone Road West T Committee Representative Guelph ON N1G 4Y2
Superintendent, Rondeau R.R. #1 Al Robinson* Provincial Park Morpeth ON N0P 1X0
Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Clean-Up Fund Mr. John Shaw Environmental Conservation Branch T 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington ON L7R 4A6
11 Ontario St. Lily Shuster* Leamington ON N8H 2T5
Prince, Silani & Associates Limited Urban & Rural Planning Consultants Larry Silani 287 Main St. E. T Kingsville ON N9Y 1A7 (519) 733-9610
Ducks Unlimited Canada 566 Welham Rd. Owen Steele* Biologist R.R. #8 T Barrie ON L4M 6E7 (705) 721-4444
Parks Canada 111 Water Street Regional Cornwall ON N6H 6S3 T Bill Stephenson* Conservation Biologist (613) 938-5934 [email protected]
Michigan Dept. of Environ. Quality Knapp's Centre Robert Sweet Aquatic Biologist P.O. Box 30273 T Lansing MI 48909 USA (517) 355-4182
STERNSMAN International Inc. R.R .#1 Ric Symmes* President Terra Cotta ON LOP 1NO T (905) 887-6342 [email protected]
Pelee Island ON N0R 1M0 Pelee Island Heritage Centre Ron Tiessen* (519) 724-2291
Citizen's Environment Alliance P.O. Box 548 T Lisa Tulen* Windsor ON N9A 6M6 (519) 973-1116
126 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Role
Name Title Contact Information Steering Interested Resource Committee Participant/ Person Member Reviewer
Carolinian Canada c/o Ministry of Natural Resources 659 Exeter Rd. Program Secretary T Doug van Hemessen* London ON N6E 1L3 (519) 661-2744 [email protected]
7641 Highway 18 Consulting Ecologist, R.R. #1 Gerry Waldron ECSN Landscape Strategy for Amherstburg ON N9V 2Y7 T Wetlands in the Western Basin (519) 736-2978 [email protected]
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P.O. Box 1168 1023 Richmond St. Area Ecologist T Al Woodliffe* Chatham ON N7M 5L8 (519) 354-7340 [email protected]
127 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix III: Contributor Backgrounds (In alphabetical order)
Carolinian Canada (CC) Website: http://www.carolinian.org
The Carolinian Canada Program was established in 1984 as a partnership between government agencies and non-government conservation groups to address the goal of protecting 38 specific areas representing the ecological diversity of the Carolinian life zone of Southwestern Ontario. Protection of these sites is accomplished through the encouragement of private land stewardship initiatives and the sponsorship of land purchase where necessary. Originally a joint project of World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Richard Ivey Foundation, the program soon expanded to involve other partners.
Because of recent changes in provincial and municipal governments, as well as the funding sources to a wide range of conservation programs, it was necessary to consider a new focus for the Carolinian Canada program - a program that is more community-oriented, addresses the landscape rather than individual sites, and builds broad support. The development of a conservation strategy was commissioned by the Carolinian Canada Steering Committee in 1996. This conservation strategy was a highly participative process to ensure that the resulting document was more than a plan developed in isolation. It was meant to reflect the aspirations and priorities of landowners, conservation staff and volunteers and other with a stake in the future of the Carolinian region. The following is the vision and priority goals of the Carolinian Canada Conservation Strategy:
Vision: ! Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in the size and quality of natural communities characteristic of Carolinian Canada. Priority Goals: ! Education Goal - Achieve broad awareness of the importance of ecosystems, natural communities and endangered species in the Carolinian region by the general public, farmers and other landowners and gain their support for measures to protect these species and habitats. ! Community Action Goal - Achieve broad community action to support conservation of native ecosystems, communities and endangered species throughout the Carolinian region, including the cities and towns. ! Forest Goal - Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase including an appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections between forests. ! Stream/Wetlands Goal - Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in quality and extent of stream and wetland habitats. ! Prairie/Savanna Goal - Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats and restore the full range of native prairie/savanna communities in appropriate locations.
128 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Citizens Environment Alliance (CEA) Website: http://www.mnsi.net/~cea
Formerly the Windsor and District Clean Water Alliance, the CEA was formed in December of 1985 by a group of citizens concerned about spills from the Chemical Valley into the St. Clair River. By 1986 the CEA was involved in the bigger question of toxics in the Great Lakes as well as becoming involved with air quality in Windsor and Essex County. In 1987 the Alliance started to speak out on the issue of waste management and the 3 R’s, and by 1989-90 the group was working on issues concerning wetlands and land-use planning. Finally, beginning in 1991 the CEA has initiated the larger task of educational awareness on the whole question of development and the environment and the long-term implication for Windsor-Essex County and surrounding districts.
The CEA is now a fully ecosystem group concerned with the inter-relationship of air, land and water and the implications of human impacts. The CEA is comprised of citizens from all sectors of society, working in a voluntary capacity along with contract staff to deal with the ever mounting challenge of environmental integrity in the decade of the nineties.
Ducks Unlimited Canada (DU) Website: http://www.ducks.ca
Ducks Unlimited Canada, along with its international partners - Ducks Unlimited, Inc. in the United States, Ducks Unlimited du Mexico, and Ducks Unlimited Incorporated of New Zealand - form a private, non-profit, charitable network of waterfowl conservation organizations whose role is to conserve dwindling populations of waterfowl species through improving habitat. Ducks Unlimited Canada operates throughout Canada, with 40 field offices servicing the public and administering wetland construction work.
DU has long recognized Ontario as one area in Canada where intensive waterfowl conservation activities must be carried out to buffer ever-continuing industrial, commercial, residential and farming developments that simply consume the most productive habitat for ducks.
Across the province over 80 local DU volunteer committees are active in organizing fundraising events and promoting the cause of waterfowl conservation. DU Canada’s staff throughout Ontario biologically assess waterfowl habitat, design improvements to highly rated wetlands and adjacent nesting upland, finance and supervise construction of water level control works and manage project sites on an on-going basis. As well, the organization develops and carries out information activities on waterfowl and wetlands, and raises funds for its habitat improvement work. No other single conservation organization on the continent has the depth and range of specialized staff focussing on wetlands and waterfowl.
129 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Essex County Federation of Agriculture (ECFA) Website: http://www.ofa.on.ca
“Farmers Working for Farmers”. Serving the 1600+ OFA Members in Pelee, Windsor and Essex County.
The goals of the ECFA are: ! To improve the social and economic well being of Essex County farmers. ! To inform and assist ECFA members on issues relevant to either personal or professional life, including OFA activities. ! To increase public awareness of Essex County’s agriculture and food system. ! To work with related rural organizations and assist in special projects as needed.
Essex County Field Naturalists Club (ECFNC) Website: http://www.city.windsor.on.ca/ojibway/ECFN.htm
Organized in 1984 and incorporated in March 1985, the Essex County Field Naturalists’ Club is a volunteer organization affiliated with the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Canadian Nature Federation. Our members are from various backgrounds and some work professionally in the fields of conservation and education. The Natural Habitat Restoration Committee, in alliance with other organizations in the county, works to restore indigenous ecosystems. Most of the volunteer energy is provided by ECFNC in the areas of native tree and shrub seed collection, propagation, fundraising and improving public awareness of the need to plant locally native species.
The objectives of the ECFNC are: ! To promote the appreciation and conservation of the diverse natural heritage of Essex County and the surrounding region. ! To provide opportunities for people to become acquainted with and better understand the natural environment. ! To promote the identification, preservation, maintenance and restoration of nautral habitat areas. ! To co-operate with and support other organizations with similar objectives.
Essex County Stewardship Network (ECSN) Website: http://www.ontariostewardship.org/Essex/essex.htm
The Essex County Stewardship Network is a rural community group made up of the diverse natural resource interests and private landowners representative of Essex County. The ECSN’s purpose is to focus on people who own the land and promote responsible land stewardship ethics so that the land they own is left in the same or better condition for the future.
130 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy The ECSN actively seeks partnerships in order to conserve the soil; manage, enhance, and protect natural resources; ensure the land continues to be productive for future generations; and assist in educating residents. The ECSN seeks resources and develops mechanisms that show landowners how beneficial responsible land stewardship can be and acts broadly to guide and focus land stewardship efforts within the county.
ECWOA Essex County Woodlot Owners Association (ECWOA)
The Essex County Woodlot Owners Association was formed in 1995 and is dedicated to the voluntary management and preservation of woodlots in Essex County. The primary focus of this association is to share information, meet fellow woodlot owners and work towards becoming better stewards of this valuable resource. Some of the more important issues which this group deals with include: ! Land tax issues ! Government regulations ! Wildlife concerns ! Tree identification ! Estimating timber volumes ! Timber values ! Proper cutting techniques ! Maintaining biodiversity
Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) Website: http://www.erca.org
Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, provides Conservation Authorities with the mandate to establish and undertake, in areas over which they have jurisdiction, programs designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals (ERCA, 1983). In 1983, based on this mandate of renewable resource conservation, the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) developed policies and operational objectives which relate to the conservation and restoration of habitat. In addition, as a result of ERCA's 1994 Strategic Planning exercise, the following initiatives and projects relating to habitat were identified as priorities for the region:
Policies: ! To... take its own initiative to carry out a program for fish and wildlife enhancement which will result in increased abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat and native species..." (ERCA, 1983)
Operational Objectives: ! To protect Environmentally Significant Areas. ! To manage and increase forest resources for environmental, recreational, commercial and ameliorative purposes. ! To improve fish and wildlife resources. (ERCA, 1983)
131 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Strategic Plan Initiatives: Enhance Biodiversity Through Restoration and Tree-planting ! Develop projects to create or restore wetlands in appropriate regional settings. ! Collaborate with community organizations and residents to increase treeplanting in available areas. (ERCA, 1994)
Little River Enhancement Group (Lil’Reg) Website: http://www.lilreg.com
In 1991, the Little River Enhancement Group was created by educators and representatives of the City of Windsor, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Essex Region Conservation Authority, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Habitat 2000 Club. Accordingly, Lil’ Reg “adopted” the Little River Watershed, which drains portions of the Town of Tecumseh and the City of Windsor. Several local schools and community volunteers have helped with Lil’s Reg’s efforts to improve the quality of the watershed ecosystem. This non-profit umbrella group coordinates beneficial environmental activities throughout the river basin using a multi-partnership model of participation and cooperation.
Objectives:
! Support the creation of greenways/natural corridors/nature trails; ! Encourage the restoration and protection of natural habitat areas; ! Collaborate in the revision of land-use planning documents; ! Participate in reforestation projects in the County of Essex; ! Address water quantity and quality issues; ! Promote community involvement and public education; ! Assist other community groups and projects.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Website: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/index.html
MNR's Goal: ! To contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of Ontario through the sustainable development of natural resources.
MNR's Objectives: ! To ensure the long-term health of ecosystems by protecting and conserving our valuable soil, aquatic resources, forest and wildlife resources as well as their biological foundations. ! To ensure the continuing availability of natural resources for the long-term benefit of the people of Ontario; that is, to leave future generations a legacy of the natural wealth that we still enjoy today. ! To protect natural heritage and biological features of provincial significance.
132 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy ! To protect human life, the resource base and physical property from the threats of forest fires, floods and erosion.
This calls for an ecosystem-based approach to the management of Ontario's natural resources, with ecosystems defined to include the economic and social activities of humans as well as the natural environment.
Since the essential attribute of healthy ecosystems is sustainability, MNR's goal can also be described as the maintenance of ecosystem health through the balancing of environmental, economic and social components.
Fiscal constraints and rapid change are moving governments to concentrate on outcomes. The accountability of a ministry can be more clearly defined and systematically evaluated if these preferred results are clearly defined, priorities are more explicitly determined, and the contribution of various activities, functions and strategies are more rigorously assessed.
MNR's contribution to each benefit varies across the province. Other government agencies and other sectors of society also contribute to these benefits.
Point Pelee National Park/Parks Canada
Website: http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/ontario/point_pelee/Point_pelee_e.htm
It is the prime role of Point Pelee National Park to protect the nationally and internationally significant natural resources and processes of the park, particularly those which are representative of the St. Lawrence Lowlands; and to encourage public understanding appreciation and enjoyment so as to leave it unimpaired for this and future generations.
Natural Heritage Resource Objectives ! To provide the nationally and internationally significant natural resources and processes of Point Pelee National Park, in particular those physical and biotic resources and processes representative of the southern portion of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, with the highest degree of protection in order to maintain their natural qualities and prevent further human impact. In accordance with the National Parks Act and Parks Canada policy, the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the Carolinian forest and southern Great Lakes marsh ecosystems represented in the park, will be the prime consideration in the planning, operation and management of Point Pelee. ! To provide the greatest possible protection to those features, processes, habitats or populations of species which are unique, sensitive, rare or endangered in a park, regional, national or international context. ! To emphasize the protection of habitats which are of limited distribution and extent, and without which adequate populations of many species could not survive. ! To base the management of the natural resources of Point Pelee National Park on sound scientific knowledge, coordinating research and resource management with other agencies and landowners in the region.
As part of an active regional conservation network, the park will work in close co-operation with the managers of lands surrounding the park to address common resource protection and
133 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy environmental issues. In particular, the park will work with those agencies which manage other protected areas representing the Carolinian ecosystem.
A wide variety of agreements with public and private sector partners will be in place to assist Parks Canada in carrying out its obligations. Through increased reliance on agreements, co- operative activities and involvement in regional planning and resource management programs, the park will be managed, not in isolation, but as a key player in regional resource management, environmental education and tourism. Parks Canada’s major partner will continue to be the Friends of Point Pelee, the park’s co-operating association.
University of Windsor, Department of Biological Sciences Website: http://www.uwindsor.ca
The University of Windsor strives:
! To provide an atmosphere fostering creativity, discovery, application, critical thinking, service, and communication in a collegial environment, in which people can work together in ways conducive to personal growth and embodying the principles of equity, accessibility, mutual respect and understanding, integrity, and freedom of expression in all we do; ! to serve students and community through support of excellent instruction in a focused array of academic, professional and lifelong learning opportunities; ! to support excellence in research and creative activity in both emerging and established fields and to provide graduate programs of recognized strength, including in areas of importance to its geographic region; ! to develop, through its programs and services, the intellectual, social, physical, moral, and spiritual potentials of the campus and wider community; ! to support the local community through interaction with business, labour, community groups and institutions, and to provide the international community with access to our educational resources.
The Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Windsor is a full service department engaged in both undergraduate and graduate teaching and committed to excellence in teaching, research and community service. Biological science majors will acquire the tools and skills necessary to successfully compete for positions in industry, government or any one of several professional programs including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, physical therapy - just to name a few. Unlike in many universities, undergraduate students at Windsor are given the opportunity to gain practical hands-on laboratory and field experience beginning in the first year of study. The small class size of most biology courses, breadth of courses offered, and close contact between students and professors makes learning at Windsor a rewarding and stimulating experience.
Through faculty counselling students are able to design their academic program to acquire expertise in two broad areas of study: cell, molecular and developmental biology and environmental biology. Within these broad areas of biology students have the flexibility to design interdisciplinary programs, or to specialize in areas such as biotechnology, neuroscience or aquatic biology.
134 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix IV: Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species of the Essex Region
Based on current and historical Element Occurrence records in the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) databases (NHIC, 1998).
Scientific Name Common Name MNR1 COSEWIC2
Herptiles
Acris crepitans blanchardi Blanchard's Cricket Frog END END
Ambystoma texanum Smallmouth Salamander VUL VUL
Apalone spinifera spinifera Eastern Spiny Softshell THR THR
Bufo fowleri Fowler's Toad VUL VUL
Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle VUL VUL
Clemmys insculpta Wood Turtle VUL VUL
Coluber constrictor foxii Blue Racer END END
Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake END
Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Hognose Snake VUL VUL
Nerodia sipedon insularum Lake Erie Water Snake END END
Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Eastern Massasauga THR THR
Birds
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow END END
Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk VUL VUL
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover END END
Chlidonias niger Black Tern VUL NAR
Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite END
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler VUL VUL
Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher END
Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat VUL VUL
Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern VUL
Lanius ludovicianus migrans Migrant Loggerhead Shrike END END
Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler END
Rallus elegans King Rail END
Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush VUL VUL
135 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Scientific Name Common Name MNR1 COSEWIC2
Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern IND IND
Tyto alba Common Barn-owl THR VUL
Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler THR
Fish
Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon NAR
Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker VUL
Etheostoma blennioides Greenside Darter VUL
Etheostoma pellucidum Eastern Sand Darter THR
Hybopsis storeriana Silver Chub VUL
Ichthyomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey VUL
Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar VUL
Lepomis gulosus Warmouth VUL
Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker VUL
Moxostoma erythrurum Golden Redhorse NAR
Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner VUL
Percina copelandi Channel Darter THR
Mammals
Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole VUL
Plants
Agalinis skinneriana Skinner's Purple False Foxglove END
Aletris farinosa White-tubed Colicroot THR THR
Arisaema dracontium Green Dragon VUL
Camassia scilloides Wild Hyacinth VUL
Carex lupuliformis False Hop Sedge THR
Castanea dentata American Chestnut THR
Celtis tenuifolia Dwarf Hackberry VUL
Fraxinus quadrangulata Blue Ash VUL THR
Gentiana flavida White Prairie Gentian END
Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffee-tree THR THR
Hydrastis canadensis Golden Seal THR THR
136 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Scientific Name Common Name MNR1 COSEWIC2
Justicia americana American Water-willow VUL THR
Lespedeza virginica Slender Bush-clover END
Liatris spicata Dense Blazing Star VUL
Liparis liliifolia Purple Twayblade THR THR
Lipocarpha micrantha Dwarf Bulrush THR THR
Morus rubra Red Mulberry THR
Opuntia humifusa Prickly Pear Cactus END END
Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng THR
Phegopteris hexagonoptera Broad Beech Fern VUL
Plantago cordata Heart-leaved Plantain END END
Platanthera leucophaea Prairie White-fringed Orchid VUL
Polygala incarnata Pink Milkwort END
Ptelea trifoliata Hop Tree VUL
Quercus shumardii Shumard's Oak VUL
Rosa setigera Prairie Rose VUL
Smilax rotundifolia Common Greenbrier VUL THR
Trillium flexipes Drooping Trillium END
Triphora trianthophora Nodding Pogonia THR
1MNR Status: Status assigned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. END Endangered. Any native species that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is at risk of extinction or extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed. Endangered species are protected under the Province's Endangered Species Act. THR Threatened. Any native species that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is at risk of becoming endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed. VUL Vulnerable. Any native species that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is a species of special concern in Ontario, but is not a threatened or endangered species. IND Indeterminate. Any native species for which there is insufficient scientific information on which to base a status recommendation.
2COSEWIC Status: Status assigned by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. END Endangered. A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction throughout its Range. THR Threatened. A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. VUL Vulnerable. A species of special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. IND Indeterminate. A species for which there is insufficient information to support a status designation. NAR Not At Risk. A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk.
137 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix V: Southeast Essex Region Detailed GIS Analyses
Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 12942.36 31981.27 77.30% Natural 2245.75 5549.37 13.41% Built-up & Roads 1344.10 3321.34 8.03% Quarries 134.69 332.83 0.80% Recreation 75.97 187.73 0.45%
Atwell Drain 537.81 1328.95 3.21% East Marsh 495.78 1225.11 2.96% Hillman Marsh 7416.05 18325.47 44.29% Marentette 311.32 769.29 1.86% Muddy Creek 847.19 2093.46 5.06% Point Pelee 1481.30 3660.36 8.85% Sturgeon Creek 4124.51 10191.90 24.63% West Marsh 1528.89 3777.96 9.13% Total Study Area 16742.86 41372.51 100.00%
138 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Forest Area (greater than 0.5 Ha) Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 17.29 42.72 3.21% East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51% Hillman Marsh 288.33 712.49 3.89% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Upland Muddy Creek 42.91 106.03 5.07% Point Pelee 288.25 712.28 19.46% Sturgeon Creek 81.86 202.29 1.98% West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11% Total Upland Forest 732.73 1810.61 4.38% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 29.00 71.67 0.39% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy CreekSwamp 1.16 2.88 0.14% Point Pelee 40.27 99.51 2.72% Sturgeon Creek 7.72 19.09 0.19% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Swamp Forest 78.16 193.14 0.47% Atwell Drain 17.29 42.72 3.21% East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51% Hillman Marsh 317.34 784.16 4.28% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Upland + Swamp Muddy Creek 44.07 108.91 5.20% Point Pelee 328.52 811.79 22.18% Sturgeon Creek 89.59 221.38 2.17% West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11% Total Forest Cover 810.89 2003.76 4.84%
139 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Wetland Area Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 178.14 440.19 2.40% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Open Water Muddy Creek 6.48 16.02 0.77% Point Pelee 325.59 804.56 21.98% Sturgeon Creek 34.68 85.69 0.84% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Open Water Wetland 544.89 1346.46 3.25% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 155.75 384.87 2.10% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Marsh Muddy Creek 3.09 7.64 0.36% Point Pelee 717.63 1773.30 48.45% Sturgeon Creek 13.49 33.34 0.33% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Marsh Wetland 889.96 2199.15 5.32% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 29.00 71.67 0.39% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy CreekSwamp 1.16 2.88 0.14% Point Pelee 40.27 99.51 2.72% Sturgeon Creek 7.72 19.09 0.19% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Swamp Wetland 78.16 193.14 0.47%
140 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 184.76 456.54 2.49% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Vegetated Wetland Muddy Creek (Marsh + Swamp) 4.25 10.51 0.50% Point Pelee 757.90 1872.81 51.16% Sturgeon Creek 21.22 52.43 0.51% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 968.13 2392.29 5.78% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 362.90 896.73 4.89% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% All Wetlands Muddy Creek (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 10.74 26.53 1.27% Point Pelee 1083.49 2677.37 73.15% Sturgeon Creek 55.89 138.11 1.36% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 1513.02 3738.75 9.04%
Summary of Existing Natural Area (All Types) Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 17.29 42.72 3.21% East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51% Hillman Marsh 651.23 1609.22 8.78% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% All Natural Areas Muddy Creek (Forest + Wetlands) 53.65 132.57 6.33% Point Pelee 1371.74 3389.65 92.60% Sturgeon Creek 137.76 340.41 3.34% West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11% Total Natural Area 2245.75 5549.37 13.41%
141 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Interior Forest Area Sub-watershed Buffer (m) Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 0.02 0.06 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 18.13 44.80 0.24% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 100 Muddy Creek 1.32 3.26 0.16% Point Pelee 76.62 189.33 5.17% Sturgeon Creek 0.18 0.45 0.00% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 100 m Interior Forest 96.28 237.92 0.58% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 1.38 3.41 0.02% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 200 Muddy Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Point Pelee 24.24 59.89 1.64% Sturgeon Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 200 m Interior Forest 25.62 63.30 0.15% Total 100 m + 200 m Interior Forest 121.90 301.22 0.73%
Size of Largest Existing Forest Patch Existing Area Area After Proposed Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Atwell Drain 6.50 16.07 9.66 23.87 East Marsh 1.62 4.01 1.62 4.01 Hillman Marsh 41.03 101.40 65.52 161.91 Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Muddy Creek 13.57 33.54 56.97 140.77 Point Pelee 186.20 460.12 214.68 530.48 Sturgeon Creek 9.01 22.26 16.37 40.44 West Marsh 1.62 4.01 4.89 12.08
142 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Largest Contiguous Natural Area Existing Area After Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Atwell Drain 6.50 16.07 9.66 23.87 East Marsh 1.62 4.01 781.05 1930.03 Hillman Marsh 347.73 859.25 379.68 938.20 Marentette 0.75 1.85 781.05 1930.03 Muddy Creek 29.15 72.03 164.22 405.79 Point Pelee 1246.32 3079.73 1276.42 3154.11 Sturgeon Creek 65.22 161.16 244.20 603.44 West Marsh 3.79 9.37 50.98 125.98
% of 1st to 3rd Order Streams with 30 m Buffer of Forested Riparian Habitat Forested Riparian Habitat Area of 30 m Buffer % of Sub-watershed within 30 m Riparian Buffer Habitat Ha Ac Ha Ac Atwell Drain 63.27 156.34 2.37 5.85 3.74% East Marsh 78.66 194.38 0.01 0.02 0.01% Hillman Marsh 693.56 1713.82 68.86 170.15 9.93% Marentette 11.78 29.10 0.00 0.01 0.04% Muddy Creek 83.75 206.94 12.93 31.94 15.43% Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Sturgeon Creek 385.65 952.96 36.69 90.67 9.51% West Marsh 153.56 379.46 2.65 6.55 1.73% Total 1470.22 3633.00 123.51 305.20 8.40%
143 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Proposed Riparian % Riparian Riparian % Riparian Stream Order Total Length (m) Forest (m) Forest Forest (m) Forest 1 299.87 7807.77 3.84% 7443.78 95.34% 2 0.00 3329.01 0.00% 3293.04 98.92% Atwell Drain 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 299.87 11136.78 2.69% 10736.83 96.41% 1 0.00 10412.34 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2 0.00 3203.98 0.00% 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 0.00 13616.32 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 4529.19 71473.13 6.34% 66750.30 93.39% 2 3682.08 30916.98 11.91% 25640.11 82.93% Hillman Marsh 3 6272.60 15166.47 41.36% 9090.53 59.94% 1 to 3 14483.87 117556.58 12.32% 101480.94 86.33% 1 0.00 1209.30 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Marentette 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 0.00 1209.30 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 234.94 10338.92 2.27% 10049.04 97.20% 2 2024.91 3262.06 62.07% 1331.44 40.82% Muddy Creek 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 2259.85 13600.98 16.62% 11380.48 83.67% 1 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Point Pelee 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 2992.90 38411.79 7.79% 27827.93 72.45% 2 221.29 12854.54 1.72% 8705.75 67.73% Sturgeon Creek 3 4639.21 14335.67 32.36% 8289.41 57.82% 1 to 3 7853.40 65602.00 11.97% 44823.09 68.33% 1 21.39 20755.71 0.10% 17698.65 85.27% 2 0.00 7375.07 0.00% 7313.11 99.16% West Marsh 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 21.39 28130.78 0.08% 25011.76 88.91% Total 24918.38 250852.74 9.93% 193433.10 77.11%
144 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - Riparian Buffers (30 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 53.30 131.71 84.24% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 564.23 1394.25 81.35% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy Creek 69.04 170.61 82.45% Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00% Sturgeon Creek 242.59 599.46 62.90% West Marsh 110.05 271.93 71.66% Total 1039.21 2567.95 70.68%
Restoration Opportunities - Wetlands*/Wetland Buffers (240 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 4.23 10.46 0.79% East Marsh* 479.67 0.00 96.75% Hillman Marsh 267.31 660.53 3.60% Marentette* 287.74 711.02 92.43% Muddy Creek 68.16 168.43 8.05% Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00% Sturgeon Creek 112.40 277.73 2.73% West Marsh 9.56 23.62 0.63% Total 1229.06 1851.79 7.34%
Restoration Opportunities - 100 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 0.09 0.22 0.02% 0.07 0.16 0.01% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 59.38 146.74 0.80% 41.25 101.93 0.56% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy Creek 9.59 23.69 1.13% 8.27 20.43 0.98% Point Pelee 57.72 142.63 3.90% -18.90 -46.70 -1.28% Sturgeon Creek 2.66 6.57 0.06% 2.47 6.11 0.06% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 129.44 319.85 0.77% 33.16 81.94 0.20%
145 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - 200 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 12.92 31.94 0.17% 11.55 28.53 0.16% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy Creek 0.31 0.76 0.04% 0.31 0.76 0.04% Point Pelee 30.97 76.52 2.09% 6.73 16.63 0.45% Sturgeon Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 44.20 109.21 0.26% 18.58 45.91 0.11%
Recent Forest Plantations and Areas Currently in Natural Succession Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 21.93 54.19 0.30% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy Creek 9.28 22.93 1.10% Point Pelee 1.30 3.20 0.09% Sturgeon Creek 2.27 5.61 0.06% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 34.78 85.94 0.21%
Restoration Opportunities - Qualitative Addition to Upland Forests Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 3.50 8.66 0.65% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 84.06 207.73 1.13% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% Muddy Creek 13.38 33.05 1.58% Point Pelee 3.27 8.08 0.22% Sturgeon Creek 38.03 93.98 0.92% West Marsh 4.84 11.96 0.32% Total 147.09 363.46 0.88%
146 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Total Restoration Opportunities - All Natural Areas Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 61.04 150.82 11.35% East Marsh 479.67 1185.29 96.75% Hillman Marsh 937.53 2316.70 12.64% Marentette 287.74 711.02 92.43% Muddy Creek 159.86 395.02 18.87% Point Pelee 4.56 11.28 0.31% Sturgeon Creek 395.29 976.78 9.58% West Marsh 124.45 307.52 8.14% Total 2450.14 6054.44 14.63%
147 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Atwell Drain 17.29 42.72 3.21% 3.50 8.66 0.65% 20.79 51.38 3.87% East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 12.46 30.79 2.51% Hillman Marsh 317.34 784.16 4.28% 84.06 207.73 1.13% 401.40 991.89 5.41% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Forest* Muddy Creek 44.07 108.91 5.20% 13.38 33.05 1.58% 57.45 141.96 6.78% Point Pelee 328.52 811.79 22.18% 3.27 8.08 0.22% 331.79 819.87 22.40% Sturgeon Creek 89.59 221.38 2.17% 38.03 93.98 0.92% 127.62 315.36 3.09% West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11% 4.84 11.96 0.32% 6.46 15.97 0.42% Total Forest Cover 810.89 2003.76 4.84% 147.09 363.46 0.88% 957.98 2367.22 5.72% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% 4.23 10.46 0.79% 4.23 10.46 0.79% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 479.67 1185.29 96.75% 479.67 1185.29 96.75% Hillman Marsh 333.89 825.06 4.50% 267.31 660.53 3.60% 601.20 1485.59 8.11% Marentette Wetland**/ 0.00 0.00 0.00% 287.74 711.02 92.43% 287.74 711.02 92.43% Wetland Muddy Creek Buffers 9.57 23.66 1.13% 68.16 168.43 8.05% 77.73 192.08 9.18% Point Pelee (240 m) 1043.22 2577.86 70.43% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 1043.22 2577.86 70.43% Sturgeon Creek 48.17 119.03 1.17% 112.40 277.73 2.73% 160.56 396.76 3.89% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 9.56 23.62 0.63% 9.56 23.62 0.63% Total Wetland 1434.86 3545.61 8.57% 1229.06 3037.08 7.34% 2663.92 6582.69 15.91% Atwell Drain 2.37 5.85 3.74% 53.30 131.71 84.24% 55.67 137.56 87.99% East Marsh 0.01 0.02 0.01% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.01 0.02 0.01% Hillman Marsh 68.86 170.15 9.93% 564.23 1394.25 81.35% 633.09 1564.40 91.28% Marentette 0.00 0.01 0.04% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.01 0.04% Riparian Muddy Creek 12.93 31.94 15.43% 69.04 170.61 82.45% 81.97 202.55 97.88% Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Sturgeon Creek 36.69 90.67 9.51% 242.59 599.46 62.90% 279.29 690.13 72.42%
148 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent West Marsh 2.65 6.55 1.73% 110.05 271.93 71.66% 112.70 278.49 73.39% Total Riparian 123.51 305.20 8.40% 1039.21 2567.95 70.68% 1162.72 2873.16 79.09% Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hillman Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 21.93 54.19 0.30% 21.93 54.19 0.30% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Other Muddy Creek Upland*** 0.00 0.00 0.00% 9.28 22.93 1.10% 9.28 22.93 1.10% Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00% 1.30 3.20 0.09% 1.30 3.20 0.09% Sturgeon Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 2.27 5.61 0.06% 2.27 5.61 0.06% West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Other Upland 0.00 0.00 0.00% 34.78 85.94 0.21% 34.78 85.94 0.21% Atwell Drain 17.29 42.72 3.21% 61.04 150.82 11.35% 78.33 193.55 14.56% East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51% 479.67 1185.29 96.75% 492.13 1216.08 99.26% Hillman Marsh 651.23 1609.22 8.78% 937.53 2316.70 12.64% 1588.76 3925.92 21.42% Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 287.74 711.02 92.43% 287.74 711.02 92.43% Muddy Creek All Types 53.65 132.57 6.33% 159.86 395.02 18.87% 213.51 527.59 25.20% Point Pelee 1371.74 3389.65 92.60% 4.56 11.28 0.31% 1376.31 3400.93 92.91% Sturgeon Creek 137.76 340.41 3.34% 395.29 976.78 9.58% 533.05 1317.19 12.92% West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11% 124.45 307.52 8.14% 126.07 311.52 8.25% Total Natural Area 2245.75 5549.37 13.41% 2450.14 6054.44 14.63% 4695.89 11603.80 28.05% * Forest = Upland + Swamp ** Wetland = Marsh + Open Water *** Other Upland = Natural Succession, Meadows, Prairie, Shrub Thickets, Plantations
149 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix VI: Greater Detroit River Detailed GIS Analyses
Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 40302.23 99588.99 67.93% Natural 3562.46 8803.03 6.01% Built-up & Roads 14931.34 36896.15 25.17% Quarries 156.57 386.89 0.26% Recreation 372.62 920.77 0.63%
Detroit River 12249.39 30268.90 20.65% Little River 6737.26 16648.14 11.36% River Canard 34257.95 84653.24 57.75% Turkey Creek 6080.61 15025.53 10.25% Total Study Area 59325.22 146595.82 100.00%
Summary of Existing Forest Area (greater than 0.5 Ha) Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 320.78 792.66 2.62% Little River 164.87 407.41 2.45% Upland River Canard 1536.85 3797.64 4.49% Turkey Creek 620.77 1533.96 10.21% Total Upland Forest 2643.27 6531.67 4.46% Detroit River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06% River CanardSwamp 17.65 43.62 0.05% Turkey Creek 0.69 1.70 0.01% Total Swamp Forest 22.31 55.12 0.04% Detroit River 320.78 792.66 2.62% Little River 168.84 417.21 2.51% Upland + Swamp River Canard 1554.50 3841.26 4.54% Turkey Creek 621.46 1535.66 10.22% Total Forest Cover 2665.58 6586.80 4.49%
150 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Wetland Area Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 468.72 1158.23 3.83% Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Open Water River Canard 51.36 126.92 0.15% Turkey Creek 5.94 14.68 0.10% Total Open Water Wetland 526.02 1299.82 0.89% Detroit River 216.58 535.18 1.77% Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Marsh River Canard 137.76 340.40 0.40% Turkey Creek 16.52 40.83 0.27% Total Marsh Wetland 370.86 916.41 0.63% Detroit River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06% River CanardSwamp 17.65 43.62 0.05% Turkey Creek 0.69 1.70 0.01% Total Swamp Wetland 22.31 55.12 0.04% Detroit River 216.58 535.18 1.77% Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06% Vegetated Wetland River Canard(Marsh + Swamp) 155.41 384.02 0.45% Turkey Creek 17.21 42.53 0.28% Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 393.17 971.53 0.66% Detroit River 685.30 1693.40 5.59% Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06% All Wetlands River Canard(Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 206.77 510.94 0.60% Turkey Creek 23.15 57.21 0.38% Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 919.19 2271.36 1.55%
Summary of Existing Natural Area (All Types) Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 1006.07 2486.07 8.21% Little River 168.84 417.21 2.51% All Natural Areas River Canard(Forest + Wetlands) 1743.62 4308.58 5.09% Turkey Creek 643.93 1591.18 10.59% Total Natural Area 3562.46 8803.03 6.01%
151 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Interior Forest Area Sub-watershed Buffer (m) Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 22.20 54.86 0.18% Little River 2.97 7.33 0.04% 100 River Canard 125.27 309.56 0.37% Turkey Creek 48.54 119.95 0.80% Total 100 m Interior Forest 198.98 491.69 0.34% Detroit River 6.27 15.49 0.05% Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 200 River Canard 11.53 28.49 0.03% Turkey Creek 7.73 19.10 0.13% Total 200 m Interior Forest 25.53 63.08 0.04% Total 100 m + 200 m Interior Forest 224.51 554.77 0.38%
Size of Largest Existing Forest Patch Existing Area Area After Proposed Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Detroit River 62.41 154.22 123.21 304.46 Little River 24.49 60.50 59.62 147.33 River Canard 57.22 141.39 179.01 442.35 Turkey Creek 62.41 154.22 156.20 385.97
Largest Contiguous Natural Area Existing Area After Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Detroit River 372.33 920.05 376.90 931.35 Little River 24.41 60.32 59.62 147.33 River Canard 63.18 156.12 179.01 442.35 Turkey Creek 62.41 154.22 156.20 385.97
% of 1st to 3rd Order Streams with 30 m Buffer of Forested Riparian Habitat Forested Riparian Area of 30 m Buffer Habitat within 30 m % of Sub-watershed Buffer Riparian Habitat Ha Ac Ha Ac Detroit River 217.23 536.79 12.78 31.59 5.88% Little River 559.95 1383.65 23.81 58.84 4.25% River Canard 2494.63 6164.36 259.58 641.43 10.41% Turkey Creek 449.28 1110.20 61.35 151.60 13.66% Total 3721.09 9195.00 357.52 883.46 9.61%
152 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Proposed Riparian % Riparian Riparian % Riparian Stream Order Total Length (m) Forest (m) Forest Forest (m) Forest 1 2137.94 30427.71 7.03% 27940.14 91.82% 2 605.82 7772.59 7.79% 7166.77 92.21% Detroit River 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 to 3 2743.75 38200.30 7.18% 35106.91 91.90% 1 2199.19 52621.46 4.18% 50833.28 96.60% 2 463.94 24226.96 1.92% 23763.02 98.09% Little River 3 55.43 12021.93 0.46% 11946.76 99.37% 1 to 3 2718.56 88870.35 3.06% 86543.06 97.38% 1 9479.06 217207.00 4.36% 207970.80 95.75% 2 10389.16 120108.60 8.65% 108453.90 90.30% River Canard 3 9152.82 30551.69 29.96% 23632.38 77.35% 1 to 3 29021.04 367867.29 7.89% 340057.08 92.44% 1 4323.44 37088.17 11.66% 29943.39 80.74% 2 4730.18 27033.46 17.50% 22772.48 84.24% Turkey Creek 3 1161.18 9127.85 12.72% 8251.24 90.40% 1 to 3 10214.79 73249.48 13.95% 60967.11 83.23% Total 44698.14 568187.42 7.87% 522674.16 91.99%
Restoration Opportunities - Riparian Buffers (30 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 193.75 478.77 89.19% Little River 536.13 1324.82 95.75% River Canard 2047.97 5060.64 82.10% Turkey Creek 353.18 872.73 78.61% Total 3131.04 7736.96 84.14%
Restoration Opportunities - Wetland Buffers (240 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 328.15 810.88 2.68% Little River 14.50 0.00 0.22% River Canard 737.98 1823.60 2.15% Turkey Creek 166.33 411.01 2.74% Total 1246.96 3045.48 2.10%
153 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - 100 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 64.97 160.54 0.53% 42.77 105.68 0.35% Little River 16.00 39.55 0.24% 13.04 32.22 0.19% River Canard 254.01 627.67 0.74% 128.74 318.11 0.38% Turkey Creek 114.37 282.63 1.88% 65.83 162.68 1.08% Total 449.36 1110.39 0.76% 250.38 618.70 0.42%
Restoration Opportunities - 200 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 18.80 46.46 0.15% 12.53 30.96 0.10% Little River 3.18 7.86 0.05% 3.18 7.86 0.05% River Canard 67.20 166.04 0.20% 55.66 137.55 0.16% Turkey Creek 30.08 74.32 0.49% 22.35 55.22 0.37% Total 119.25 294.68 0.20% 93.72 231.59 0.16%
Recent Forest Plantations and Areas Currently in Natural Succession Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00% River Canard 50.23 124.13 0.15% Turkey Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 50.23 124.13 0.08%
Restoration Opportunities - Qualitative Addition to Upland Forests Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 41.23 101.89 0.34% Little River 10.50 25.95 0.16% River Canard 98.27 242.84 0.29% Turkey Creek 30.95 76.47 0.51% Total 180.96 447.15 0.31%
Total Restoration Opportunities - All Natural Areas Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 563.13 1391.53 4.60% Little River 561.14 1386.60 8.33% River Canard 2934.46 7251.21 8.57% Turkey Creek 550.46 1360.20 9.05% Total 4609.19 11389.55 7.77%
154 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Detroit River 320.78 792.66 2.62% 41.23 101.89 0.34% 362.01 894.55 2.96% Little River 168.84 417.21 2.51% 10.50 25.95 0.16% 179.34 443.16 2.66% Forest* River Canard 1554.50 3841.26 4.54% 98.27 242.84 0.29% 1652.78 4084.11 4.82% Turkey Creek 621.46 1535.66 10.22% 30.95 76.47 0.51% 652.41 1612.13 10.73% Total Forest Cover 2665.58 6586.80 4.49% 180.96 447.15 0.31% 2846.54 7033.95 4.80% Detroit River 685.30 1693.40 5.59% 328.15 810.88 2.68% 1013.45 2504.28 8.27% Little River Wetland**/ 0.00 0.00 0.00% 14.50 35.83 0.22% 14.50 35.83 0.22% Wetland River Canard Buffers 189.12 467.32 0.55% 737.98 1823.60 2.15% 927.10 2290.92 2.71% Turkey Creek (240 m) 22.47 55.51 0.37% 166.33 411.01 2.74% 188.79 466.52 3.10% Total Wetland 896.88 2216.23 1.51% 1246.96 3081.31 2.10% 2143.84 5297.55 3.61% Detroit River 12.78 31.59 5.88% 193.75 478.77 89.19% 206.53 510.36 95.08% Little River 23.81 58.84 4.25% 536.13 1324.82 95.75% 559.95 1383.66 100.00% River Canard Riparian 259.58 641.43 10.41% 2047.97 5060.64 82.10% 2307.55 5702.07 92.50% Turkey Creek 61.35 151.60 13.66% 353.18 872.73 78.61% 414.53 1024.33 92.27% Total Riparian 357.52 883.46 9.61% 3131.04 7736.96 84.14% 3488.56 8620.42 93.75% Detroit River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Other River Canard Upland*** 0.00 0.00 0.00% 50.23 124.13 0.15% 50.23 124.13 0.15% Turkey Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Other Upland 0.00 0.00 0.00% 50.23 124.13 0.08% 50.23 124.13 0.08% Detroit River 1006.07 2486.07 8.21% 563.13 1391.53 4.60% 1569.21 3877.60 12.81% Little River 168.84 417.21 2.51% 561.14 1386.60 8.33% 729.98 1803.81 10.83% River Canard All Types 1743.62 4308.58 5.09% 2934.46 7251.21 8.57% 4678.08 11559.79 13.66% Turkey Creek 643.93 1591.18 10.59% 550.46 1360.20 9.05% 1194.38 2951.38 19.64% Total Natural Area 3562.46 8803.03 6.01% 4609.19 11389.55 7.77% 8171.65 20192.58 13.77% * Forest = Upland + Swamp ** Wetland = Marsh + Open Water *** Other Upland = Natural Succession, Meadows, Prairie, Shrub Thickets, Plantations
155 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix VII: Lake Erie Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses
Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 27119.87 67014.66 81.89% Natural 3570.49 8822.87 10.78% Built-up & Roads 1884.75 4657.32 5.69% Quarries 298.27 737.04 0.90% Recreation 245.35 606.27 0.74%
Big Creek 7174.18 17727.79 21.66% Colchester Drains 3859.20 9536.29 11.65% Fox/Dolson Creek 1288.51 3183.98 3.89% Cedar Creek 13175.97 32558.53 39.78% Wigle Creek 3061.32 7564.69 9.24% Mill Creek 2214.08 5471.11 6.69% Kingsville Drains 2345.47 5795.78 7.08% Total Study Area 33118.73 81838.17 100.00%
Summary of Existing Forest Area (greater than 0.5 Ha) Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 494.72 1222.48 6.90% Colchester Drains 189.70 468.75 4.92% Fox/Dolson Creek 106.97 264.34 8.30% Cedar Creek Upland 1307.17 3230.10 9.92% Wigle Creek 236.74 585.00 7.73% Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45% Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85% Total Upland Forest 2638.67 6520.30 7.97% Big Creek 45.32 111.99 0.63% Colchester Drains 8.80 21.76 0.23% Fox/Dolson Creek 6.46 15.97 0.50% Cedar Creek 1.17 2.90 0.01% Swamp Wigle Creek 2.10 5.20 0.07% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Swamp Forest 63.86 157.81 0.19%
156 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 540.04 1334.47 7.53% Colchester Drains 198.50 490.50 5.14% Fox/Dolson Creek 113.44 280.31 8.80% Cedar Creek Upland + Swamp 1308.35 3233.00 9.93% Wigle Creek 238.85 590.20 7.80% Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45% Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85% Total Forest Cover 2702.54 6678.12 8.16%
Summary of Existing Wetland Area Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 583.46 1441.77 8.13% Colchester Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Fox/Dolson Creek 10.89 26.90 0.84% Cedar Creek Open Water 129.83 320.83 0.99% Wigle Creek 11.44 28.27 0.37% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Open Water Wetland 735.62 1817.77 2.22% Big Creek 114.62 283.24 1.60% Colchester Drains 7.38 18.25 0.19% Fox/Dolson Creek 3.27 8.07 0.25% Cedar Creek Marsh 3.52 8.69 0.03% Wigle Creek 3.54 8.74 0.12% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Marsh Wetland 132.33 326.99 0.40% Big Creek 45.32 111.99 0.63% Colchester Drains 8.80 21.76 0.23% Fox/Dolson Creek 6.46 15.97 0.50% Cedar Creek 1.17 2.90 0.01% Swamp Wigle Creek 2.10 5.20 0.07% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Swamp Wetland 63.86 157.81 0.19%
157 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 159.94 395.23 2.23% Colchester Drains 16.19 40.00 0.42% Fox/Dolson Creek 9.73 24.04 0.76% Cedar Creek Vegetated Wetland 4.69 11.59 0.04% Wigle Creek (Marsh + Swamp) 5.64 13.94 0.18% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 196.19 484.80 0.59% Big Creek 743.41 1837.00 10.36% Colchester Drains 16.19 40.00 0.42% Fox/Dolson Creek 20.62 50.94 1.60% Cedar Creek All Wetlands 134.52 332.42 1.02% Wigle Creek (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 17.08 42.21 0.56% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 931.82 2302.57 2.81%
Summary of Existing Natural Area (All Types) Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 1238.13 3059.48 17.26% Colchester Drains 205.88 508.75 5.33% Fox/Dolson Creek 127.59 315.28 9.90% Cedar Creek All Natural Areas 1441.70 3562.51 10.94% Wigle Creek (Forest + Wetlands) 253.82 627.22 8.29% Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45% Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85% Total Natural Area 3570.49 8822.87 10.78%
158 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Interior Forest Area Sub-watershed Buffer (m) Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 21.96 54.27 0.31% Colchester Drains 13.24 32.71 0.34% Fox/Dolson Creek 12.40 30.65 0.96% Cedar Creek100 179.55 443.67 1.36% Wigle Creek 12.17 30.07 0.40% Mill Creek 3.73 9.21 0.17% Kingsville Drains 0.53 1.31 0.02% Total 100 m Interior Forest 243.58 601.90 0.74% Big Creek 0.58 1.43 0.01% Colchester Drains 2.53 6.24 0.07% Fox/Dolson Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Cedar Creek200 30.17 74.56 0.23% Wigle Creek 0.46 1.14 0.02% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 200 m Interior Forest 33.74 83.37 0.10% Total 100 m + 200 m Interior Forest 277.32 685.27 0.84%
Size of Largest Existing Forest Patch Existing Area Area After Proposed Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Big Creek 61.21 151.26 191.58 473.40 Colchester Drains 38.55 95.26 72.85 180.02 Fox/Dolson Creek 42.93 106.09 42.93 106.08 Cedar Creek 90.93 224.70 132.81 328.18 Wigle Creek 42.09 104.00 42.09 104.01 Mill Creek 17.75 43.86 17.75 43.86 Kingsville Drains 19.86 49.08 19.86 49.08
Largest Contiguous Natural Area Existing Area After Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Big Creek 572.11 1413.72 1504.30 3717.20 Colchester Drains 38.55 95.26 98.56 243.55 Fox/Dolson Creek 42.93 106.09 230.36 569.24 Cedar Creek 306.79 758.10 636.08 1571.80 Wigle Creek 42.09 104.00 98.33 242.97 Mill Creek 14.75 36.45 69.09 170.72 Kingsville Drains 19.86 49.08 42.06 103.94
159 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy % of 1st to 3rd Order Streams with 30 m Buffer of Forested Riparian Habitat Forested Riparian Habitat Area of 30 m Buffer % of Sub-watershed within 30 m Riparian Buffer Habitat Ha Ac Ha Ac Big Creek 681.36 1683.67 48.55 119.96 7.12% Colchester Drains 293.75 725.87 6.68 16.51 2.28% Fox/Dolson Creek 96.39 238.18 11.38 28.12 11.80% Cedar Creek 1314.54 3248.29 163.09 403.01 12.41% Wigle Creek 322.55 797.03 30.74 75.97 9.53% Mill Creek 235.10 580.94 27.07 66.88 11.51% Kingsville Drains 215.78 533.20 28.05 69.32 13.00% Total 3159.46 7807.19 315.56 779.78 9.99%
Existing Proposed Riparian % Riparian Riparian % Riparian Stream Order Total Length (m) Forest (m) Forest Forest (m) Forest 1 4030.67 76806.27 5.25% 52277.72 68.06% 2 2643.10 38796.91 6.81% 19531.37 50.34% Big Creek 3 1948.34 12351.66 15.77% 1278.90 10.35% 1 to 3 8622.10 127954.84 6.74% 73087.99 57.12% 1 432.50 29685.86 1.46% 26076.63 87.84% 2 649.11 15057.64 4.31% 13514.33 89.75% Colchester Drains 3 0.00 2328.05 0.00% 2303.39 98.94% 1 to 3 1081.62 47071.55 2.30% 41894.35 89.00% 1 1121.86 7978.36 14.06% 6161.55 77.23% 2 208.86 3037.86 6.88% 1809.76 59.57% Fox/Dolson Creek 3 428.24 6103.93 7.02% 4346.38 71.21% 1 to 3 1758.95 17120.15 10.27% 12317.69 71.95% 1 7314.42 126666.30 5.77% 111680.00 88.17% 2 4080.22 46269.60 8.82% 35166.15 76.00% Cedar Creek 3 6540.97 24915.97 26.25% 18023.98 72.34% 1 to 3 17935.60 197851.87 9.07% 164870.13 83.33% 1 482.09 24915.30 1.93% 22672.01 91.00% 2 754.88 11463.32 6.59% 10623.10 92.67% Wigle Creek 3 2967.56 13536.10 21.92% 10244.30 75.68% 1 to 3 4204.53 49914.72 8.42% 43539.41 87.23%
160 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Proposed Riparian % Riparian Riparian % Riparian Stream Order Total Length (m) Forest (m) Forest Forest (m) Forest 1 1245.21 14390.60 8.65% 13046.01 90.66% 2 635.44 13667.04 4.65% 12627.06 92.39% Mill Creek 3 1583.47 6195.73 25.56% 3967.43 64.03% 1 to 3 3464.12 34253.37 10.11% 29640.50 86.53% 1 2272.48 20008.47 11.36% 17017.44 85.05% 2 3157.29 8854.58 35.66% 4896.02 55.29% Kingsville Drains 3 403.77 5655.44 7.14% 5199.98 91.95% 1 to 3 5833.54 34518.49 16.90% 27113.44 78.55% Total 42900.46 508684.98 8.43% 392463.50 77.15%
Restoration Opportunities - Riparian Buffers (30 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 443.27 1095.34 65.06% Colchester Drains 237.67 587.30 80.91% Fox/Dolson Creek 71.84 177.51 74.53% Cedar Creek 815.04 2014.01 62.00% Wigle Creek 235.49 581.92 73.01% Mill Creek 175.97 434.84 74.85% Kingsville Drains 148.50 366.95 68.82% Total 2127.78 5257.86 67.35%
Restoration Opportunities - Wetlands*/Wetland Buffers (240 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 782.19 1932.83 10.90% Colchester Drains 32.83 81.12 0.85% Fox/Dolson Creek 90.59 223.86 7.03% Cedar Creek 294.95 728.84 2.24% Wigle Creek 50.16 123.95 1.64% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 1250.72 3090.60 3.78%
161 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - 100 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase In Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 104.37 257.90 1.45% 82.41 203.64 1.15% Colchester Drains 14.03 34.67 0.36% 0.79 1.96 0.02% Fox/Dolson Creek 12.41 30.66 0.96% 0.01 0.01 0.00% Cedar Creek 291.65 720.68 2.21% 112.10 277.01 0.85% Wigle Creek 12.11 29.91 0.40% -0.07 -0.16 0.00% Mill Creek 3.74 9.25 0.17% 0.02 0.04 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.77 1.91 0.03% 0.24 0.60 0.01% Total 439.08 1084.98 1.33% 195.50 483.09 0.59%
Restoration Opportunities - 200 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 46.68 115.34 0.65% 46.10 113.91 0.64% Colchester Drains 4.26 10.53 0.11% 1.74 4.29 0.05% Fox/Dolson Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Cedar Creek 121.74 300.82 0.92% 91.57 226.26 0.69% Wigle Creek 0.47 1.15 0.02% 0.00 0.01 0.00% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 173.14 427.85 0.52% 139.40 344.48 0.42%
Recent Forest Plantations and Areas Currently in Natural Succession Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 5.70 14.09 0.08% Colchester Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Fox/Dolson Creek 1.80 4.44 0.14% Cedar Creek 31.48 77.78 0.24% Wigle Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Mill Creek 0.80 1.96 0.04% Kingsville Drains 3.47 8.56 0.15% Total 43.23 106.83 0.13%
Restoration Opportunities - Qualitative Addition to Upland Forests Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 176.04 434.99 2.45% Colchester Drains 1.49 3.69 0.04% Fox/Dolson Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Cedar Creek 158.56 391.81 1.20% Wigle Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 336.09 830.49 1.01%
162 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Total Restoration Opportunities - All Natural Areas Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 1407.20 3477.26 19.61% Colchester Drains 271.99 672.11 7.05% Fox/Dolson Creek 164.22 405.80 12.75% Cedar Creek 1300.02 3212.43 9.87% Wigle Creek 285.65 705.87 9.33% Mill Creek 176.77 436.80 7.98% Kingsville Drains 151.97 375.52 6.48% Total 3757.82 9285.79 11.35%
163 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 540.04 1334.47 7.53% 176.04 434.99 2.45% 716.08 1769.47 9.98% Colchester Drains 198.50 490.50 5.14% 1.49 3.69 0.04% 199.99 494.19 5.18% Fox/Dolson Creek 113.44 280.31 8.80% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 113.44 280.31 8.80% Cedar Creek Forest* 1308.35 3233.00 9.93% 158.56 391.81 1.20% 1466.91 3624.81 11.13% Wigle Creek 238.85 590.20 7.80% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 238.85 590.20 7.80% Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 142.77 352.78 6.45% Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 160.60 396.85 6.85% Total Forest Cover 2702.54 6678.12 8.16% 336.09 830.49 1.01% 3038.63 7508.61 9.17% Big Creek 698.09 1725.01 9.73% 782.19 1932.83 10.90% 1480.28 3657.84 20.63% Colchester Drains 7.38 18.25 0.19% 32.83 81.12 0.85% 40.21 99.37 1.04%
Fox/Dolson Creek Wetland**/ 14.15 34.97 1.10% 90.59 223.86 7.03% 104.75 258.83 8.13% Cedar Creek Wetland 133.35 329.52 1.01% 294.95 728.84 2.24% 428.30 1058.35 3.25% Wigle Creek Buffers 14.98 37.01 0.49% 50.16 123.95 1.64% 65.14 160.96 2.13% (240 m) Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Wetland 867.95 2144.76 2.62% 1250.72 3090.60 3.78% 2118.67 5235.36 6.40% Big Creek 48.55 119.96 7.12% 443.27 1095.34 65.06% 491.82 1215.30 72.18% Colchester Drains 6.68 16.51 2.28% 237.67 587.30 80.91% 244.35 603.81 83.18% Fox/Dolson Creek 11.38 28.12 11.80% 71.84 177.51 74.53% 83.21 205.63 86.33% Cedar Creek 163.09 403.01 12.41% 815.04 2014.01 62.00% 978.13 2417.02 74.41% Riparian Wigle Creek 30.74 75.97 9.53% 235.49 581.92 73.01% 266.24 657.89 82.54% Mill Creek 27.07 66.88 11.51% 175.97 434.84 74.85% 203.04 501.72 86.36% Kingsville Drains 28.05 69.32 13.00% 148.50 366.95 68.82% 176.55 436.27 81.82% Total Riparian 315.56 779.78 9.99% 2127.78 5257.86 67.35% 2443.35 6037.64 77.33%
164 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Big Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 5.70 14.09 0.08% 5.70 14.09 0.08% Colchester Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Fox/Dolson Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 1.80 4.44 0.14% 1.80 4.44 0.14% Cedar Creek Other 0.00 0.00 0.00% 31.48 77.78 0.24% 31.48 77.78 0.24% Wigle Creek Upland*** 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.80 1.96 0.04% 0.80 1.96 0.04% Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% 3.47 8.56 0.15% 3.47 8.56 0.15% Total Other Upland 0.00 0.00 0.00% 43.23 106.83 0.13% 43.23 106.83 0.13% Big Creek 1238.13 3059.48 17.26% 1407.20 3477.26 19.61% 2645.32 6536.74 36.87% Colchester Drains 205.88 508.75 5.33% 271.99 672.11 7.05% 477.88 1180.86 12.38% Fox/Dolson Creek 127.59 315.28 9.90% 164.22 405.80 12.75% 291.81 721.08 22.65% Cedar Creek 1441.70 3562.51 10.94% 1300.02 3212.43 9.87% 2741.72 6774.94 20.81% All Types Wigle Creek 253.82 627.22 8.29% 285.65 705.87 9.33% 539.48 1333.08 17.62% Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45% 176.77 436.80 7.98% 319.53 789.58 14.43% Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85% 151.97 375.52 6.48% 312.57 772.37 13.33% Total Natural Area 3570.49 8822.87 10.78% 3757.82 9285.79 11.35% 7328.31 18108.66 22.13% * Forest = Upland + Swamp ** Wetland = Marsh + Open Water *** Other Upland = Natural Succession, Meadows, Prairie, Shrub Thickets, Plantations
165 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix VIII: Lake St. Clair Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses
Study Area/Landuse Summary Area Landuse/Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Agricultural 55267.87 136569.89 91.80% Natural 1638.65 4049.19 2.72% Built-up & Roads 3009.20 7435.90 5.00% Quarries 70.41 173.99 0.12% Recreation 221.46 547.24 0.37%
Pike Creek 9927.12 24530.45 16.49% Puce River 9166.87 22651.83 15.23% Belle River 11973.00 29585.93 19.89% Duck & Moison Creek 4204.39 10389.28 6.98% Ruscom River 19452.87 48069.09 32.31% Little Creek 5483.34 13549.63 9.11% Total Study Area 60207.59 148776.21 100.00%
166 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Forest Area (greater than 0.5 Ha) Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 346.66 856.62 3.49% Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48% Belle River 445.42 1100.65 3.72% Upland Duck & Moison Creek 31.83 78.66 0.76% Ruscom River 396.28 979.24 2.04% Little Creek 17.30 42.75 0.32% Total Upland Forest 1556.19 3845.42 2.58% Pike Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River 10.96 27.07 0.09% Duck & Moison Creek Swamp 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 0.87 2.16 0.00% Little Creek 0.64 1.59 0.01% Total Swamp Forest 12.47 30.82 0.02% Pike Creek 346.66 856.62 3.49% Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48% Belle River 456.37 1127.73 3.81% Upland + Swamp Duck & Moison Creek 31.83 78.66 0.76% Ruscom River 397.16 981.39 2.04% Little Creek 17.94 44.34 0.33% Total Forest Cover 1568.66 3876.24 2.61%
167 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Wetland Area Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 11.86 29.32 0.12% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Open Water Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 0.30 0.74 0.00% Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Open Water Wetland 12.16 30.06 0.02% Pike Creek 1.73 4.27 0.02% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River 7.58 18.72 0.06% Marsh Duck & Moison Creek 1.10 2.72 0.03% Ruscom River 26.45 65.35 0.14% Little Creek 20.98 51.85 0.38% Total Marsh Wetland 57.83 142.91 0.10% Pike Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River 10.96 27.07 0.09% Duck & Moison Creek Swamp 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 0.87 2.16 0.00% Little Creek 0.64 1.59 0.01% Total Swamp Wetland 12.47 30.82 0.02%
Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 1.73 4.27 0.02% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River 18.53 45.80 0.15% Vegetated Wetland Duck & Moison Creek (Marsh + Swamp) 1.10 2.72 0.03% Ruscom River 27.32 67.50 0.14% Little Creek 21.62 53.43 0.39% Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 70.30 173.72 0.12% Pike Creek 13.59 33.58 0.14% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River All Wetlands 18.53 45.80 0.15% Duck & Moison Creek (Open Water + Marsh + 1.10 2.72 0.03% Swamp) Ruscom River 27.62 68.25 0.14% Little Creek 21.62 53.43 0.39% Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 82.47 203.78 0.14%
168 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Existing Natural Area (All Types) Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 360.25 890.21 3.63% Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48% Belle River 463.95 1146.45 3.88% All Natural Areas Duck & Moison Creek(Forest + Wetlands) 32.93 81.38 0.78% Ruscom River 423.90 1047.48 2.18% Little Creek 38.93 96.19 0.71% Total Natural Area 1638.65 4049.20 2.72%
Existing Interior Forest Area Sub-watershed Buffer (m) Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 33.36 82.42 0.34% Puce River 23.55 58.19 0.26% Belle River 13.90 34.34 0.12% 100 Duck & Moison Creek 0.26 0.64 0.01% Ruscom River 20.84 51.49 0.11% Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 100 m Interior Forest 91.90 227.09 0.15% Pike Creek 0.12 0.31 0.00% Puce River 0.20 0.49 0.00% Belle River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 200 Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 0.06 0.14 0.00% Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 200 m Interior Forest 0.38 0.93 0.00% Total 100 m + 200 m Interior Forest 92.28 228.02 0.15%
Size of Largest Existing Forest Patch Existing Area Area After Proposed Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Pike Creek 50.59 125.02 79.85 197.33 Puce River 31.73 78.40 38.31 94.67 Belle River 26.98 66.67 28.51 70.46 Duck & Moison Creek 7.98 19.72 15.06 37.22 Ruscom River 31.14 76.94 57.14 141.20 Little Creek 4.71 11.65 4.84 11.95
169 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Largest Contiguous Natural Area Existing Area After Restoration Sub-watershed Ha Ac Ha Ac Pike Creek 50.59 125.02 79.85 197.33 Puce River 31.73 78.40 38.31 94.67 Belle River 26.98 66.67 70.67 174.63 Duck & Moison Creek 7.98 19.72 30.40 75.13 Ruscom River 31.14 76.94 57.14 141.20 Little Creek 20.92 51.69 26.16 64.65
% of 1st to 3rd Order Streams with 30 m Buffer of Forested Riparian Habitat Forested Riparian Area of 30 m Buffer Habitat within 30 m % of Sub-watershed Buffer Riparian Habitat Ha Ac Ha Ac Pike Creek 732.46 1809.94 17.44 43.09 2.38% Puce River 530.15 1310.04 2.68 6.62 0.51% Belle River 743.97 1838.40 15.42 38.11 2.07% Duck & Moison Creek 337.07 832.92 0.74 1.84 0.22% Ruscom River 1267.50 3132.06 3.70 9.14 0.29% Little Creek 422.12 1043.08 0.89 2.21 0.21% Total 4033.27 9966.43 40.88 101.01 1.01%
170 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Existing Proposed Riparian % % Riparian Riparian Stream Order Forest Total Length (m) Riparian Forest Forest (m) (m) Forest 1 0.00 127913.10 0.00% 88031.96 68.82% 2 0.17 44886.72 0.00% 31853.95 70.97% Pike Creek 3 1904.94 25161.41 7.57% 20134.84 80.02% 1 to 3 1905.11 197961.23 0.96% 140020.75 70.73% 1 46.35 102970.20 0.05% 72206.16 70.12% 2 213.46 32334.78 0.66% 20478.35 63.33% Puce River 3 0.00 14794.03 0.00% 6844.13 46.26% 1 to 3 259.81 150099.01 0.17% 99528.64 66.31% 1 992.01 139144.10 0.71% 69256.83 49.77% 2 168.29 48469.27 0.35% 31023.71 64.01% Belle River 3 1422.91 30567.24 4.66% 24016.83 78.57% 1 to 3 2583.21 218180.61 1.18% 124297.37 56.97% 1 0.00 56552.87 0.00% 42411.64 74.99% 2 0.00 13517.45 0.00% 10710.32 79.23% Duck & Moison Creek 3 0.00 16593.16 0.00% 14292.84 86.14% 1 to 3 0.00 86663.49 0.00% 67414.80 77.79% 1 33.83 237549.40 0.01% 151173.40 63.64% 2 116.89 83848.58 0.14% 59419.28 70.87% Ruscom River 3 68.82 48536.54 0.14% 33530.15 69.08% 1 to 3 219.54 369934.52 0.06% 244122.83 65.99% 1 0.00 76419.40 0.00% 52142.94 68.23% 2 0.00 22173.33 0.00% 19181.20 86.51% Little Creek 3 0.00 17584.48 0.00% 14405.61 81.92% 1 to 3 0.00 116177.21 0.00% 85729.74 73.79% Total 4967.67 1139016.07 0.44% 761114.13 66.82%
171 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - Riparian Buffers (30 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 715.02 1766.85 97.62% Puce River 527.47 1303.41 99.49% Belle River 728.55 1800.29 97.93% Duck & Moison Creek 336.33 831.09 99.78% Ruscom River 1263.80 3122.92 99.71% Little Creek 421.22 1040.86 99.79% Total 3992.39 9865.41 98.99%
Restoration Opportunities - Wetland Buffers (240 m) Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 48.97 121.01 0.49% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River 89.11 220.19 0.74% Duck & Moison Creek 30.27 74.80 0.72% Ruscom River 50.37 124.48 0.26% Little Creek 26.16 64.64 0.48% Total 244.88 605.11 0.41%
Restoration Opportunities - 100 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 51.94 128.35 0.52% 18.58 45.92 0.19% Puce River 40.50 100.08 0.44% 16.95 41.89 0.18% Belle River 27.67 68.37 0.23% 13.77 34.02 0.12% Duck & Moison Creek 3.03 7.49 0.07% 2.77 6.84 0.07% Ruscom River 37.93 93.73 0.20% 17.09 42.24 0.09% Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 161.07 398.01 0.27% 69.17 170.92 0.11%
172 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Restoration Opportunities - 200 m Interior Forest Resulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original Extent Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 1.75 4.32 0.02% 1.62 4.01 0.02% Puce River 4.75 11.73 0.05% 4.55 11.24 0.05% Belle River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 7.13 17.61 0.04% 7.07 17.47 0.04% Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 13.62 33.65 0.02% 13.24 32.72 0.02%
Recent Forest Plantations and Areas Currently in Natural Succession Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 24.72 61.07 0.25% Puce River 4.95 12.22 0.05% Belle River 2.76 6.82 0.02% Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 28.03 69.27 0.14% Little Creek 2.13 5.25 0.04% Total 62.58 154.64 0.10%
Restoration Opportunities - Qualitative Addition to Upland Forests Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 24.79 61.27 0.25% Puce River 23.03 56.92 0.25% Belle River 19.13 47.27 0.16% Duck & Moison Creek 7.08 17.50 0.17% Ruscom River 32.77 80.98 0.17% Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total 106.81 263.94 0.18%
Total Restoration Opportunities - All Natural Areas Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 813.50 2010.20 8.19% Puce River 555.45 1372.55 6.06% Belle River 839.54 2074.56 7.01% Duck & Moison Creek 373.68 923.39 8.89% Ruscom River 1374.98 3397.65 7.07% Little Creek 449.51 1110.75 8.20% Total 4406.66 10889.10 7.32%
173 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Pike Creek 346.66 856.62 3.49% 24.79 61.27 0.25% 371.46 917.89 3.74% Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48% 23.03 56.92 0.25% 341.72 844.42 3.73% Belle River 456.37 1127.73 3.81% 19.13 47.27 0.16% 475.50 1174.99 3.97% Forest* Duck & Moison Creek 31.83 78.66 0.76% 7.08 17.50 0.17% 38.91 96.16 0.93% Ruscom River 397.16 981.39 2.04% 32.77 80.98 0.17% 429.93 1062.37 2.21% Little Creek 17.94 44.34 0.33% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 17.94 44.34 0.33% Total Forest Cover 1568.66 3876.24 2.61% 106.81 263.94 0.18% 1675.47 4140.17 2.78% Pike Creek 13.59 33.58 0.14% 48.97 121.01 0.49% 62.56 154.59 0.63% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Belle River Wetland**/ 7.58 18.72 0.06% 89.11 220.19 0.74% 96.68 238.91 0.81% Wetland Duck & Moison Creek Buffers 1.10 2.72 0.03% 30.27 74.80 0.72% 31.37 77.51 0.75% Ruscom River (240 m) 26.75 66.09 0.14% 50.37 124.48 0.26% 77.12 190.57 0.40% Little Creek 20.98 51.85 0.38% 26.16 64.64 0.48% 47.14 116.49 0.86% Total Wetland 70.00 172.97 0.12% 244.88 605.11 0.41% 314.88 778.07 0.52% Pike Creek 17.44 43.09 2.38% 715.02 1766.85 97.62% 732.46 1809.94 100.00% Puce River 2.68 6.62 0.51% 527.47 1303.41 99.49% 530.15 1310.03 100.00% Belle River 15.42 38.11 2.07% 728.55 1800.29 97.93% 743.97 1838.40 100.00% Duck & Moison Creek Riparian 0.74 1.84 0.22% 336.33 831.09 99.78% 337.07 832.93 100.00% Ruscom River 3.70 9.14 0.29% 1263.80 3122.92 99.71% 1267.50 3132.06 100.00% Little Creek 0.89 2.21 0.21% 421.22 1040.86 99.79% 422.11 1043.07 100.00% Total Riparian 40.88 101.01 1.01% 3992.39 9865.41 98.99% 4033.27 9966.42 100.00% Pike Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 24.72 61.07 0.25% 24.72 61.07 0.25% Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 4.95 12.22 0.05% 4.95 12.22 0.05% Belle River Other 0.00 0.00 0.00% 2.76 6.82 0.02% 2.76 6.82 0.02% Duck & Moison Creek Upland*** 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Ruscom River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 28.03 69.27 0.14% 28.03 69.27 0.14%
174 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Summary of Natural Area Restoration Existing Proposed/Recently Completed Resulting Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 2.13 5.25 0.04% 2.13 5.25 0.04% Total Other Upland 0.00 0.00 0.00% 62.58 154.64 0.10% 62.58 154.64 0.10% Pike Creek 360.25 890.21 3.63% 813.50 2010.20 8.19% 1173.75 2900.41 11.82% Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48% 555.45 1372.55 6.06% 874.14 2160.05 9.54% Belle River 463.95 1146.45 3.88% 839.54 2074.56 7.01% 1303.50 3221.01 10.89% Duck & Moison Creek All Types 32.93 81.38 0.78% 373.68 923.39 8.89% 406.61 1004.76 9.67% Ruscom River 423.90 1047.48 2.18% 1374.98 3397.65 7.07% 1798.88 4445.13 9.25% Little Creek 38.93 96.19 0.71% 449.51 1110.75 8.20% 488.43 1206.94 8.91% Total Natural Area 1638.65 4049.20 2.72% 4406.66 10889.10 7.32% 6045.31 14938.30 10.04% * Forest = Upland + Swamp ** Wetland = Marsh + Open Water *** Other Upland = Natural Succession, Meadows, Prairie, Shrub Thickets, Plantations
175 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Appendix IX: Forest Bird Associations and Rarity Status
Study Area Rarity Status (Sutherland, 1994)
Habitat Association Common Name Scientific Name (Environment Canada et al., 1998) GRANK SRANK MNR COSEWIC Greater Detroit River Southeast Essex Region Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds
Great Blue Heron Ardea heroidas Unclassified TTT G5 S5B,SZN
Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus Unclassified TTTTG5 S4
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Unclassified TTT G5 S3B,SZN
Canada Goose Branta canadensis Unclassified TTTTG5 S5B,S5N
Wood Duck Aix sponsa Unclassified TTTTG5 S5B,S5N
Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Unclassified TTTTG5 S5B,S5N
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Interior TTTG5 S4
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Unclassified TTTTG5 S5B,S5N
American Kestrel Falco sparverius Unclassified TTTTG5 S5B,S5N
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Int/Edge T G5 S5
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Unclassified T G5 S5b,SZN
American Woodcock Scolopax minor Edge TTTTG5 S5
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Edge TTTTG5 S5
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erthropthalmus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S4
176 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Study Area Rarity Status (Sutherland, 1994)
Habitat Association Common Name Scientific Name (Environment Canada et al., 1998) GRANK SRANK MNR COSEWIC Greater Detroit River Southeast Essex Region Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S4
Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio Edge TTTTG5 S5 NAR
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Interior TTTTG5 S5
Long-eared Owl Asio otus Interior TTG5 S4
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Unclassified TTTG5 S4S5
Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vocifersu Int/Edge TTG5 S5
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Edge TTTTG5 S5
Rudy-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Edge TTTTG5 S5
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Edge TTTTG5 S3S4B,SZN
Northern (Common) Flicker Colaptes auratus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Interior TT G5 S5
Eastern Wood-Pewee Comtopus virens Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Edge TT G5 S5
177 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Study Area Rarity Status (Sutherland, 1994)
Habitat Association Common Name Scientific Name (Environment Canada et al., 1998) GRANK SRANK MNR COSEWIC Greater Detroit River Southeast Essex Region Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds
Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Interior TTG5 S5
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trallii Unclassified TTTTG5 S5
Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Edge T G5 S5
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Int/Edge TT G5 S5
Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Eastern Kingbird Tyannus tyannus Edge TTTTG5 S5
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Edge TTTTG5 S5
Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Unclassified TTTTG5 S5
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
American Crow Corvus corax Edge TTTTG5 S4N,S5B
Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Int/Edge TTT G5 S5
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Interior TTTTG5 S5
Tufted Titmouse Parus atricapillus Interior TT
Brown Creeper Certhia americana Interior T G5 S3S4N,S5B
Carolina Wren Thyothorus ludovicianus Unclassified TTT G5 S3S4
178 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Study Area Rarity Status (Sutherland, 1994)
Habitat Association Common Name Scientific Name (Environment Canada et al., 1998) GRANK SRANK MNR COSEWIC Greater Detroit River Southeast Essex Region Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds
House Wren Troglodytes aedon Edge TTTTG5 S5
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerula Int/Edge TTT G5 S4
Veery Catharus fuscescens Interior TTG5 S5
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
American Robin Turdus migratorius Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Cedar Waxing Bombycilla cedrorum Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Edge TTTTG5 SE
White-eyed Vireo Vireo solitarius Int/Edge TTT G5 S2
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Int/Edge TTT G5 S4
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Edge TTTTG5 S5
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Edge TTT G5 S4
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Edge TTTTG5 S5
179 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Study Area Rarity Status (Sutherland, 1994)
Habitat Association Common Name Scientific Name (Environment Canada et al., 1998) GRANK SRANK MNR COSEWIC Greater Detroit River Southeast Essex Region Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds
Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Edge T G5 S5
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Interior TTG5 S5
Pothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Int/Edge TTG5 S2
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Interior TT G5 S5
Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia Edge T G5 S5
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Edge TTT G5 S2S3 VUL
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Interior TTT G5 S5
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S5
Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Edge TTTTG5 S5
Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Int/Edge TTTTG5 S4B,SZN
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
180 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Study Area Rarity Status (Sutherland, 1994)
Habitat Association Common Name Scientific Name (Environment Canada et al., 1998) GRANK SRANK MNR COSEWIC Greater Detroit River Southeast Essex Region Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Edge TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Edge TTTTG5 S3S4N,S5B
Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Unclassified TTTTG5 S5B,SZN
Northern Oriole Icterus galbula Edge TTTTG5 S5
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Unclassified TTT G5 S5
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Edge TTTTG5 S5
House Sparrow Passer domesticus Edge TTTTG5 SE
Unclassified 13 15 14 10
Edge 30 32 30 27
Interior/Edge 20 20 21 14
Interior 9 7 10 3
Total 72747554
181 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy