University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Legacy Theses
2000 Integration of tallgrass communities in open space systems of southern Ontario municipalities: Development of a site selection process
Long, Krista
Long, K. (2000). Integration of tallgrass communities in open space systems of southern Ontario municipalities: Development of a site selection process (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/15361 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/41221 master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca The University of Calgary
Integration of Tallgrass Communities in Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities: Development of a Site Selection Process
By Krista Long
A Master's Degree Project submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Design in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master's of Environmental Design (Environmental Science)
Faculty of Environmental Design The University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta March 2000
Q Krista D. Long 2000 National Library BibliotMque nationale 1+1 .Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OltawaON KlAW -warn K1AW Canada CaMde v~mvmwhma
Our me Norre rolk.ncr
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduke, pr&ter,distn'buer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique .
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de ceIle-ci ne doivent &e imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Integration of Tallgrass Communities in Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities: Development of a Site Selection Process
By Krista Long Rich Revel. Supervisor March 2000
Submitted in partial fillfiIlrnent of the requirements for the degree of Master's of Environmental Design (Environmental Science)
Tallgrass prairie and oak savanna communities occupied approximately 800 km2to 2000 km' of southern Ontario prior to European settlement: now less than 3% or 21 km' remains. These communities are some of the most endangered ecosystems in Canada, at one time forming part of a vast system of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna communities that formed a rough triangle extending north into southern Manitoba, south into northeastern Texas. and east into Indiana. southern Michigan and Ontario.
The destruction of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna communities has been a result of urban development. agriculture. pollution and mismanagement. Remaining vestiges of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna occur in isolated patches. mostly less than 2 hectares in size. Many of these remnants occur in and around the open and abandoned spaces within the highly urbanized landscape of southern Ontario and face the risk of continued destruction or damage from uninformed planning decisions.
Interest is growing in southern Ontario to preserve and restore these endangered communities as they are becoming recognized as important elements of southern Ontario's natural heritage. The Natural Heritage Information Centre has identified provincially significant tallgrass prairie and savanna remnants for inclusion in a system of provincially recognized and protected areas of natural and scientific interest (AN SIs). Municipalities have an important role to play in the preservation and restoration of these communities as well. The identification and creation of a system of focally significant sites for the presenation and re-creation of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities can work with the provincially established sites to preserve and recover this vanishing natural heritage.
Urban open space areas may provide the forum for this to happen if the scope and definition of urban open space areas is broadened and the planning and use of those areas is adapted to incorporate policies and by-la~vsfor the preservation and re-creation of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna communities. A shift has been occurring over the years to broaden the scope of open space planning, from its traditional role of identieing areas for recreational use to incorporating natural areas, utility corridors. and transitional use areas within its breadth, These changes can be expanded to include land-use designations identifying remnant tallgrass communities for protection and areas where tallgrass communities can be restored and/or re-created. This project outlines a process for identieing and selecting sites for the preservation. restoration andor re-creation of tallgrass communities and provides recommendations for integrating that process into the existing open space planning framework. It also provides general recommendations for the implementation of selected sites for restoring and/or re-creating tallgrass communities and the selection of species for use on those sites. The site selection process involves two stages: landscape analysis and site prioritization. Four keg steps have been identified within these stages including:
i) The identification of existing tallpass remnants to form the basis of a system of preserved tallgrass communities; ii) The identification of potentially compatible land-use areas. based on a set of identified Iand-use criteria. for the restoration of tallgrass communities: iii) The selection of sites for restoring andor re-creating tallps communities based on bio- physical suitability of the selected sites: and iv) The prioritization of those sites for implemention in a system of tailgrass communities.
The identification and designation of selected sites should form part of a greenspace masterplan for the municipality and function as a layer in the land-use planning process that guides planning and development decisions. To be successful at guiding land-use planning decisions, changes will need to be implemented \%pithinmunicipal official plans and planning by-laws that reflect the goal of achieving a system of preserved and re-created tallgrass communities and address the needs of those communities uithin the fabric of urban open space areas. Recommendations have been provided that address this issue within the context of municipal official plans, zoning by-laws and open space masterplans. The site selection process. together with the recommendations. will form a coordinated strategy for integrating and maintaining a system of tallgrass communities within the open space systems of southern Ontario municipalities.
Key Words: tallgrass communities. natural heritage. preservation, restoration. re-creation. integration. urban open space areas. municipal land-use planning, site selection process Acknowledgements
This project was possible with the help of many people. I would like to thank Kim Delaney. Wayne MacMillan. Lindsay Rodger. Allen Woodliffe, Lloyd Burridge, Paul Pratt. Faye tangmaid. Corrine Goldrup. Maureen Sinclair, Don Radford. Wasyl Bakowsky. tarry Harder and all the people from Ontario and beyond involved in the expert consultation and information collection stage of this project. IVithout their insight and knowledge this project would not have been possible. Extra thanks to Wayne blacbt illan for reviewing and providing comments on the final drafi and Lindsay Rodger for her support. enthusiasm and words of wisdom throughout the development and review of this research,
I would also like to thank Rich Revel who's suppon and encouragement began with his infamous ecoloa course and has continued throughout this project. Thanks for everything.
Acknow.ledgements are also given to the Faculty of Environmental Design for providing funding for this research and to Dr. Michael Quinn for his role as my academic advisor during my stay at EVDS.
The acknow.Iedgernents would not be complete without recognizing my family and friends. I have had the opponuni~-to make some w-onderful friends in Calgary and share our ideas about the differences we belie\.e each of us can make. My work and my life has been forever shaped by each one of you. Thanks.
And last. but definitely not least - my family. Much thanks to Watly and Miriam for your support and encouragement: Ron for being my photographer and ever willing travel companion; Trish for setting the esampIe: and Jim. for your patience and shared enthusiasm for learning. This is for each of you.
Abstract ...... i ... Acknowledgements ...... 111 Table of Contents ...... v ... List of Tables ...... v111 Lisr of Figures ...... ix Chapter 1: Introduction 1 . I Background ...... 3 1.2 Project Purpose and Objectives ...... 4 l .3 Project Methodology ...... 5 1.4 Limitations of the Research ...... 9 1 -5 Organization of Thesis ...... 10 Chapter 2: Natural History of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities 2.1 Development of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities in North America ...... 13 2.2 Description of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities ...... 13 2.3 Characteristics of Tallgrass Communities in North America ...... 16 2.3.1 Pianr Species Composirion and Organizarion in Tollgrass Prairies ...... 16 2.3.2 Pianr Species Conzposirion and Organization in Oak Savanna ...... 18 2.4 Factors Influencing Plant Species Composition of Tallgrass Communities ...... 19
2.4.1 !Cficro-ciimare.Icnriscape and soils ...... ,...... 19 2.4.2 Topographic Position ...... 20 Fire ...... 21 Hzrbivory ...... 23 Droughr ...... 25 -4 nthropogenic Influences ...... 26 Chapter 3: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario . . 3 Extent and Status of Tallgrass Commun~t~es...... 3 1 3.2 Tailgrass Community Types of Southern Ontario ...... 33 3.2. I Classijicarion of Tallgrass Prairie Communiries...... 31 3.2.1.1 DQ Prairie...... ,,...... 35 3.2.1 .2 Dp-mesic Pnirir ...... 35 3 I Mesic Sand). Loam Prairie ...... 36 3.2 I Wet-mesic Prairie...... 36 3.2.1.5 Wet Prairie ...... 38 3.2.2 Cfussificarionof Oak Savanna Commrmities ...... 43 3.2.2.1 Vep. Dry Savanna ...... 43 3.2.2.2 Dry Savanna ...... 44 3.2.2.3 Dq-mesic savanna ...... 45 3.2.2.4 Mesic Savmna ...... 45 3.2.2.5 Wet-mesic Savanna ...... 46 3.2.3 Ecological Land Clarsi/cation ...... 52 3.2.3. l DyTallgrass Prairie Ecosites ...... 53 3.2.3.2 Moist -Fresh Tallgrass Prairie Ecosites ...... 53 -7-7 2 .2 . Dr? Tallems Savanna Ecosites ...... 5-1 3.2.3.4 Xloisr .Fresh Tallgrass Savanna Ecositcs ...... 55 3.2.4 RegionaPCounn. Species Selecrion Guides...... 59 3.3 Opportunities and Constraints for Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario ...... 60 3.3. / Resrorarion and Preservation Considerations ...... 60 3.3.2 Hisrorical Range and Site Conditions Compared to Present Day ...... 61 Chapter 4: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipalities 4 .I The Planning Process ...... 67 4 1.1 Designation and Classijicarion of Open Space Area ...... 67 1.I . I . 1 City of Brantford Open Space Planning: .A Case Study ...... 69 4.1.2 By-laws and Regulartom Conrrofling the Use of Open Space Areas ...... 70 4.2 Broadening the Scope of Open Space Planning ...... 71 4.2.I Changing rhe Designation and Classr@cation of Open Space .Areas ...... 77- 4.2.2 Jnregraring (he Planning ofivafural and Open Space Areas ...... 7-1 Chapter 5: Integrating Tallgrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities .A Site Selection Process 5 . I Development of the Site Selection Process ...... 79 5.1. I Developmenr ofrhe Framework ...... 79 5.1. I . 1 Natural .4 rcas Evaluation Schemes ...... 80 5.1.1.2 Land Suitabilit>.Analysis ...... 82 5 .I . 1.3 Site Specific Design Analysis ...... 85 3.1.2 Developmenr ofthe Crireria...... 86 5.1.2.1 Bio-Physical Criteria ...... 86 5.1 2.3 Lmd-Use Criteria ...... 91 5.2 The Site Selection Process ...... 94 5.2.1 Landscape .-Inalvsis ...... -..-.-...... -..-.95 5.2.2 Sire Prioririzarion Srrareg?...... 99 Chapter 6: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities .Recommendations and Conclusions 6.1 Integrating the Site SeIection Process into the Municipal Planning Process ...... 105 6./.I Public involvement...... 105 6. I.2 Planning and Regularory Measures ...... 105 6.1.2.1 Oficial Plans ...... 105 6.1.2.2 Zoning By-laws ...... 107 6.1.2.3 Open Space blasterplans ...... 108 6.2 Recommendations for the Implementation of Sites Selected for the Preservation and Restoration of Tallgrass Communities ...... 109 6.2. I Education ...... I09 6.2.2 Sire Planning. Preparation. Planting and Maintenance ...... I II 6.2.3 Species Selection...... I13 6.2.4 ,\ fanugemenr Plans ...... I43 6.2.5 Partnerships and Communiry /nvolvemenr ...... I13 6.3 Conclusions ...... 145 References Literature Reviewed ...... 149 ...... Personal Communications ...... 158 Appendices Appendis I : OMNR Recommended Approach for the Evaluation of Rare Vegetation Communities 159 Appendis 2: Interview Responses for the Development of Site Selection Criteria ...... 160 Appendis j: List of Organizations ...... 161 Appendis 4: Restoration Reference Guides ...... 163 Appendix 5: Policy and Legislative Considerations ...... 165 Appendix 6: Letter of Informed Consent ...... 166 List of Tables
Table 1 : Individuals involved in the interview process ...... 7 Table 2: Prevalent species of tallgrass prairie community types ...... 38 Table 3: Prevalent species of oak savanna community types ...... 46 Table 4: Prevalent species of community types identified within the ecological land classification (ELC) system ...... 55 Table 5: Prairie species for dry to dry-mesic sites ...... 115 Table 6: Prairie species for mesic sites ...... 119 Table 7: Prairie species for wet-mesic to wet sites ...... 125 Table 8: Savanna species for dry sites ...... I30 Table 9: Savanna species for dry-mesic to mesic sites ...... 133 Table 10: Savanna species for wet-mesic sites ...... 138 List of Figum
Figure 1 : Historic range of shon. mixed and tallgrass prairie in North America ...... 14 Figure 2: Tallgrass prairie . oak savanna and oak woodland region ...... 14 Figure 3: Prairie . savanna and woodland classification systems ...... 15 Figure 4: Distribution of major prairie species in relation to soil moisture ...... 21 Figure 5: Estimated minimum historical extent of tallgrass prairie and savanna in southern Ontario ...... 31 Figure 6: Dot distribution map of current tallgrass prairie and savanna remnants in southern Ontario ...... 32 Figure 7: Example designations of open space areas within southern Ontario municipalities.... 68 Figure 8: Identification of existing tallgrass communities...... 95 Figure 9: Identification of potentially compatible land-use areas...... 97 Figure 10: Selection of sites for the restoration and re-creation of tallpass communities ...... 99 Figure 1 1 : Site prioritization strategy ...... 101 Figure 12: The pre-settlement taI1gass landscape ... and a future vision for southern Ontario open space ...... 147
Chapter 1 : lntrodudion
" ... I starred with szrrprise and delight. I was in the midst of a prairie! A world of grass and jlorvers stretched around me, rking and falling in gentle undulations, as fan enchanter had struck the ocean swell, and it Ictus at restforever ... " (Eliza Steele, cited in Sumner)
1 .I Background
Tallgrass prairie and savanna communities are some of the most endangered ecosystems in Canada (Rodger. 1998). Approximately 1 % of this once abundant ecosystem remains (Rodger. 1998). Tallgrass prairie and savanna communities once occupied the regions of south-central Manitoba and southern Ontario. They were part of the vast expanse of tallgrass prairie and
savanna communities covering most of [OW& Illinois. southern Minnesota and Wisconsin. northern Missouri and the eastern parts of North and South Dakota. Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma (Rodger. 1998).
Estimates from the United States indicate that tallgrass prairie once covered 775 000 km'. or 77.5 million ha: only 24%of that remains today (Rodger. 1998). Similarly, mid-west oak savanna covered between 1 1 and 13 million ha at the time of settlement (Rodger. 1998). A 1985 survey estimated approximately 2600 ha remaining. which represents 0.02% of its former area (Nuzzo. 1986). In Manitoba it is estimated 1% of the former 6000 krn2 of tallgrass prairie remains in isolated patches (Joyce. 1989; Johnson. 1986).
Tiny remnants are also all that remain of the tallgrass prairie and savama communities that were once a prevalent feature of the landscape in southern Ontario. It is not clear how much of this area mTasonce covered in tallgrass communities. Estimates from historical records and soil sunreys indicate anywhere from 800 kmzto 2000 km2.or more. may have been present before settlement: now less than 3% or 2 100 ha (2 1 km2) remains (Rodger, 1998). The loss and degradation of these communities has been a result of urban development, agriculture, pollution and mismanagement (Rodger, 1998).
There is considerable interest in southern Ontario to preserve and restore these endangered communities. Tallgrass prairie and savanna communities are becoming recognized as important elements within the scope of Ontario's natural heritage. They are not only important unto themselves. but support many wildlife species that have also become endangered or significantly reduced in population size with the loss of habitat associated with these diverse communities.
Chaprzr One: lntroducrion 3 In 1998 a recovery plan for tallgrass communities in southern Ontario was created by World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to raise awareness and encourage research and action toward preserving and restoring tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. This plan recognizes the need to coordinate efforts in the fight to preserve existing remnants as well as restore and re-create tallpass prairie and savanna communities where they were once found. It is this plan, and specifically the goal. to "encourage restoration and habitat creation initiatives where appropriate to enlarge existing remnants, make linkages and create new habitat" (Rodger. 1998). that has helped to focus this research project.
Much of the area where these communities once existed. or still exist, lies within the highly urbanized setting of southern Ontario. Although built areas of the urban environment create many restrictions for natural communities. the open space systems of urban settings provide many opportunities. Tallgrass remnants have been found along railways, in abandoned fields and old cemeteries that have long been neglected. These discoveries provide hope and a basis from which to preserve and restore these once abundant ecosystems. Through the development of a coordinated site selection strategy. the open space areas of our towns and cities may provide the forum to preserve. enhance and re-create tallgrass prairie communities as they once occurred.
1.2 Project Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this Master's Degree Project is to develop a process of selecting sites within open space areas of southern Ontario municipalities for the preservation and re-creation of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities.
This process is ultimately intended to provide municipalities throughout southern Ontario with a coordinated strategy for making informed planning and development decisions in relation to the presenration and restoration of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. To accomplish this, the process will not only involve the identification and selection of sites, but include recommendations for integrating the site selection process into the open space planning process;
4 Chapter One: Inmoducrion recommendations for impiementing selected sites; and a means for selecting species for use on restored sites.
Six objectives were developed to assist in completing the project purpose. They include:
i Identie parameters of the open space planning process in southern Ontario municipalities. including applicable legislation, designation of open space areas. and the use and management of those areas;
ii) Outline the types of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities in southern Ontario and their physical, structural and bctiond characteristics;
iii) Review existing site selection processes and extrapolate criteria usefir1 for this project;
iv) Establish the framework and criteria for the development of a site selection process which identifies urban open space areas where tallgrass prairie and savanna remnants might occur and where they may be re-created;
v) Provide information to assist in the selection of species for the re-creation of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities on a site specific basis; and
vi) Formulate recommendations for the implementation of this process within the context of the urban open space planning process.
1 .3 Project Methodology
The following methodology was used to achieve the goal and objectives of the research.
Phase One: Collection and Review of Background Information
A literature review was conducted to obtain background information on the three components of this masters degree project: the history and ecology of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities in southern Ontario; the open space planning process in southern Ontario; and development of criteria and methods of evaluation used in relevant site selection processes.
Chapter One: lntroducrion 5 Information was collected by undertaking an article and book search at the University of Calgary librq; inquiring within the field as to relevant reports and articles; searching the internet for tallgrass prairie and savanna references and applicable legislation: obtaining copies of official plans and regulatory frameworks of key municipalities in southern Ontario: and selecting references fiom reviewed books and articles to gather further background into the subject areas.
The information obtained in this phase was used to develop a basic understanding of the biophysical needs of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities and the regulatory process of open space planning to develop a set of preliminary criteria for the site selection process. The criteria were classified under two main categories that would affect the selection of sites: biophysical factors and land-use factors. Two theoretical frameworks were developed fiom the review of existing site selection processes to examine potential methods for evaluating the criteria for the site selection process. The frameworks and criteria were then used in phase two to clarifi and/or obtain new information for the process and site selection criteria.
Information identified regarding the types and biophysical requirements of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities was also used to provide recommendations for the implementation of selected sites and the selection of species for those sites.
Phase Two: Development of the Site Selection Framework and Criteria
The identification of criteria for the site selection process was paramount to its successfbl development. Information gathered fiom the literature review provided a basis for the process, but further information could only be obtained by interviewing experts in the field.
Interviews were conducted with individuals who have knowledge of tallgrass prairie and savanna ecology; have been involved with tallgrass prairie and savanna restoration projects; and/or are planners with municipalities in the area of southern Ontario where tallgrass prairie and savanna communities are found. Table 1 provides a list of the people interviewed and their affiliations.
6 Chapter One: Introduction Individuals interviewed were identified from a list of people involved in tallgrass prairie projects provided by Lindsay Rodger. author of the Recovery Plan for Tallgrass Prairie Communities in Southern Ontario and chairperson of Tallgrass Ontario. These people were originally contacted by email or telephone to discuss the project and determine if they would be interested in participating in this research project. Other individuals became involved through recommendations from those people initially contacted andlor interviewed.
Table 1: Individuals involved in the interview process
Name of Person Interviewed Title of Person Interviewed Afiiliation of Person Interviewed Lloyd Burridge Parks Commissioner City of Windsor Parks and Recreation Department Kim Delaney Tallgrass Prairie Specialist Rural Larnbton Stewardship Network Corrine Goldrup Technician Community Services, Naturalist Services, City of Winnipeg Faye Langmaid Co-ordinator of Design and City of Windsor Parks and Development Recreation Department Wayne MacMiIlan Supervisor. Land Resources Grand River Conservation Authority Paul Pratt Naturalist Ojibway Nature Centre, City of Windsor Don Radford Deputy Director of Planning City of Brantford Lindsay Rodger Species Rec~veryManager World Wildlife Fund Canada Maureen Sinclair Manager of Parks Services City of Brantford Parks and Recreation Department Allen Woodliffe District Ecologist Ministry of Natural Resources
Individuals who agreed to participate were sent a letter with a brief introduction and a set of questions to guide the interview; the theoretical frameworks to guide the discussion on the site selection process and site selection criteria; an EVDS informed consent fonn, consistent with University of Calgary ethics guidelines (Appendix 6); and a copy of the research proposaI for further background if they had not received one in the original contact.
Chapter One: lntroducrion 7 The intenriews were semi-structured. A set of general questions were prepared to guide the interview. but the interviews were conducted in an informal manner to allow other relevant information to surface during the interviews. The interviews were conducted to obtain the following information:
i) site conditions required for establishing tallgrass prairie and savanna communities;
ii) site selection criteria used for existing tallgrass prairie and savanna presenration and restoration projects;
iii) legislative barriers and opportunities to establishing tailgrass prairie and savanna communities in urban open space areas; and
iv) land-use planning opportunities and barriers to establishing tallgrass prairie and savanna communities in urban open space areas.
Information obtained from the interviews was transcribed and organized under the same categories. biophysical factors and land-use factors. as the information fiom the literature review for easier comparison and decision making in the development of the site selection process.
Phase Three: Development of the Site Selection Process
The results of the interviews and literature review were analyzed and compared to find consistencies and differences. New information brought in from the interviews was taken into consideration in the comparison as well. The selection of criteria and method of evaluation for the site selection process were then made by assessing the findings and making an informed judgement based on the consistency of the findings and applicability to this research problem.
The site selection process was developed in this manner to balance the findings of tallgrass prairie and savanna ecology from the literature with the knowledge and experience gained by professionals for restoring tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. It was determined that this approach would result in the development of a process that is realistic to the challenges of integrating tallgrass prairie communities into urban open space areas while addressing both the
8 Chapter One: Introduction biophysical needs of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities as well as the physical and legal constraints of urban open space areas.
Phase Four: Formulation of Recommendations
The final component of the site selection process was its integration within the existing framework of the municipal open space planning process. Recommendations were developed based on findings fiom the literature of the open space planning process, recommendations tiom similar site selection processes, and responses fiom selected interviewees.
1.4 Limitations of the Research
This research is based on current and existing findings and research in the fields of tallgrass prairie and savanna ecology. preservation and restoration. It is also based on the realities ofa land use planning process which fhctions according to laws invariably different than those of the natural world. Each of these areas is subject to change dictated by the dynamic nature of the natural Lvorld. changes in social values and philosophies related to new discoveries of the natural world. and the political powers at the root of all decision making processes.
The bridging of art and science, politics and nature is not and never will be an exact science. It involves careht consideration of existing facts and findings and making decisions, which attempt to improve. build upon and/or change existing conditions to best reflect those findings.
Making decisions regarding the preservation and restoration of natural communities can be approached in two ways: either we wait until we have all the answers and risk losing and damaging more of our precious natural heritage, or we can make the best decisions possible based on the amount of knowledge and information available to us in an effort to preserve, restore. live and learn with the natural world as our guide. This research has followed the second of these approaches, realizing there will be uncertainties and room for change.
Chapter One: Introduction 9 1.5 Organization of Thesis
Chapter two presents the background information on the natural history and ecological characteristics of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities.
Chapter three provides specific details regarding the types of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities in southern Ontario, and opportunities and constraints for preserving. restoring andlor re-creating tal Ipsprairie and savanna communities in southern Ontario.
Chapter four reviews the open space planning process in southern Ontario municipalities. including designation of open space areas and legislation affecting those areas; and looks at planning tools and frameworks which could broaden the scope of open space planning and lead to the effective integration of natural areas, such as tallgrass prairie communities. into open space systems.
Chapter five ties the information from chapter two, three and four together with the development of the framework and criteria for the site selection process; and presents the site selection process. both in test and graphically.
Chapter six provides recommendations for the integration of the site selection process into the planning process; provides recommendations for implementation, education. and management of selected sites: and presents a list of species and their selection based on site conditions.
10 Chapter One: Inrrodrrction Chapter 2: Natural History of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities
" ... a prairie is wine-coloured grass, dancing in the win& A prairie is sun-spiushed hillside. bright with wildflowers ... lr is wild land ... " (Dennis Farney, 1980)
2.1 Development of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities in Woeh America
It is believed that tallgrass prairie and savanna communities formed some 4000 to 8000 years ago during a warming period which allowed prairie vegetation to move in from the west and occupy areas of central and eastern United States and southern Ontario typically thought to be dominated by forest species. A period of cooling and a gradual increase in rainfall followed this warming stage allowing forest species and a variety of herbaceous and grass species fiom the deciduous forest region of the southeastern United States to re-invade the prairie (Faber- Langendoen, 1984).
A di~~ersemix of herbaceous. shrub and forest species was created. These areas were continually modified by regional and local climate patterns and varying periods of fire and drought resulting in the formation of a diverse system of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities.
2.2 Description of Tallgrass Prairie and Savmna Communities
Tallgrass prairies are part of a system of prairies that stretched fiom southern Alberta. Saskachewan. Manitoba and Ontario south to Texas and New Mexico (Rodger, 1998). Three prairie types defined this 'Great Plains' region including short, mixed and tall grass prairie. Tallgrass prairie inhabited the eastern most region of the prairie boundary, forming a triangle from Manitoba south into Texas and stretching across the mid-western States into southern Ontario (Figure 1 ).
The word '-prairie" is French for meadow and was used to describe a natural community type in North America dominated by herbaceous plants: gasses, sedges and forbs, more commonly referred to as wildflowers (Rodger, 1998). Prairies are nearly treeless communities and usually occur on deep soils. Not all prairies are alike, though.
Chapter Two: Natural History of TaIfgrassPrairie andSavanna Communities 13 The three prairie types in North America are defined primarily by differences in precipitation patterns resulting in distinct vegebtion communities (Rodger. 1 998). The tallgrass prairie region receives the highest amount of precipitation (Risser et al.. 198 1 ) resulting in a tall, lush. and diverse assemblage of species.
Figure 1: Historic range of short, mixed and bHgrass prairie in North America (Source: Reaume, 1993).
Savanna. in North America. typically refers to the occurrence of ecotonal. or transitional vegetation between mid-westem prairie and northeastern deciduous forest (Nuuo. 1985). Four types of savanna are found in the United States and Canada: aspen parkland, pine barrens. cedar glade and oak savanna; and of those. oak savanna is the community most closely associated with CI tallgrass prairie in southern Ontario (Rodger, 1998).
Oak savanna and woodland communities bordered the tallgrass region to the north, east and south-east. In many areas tallgrass prairie was scattered among the regions of oak savanna and woodland. Figure 2 shows the range and intermixed dispersal of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna throughout the mid-westem United States. into Manitoba and southern Ontario.
Distinctions between tallgrass prairie and savanna . Tdlgrass prairie intermixed with savanna communities were originally based on the number of Tallpass savanna and woodland inrerrnixcd w wib pniric trees present; more recently, organizations have been Figure 2: Tallgrass prairie, oak savanna and oak woodland region (Source: Packard, 1997).
14 Chapter Two: Natural History of TaIfgrassPrairie and Savanna Communifies using percent canopy cover to classi& areas as prairie or savanna (Packard, 1986). Differences exist ~vithinthe percent canopy cover method depending on the region(s) covered by the classification. Classification systems fiom the United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC).described by Leach and Ross (1995), and the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). described by Bakowsky (1993). are compared in Figure 3.
%canopy cover 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L I LPJESCO r v F grassland sa\ anna \voodimd forest L L r r rNAi prairie kvanna forest
L L L TNC r r 7 prairie savanna woodland forest . L L - L r w - r NHIC prairie savanna oak \boodland forest
Figure 3: Prairie, savanna and woodland classification systems (Source: Modified from Leach and Ross, 1995; and Bakowsky, 1993).
The difference in classification systems demonstrates the difficulty in defining sharp boundaries between tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. In essence, these ecosystems are a continuum of vegetation fiom the open landscape of the tallpass prairie at one end to the heavily wooded oak forest at the other end (Woodliffe, 1997). Tallgrass prairie, oak savanna and other oak ecosystems are dynamic communities. The prevalence of woody or prairie species as the predominant plant community. denoting an area as savanna or prairie, varies depending on regional climate, soil and site characteristics and the frequency of fire. The dynamic nature of these communities creates the necessity of classifying prairie and savanna in relation to specific regicns and their physiographic land types.
The term "tallgrass communities" is used in southern Ontario to describe the assemblage of flora and fauna making up tallgrass prairie and savanna systems in North America (Rodger, 1998). Oak woodland is treated as a distinct community type, separate from tallgrass communities, due to differences in fire regime (Rodger, 1998). The tenn 'Wlgrass communities" will also be used
Chapter Tr1.o: Natural History of Tailgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities 15 in this document to discuss information pertaining to both tallgrass prairie and oak savanna communities. Information that is specific to either tallgrass prairie communities or oak savanna communities will be noted as such.
2.3 Characteristics of Tallgrass Communities in North America
Tailgrass communities are comprised of a diverse assemblage of species. The particular group of species present depends on geographic location, since some species ranges are limited to certain areas within the prairie region (Mine. 1997). Tallgrass communities in southern Ontario are distinct from those in the United States. and within each of those regions different assemblages of species occur. However. general compositional and organizational characteristics can be discussed that relate to communities within the tallgrass region. This section will discuss some of those general characteristics before looking specifically at the tallgrass community types of southern Ontario in Chapter 3.
2.3.1 Plant Species Composition and Organization in Tallgrass Prairies
Tallgrass prairies consist of a combination of grass species interspersed with forb species and a small amount of woody species. Typically. the combination of grass and forb species strikes a balance at a ratio of 75% to 25%, respectively. In Ontario. though, there tends to be a higher percentage of forb species due to the greater amount of precipitation. This results in a ratio closer to 50-60% grass and sedge species with the remainder comprised of forbs (Woodliffe, 1997).
Grass species comprising tallgrass prairie consist of C4, or 'warm season', and C3, or 'cool season' grasses (Samson and Knopf, 1996; Bazzazz and Parrish, 1982). The classification of C4 and C3 grasses distinguishes their metabolic pathway used to assimilate carbon in the form of carbon dioxide (Hopkins. 1995). C4 grasses fix carbon into a four carbon compound and C3 grasses fix it into a three carbon compound (Samson and Knopf, 1996). Warm and cool season classification is based on the origin of the species as opposed to its growth characteristics, although warm and cool season species have different growth patterns as a result of their origins.
16 Chapter Two: Natural History of Tallgruss Prairie and Suvanna Communifies Warm season grasses are of tropical and semi-tropical origin and make most of their growth in the late spring and summer when temperatures are warmer; cool season grasses are of temperate origin and make the majority of their growth in the spring when temperatures are still cooler (Trottier, 1992). As such, cool season grasses require lower light conditions for growth than warm season grasses (Trottier, 1992).
C4 grasses are the dominant species in tallgrass prairies and may include tall grasses such as Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Panicum virgatzim (switch grass), Sorghastrurn nutans (Indian grass) and Sporobulus spp. (dropseed species) depending on geographic area and site conditions (Samson and Knopf, 1996). Mid and short statured C4 grasses exist as sub-dominants under the tall grasses and may include species such as Schizachyriurn scopariurn (little bluestem). .Agropyron sp. (wheatgrass), Boureloua curripendula (side-oats grama). Bourelorra gracilis (blue grarna), Bouteloua hirsuta (hairy grarna), Buchlae dacryloides (buffalo grass), and Stipa spartea (porcupine needlegrass), depending on geographic area and site conditions (Samson and Knopf, 1996).
C3 grasses make up the remainder of the graminoid component and may include species such as Koelaria cristaia (June grass), Poa compressa (Canada bluegrass), Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), Panicum scribnerianum (Scribner's panic grass) and various Carex spp. (sedges) (Samson and Knopf, 1996). It is important to note that some C3, or cool season grasses, such as the bluegrasses, are not native in southern Ontario although recognized as part of the composition of tallgrass prairie in the central United States.
Forb species provide richness and diversity in tallgrass prairie communities (Howe cited in Samson and Knopf, 1996). They also provide colour and sources of food in the prairie throughout the seasons. Forb species found in tallgrass communities have different growth times and rates of growth (Kline, 1997), providing richness, diversity and colour from May to November (Rodger, 1998). The composition of forb species changes with the various environmental influences on the community, moving from early successional pioneer species such as Ratibida pinnafa (grey-headed coneflower), Rudbeckiu serotina (black-eyed Susan) and
Chapter T1c.o: Natural History of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities 17 .tfonarda/isrztlosa (wild bergamot) to more conservative species such as Silphium laciniatum (compass plant) and Vernonio altissima (tall ironweed). maintaining a continuum of natural succession over time (Kline. 1997). The composition of forb species will also be different based on geographic Iocation and site conditions.
2.3.2 Plant Species Composition and Organization in Oak Savanna
Oak savanna is characterized by open grown trees and/or shrubs over a continuous ground-layer of herbaceous vegetation (Leach and Ross. 1995: Dyksterhuis. 1957). As the name implies, oak is the dominant tree cover. A variety of oak species may form the basis of the oak savanna community depending on site conditions and geographic location. Typically, the following species of oak have been associated with oak savanna in southern Ontario: Quercus veiurina (black oak). 0. alba (white oak), Q.hfuhlenbergia (chinquapin oak). Q. mbra (red oak). Q. palzistris (pin oak), Q. macrocarpa (bur oak) and Q. bicolour (swamp white oak). Other tree species may also be present such as poplars, cedar and pine, depending on site conditions.
The understory is composed of a mix of shrubs. seedlings. grasses and forbs. Depending on the region and site characteristics. the understory will be more or less related to tallgrass prairie, forest or a combination of forest and prairie species (Leach and Ross, 1995). In some instances, the understory can be a distinct assemblage of species neither like that of prairie or forest (Packard. 1986: 1988).
In Ontario. many of the grasses associated with savanna are also dominants in tallgrass prairie communities, such as big bluestem, little bluestem and Indian grass. Dominant forb species common with tallgrass prairie include Rudbeckia serorina (black eyed susan) and Monarda fislulosa (wild bergamot) (Rodger, 1998). Plants such as Aureolia spp. (false foxglove) and Hieracium venusom (rattlesnake hawkweed), which are not associated with prairie, are unique to savanna communities in Ontario (Rodger, 1998).
18 Chapter Two: Narural History of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communi~ies 2.4 Factors Influencing Plant Species Composition of Tallgrass Communities
Various factors influence both the composition of plant species found in a specific geographic location or site condition, and the occurrence and maintenance of those species or community in any locale over time.
The composition of any community is a function of the geology, hydrology, topography. climate and biotic potential of the system over time (Jenny, 196 i b). These factors operate across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales structuring the patterns of species within a community (Samson and Knopf. 1996). These communities and the composition of species within them are continually influenced by distinct disturbance regimes that operate on various scales. frequencies and intensities depending on conditions of the region and site (Collins, 1987). For example,
"grassland communities contain a complex disturbance regime that includes fire. grazing, and soil disturbance by animals: each of which differ in scale. frequency and intensity, and interact to affect community structure (Collins. 1987) and produce and maintain diverse prairie and savanna systems (Rodger. 1998).
An understanding of these factors and their influence on tallgrass communities will assist land managers in making appropriate decisions for the maintenance of existing remnants, as well as the selection of sites and species for the re-creation of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities.
2.4.1 Micro-climate, landscape and soils
Historically, climate was the primary factor affecting the current location of tallgrass community types. but variation within the composition of existing communities may be the result of the differences in slope. exposure, or soil type (Risser et al., 1981). For instance, remnant tallgrass communities have typically been found in Ontario in areas with wanner than average micro- climates. such as south facing slopes and areas near lakes and rivers (Rodger, 1998; Bakowsky, 1993).
Chapter Two: Natural History of Tallg~assPrairie and Savanna Communities 19 Tallgrass prairie. as with most grasslands. occur on relatively flat to rolling topography (Rodger. 1998). Depending on the region. oak savanna has also been found to occur on flat (Whitford and Whitford. 1 97 1 ) to rolling topography (Packard, 1986). The occurrence andlor maintenace of prairie and savanna on these landscapes may also be a result of the need for fire which travels easily across this type of terrain (Rodger, 1998).
Tallgrass communities usually occur on soils that are greater than 25 cm deep (Bakowsky, 1993). In Ontario. remnant tallpass prairie and savanna communities have typically been found on sandy soils (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994; Bakowsky, 1988) although historical records have shown prairie communities to exist on clay and clay-loam soils (Bakowsky, 1993) and savanna communities to thrive on deep fertile soils (Packard, 1986). Remnants may be found in sandy. nutrient poor sites due to the conversion of communities on rich soils to agriculture (Packard. 1986) and other land uses (Bakowsky, 1993).
2.4.2 Topographic Position
Plant species occupy specific topographic positions within any local area depending on soil moisture conditions and exposure (Risser et al., 1981). Risser et al. (1 98 1) describe a correlation of species to topographic position with Spartinapectinafa (prairie cordgrass) as the dominant species in wet lowlands of prairies followed by an intermediate community of Panicum virgatum (switch grass) and Elymus canadensis (Canada wild rye) before reaching the drier communities dominated by Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem). Watts (1 969) had similar findings with the tallgrass prairie communities of southern Manitoba, with the addition of Schirachyrium scopariurn (IittIe bluestem), Bouteloua curtipendula (side-oats grama), and Stipa spartea (needlegrass) as the dominants in the drier regions.
Bauazz and Pamsh (1982) also provide a similar analysis of the occurrence of dominant grass species in the prairies from Minnesota to eastern Oklahoma. Figure 4 provides details of an idealized transect along a topographic-moisture gradient, moving from the wettest prairie lowlands to dry prairie uplands.
20 Chapter Two: Natural History of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities B. curtipendula S. nutans P. virgatum S. scoparium A. gerardii S. pctinata
DRY WET
Figure 4: Distribution of major prairie species in relation to soil moisture (Modified from Bapllzz and Parrish, 1982).
The occurrence of oak species in savanna communities also corresponds to a moisture gradient. In wet and mesic situations, Querctcs palusrris @in oak), Q. macrocarpa (bur oak) and Q- bicolor (swamp white oak) are dominant; in dry sites Q. alba (white oak) becomes prevalent; and in very dry to dry sites Q. rnuhlenbergii (chinquapin oak) and Q. rubra (red oak) are locally dominant (Bakowsky, 1988).
2.4.3 Fire
Pre-settlement prairie communities were a disturbance prone system (Samson and Knopf, 1996). Historical evidence has shown that fire was an important disturbance element in tallgrass prairie communities (Schramm, 1990). Lightning was the chief source of fires. Evidence has also shown that aboriginal peoples used fire to maintain the open expanse of prairie for hunting and camping needs (Pyne, 1986). Later, European settlers also altered the prairie by the deliberate setting of fires as well as deliberately controlling fires (Pyne, 1986). The frequency of naturally occurring fires is not known, although estimates from historical records show fires burned at least once in 10 years and perhaps as often as every three to four years (Hulbert, 1986; Woodliffe, 1997; Reichrnan cited in Rodger, 1998).
Fire is a rejuvenating process in tallgrass communities (Rodger, 1998). The accumulation of litter, either by fallen leaves or dead and decaying plant matter, can restrict the growth of new species. Fire removes this build-up and provides conditions of high light and soil temperature
Chapter TWO:Naruraf History of Tallgruss Prairie and Savanna Communiries 2 1 levels which are suitable for growth (Schramrn. 1990: Knopf and Samson. 1996). Nutrients. othenvise bound in the decaying litter. are also released for re-use in the growth of new plants (Samson and Knopf. 1996).
Fire also controls woody and invasive plant growth by removing non-fire adapted species. Prairie and savanna species have extensive root systems that allow them to survive and flourish after fire has removed invasive herbaceous and tree species from the prairie community (Rodger. 1998). Oak species also have thick bark. a 'sprouting ability' and are resistant to rotting after scarring which aids them in surviving fires (Leach and Ross, 1995).
In periods of little to no fire it is believed forest species may begin to dominate areas of oak savanna or tallgrass prairie. In contrast. periods of intense fire would allow prairie to invade forested areas. These cycles of fire are believed to have helped create and define the tallgrass prairie and oak savanna environment. However. this successional pattern has been found to vary among regions and site conditions (Leach and Ross, 1995). Findings in the central United States show savanna remnants that maintained a climax state without fire (Whitford and Whitford. 197 1). The necessity of frequent fires may have been greater in tallgrass communities of the eastern regions. such as Ontario, where greater amounts of rainfall encouraged invasion of forest species in comparison with the communities in the central, drier region of the United States (Woodliffe. 1997).
Fire has also been determined to play an important role in managing plant species diversity. It appears to have an organizing and stabilizing effect on plant community structure (Collins and Steinauer. 1998). The effects on community structure are a result of the frequency, timing and intensity of fires.
Natural fires, caused by lightning, typically occurred in late summer (Pyne, 1986), although most management regimes have found more benefit fiom spring burning practices (Woodliffe, 1997). It has been found that spring burning in tallgrass prairies increases the dominance of C4 grasses and reduces the abundance of cool season grasses (Samson and Knopf, 1996). The blackened
22 Chapter Two: Natural Hisrory of Tallgrass Prairie and Scrvanna Communities earth provides conditions suitable for the growth and establishment of dominant C4 grasses (Schrarnm. 1990). Summer burning has been found to reduce the abundance of C4 grasses and increase the abundance of cool season grasses. resulting in an increase in diversity but an overdl decrease in production (Samson and Knopf, 1996).
Cornmunit). composition is also also affected by the frequency of these fires even when conducted in the spring. Consistent spring burning was found to reduce species richness. although occasional spring bums may actually increase species richness (Collins and Gibson cited in Samson and Knopf. 1996). This has been shown with ongoins research at Konza prairie in Kansas. where annually burned sites were dominated by C4 grasses, but infrequently burned sites. although still dominated by C4 grasses, had a higher abundance of C3 grasses. forbs and woody species (Collins and Steinauer, 1998).
Spring bums have also been found to be beneficial to the composition of savanna communities. Spring fires kill more seedlings of poplar, cherry. birch and aspen without affecting the dominant oak species and allowing the herbaceous understory to develop (Leach and Ross. 1995). The frequency and intensity of fires in savanna varies from that of tallgrass prairie. Litter accumulation is not as consistent as in tallgrass prairie communities resulting in less frequent and more irregular fires (Packard, 1986). As well, more extreme burning conditions are required to carry a fire through the mass of shrubs, grasses and viney understory of oak savanna than to carry it across a prairie (Packard. 1986). Periods without fire allow oak seedlings to mature (Packard. 1986) and periods of intense, hot fires may have the ability to remove all woody vegetation including oaks (Leach and Ross, 1995).
2.4.4 Herbivory
The extent of disturbance to tallgrass communities by large herbivores is uncertain. Much of the area of tallgrass prairie was destroyed before studies could be carried out on the effects of herbivory. As well, it is speculated that bison mostly roamed and fed in the mixed grass prairie regions: tallgrass prairie species become too tall and coarse in the fall and are therefore only
Choprer Two: Natural History of TalIgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities 23 suitable for grazing in the spring (Samson and Knopf. 1996). Other grazers within the tallgrass prairie region may have included elk. white tailed and mule deer (Samson and Knopf. 1996).
Bison Lvere likely to have had little impact on the tallpass communities in Ontario compared to effects in central United States. Evidence suggests bison were present only in small numbers in Ontario at the time of European settlement (Rodger. 1998). Activities influencing the communities in southern Ontario include the effects of small herbivores such as groundhogs and grasshoppers. smali burrowing animals, ant mound activity and scat production (Rodger, 1998). .Although not well understood, the effects of these small mammals may be to expose bare soil for seed germination and provide microclimates hospitable to various organisms and processes (Rodger, 1998).
Generally. grassland communities are believed to have been maintained under the grazing regime of various herbivores (Sumner, date unknown). Most grass species maintain their growth point. or meristems. close or below the ground surface. compared to woody species. and are therefore largely adapted to grazing (Rodger, 1998). However. prolonged over-grazing can significant1y degrade or destroy a tallgrass remnant (Rodger, 1998) by permanently removing the native wrrn season grasses and allowing exotic species to increase (Samson and Knopf, 1996). Many of the dominant tall grasses found in tallgrass prairies have meristems that rise several centimeters above the ground level in comparison to grasses found in short grass or mixed grass prairie communities (Rodger, 1998). Overgrazing can limit their growth by removing the rneristems, thereby allowing exotic grass species, with lower rneristems, to succeed (Rodger, 1998).
In tallgrass prairie areas of the central United States, where grazing has been studied. it has been found that grazing alters plant species abundance patterns by selective removal of preferred forage species (Samson and Knopf, 1996). Grazers prefer C4 grasses, reducing their abundance and leading to an increase in plant species diversity and community heterogeneity with the increase of C3 gasses and forb species (Samson and Knopf, 1996; Collins and Steinauer, 1998). C4. or warm season grasses begin their growth later in the season and are reduced in number and
24 Chapter Two: Norurol History of Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities grororvth abiliv by grazing beginning early in the season and continuing throughout (Rodger. 1998). This gives C3. or cool season passes a competitive advantage in grazed areas. Species abundance patterns have also been found to be affected by the presence of wallows. large (3-5 m) bare patches created by bison when rolling around on the ground (Samson and Knopf. 1996). These patches become inhabited by ruderal species, or in some instances when the wallows collect water. by aquatic species. creating micro-habitats within the prairie community (Samson and Knopf, 1996).
Large herbivores also effect the retention of nutrients in prairie communities. Nitrogen is moved from above ground biomass through grazing and transferred to the soil through defecation (Collins and Steinauer, 1998). This transfer increases the retention of nitrogen and reduces the loss of nitrogen through volatilization when prairies are burned (Collins and Steinauer, 1998). affecting plant species composition by providing conditions favourable to the growth of non- native grass species that are adapted to higher nitrogen levels (Rodger, 1998).
Grazing in oak savanna is also not well understood. Packard (1986) found evidence of areas where grazing maintained oak savanna communities where fire was not present. Whereas, Dyksterhuis (1937) found that grazing stimulated woody growth by damaging the herbaceous layer and soil regime, thereby allowing woody species to dominate in areas of oak savanna. In some instances grazing. specifically after settlement. was found to maintain open oak groves but the understory was taken over by Eurasian species (Leach and Ross. 1995).
2.4.5 Drought
The deep root systems of tallgrass prairie and savanna species allow them to be predominantly drought adapted. However, species composition will change depending on the severity of the drought. Prolonged drought creates shifts in species' ranges, allows for the invasion of exotic species and can lead to habitat degradation (Samson and Knopf, 1996). Milder conditions of drought may only affect certain areas within the community such as higher topographical areas
Chaprer Two: Natural Histor). of Tailgrass Prairie and Savanna Communities 25 and areas on sandy soils. Fire and other disturbances are more severe during drought and may have more widespread affects on community composition (Samson and Knopf. 1996).
2.4.6 Anthropogenic lnfluenees
Although Native Americans had been living within and influencing the prairie and savanna environments through the use of fire, it was European settlers that drastically altered the disturbance regime of tallgrass communities (Samson and Knopf. 1996) and the communities themselves. Fire practices used by Native Americans were beneficial to the needs of prairie and savanna communities. Although the timing, extent and purpose of the fires may have been different than natural fires. in many ways it was these practices that maintained prairie and savanna through much of its historic range (Pyne. 1986).
The arrival of European settlers brought on the destruction of much of the area covered by tallgrass prairie and savanna. Early settlements, and eventually towns and cities. were built on lands occupied by tallpass communities. The rich fertile soils of the prairie were plow-ed under for agricultural crops and the sparseness of trees throughout savanna areas made the clearing of land for homesteads or agricultural purposes easier than heavily forested land (Wood. 196 1; Rodger. 1998).
Many practices were developed in conjunction with the establishment of settlements and agricultural practices which altered the fire regime of tallgrass communities. Fires that occurred naturally or accidentally were suppressed for the protection of homesteads, crops and livestock, and fires codes were developed to limit the use of fire for anthropogenic purposes (Pyne, 1986). The suppression of fires lead to the invasion of non-native and woody species which continue to degrade surviving tallgrass prairie and savanna remnants (Pyne, 1986; Rodger, 1998). In addition. remnants have become so small and isolated in an ever increasing urbanized and human development oriented environment that they stand little chance of being ignited naturally by 1ightning (Rodger, 1998).
2 6 Chapter Two: Natural History of Taligrass Prairie and Savanna Communities The alteration of the groundwater regime with some urban development and agricultural practices. such as ditching. has been found to affect the health and survival of remnant tallgrass communities. Some tallgrass communities are more susceptible to woody species invasion when periodic flooding no longer occurs on a regular basis (Rodger, 1998). As well. pollution and nitrogen from urban and agricultural practices. such as lawn fertilizer and agricultural herbicides and pesticides. impacts the ability of taligrass prairie species to compete with non-native and ~voodyspecies (Wedin and Tilman cited in Rodger, 1998). The interaction between prairie -grasses and soil in a healthy tallgrass community creates a very nitrogen-limited environment (N'edin and Tilman cited in Rodger. 1998): high nitrogen inputs from the surrounding urban and agricultural environment can lead to the invasion of non-native plants and result in the loss of native species diversity (Rodger, 1998).
Chapter Two: Natural History of Taligrass Prairie and Savanna Communities 27
Chapter 3: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario
"Before the plainlands above Rice Lake were enclosed and cultivated, the extensive grassy jlats were brilliant with the azure hues of lupine ... but rhe progress of civilization sweeps rhe fair ornaments fiom the soil. " (Catherine Parr Traill, cited in Bakowsky and Riley, 1994)
3.1 Extent and Status of Tallgrass Communities
It is estimated tallgrass prairie communities once covered approximately 800 krn' to 2000 km' or more of southern Ontario's landscape before early settlers arrived (Rodger, 1998). Historical accounts. surveyors' notes and soil analysis have been used to identify regions where tallgrass prairie communities were once located (Rodger, 1998). These records show large areas of Essex. Kent and Lambton counties and small portions of Elgin and Middlesex counties were covered in tallgrass prairie communities at one time, as well as areas around Lake Erie, Lake Ontario. St. Clair Lake. the southern portion of Lake Huron and inland areas of present day London, St. Thomas, Delhi, Simcoe, Brantford, Dumfiies township, Lake Simcoe, Rice Lake and Peterborough (Rodger, 1998; Bakowsky and Riley, 1994) (see Figure 5).
Historical written descri~tions
Lakc Erie
- - Figure 5: Estimated minimum historical extent of tallgrass prairie and savanna in southern Ontario (Modified from Rodger, 1998).
Chapter Three: TaIIgruss Communities ofSouthern Ontario 3 1 Staff at the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) have been working over the past few years to identify existing remnants in an effort to protect remaining tallgrass communities. Figures from 1 992 identified approximately 2 100 ha. (2 1 km2)of tallgrass prairie. savanna and woodland remaining in southern Ontario (Rodger. 1998; Bakowsky and Riley. 1991). This is approximately 3% of the pre-settlement extent and possibly as little as one Mf of 1% if historical inaccuracies are taken into account (Bakowsy and Riley, 1994). Figure 6 shows the distribution of remaining tallgrass communities in southern Ontario.
Lake Ontarlo
Extensive intact remnants
2 to 50 ha remnants Lakc Enc E Figure 6: Dot distribution map of current tallgrass prairie and savanna remnants in southern Ontario (Modified from Rodger, 1998). Of these remaining pieces, the largest known and managed remnants occur in three locations: 225 ha on Walpole Island in the St. Clair Lake Region; 3 2 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario 413 ha combined in the Ojibway Prairie Complex in the City of Windsor (Essex county): and I250 ha along the southern edge of Lake Huron fiom Grand Bend to Kettle Point. part of which is included in Pinery Provincial Park (Rodger. 1998; Bakowsky and Riley, 1994). Other communities exist as small isolated patches. usually less than 2 ha (Rodger. 1998). The most notable of these remnants include small remnants of savanna at Rondeau Provincial Park; the Sarnia Clearwater Nature Trail (a small remnant tallgrass prairie preserved along a rail right of way); small oak-pine \voodland and prairie openings in the Turkey Point and St. Williams area (historically one of the most extensive areas of dry and dry-mesic prairie in southern Ontario): the savanna rough of the Brantford Golf and Country Club (what is remaining of the approximately 1001000 acres of oak plains in the Brantford area); a small perched prairie 'fen' along a glacial lakeshore bluff in Brantford; the Branchton prairie remnants; the High Park savanna in Toronto (45 ha of which is being restored); Holland Landing prairie remnants; and the Rice Lake prairies (some of the once 250-300 km' is being restored and/or re-created where possible by the Northumberland County Stewardship Council) (Bakowsky and Riley. 1994). Many of these areas have been nominated by the NHIC to include as provincial areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs). Even tinier fragments have survived along railways and river bluffs in Dunwich township, the Thames River Valley, Komoka, Kent and Essex counties and the city of Brantford. and along the old sand plains of Simcoe and Peterborough Counties (Bakowsky and Riley, 1994). Many of these remnants are not widely known and face the threat of destruction fiom urban development, mismanagement and invasion of exotic of tree species. 3.2 Tallgrass Community f ypes of Southern Ontario An understanding of the prairie and savanna communities that once existed and still exist in southern Ontario will help to form the basis of preservation and restoration efforts. Biological Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario 33 inventories of the species comprising pre-settlement communities can be studied to determine the natural occurrence of community types and the species assoicated with them. These inventories can help in the indentification of rare species. significant remnants for protection and in the creation of species lists for restoration projects. This section will present the information gathered on the various tallgrass communities in southern Ontario and section 3.3 will address it's application in restoration projects. Various classification systems have been developed for tallgrass communities in southern Ontario. Faber-Langendoen (1 984) classified existing tallgrass prairies based on a site moisture regime. Bakowsky (1988) classified existing savanna communities. also with a site moisture regime to maintain consistency with the tallpass prairie classifications and classification systems in the United States. The NHIC has created a classification system of tallgrass communities using the ecological land classification (ELC) system (Bakowsky. unpublished). As well. stewardship organizations working on the preservation and restoration of tallgrass communities have begun to create species lists based on the composition of communities within specific counties across southern Ontario for use in restoration projects (Delaney, pers. corn.). Classification of Tallgrass Prairie Communities Six types of tallgrass prairie communities have been identified and described by Faber- Langendoen ( 1984) and Faber-Langendoen and Maycock (1994). Existing stands of prairie were compared From various regions in southern Ontario to determine differences in species composition. The difference in communities was found to be directly related to a moisture gradient and the classification of these communities was then based on species composition C within the various moisture regimes (Faber-Langendoen, 1984; Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). The six community types are dry prairie, dry-mesic prairie, mesic-sandy loam prairie, wet-mesic prairie (divided into wet-mesic sandy prairie and wet-mesic sandy loam prairie). and wet prairie (Faber-Langendoen. 1984; Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1 994). These community types will be decribed here providing details of regional locations, soil and site conditions, and community structure, including dominant species. A list of the most common 34 Chapter ~hree:T111Igras.s Communities ofSouthern Ontario prevalent species from each community type is provided in Table 2. with dominant and weed species identified as well. Dry prairies are the most widely distributed community type occurring throughout most of southern Ontario. from the Sarnia-Lake Huron area to Dumfries township and Lake Ontario (Faber-Langendoen and mayc cock. 1994). They occur on well drained slopes or upland stands. and the soil type varies from coarse. slightly acidic sand to more neutral alkaline sandy loams (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). This cornmuniv types is heterogeneous. lowest in species richness and is dominated by four species. Schizuchyriurn scopurium (little bluestem). A ttdropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Poa compressa (Canada bluegrass) and Sorghastrum nrtfans (Indian grass) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). Fifty-nine prevalent species were found to be associated with dry prairies, 20 of which are distinct to this type (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). Dry-mesic prairie is typically found in more elevated areas of central Ontario and the Lake Simcoe region where sandy loam soils lying over a rocky substrate provide adequate drainage. and on dry sandy ridges in the Windsor and Walpole area (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). The species in this community type tolerate a range of soil conditions from high organic levels and slightly alkaline soils to low organic levels and moderately acidic soils, respectively (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Dominant species include the grasses Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium scoparium, Carex pemylvanica (Pensylvania sedge), and Poa compressa, as well as the forbs Aster arureus (sky- blue aster). Heiracium jlorentium (smooth hawkweed) and Solidago juncea (early goldenrod) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). The number of prevalent species is greater than that of dry prairies, although distinct prevalent species are lower and the occurrence of weedy species is higher (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Chaprer Three: TolIgrass Communities omuthern Ontario 35 biesic sandy loam prairies occur on sandy to sandy loam soils and were found to be restricted to the Windsor and Walpole areas (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). They may have had a larger range at one point. but the communities at Windsor and Walpole are all that remain (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). The Windsor and Walpole areas are characterized by fair1y level topography and variable soil pH levels (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). influencing the composition of species found there. No dominant species were recognized in these stands and on1 y a few of the prevalent species were distinct to mesic sandy loam prairies (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Wet-mesic prairies were found to occur on sandy to sandy loam soils throughout the Windsor. Samia and WaIpole areas (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). The topography is level and the water table is close to the surface. but flooding is not evident. distinguishing this community from wet prairies (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Wet-mesic prairies have been sub- divided into two communities. wet-mesic sandy prairies and wet-mesic sandy loam prairies, based on differences in soil type, which has subsequently influenced species composition (Faber- Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Descriptions of the two sub-types will be provided here, including dominant species and prevalent species distinct to each sub-community type. A full list of prevalent species for both wet-mesic prairie types is provided in Table 2 under the wet-mesic classification. Wet-mesic sandy prairies are found in Windsor and Sarnia and are classified as such because of a much higher percent sand content than the prairies at Walpole (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). This sub-type is influenced by a high water table throughout much of the year, but can withstand temporary summer droughts (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1 994). Species prevalent in this sub-type can also withstand a variation in soil pH, from moderately to slightly acidic (5.6 - 7.4) soils in Windsor to slightly alkaline (7.8 -8.0) soils in Sarnia (Faber- Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Dominant species include the grasses Andropogon gerardii, 36 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario Calamagrosris canadensis (blue joint grass). and Spartina pectinara (prairie cord grass), and the forbs Pycanrhernum virginianum (Virginia mountain mint), RubusfigeIlarus (common dewberry). and Solidago canadensis (Canada goldenrod) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). Prevalent species. distinct to this sub-community type. include the forbs Agrimonia panijbra (swamp agrimony). Celasrrus scandens (climbing bittersweet). Cicura maculata (spotted cowbane). Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle), Onoclea sensibilis (sensitive fern), Osrnunda regalis (royal fern). O.rypolis rigidor (cowbane). Parthenocissus inserta (Virginia creeper/woodbine). Senecio pa,rperczrlzds (balsam ragwort). Sisyrinchium albidurn (white blue-eyed grass). Solidago rugosa (rough stemmed goldenrod), Thalicrrum revolutum (waxy meadowrue) and the seedling Frarinzts pensyl vanica (green ash) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1 994). The wet-mesic sandy loam sub-type occurs only on the level sand plains of the St. Clair River Delta at Walpole Island (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1994). The soil pH here is slightly to moderately alkaline (6.8 - 8.3) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). Dominant species include the grasses Andropogon gerordii, Schizachyrium scoparium, Panicum virgaiurn (switch grass). and Sorghasrrzrrn nutans, and the forbs Desmodium canadense (tick trefoil), Frugaria C virginiana (wild strawberry) and Pycnanthemum virginianurn (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). Prevalent species. distinct to this sub-community type, include sedges Curex bicknellii (prairie sedge) and Carex granuIaris (meadow sedge); rushes Juncus dudleyi (Dudley's rush); forbs Asler dumosur (bushy aster), Erigeron philadelphicur (Philadelphia fleabane), Erigeron pulchellus (Robin's plantain), Krigia bifora (false dandelion), Pedicularis Ianceolata (swamp lousewort), Sisyrinchium mucronatum (slender blue-eyed grass), Tradescantiu ohiensis (Ohio spidexwort). and the seedling Quercus palustris @in oak) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock, 1993). Chapter Three: Taligrass Communities ofsouthern Ontario 37 The sisth community type. identified by Faber-Langendoen (1 984). is wet prairie. These communities were found to also be restricted to the Windsor and Walpole area where they occurred on level sand plains with varying degrees of temporary spring flooding (Faber- Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). The wet prairie community type was found to have low species richness. as with dry prairie. but varied in that it is homogeneous (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). Dominant species in wet prairies include grasses and sedges Calamagrostis canadensis. Carex bwrbournii (brown bog sedge). Curex sarnvellii (Sartwell's sedge). Carex stricra (tussock sedge), and Spartina pecrinuta; as well as the forb Aster simplex (panicled aster) (Faber-Langendoen and Maycock. 1994). Table 2: Prevalent species of tallgrass prairie community types Key: P - prevalent species in that community type D - dominant species in that community type W - weedy, invasive species I I SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) I I Botanical Name I Common Name 1 Dry I Dry- I Mesic I Wet- I Wet I ~&icI 1 Mesic 1 Graminoids 7 Agrop-vron reper~s wheatgrass P - - - Agrostis gigantea bent grass - P P P P A ndropogon big bluestem PD PD P PD P ~erardii Aristida arrow feather - - P - - prrrprtrascens I Calantagrosris I blue joint grass - P P PD PD canadensis ! Carex bicknellii Bicknell's sedge - - - P Carex buxbaumii brown bop sedge - - - P PD Carex conoidea prairie gray sedge - - - P Carex granularis meadow sedge - - - P Carex lanlrpinosa woolly sedge - - P P P Carex meadii Mead's sedge - - - - P Carex Muehlenberg's P - - - mrrel~lenbergii sedge Carex pensylvanica Pennsy Ivan ia sedge P PD P - Carex sartweNii Sartwell's sedge - - - - P 38 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofsouthern Ontario Table 2 (Con't) 1 SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name DV Dry- Mesic Wet- Wet Mesic Mesic Graminoids (con't) Carex srricra - - - tussock sedge - i P I Cvpenrsfilculnlis flatsedge P - - - I - [ Danrhonia spicara Poverty ms P P - - - 1 Eleocharis elliprica spike rush - - P P P / E(\rnzrs canadettsis ! Canada wi Id rye P - - - - i Eqzrisetzint anense I horsetail p/p P P - Eqzrisetzrnl bemale I scouring rush P P P - - I Jzrnc us ball icus I lake shore rush - P P P - / Jnncris dudZeyi f Dudley's rush - - - P - I Jrrncus preenei Greene's rush - - P - - Jzincus renzris path rush - P - - Junczcs rorreyi Torrey's rush - - - P - ibfuehlenbergii leafy satin grass - - P P - mexicana Panicurn boreale ' northern panic grass - - - - P Parriczrnl lun rar. 1 slender-stemmed - P P P P implicarzrm panic grass I I Paniczrm Scribner's panic P - - - - oligosanrhes grass / Puniczrrn round-fruited panic - - PI- - sphaerocarpon / grass I 1 Parlicunr rirpalwn I panidswitch pass 1 - P P PD P Poa conlpressa I Canada bluegrass 1 PW r PW 1 PW - - I Poa prareruis Kentucky bluegrass PW PW PW PW PW I Sc hizach-vr iurn little bluestem PD PD P PD - I scoparirim I I Scleria triplanlerafa tall nut rush - - P - - Sorghasrrum nurans Indian grass PD P P PD P Sparrina pecrinara - prairie cord grass - I P PD PD Sporobolrrs asper rough dropseed - - P - - Sporobolus sand dropseed P - - - - crypf andrzrs Forbs .4 clrillea millefol ium yarrow P P - - Agrirnorzia swamp agrimony - - - P - parvrflora Anenlone qvlindrica thimbleweed P P P ------P - - - Antennaria negiecra field cat's foot PW PW PW - - -4ntennaria plantain-leaved P - - - - pla faginifolia pussytoes .4pios anlericana groundnut/wild P P P - bean A poc-vn urn spreading dogbane P - - - - . - -. Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario 39 Table 2 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name Dry Dry- Mesic Wet- Wet Mesic Mesic , Forbs (con't) , Apocynum prairie dogbane P P P P cannabinum Arenaria stricta rock sandwort P - - - I - Asclepias incarnara swamp milkweed - - - - P Asclepias sullivanrii ' prairie milkweed - - P - P Asclepiarsyriaca commonmilkweed PW - - - - ..lsclepias tuberosa buttedy-weed P P P - - 1 dparagzts ofiinale asparagus - - PW - - ! Aster azweus . shy-blue aster P PD P p,- I .-lsrer dunrosus 1 bushy aster - - - Pf- Aster ericoides heath aster P P P P P Aster laevis smooth aster P P P - - Aster novae-angliae New England aster - P P P P -4ster sagirtifolirrs arrow-leaved aster P - - - - .a .a Asrer simplex pan icled aster - - I P P PD ..ister rrnrbellatus flat-topped aster - - - - P Ceanorlthus New Jersey tea P - - - - an~ericatrus Celastrus scandens c limbinp; bittersweet - - - P - Cerasrium vulgarurn mouse-ear - PW - - - ! chicAweed Chq-santhemum ox-eye daisy - PW - - - lezica~rthemztm Cicztra nraculata spotted cowbane - - - P - Cirsizim anense Canada thistle - - - - PW Cir-siumdiscolor prairie thistle - P P P P - Cirsiurn vulgare bull thistle - - - P - Cornandra P P P P - r ichardsiana Con~~o/vzilrlssepium hedge bindweed - - P P P Coreopsis tripteris tall coreopsis - P - - Dar~crtscarota wi Id carrot PW PW PW - PW Desmodium showy tick-trefoil P P P PD P canadense / D~opterispalustris - - - P P Erigeron horseweed P - - - - canadensis Erigeron Philadelphia - - - P - philadelphicus fleabane Erigeronpulchellus Robin's plantain - - - P - Erigeron strigosza .. daisy fleabane - P P - - Eupatoriurn spotted Joe-pye - - - - P macular urn weed Euphorbia collorara flowering spurge P P P - - Fragaria virgirriana wi Id strawberry P P P PD P Galium boreale northern bedstraw P - - - - 40 Chapter Three: Talfgrczss Communities ofsouthern Ontario Table 2 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name DW Dry- Mesic Wet- Wet Mesic Mesic Forbs (con't) Galium palusn-e marsh bedstraw - - - - P Geranium spotted cranesbi ll - P - - - n~acularzrrn Gerardia purpzrrea purple gerard ia - - P P P Gerardia ~enuifolia slender perardia - - P - Heleniurn sneezeweed - P P ( autunlnale I I Helianrlrenlunl roc k-rose P - - - I canadense ' Helianthzis tail sunflower - - - P P giganrezu Hieracirrrn smooth hawkweed P PD - - - floren~izrm Hypericum common St. John's P - - - , perforarum wort I evpo.ris hirszira yellow star pass - - P P P Iris \-ersicolor larger blue flag - - - P P Krigia blflora false dandelion - - P - Latltvrus palrurris marsh vetchlinp - P - P Leachea inrerrnedia p inweed P - - Lespedeza capirara round- headed bush P P P - - I clover L iarris aspera rough blazing star - P - Liarris cviirrdrica cylindrical blazing P - - - star Liarris spicafa dense blazing star - P P P P Linaria vrifgaris butter and eggs PW PW - - - Lirhosperntzim hoary puccoon - P - - - canescens Lobelia spicara pale-spiked lobelia - - P P - Luzzila n~ulrrflora wood rush - - P - - Lycopus americanzrs cut-leaved water - - P P P hore-hound Lycopzis rm1f70rus northern bugleweed - - - P P Lysimachia prairie loosestrife - - P P P q uadriflora Lvthrurn alarum winged loosestrife - - - P Melilo~usalba sweet white clover PW PW PW - - Menrha arvense common mint - - - P It40~tardafisrulosa w i Id bergamot P P P P P Oenorhera biennis common evening P P P - primrose Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern - - P - - P - ' -----, O.qpolis rigidor cow bane - - P Parrhenocissus woodbine - - P - inserra Chaprer Three: Tallgrass Communiries ofSourhern Onrario 4 1 Table 2 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name DW Dry- Mesic Wet- Wet Mesic Mesic Forbs (con't) Pedicularis swamp lousewon - - - P - lanceolara Planrago lanceolata English plantain - P - - - Pollgala sartguinea field mil kwort - P - -1- Po lygonzrnr swamp smartweed - - - coccineum I - I I Poterztilla recta rough fruited P P - - - cinquefoil Porentilla simple-r common cinquefoi 1 P - P - P 1 Prenanrhes rough white lettuce f - - - P - I racemosa Przrnella vtrlgaris self-heal - P - - - Preridiunz bracken fern P - - - - 1 aqzrilinttm Pj.cnanthemzm~ Virginia mountain - P P PD P virginian urn mint Rosa hlanda early wild rose - - - P Rubzrs-flagellaris common dewberry - - - PD P Rudbeckia serorina black-eyed susan - P P P P Rrrrne-r acerosella field/sheep sorrel PW - - - - Serzecio aureus I golden ragwort - - - P P Senecio balsam ragwon - - - P - paupercultis Sisyrinc hiunz white blue-eyed - - - P - alb idttrn grass Sis-vrinchizm~ slender blue-eyed - - - P - rnucronarrrrn grass Solidago alrissirna tall goldenrod - P P P P Solidago canadensis 1 Canada goldenrod P P 1 P PD P Solidago giganlea late 90 tdenrod - - P - P Solidago flat-topped - P P P P gramin ifolia goldenrod Solidago jtrncea early goldenrod P PD P P P Solidagonemoralis preygoldenrod P P P - - , Solidago ohioensis , Ohio goldenrod - - - - P Sol idago r ia'dellii Riddell's goldenrod - - P P - Solidago rigida stiff goldenrod - P P P - Solidago rugosa rough-stemmed - - - P - goldenrod - Spireae alba narrow-leaved - - - - P meadowsweet Tararaczrnz dandelion - PW - - - oficinalis Thalicmrn~ tall meadowrue - - - P - polvganum Thalictrurn waxy meadowrue - - - P - re volut unz 42 Chapter Three: TulIgruss Communities of Southern Ontario Table 2 (Con't) 1 SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name Dry Dry- Mesic Wet- Wet Mesic I Mesic Forbs (con't) Tradescanr ia - Ohio spidenvort - - - P - ohiensis , Tragopogon ye1 low goatsbeard PW - - - - pra r ensis l'erbascum thapsis commen mullein PW - - - - Vernonia alfissirna tall ironweed - - P P P Veronica oficinalis common speedwell - P - - - Veronicasrrunt culver's root - P P P P I virginicrtm 1 Violapapilionacea I common blue violet - - P P P Vitis riparia river bank prape P P P P P Zizea azrrea golden alexanders - - P 1 P - Shrubs Cornus obliqua I pale dogwood - - - - P Cornw raceniosa gray dogwood P P P P P Prunrrs virginiarta common choke- P P - - - cherry Rhus aromatics fragrant sumac P - - - - Rhrrs glabrcr smooth sumac - - P - - Rhrrs radi-cam poison ivy P - - - - Rhus pphirta stcehom-sumac - - 1 P P - - - I S~~lirdiscolor pussy willow - - - P - Salk llrumilis prairie willow - P P P - Seedlings Cory/us American hazelnut - - P - - anlericanus Frar inus green ash - - - P - I pens-vl vanica Popttlzls delroides cottonwood 1 - - I P - 1 - Pyzrs rnalus pear - P - - - Quercus palrcsrris pin oak - - - P - Quercus velritina black oak P P - - - Source: Modified from Faber-Langendwn and Maycock, 1 994 3.2.2 Classification of Oak Savanna Communities Bakowsky (1988) was chiefly responsible for the classification of oak savanna communities in southern Ontario. Existing stands from across southern Ontario were sampled and correlations were made regarding species composition based on moisture regimes (Bakowsky, 1988). Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario 43 Bakowsky (1 988) identified five types of savanna communities in southern Ontario: ven dry savanna, dry savanna dry-mesic savanna, mesic savanna and wet-mesic savanna. These communities are described here including regional location. soil conditions. community structure and dominant tree species. A list of the most prevalent tree and understory species for each community type is provided in Table 3, with dominant and weed species identified as well. Very dry savannas are located on sand dunes along the shores of the Great Lakes, at Point Pelee, Long Point. along Lake Erie. at Pinery Provincial Park. and extending along the southern shore of Lake Huron (Bakowsky, 1988). The soil type is 97% sand and the pH is slightly alkaline (7.0 - 7.8) (Bakowsky. 1988). This community is characterized by a low canopy cover and a tree density of approximately 1 1 1 treeslha (Bakowsky, 1988). The dominant tree species is Juniperus rtirginiana (Eastern red cedar) (Bakowsky, 1988). Other prevalent tree and seedlings include Pinus srrobzis (white pine), the second most dominant species, Prunus virginiana (chokecherry), Quercus velutina (black oak), and Populus deltoides (cottonwood), as well as Pinus resinosa (red pine) and Querczrs rnuehlenbergi (chinquapin oak) found at Pinery Provincial Park (Bakowsky, 1988). The understory of very dry savanna is found to be sparse with variable cover, ranging from 35% cover at Long Point to 88% cover at Picery (Bakosky, 1988). One hundred and fifty-nine vascular plants are associated with the understory of dry savannas (Bakowsky, 1988). Dry savannas are found on the stabilized sand dunes at Long Point and Pinery Provincial Park, as well as on shallow loam soils overlying limestone on Pelee Island (Bakowsky, 1988). The soil type is predominantly sand (90 - 95%) and soil pH ranges fiom moderately acidic to slightly alkaline (5.5 - 7.5) (Bakowsky, 1988). Structurally, dry savannas have the highest tree density of any site moisture group with an average of 1 85 trees/ha (Bako wsky, 1988). This community is 44 Choprer Three: TuIIgrass Communities ofsouthern Ontario dominated by four species of oaks. Quercus velutina, most dominant, followed by Q. alba (white oak). Q. rnztehlenbergia, and Q. rubra (red oak). Other prevalent tree species include Juniperus virginiana. Prunus virginiana. and Prunzrs serotina (black c hemy). The understory of dry savanna communities was found to be more dense than very dry savanna. with 84Y0 cover. and had a greater degree of homogeneity (Bakowsky, 1988). Dry-mesic savannas are the most geographically wide spread of all the savanna types in southern Ontario. occurring in Brantford, Sarnia Long Point, Walpole Island and Windsor (Bakowsky, 1988). The soil type for this community is also predominantly sand (96%) and soil pH ranges from moderately acidic to slightly alkaline (4.9 - 7.3) (Bakowsky. 1988). Dry-mesic savannas have an average tree density of 125 treesha and have been found to be the most diverse community type in terms of species composition (Bakowsky. 1988). They are dominated by Quercrls velutina and Q. alba; important associates include Q. rubra, Q. palzrsrris (pin oak). Prltnlis serorina. and Cayovalis (pignut hickory) (Bakowsky, 1 98 8). The understory was found to be relatively homogeneous and have a greater cover (87%) than dry and very dry savannas (Bakowsky, 1988). Mesic savanna communities are found on Walpole Island, in Windsor and Rondeau Provincial Park (Bakowsky, 1988). Soil type is predominantly sand (94%) and soil pH ranges from moderately acidic to neutral (4.8 - 7.0) (Bakowsky, 1988). Mesic savannas have a characteristically open canopy and a low tree density of 95 trees/ha (Bakowsky, 1988). The dominant tree species is Quercus velutina. associated with two other significant oak species, Q. palztstris and Q. alba, and prevalent tree species Prunus serotina and Q. macrocarpa (bur oak) (Bakowsky. 1988). Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario 45 The understory is characterized by a fairly dense cover (92 96). with 337 species. mostly forbs. associated with the understory of mesic savannas (Bakowsky. 1988). The fifth community type identified by Bakowsky (1 988) is wet-mesic savanna. Wet-mesic savannas are found on relatively sandy soils (90%). in comparison with the other community types. and occur where soil pH is sIightly acidic to slightly alkaline (6.0 - 7.6) (Bakowsky. 1988). This community type has a very low canopy cover (33%) and the lowest average density of trees among each of the community types. with 92 treesha (Bakowsky, 1988). There are a number of dominant trees characteristic of wet-mesic savannas including Qriercus palusrris. Q- macrocarpa. Q. bicolor, Q.velurina. Cava ovara (shagbark hickory), Carya Zaciniosa (big sheIlbark hickory), and Poptrlus deltoides (Bakowsky. 1988). The vegetation cover of the understory is highest in wet-mesic savannas (94%) and appears to be mostly comprised of forbs, as with mesic savannas (Bakowsky. 1988). Table 3: Prevalent species of oak savanna community types Key: P - prevalent species in that community type D - dominant species in that community type W - weedy. invasive species SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name Very Dry Dry - Mesic Wet - Dw Mesic Mesic Graminoids ,4 ndropogon big bluestem P P P P P gerardii Calamagrosris blue joint grass - - P P P canadens is Calarno\*ilfa sand reed P P - - - longfolia care.^ bick~ellii Bicknell's sedpe - - - - P Carex eburnea bristle-like sedge P - - - - Care-r lanuginosa woolly sedge - - - P P Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge P P PD PD f P 46 Chaprer Three: Taligrms Communities ofsouthern Ontario Table 3 (Con't) r SPECIES I COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) 1 i Botanicalhame j Common Name I Ven Dry 1 D I Mesic I Wet - I Graminoids (con't) Career untbellara 1 urn bel-like sedge I P pi- - 1 - Danrhonia spicara I poverty grass - P - - - Deschanrpia tufted hair grass - P - - - 1 I fle.ruosa I I Equisertinz anverzse horsetai t - -/PIPIP Hierochloe odorara 1 sweet grass - - - -1p Koeleriu macranrha j une grass - P -1-1- I Purlicrir~r Scribner's panic I - I - P 1 - i I oligosa~~rtres I grass ! ! i I I ! Pur~iczmr~iraarurn I uanic/switch grass 1 P 1 - I - f - ! P I L . L; I I J / Poo con~pressa Canada bluegrass PH' PW PW PW I - Poa prurensis Kentucky bluegrass PH; I PW PM' PW PH' Schizucl~rium little bluestem P P - P P scoparium Sorgiiasrrzrm nurans 1ndian grass P P - P P Sparrina pecrinara prairie cord pass - - - P P Sporobolus I sand dropseed - - - - crvprandncs I Sripa sparrea 1 needle grass !pI P - - - Forbs ( A chillea millejoliurn yarrow -1- PIP P A mp hicarpaea hog peanut P P P bracr eara .-Inernonc. meadow anemone - - - - I P 1 car-radrnsis I P 1 P P - 1 ..lnrntorze mlindrica I thimbleweed 1 P 1 .-Inernone wood anemone - - P P P I q uinquefolia , .-I~~e.vlonevirpiniana tall anemone - - - P - I Apios umericana groundnutlwild - - P P PD bean i ..ipoc? n urn spreading dogbane - P P P I P androsaem~olium .4 y uilepia columbine - P - - cur7odensis ( ..lrabis !\ma lyre-leaved rock PIP - - - cress I I I Arenoria srricra rock sandwort P P - - - 1 Arremresia caudata tall wormwood - - - t IP I P 1 Asclepias suiiivanrii Sullivant's - 1 - - I - I P I milkweed I .-lsclepias s~riaca common milkweed i P P P P P .?sclepias ruberosa butterfly milkweed - - - pi- Asrer uzureus sky- blue aster - - P P - .4srer* cordijolius heart-leaved aster - - P - Cltaprer Three: TaIIgrass Communities ofiouthern Onrorio 47 Table 3 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name Very Dry Dry - Mesic Wet - I Dry Mesic Mesic Forbs (con't) Aster laevis smooth aster P P P P - Aster novae-angZiae New England aster - - P P P Asrer pilosus hairy aster - - P P P Aster sagitt ifolius arrow-leaved aster - - P - - Aster sinrplex pan icled aster - - P P P ..lster urnbellarus flat-topped aster - - P P P .-Irh-vrizinz Jliv- lady fern - - P knrina I Aureolariaflava smooth yellow false - - P P i - I foxp love I Baptisia rinctoria yellow wild indigo - P P - Ceanonthzrs New Jersey tea - - - - americanus Celasrrus scandens climbing bittersweet - - P P P Cicuta nlaczrlata water hemlock - - - P P ( Circaea enchanter's - - P P P quadrzsulcara nightshade Cirsium anqense Canada thistle - - PW PW - Cirsium discolor prairie thistle - - P P - Cirsiutn n~uricum swamp thistle - - P P Comandra - P 1 P P P richardsiarza Convolvzrlrcs sepium hedge bindweed - - P P P Coreopsis rripreris tall coreopsis - P P - Desniodiunl showy tick-trefoil - - P P P canadense I Dioscorea vil/osa wild yarnroot - - - P P Er igeron Philadelphia - - - - P p hiladelphicrts fleabane Erigeron strigosus daisy fleabane - P - P - Ertparorium spotted Joe-pye - - - P P nlaculat urn weed Ertphorbia collorata flowering spurge - - P P - Fragaria virginiana wi ld straw berry P P P P P Galirtm boreale northern bedstraw - - P P P Galiunr pilosum hairy bedstraw - P - - Galizrnl trrflorum sweet-scented - - P - - bedstraw Geranium spotted cranesbill - - P P P rnaculatum Geum catladense white avens P - - He lianrhenzurn rock rose - P - - - canadense Helianrhtis woodland sunflower - P P P - dir*aricatu(s Helianthus tall sunflower - - - P P giganteus 48 Chapter Three: Tailgrass Communities of Southern Ontario Table 3 (Con't) 1 SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) i Botanical Name Common Name Very Dr). Dry - Mesic Wet - Dry Mesic Mesic Forbs (con't) He1 ianr hzcs pale-leaved - - P - - slunlosnci sunflower Hieracirim Canada hawkweed - - - P P canadense Hieracirrm smooth hawkweed - P - - - 1 florenrinurn ffvpericum common St. John's - P - - - perforalurn wort Hvpo-ris hirs ula yellow star grass - - P P P 1 Iris r.ersicolor larper blue flag - - - - 1 P i fiigia brjlora two-flowered - - - - cynthia I Lalhyrrrs palzrslris marsh vetch ling - - P P P Lespedeza capitata round-headed bush - - I P P - clover f L ianis aspera rough blazing star - P - - - f Liarris c+vli)zdrica cylindrical blazing P P - - - star L iarris sp icara dense blazing star - - - P P Lithospermrrm hoary puccoon - - - P P canescens I Lirhosperrnurn puccoon P P - - - crocezrm Lo belin spicara pale-spiked lobelia - - - P P Lzcztla mrrlr~~ora wood rush - - P P - L~.coprrsarnericartm cut-leaved water - - - - P hore-hound L.vcopris zmihrus northern bugleweed - - - - - 4 Lysimachia prairie loosestrife - - - - P quadriflora L-vs imachia whorled loosestrife - - P - - quadr $01 ia L-vttirunz alatum winged loosestrife - - - - P ii4aianrhemum Canada mayflower - P - P - canadense 1~4onardafistulosa wi Id bergamot - P P P P Onocleasensibilis sensitivefern - - - P PD Oenothera P - - - - pamiflora Osnzunda - - - P - cimnamonrea Osntunda regalis royal fern - - - P P Oxalis e uropaea wood sorrel - - P P P Parthenocissus Virginia creeper - - P - P quinquefolia Pedicularis wood betony - P - P P , canadensis Chaprer Three: Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario 49 Table 3 (Con't) Vernonia altissima tall ironweed - - P P P Veronicastrum culver's root - - P P P virginicum I 5 0 Chapter Three: TalIgrms ~ommunirierof Southern Ontario Table 3 (Con't) I I SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name Very Dry 7 Dry- Mesic Wet - i Dry Mesic Mesic Forbs (con't) Viola sapiratta arrow-leaved violet 1 - I - - P P Viola sororia woolly blue violet - - - PIP Viris riparia river bank grape P P P P P 1 Zizea azrrea golden alexanders - P P1 P 1 Shrubs 1 .-ircrosrapl~ylosma- / bearberry P P - - - rrrsi I Cornus racentosa pray do.wood - - P P P Coplus anlerirona American hazelnut - P - I P P I Juniperus contmunis common juniper P P - - Prrrnrrs virginiana 1 chokecherry P P - - - 'I Rhrrs aromatics 1 fragrant sumac P P - - - Rhus glabra I smooth sumac - - P P P Rhzrs radicans poison ivy P P P - P Rhrts gpllirza staghorn sumac - P P - Rosa acicrtlaris prickly wild rose P P P P P Rubus alleghensis common blackberry P P P Rrrbrrs idaeus wild red raspberry ' P - - / Rzibzrs occidenralis black raspberry P P - Salir hzrmilis prairie willow P P - &.ntp horicarpos snowbeny P P - I alba Seedlings Jzrniperus Eastern red cedar P P - - - vir~iniana Pinus resinosa red pine P - - - Pinus srrobus white pine P P - - - Prunus serorina black cherry - - P - - Prunra virginiana chokecherry - P - P P P-vrus coronaria pear - - P - - Qzrercus alba white oak - P P P P Ozrerczrs bicolor swamp white oak - - P P Qrrerczfi bur oak - - P P nlacrocarpa I Quercus chinquapin oak P P - - - muehlenbergii Quercus palusrris pin oak - - - - P Quercus rubra red oak - P - - - Ouercus velzltina black oak P P P P P Trees Ca0.a lacirr iosa big shellbark - - - PD hickory Carya ovalis pignut hickory - - P - - Carya ovata shagbark hickory - - - - PD Chaprer Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario 5 1 Table 3 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPES (moisture segment) Botanical Name Common Name Very Dry DW - Mesic Wet - Dry Mesic Mesic Trees (con't) Juniperus Eastern red cedar PD P - - - virgin iana Pinus resinosa red pine P - - - - Pinus sfrobus _ Easternwhitepine 1 PD ------Popullcs delloides I cottonwood P - PD ] Prur~usserorina black cherry - P P P - Prunusvirginiana chokecherry P P P - - Quercus alba white oak - PD PD P - Quercus bicolor swamp white oak - - - - PD Querczis bur oak - - - P PD macrocarpa Qzrercus chinquapin oak P - - nr rrehlenbergii PD I Qzterczrs palrrsn-is I pin oak - - P P PD I Qzrerczrs rltbra red oak PD P - - Quercrrs velurina black oak P PD PD PD PD Source: Modified from Bakowsky, 1988. 3.2.3 Etological land Classification The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system was developed in 1978 .merging the work of the Canada Land Inventory and Canadian Committee on Ecological Land Classification (Riley and Mohr, 1994). It's purpose is to provide uniform descriptions and consistent information about ecologically significant land units to assist environmental planning (Riley and Mohr. 1994). Classifications for tallgrass prairie and savannas are based on substantial differences in site moisture. species associations and physiognomy (Rodger, 1998). The NHIC has been using this system to locate and rank existing remnants and nominate sites for preservation as Areas of Natural and Scientific interest (ANSI) within each of the landscape regions in Ontario. Four tallgrass community types have been identified by the NHIC as part of the Ecological Land Classification system: dry tallgrass prairie; moist-fresh tallgrass prairie; dry tallgrass savanna; 5 2 Chapter Three: Taiigrass Communities of Southern Ontario and moist-fresh taIICpass savanna. Various plant associations within each community type have also been identified. The four community types are described here including species associations and dominant species occuring within each community type. Prevalent species for each community type are presented in table 4, with dominant species denoted as well. This description is given to sites characterised by open, dry grasslands dominated by prairie grass species (Bakowsky, unpublished). These communities have been found to occur on wanner than normal sites that have rapidly draining sandy soils, and where there are occasional fires (Bakowsky. unpublished). Five community associations have been identified based on dominant species. including: i> Dry big bluestem tallgrass prairie type; ii) Dry little bluestem tallgrass prairie type; iii) Dry Indian grass tallgrass prairie type; it.) Dry switchgrass tallgrass prairie type; and Y) Dry Canada blue grass tallgrass prairie type (Bako wsky. unpublished). Dominant species within dry tallgrass prairie ecosites include Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem). Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), Sorghastrurn nutam (Indian grass), Panicrtrn virgaturn (switchgrass), Poa cornpressa (Canada blue grass), Bouteloua curtipendula (side-oats grama), and Stipa sparrea (needle grass) (Bakowsky. unpublished). 32.32 Moist -Fish ~aI&tmshim2 Ecwites These sites are characterised by open, moister grasslands dominated by prairie grass species (Bakowsky. unpublished). They occur on sites that are imperfectly drained, alternatively wet in the spring and dry in the fall, and where fire is a fiequent disturbance (Bakowsky, unpublished). Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofsouthern Ontario 5 3 Five community associations have also been identified for this prairie type based on dominant species. They are as follows: i> Moist - fiesh big bluestem tallgrass prairie type; ii) Moist - fresh little bluestern tallgrass prairie type; iii) Moist - fiesh Indian pass tallgrass prairie type; iv) Moist - fiesh switchgrass tallpsprairie type; and V) Moist - fiesh mixed forb tallgrass prairie type (Bakowsky. unpublished). Dominant species include grasses Andropogon gerardii, Schizuchyrizum scoparium. Sorghasfrum nutans. Purticzrm virgarum. Cahmagrostis canadensis (blue joint grass). and the forbs Coreopsis tr-ipteris (tall coreopsis). Pycnanthemum virginianum (Virginia mountain mint). and Soiidago juncea (early goldenrod) (Bakowsky, unpublished). 3.23 3 Dry ra//grass Savanna Erosi3es Dry tallgrass savanna ecosites are characterised by open. dry. sparsely treed grasslands dominated by prairie species with scattered open grown trees (1 125% tree cover) (Bakowsky, unpublished). These communities are found to occur on warmer than normal, drought prone sandy sites where fire is an occasional disturbance (Bakowsky, unpublished). Three community associations have been identified based on dominant tree species within that community. They are as follows: i> Dry bur oak - hickory tallgrass savanna type; ii) Dry black oak tallgrass savanna type; and iii) Dry black oak - pine tallgrass savanna type (Bakowsky, unpublished). Tree species associated with these community types include Quercus velurina (black oak), Q. macrocarpa (bur oak), Q. alba (white oak), Q. rubra (red oak), Q. muehlenbergii (chinquapin 54 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario oak). Carya ovata (shagbark hickory), Pinzrs srrobus (white pine). Pinus resinoscl (red pine). and Jztniperzrs virginiana (eastern red cedar) (Bakowsky, unpublished). 3.2.3.4 Moist - hsllMf#rur fiva~aa&osi!es These sites are characterised by open. moister. sparsely treed grasslands dominated by prairie species with scattered open grown trees (1 1-35%) (Bakowsky. unpublished). Moist-fresh tallgrass savanna communities have been found to occur along shorelines and nearshore areas and frequently experience disturbance by fme (Bakowsky, unpublished). Three community associations have been identified based on dominant tree species. including: i) Moist - fresh bur oak - mixed oak tallgrass savanna type: ii) Moist -fresh pin oak tallgrass savanna type; and iii) Moist -fresh black oak tallgrass savanna type (Bakowsky. unpublished). Dominant tree species include Qtrercus velutina (black oak). Q. pulustris (pin oak). Q. bicolor (swamp white oak). Carya glabra (pignut hickory), Caryu laciniosa (big shellbark hickory). and Carya ovata (shagbark hickory) (Bakowsky, unpublished). Table 4: Prevalent species of community types identified within the ecological land classification (ELC) system Key: P - prevalent species in that community type D - dominant species in that community type SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPE Botanical Name Common Name Dry Moist-fresh Dry Moist-fresh Tallgrass Tallgrass Tallgrass Tallgrass Prairie Prairie Savanna Savanna Graminoids A ndropogon big bluestem PD PD - P gerardii Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofsouthern Ontario 55 Table 4 (Con't) SPECIES 1 COMMUNITY TYPE I i Botanical Name I Common Name Dp- 1 Moist-fresh I Moist-fresh Tallgrass Tallgrass Tallgrass I , Prairie t Prairie I Savanna I ~avanaa I Gnminoids (con't) i ( Boureloua I side-oats pma- I PD - I - 1 - I [ curripendu/a i f 1 I I I Calumuprosris I blue joint grass - PD 1 - P canadensis ! 1 Curex eburnea bristle-l ike sedge - - P - I C'u1-e-r M ueh len bereas P - P - C j nlzrelilenbergii 1 sedge 1 1 1 I , Cure-r umbel/ara i urn bel-like sedge I - I - I - - I i P I Drschampia tufied hair grass - I - tI P t - f7e.ruosa i E/\-nlrtscanadensis Canada wild-rye P I - P - Purl icrrrtr few-flowered panic P - P - oli,oosa)1rhes grass Panicrrml rirgarurn switch grass PD PD - P Pou compressa / Canada bluegrass PD - - - ; Schizac~~yriur?~ 1 l ittle bluestem PD PD - P scoparirrs I Sorgiiasrrum Indian grass PD PD - P nrrl ulls Sparrir~apecrinara prairie cord grass - - ! - P Si ipu spuriea 1 needle grass PD I - - A - Forbs , ilnipllicurpuea hog peanut - - - P hracieara .4)~nlone long-fruited P - P - c~-li17drica thim bleweed .4pios umericar1a ground nut - - P .-lsclepias Ipurplemilkweed I - P 1 - 1 P 1 prrrprtrescens I I I t I / Asclroias I Sullivant-s - I P - P s~rlli 1 fazrtreus~ I I 1 Buprbia tincroria wi Id indigo I - P - P i ~‘eu)~orltusspp. New Jersey tea P I - T P - ( Conlandra bastard toadflax P I - 1 P - urrtbellara Cbrropsis rripreris ta 11 coreopsis - PD - P 56 Chapter Three: TaIigrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario Table 4 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPE 1 Botanical Name Common Name Dr). Moist- fresh Dry Moist-fresh I Taligrass Tailgrass Tallgrass Tallgrass Prairie Prairie Savanna Savanna Forbs (con' t) Desrnodirrrn showy tick-trefoil - P - P carladerzse Dioscorea wild yam - - - P I qrraternara Euphorbia flowering spurge P - P - collorata Eutha~nia umass-leaved - P - P grarnitz ifolia goldenrod - ! Galizmt boreale ! northern bedstraw - - f P Gera~liurn spotted cranesbill - P - I P 1 ntaculottml I Helian fhen~unz rockrose P - P - spp. Heliantlzta tall sunflower - P - P pigajzterrs -- - I Hvpoxis hirsura yellow star flower 1 - P - P Krigia bzj7ora two-flowered - P - P cvnthia Leachea spp. pinweed P - P - Lespedeza round-headed bush P P P P capitata clover i Lespedeza hirta hairy bush clover - P - P [ Lespedeza wand-like bush - P - P i ir~rerntedia clover Liarrisc>lindrica cylindricblazing P - P - star , Liawis spicata dense blazing star - P - P L ithospermurn puccoon - P - P canescens LIvsinlac h ia prairie loosestrife - P - P q uadrifora Maianrhem rrm starry false P - P - st ellaturn solomon's seal Min uartia rock sand wort P - P - michau~ii ibfonardafistulosa wi Id bergamot P P - Onoclea sensibifis sensitive fern - - P Osmunda regalis royal fern - - - P Pycnan themurn Virginia mountain - PD - P virginianurn mint Rudbeckia hirra black-eyed susan P P P P Silphitrrn prairie dock - P - P tereb inthinaceurn Solidapo altissima tall goldenrod - P - P Solidugo Canada goldenrod - P - P canadensis + Solidagojzmcea early goldenrod - PD - P Chapter Three: TaiIgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario 5 7 Table 4 (Con't) SPECIES COMMUNITY TYPE Botanical Name Common Name Dry Moist-fres h DV Moist-fresh Tallgrass Tallgrass Tallgrass Tallgrass Prairie Pmirie Savanna Savanna Forbs (con't) Solidago grey goldenrod P - P - nenzoralis Solidago upland white aster P - P - prarnr icoides Theljpreris marsh fern - - - P palrurris Tradescanria Ohio spidenvort - P - P ohiens is Tovara rirpiniana / jumpseed I - - - P ' Vernonia gigantea tall ironweed - P 1 - P Veronicasrrum culver's root P - P virgin iczrrn L Zizia aurea golden alexanders - P - ! P Shrubs Arcrosraph_r.los bearberry - - P - ma-zrrsi , Cornus racenlosa pray do.gwood - - P Co~lrrs American hazelnut - - - P americanrrs Rhzcs aronlarica fra-pant sumac - - P - Rhrcs plabra smooth sumac - - - P Rlrzrs radicans poison ivy - - I P - Trees Cana glabra pignut hickory - - - P Ca~aIaciniosa big shelibark - - P hickory Cava or.ata shapbark hickory - - PD P Juniperrrs Eastern red cedar - - P virginiana Pinzcs resinosa , red pine - - PD - Pinus srrobrrs Eastern white pine - - PD Ouercus alba white oak - - P - Orrercus bicofor swamp white oak - - P Qzrerczrs bur oak - PD PD nzacrocarpa Quercus chinquapin oak - - P - nluehlenbergia Quercus palustris pin oak - - PD Qrrercus nrbra red oak - - P - , Ouercus velurina black oak - - PD PD Source: Modified from Bakowsky, unpublished. 58 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario 3.2.4 Regional/County Species Selection Guides Various stewardship organizations and community groups have begun to compile lists of species for the tallgrass communities in their county and/or region. These lists provide guidance when selecting species for restoration projects. Staff at the Ojibway Nature Centre in Windsor have been documenting information about their prairie and savanna communities since its early existence. This work has been important to provide information on the changes in species composition and assist with management decisions. It can also serve as a reference for re-establishing other tallgrass communities in the city. Current lists of species, as per bloom period (spring, summer, autumn) exist on the city's web site (Pratt. 1998). There is also a list of rare species inctuding whether it is regionally or locally significant and whether it is a prairie or savanna species (Pratt. 1999). References have not been provided for soil type or moisture conditions for the species. The Friends of Ojibway Prairie (FOOP), a community organization working to educate the community. preseme Ojibway prairie and provide tallgrass prairie resources to the community, has developed a guide titled 'Building a Prairie ' (FOOP, 1996). This guide provides details for designing a backyard prairie. preparing a site for creating a prairie and provides a list of common prairie species for use in the Windsor area. Companion plants are also provided for each species listed. which is useful for understanding species associations within prairie communities. Stewardship Kent, in cooperation with The Ontario TalIgrass and Savanna Association (Tallgrass Ontario) and two other stewardship organizations, Essex Stewardship Network and the Rural Lambton Stewardship Network, has begun work on a Prairie Information Kit (unpublished). The kit presently focuses on tallgrass prairie species. Included in the kit is a list of species for use in various soil conditions: dry, sandy soils, moist soils. and wet soils. This list appears to have common species that could be used throughout each of the three regions covered by the stewardship organizations. More specific lists are also provided with prairie species for each region of Essex, Kent and Larnbton counties. These lists are not organized by site moisture, although they could be cross-referenced with the latter list. The species provided are common Chapter Three: Taligrass Communities of Southern Ontario 59 species for each region and a note is provided to contact a naturalist or ecologist to assist in the selection of species for a certain project. The Rural Larnbton Stewardship Network is in the process of creating a set of county by county species lists (Delaney, pers. cornm.). This may become part of the Information Kit mentioned above. or may be a continuation of that work, and will include all counties within the historical range of tallgrass prairie communities. It will also focus on common species within each region: the re-introduction of rare species is not encouraged without expert ecological assistance (Delaney. pers. cornrn.; Woodliffe. pen. comm.). The intention of this work is to provide information to assist with the selection of species for restoration projects and to ensure that local species are used in such projects. Since this work is in progress the scope of the work. including type of communities covered. and the lists of species. is not yet known. Environment Canada is in the process of creating a tallgrass prairie restoration manual. which will be the first comprehensive guide specific to creating tallgrass prairie in southern Ontario (Rodger. pers. comrn.). It will also provide information regarding the species suitable for use in restorations based on site conditions and regional location. 3.3 Opportunities and Constraints for Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario 3.3.1 Restoration and Preservation Considerations Restoration should not be a substitute for preservation: at best restorations are a very simplified version of a naturally occurring ecological community (Rodger, pers. comm.). Restoration and protection should be treated as complementary commitments (Daigle and Havinga, 1996); a framework of preserved sites will provide the benchmark for the start of any restoration (Morgan. 1995). Existing tallgrass prairie and savanna communities provide the ecological information about the structure of the community type in that area and the composition of species in the community necessary for restoration. This knowledge could help create a system 60 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communirzes of Southern Ontario of tallgrass communities within the landscape by first preserving of a set of existing tallpass prairie communities. learning fiom those communities, and then creating or restoring new sites to build on that framework (Rodger. pers. comm.). Existing sites may also serve as a source of seed. either to be collected for the basis of restoration projects or through migration once the site has been restored. Typically. restoration projects require that the seed be collected close to the site being planted to ensure that a diverse mix of species native to that area are selected (Morgan, 1995). This also ensures the protection of genetic diversity by using locally developed or locally adapted species (Rodger. pers. comm.). C Without a healthy framework of existing tallgrass community sites the restoration process can be futile. The use of cultivars and species fiom other localities will ultimately diminish the biodiversity of a region (Morgan, 1995). The health and functioning of any restored site will be increased with a healthy remnant or set of remnant sites near by. Restoration. or the process of restoring sites to their pre-settlement plant community. is believed to help re-connect society with their natural and cultural history (Morgan. 1995. Jordan 111. cited in Mills. 1995). The restoration process involves developing an understanding of the physiography of a region, the native communities that exist and once existed there, and their relationship to the site. The depth of this process, combined with the physical process of preparing a site, planting species, and nurturing a native plant community has the potential to re- connect people to the land and natural communities around them. 3.3.2 Historical Range and Site Conditions Compared to Present Day Pre-settlement conditions under which tallgrass prairie communities thrived were much different than they are today. The location and extent of these communities was greater and the distribution of species may have been greater as well. Today, many remnants are small and contained in certain locales, and many species found in tallgrass communities occur in only one area. if at all. These present day conditions introduce issues, such as where restoration is - - Chaprer Three: Tallg~assCommunities ofSouthern Onrario 6 1 acceptable. which species to use in restorations and how to overcome limitations of available sites for the restoration of tallgass communities. Opinions vary whether a site should be restored if a tallgrass community existed on a particular site or just in the general region. Because historical records are not always accurate enough to determine the exact location by site. and natural communities expand and change over time. most practitioners tend to view restoration as appropriate on the best site available, as long as it is in the historical range of tallgrass communities (Delaney. pers. comm.). Many opportunities for restoration may present themselves within urban open space areas even though a particular site may not have supported a tallgrass community at one time. The differences may also lie in the terminology - restoration, re-creation or habitat creation. There are a range of definitions used within the field and many times these terms are used interchangeably. For purposes of this research the following definitions will be used. Restoration typically refers to the creation of a tallgrass community on a site where that community once occurred (Morgan, 1995) or restoring a process, such as fire. to a degraded tallgrass community site (Packard and Ross. 1997); and re-creation refers to the creation of a tallgrass community on a site within the historical range of that community type (Delaney, pers. comm.). Habitat creation is not an attempt at restoring or re-creating a pre-settlement community type, it usually involves selecting desired species from a community for a specific purpose, such as a butterfly garden (Delaney. pers. comm.). The restoration and/or re-creation of tallgrass communities outside of their historic range is not an accepted practice, although the creation of a habitat garden in a park setting that may not be quite within the historical range of pre-settlement tallgrass communities may be an acceptable practice if it does not displace native plant communities in that region (Delaney pers. comm.). Many species associated with tallgrass prairies and savannas are rare and the use of these species in restoration projects is not encouraged, unless a qualified individual is involved (Delaney, pen. cornm.; Woodliffe, pers. comm.). There are many risks associated with using rare species in restorations that may put the remnant species at risk. If seed is collected from rare remnants there 62 Chapter Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario is a risk of damaging what is left of that remnant by removing the natural seed source (Reinartz. 1997). There is also a risk of mixing the gene stock and gene flow between remnant and restored populations (Reinartz, 1997). Therefore. the focus of rare species protection is generally on the preservation of sites where they are known to occur. In some cases. sites can be restored in an attempt to naturally restore rare species in areas where they occur. The creation of certain site conditions and planting of certain species may, over time, create the conditions suitable for rare species to naturally occur within restored prairie and savanna sites (Woodliffe. pers. comm.). The previous section looked at the types of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities and the species within those communities. Those descriptions provide information about remnant pre- settlement communities and can be used as a guideline for understanding the structure of communities in those regions, but should not be used as the only source of selecting species for use in restoration projects (Woodliffe pers. comm.). Soil and other site condtions on restored sites will likely be quite different from the soil and site conditions supporting the pre-settlement community types identified in that region and may therefore support a different combination of species (Delaney. pers. comm.). As well, many species identified within those community types may be distinct to one region and considered rare on a provincial level. Using county species lists to identi6 naturally occurring species in that region as well as looking at pre-settlement communities to identify species related to specific site conditions, such as moisture gradients and soil conditions. will provide a more accurate approach to selecting species for restorations (Delaney, pers. comm.; Woodliffe pers. comm.). It is important to remember that each species has become adapted to a set of conditions over a long period of evolutionary time and restorationists should focus on understanding those conditions to match communities to a site and place plants in the locations where their adaptations wiil let them succeed (Kline, 1997). Existing site restrictions also need to be addressed in restoration projects. Sites that are available for restoration are not always large enough to support the full complement of species or ecological processes defining a prairie ecosystem. As well, the presence of non-native and invasive species. introduced once the landscape was settled, may pose problems when trying to restore or re-create a tallgrass prairie or savanna community. Generally, it has been found that Clzaprer Three: Tallgrass Communities ofSouthern Ontario 63 invasive species can be dealt with using a little patience and proper management practices by an energetic community (Morgan, 1995). Site size should also not be viewed as a restriction. Although a larger site may have the capacity to develop into a community better resembling the pre-settlement prairie ecosystem, a site of any size, with time. will become a well established prairie (Morgan. 1995). It is important to recognize that any restored site, regardless of size. begins the same - as a piece of land planted with prairie species. It is only over time. with the influence of many ecological processes and influx of plant and animal species that the restored site begins to resemble the native prairie landscape. The role of restoration and the most important opportunity it has is to set that process in motion. Chapter Three: Taligrass Communities of Southern Onrario Chapter 4: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipalities "It is the mrrnicipol planning process that governs growth and settlement, and the most sign~ficant ecological 'experiment' on the landscape" (Riley and Mohr, 1 994). 4.1 The Planning Process The planning of urban open space areas is part of the broader land-use planning process. In southern Ontario. land-use planning is a local decision making process controlled by provincial legislation (Riley and Mohr 1994), predominantly the Planning Act. The Planning Act sets out a framework for municipalities to follow when creating local planning tools and addressing issues such as land use. and protecting natural resources (Planning Act, R.S.0 1990). Municipalities carry out the provincial interests outlined in the Planning Act through the development of an Official Plan. Official Plans regulate how land within a locd county or region will be used (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997). Land-use planning decisions, and therefore. open space planning decisions. are controlled by Official Plans developed within each municipality. Official plans operate on two levels - policy and regulation (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1997). Policies are created under the official plan to develop strategies for the designation of areas for housing. industry. schools and other public services and amenities. inchding open spaces. or parkland (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997). Other tools. such as secondary plans, are created at the policy level to provide more detailed guidelines for specific development patterns within policy designated areas (Radford, pers. cornrn). Zoning by-laws provide the rules and regulations to control development as it occurs (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997). More specific tools are also provided under the regulatory level, such as site plan controls, which provide more detailed regulations in relation to specific developments. buildings and infrastructure (Itadford, pers. comm.). 4.1.1 Designation and Classifiution of Open Spne Areas Lands are designated as parkland or open space according to the parkland dedication amount stipulated within the Planning Act and/or by a quantified mount designated at the municipal level. The parkland dedication is set at 5% of land proposed for developed or re-development in Chapler Fotrr: PCanning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipalities 67 residential areas and 2% of land proposed for development in industrial and commercial areas (Planning Act. R.S.0 1990). Some municipalities have created clauses within that dedication amount to correspond with development densities: the City of M;aterloo ( 1 990) uses either the traditional 5% of the proposed development area or up to -5 ha/3OO units to designate open space areas in residential developments: and the City of Windsor ( 1999) uses a range between the 2- 5% land dedication to address open space dedication in mixed-use development areas. The open space designation at the local level is a standard amount of open space in hectares per population area it senres. The amounts are reflective of the type of open space area. For instance. parks and open spaces serving the whole city would be required to be larger to accommodate the facilities. activities and parking for a larger number of people. Parks serving a smaller sample of the population would likewise be smaller in size allotment. A sample of these designations is provided in Figure 7. r I Park Type 1 Size Minimum hd1000 I j I population I ! a) Su b-neighbourhood park I ha -1 to -2 ha I i i I b) Xeighbourhood park ! 1 to 7 ha I -5 ha 1 t C) Communi~.Park 7 to 25 ha -4 ha 1! iI iI I d) Cie. park I 25 + ha I .2 ha Figure 7: Esarnple designations of open space areas within southern Ontario municipalities (Source: City of \Vaterloo Ofiicial Plan. 1990). The designated areas are broken down into classifications of park types and open spaces. The classifications vary by municipality depending on the goals and objectives identified within their Official Plans for parks and open space areas. The Official Plan of the City of Brantford will be used as an example to illustrate the typical classification of open space areas from the mid 1970's to the earl?1990-s. Since that time many municipalities have adapted. or begun to adapt. their policies dealing with open space areas. Those findings will be discussed in section 4.2. 68 Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areus in Sourhern Onrario Municipliries Brantford defines their open space areas under the broad land-use category Major Open Space. Major Open Space land-use is identified as lands used predominantly for active and passive recreation. leisure and conservation uses (City of Brantford, 1987). This includes community parks and open spaces, speciaIized parks and open spaces. private parks and open spaces. golf courses. cemeteries. agricultural uses (nursery gardening and garden plots), conservation areas and all activities associated with storm water management (City of Brantford, 1987). Community Parks and Open Spaces and Specialized Parks and Open Spaces are the predominant Major Open Space classifications. Community Parks and Open Spaces are defined as areas acquired and developed to provide large, active sports and recreation facilities; areas for passive leisure activities: natural areas such as woodlots, valleys and ravines; or landscape and garden areas (City of Brantford, 1987). General policies are provided which address what these areas may contain in the way of built structures. natural features and activities. The size of Community Parks and Open Spaces has been outlined as 'generally greater than 4 ha' (City of Brantford, 1987). The location of these open spaces can be anywhere deemed acceptable within the City and may be co-ordinated with the location of elementary and secondary schools for the complementary integration of lands and facilities (City of Brantford, 1987). Specialized Parks and Open Spaces are defined as areas acquired and developed to provide botanical gardens. arboreta and greenhouses; art galleries; public golf courses; environmentally unique or sensitive natural areas; Grand River waterfkont area; large open spaces within the urban area: special sports facilities such as ski and toboggan hills; and accessory buiidings and structures (City of Brantford, 1987). The size and location of these areas has not been determined as they will vary depending on the site and the type and number of facilities (City of Brantford, 1987). Aside from the inclusion of natural areas in the classification Community Parks and Open Areas and environmentally unique areas in Specialized Parks and Open Spaces, other environmental Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipalities 69 considerations are addressed as a separate section. Of importance includes heritage conservation areas. Lvhich includes areas along the Grand River (a Canadian Heritage River); preservation of two existing environmental poticy areas within the city; and provision of existing provincially significant wetlands. 4.1.2 By-laws and Regulations Controlling the Use of Open Spa~eAreas Various by-laws and other regulatory controls are development within the Official Plan to implement the objectives and policies outlined for each land use area. By-laws control the use of land in communities by establishing legally enforceable guidelines (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1997). By-laws control use of both public and private lands. They are generally concerned with how specific lands are used. where buildings and other structures may be located. types of buildings permitted in an area and their use, as well as lot sizes, lot dimensions. parking requirements, building heights and setbacks from the street (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997). Other regulatory tools include site plan control by-laws. This tool provides more detailed -guidelines on a site by site basis to control development on a specific site. Site plan controls appear to be focused on the development of residential. commercial and industrial sites. Whereas. by-laws exist for all land-use areas, including parks and open space areas. A review of various Official Plans reveals by-laws that are predominantly concerned with the erection of buildings or structures in parks and general use by-laws determining what people can and can not do in parks and open space areas. Beyond the classification of uses outlined in the above section, there are little to no policies addressing park naturalization or the creation of natural habitats in park and open space areas. Property standards by-laws (City of Brantford, 1987) have been developed for private property in certain municipalities. This type of a by-law is established to help maintain a tidy appearance 70 Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Onrario Municipalities within the municipality. It addresses the issue of rubbish and debris on private property as well as maintenance of an unkept or weedy lawn. This latter issue is developed in concert with the Weed Control Act in Ontario. Municipalities may have a list of noxious weeds that are not allowed on private property. This type of a by-law may affect an individual's or community groups's intention of naturalizing private property, especially if any of the species appear on the noxious weed list. For instance. all milkweed species (Asclepias spp.) appear on the noxious weed list even though all milkweeds but common milkweed are native tallgrass prairie species. However. if a property is naturalized in an appropriate standard, as viewed by the city, and no complaints are made by neighbours. the by-laws for noxious weeds are rarely enforced (Sinclair. pers. comm.). This is in large part due to the fact that the Weed Control Act and subsequently the nosious weed lists were developed primarily for agricultural purposes. Municipalities may also have bum control by-laws. In some instances, individuals on privately owned properties need to obtain a permit from the municipality to burn debris on their property and in other instances. no burning is allowed within the boundaries of the municipality. These laws are not always clear and may have an adverse affect on the restoration and/or re-creation of tallpass communities since fire is required to maintain these communities. The by-laws are, however. starting to change with the increased interest in restoration of tallgrass prairie communities and the use of bum control programs by the Ministry of Natural Resources and various municipalities to manage existing tallgrass prairie community sites. 4.2 Broadening the Scope of Open Space Planning Land use planning concerns itself with the designation of areas for specific uses. Open space planning, as section 4.1 has demonstrated, is not unlike that. Municipalities have typically concerned themselves with the 'provision' of open spaces rather than the 'planning' of open spaces (Burton et al., 1977). The use of quantifiable frameworks (5% land dedication or ha/population) to designate open space areas supports this opinion. Over the last few years changes to the classification of and policies for open space areas have been occurring. Many Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern 0nr&io Municipalities 7 1 municipalities have been updating their official plans to address the various facets of natural areas pIanning as part of their open space planning process. 4.2.1 Changing the Designation ard Classifitation of Open Spaee Areas The most common change to the classification of open space areas is the delineation between open spaces comprising community parks and facilities and open spaces comprising natural features. Natural areas are now being addressed under designations such as environmental open space or environmental constraint areas (City of Waterloo. 1990) and environmental quality areas (City of Windsor, 1999). The acquisition and designation of these areas is still not consistent but is becoming more reflective of the uniqueness of natural areas and less regimented as the designation of other open spaces. Environmental open spaces and/or constraint areas can sometimes be treated as a separate designation. apart from the 5% parkland dedication on developed sites (City of Waterloo. 1990). This can result in municipalities holding back portions of developable land to preserve significant natural areas as well as provide for parkland dedication. The City of Brantford has recently exercised this flexibility by maintaining 19% of a site as undevelopable to accommodate a portion of significant woodland on the site (Radford, pers. comm.). Policies have been created to control and manage use in these areas in a different manner than is provided for recreation facilities and other open space designations. Natural heritage areas are part of the system of environmental quality areas in the Windsor Official Plan (1999) and are provided for the protection and conservation of locally and provincially significant natural areas. Recreational and leisure activities are allowed within these areas but are regulated to ensure compatibility with the area and to eliminate negative impacts (City of Windsor, 1999). Policies have also been developed to manage and enhance areas classified as environmental open space. Policies have been included to provide for buffer zones around natural features, the 72 Chapter Fow: PIanning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipalities creation of edge areas. and restoration of sections of woodlot as they correspond with areas identified as ESA designations (City of Waterloo, 1990). and to provide management plans for significant natural areas within the system of open space areas (City of Windsor. 1999). Another change has been the inclusion of non-traditional areas in the spectrum of open space areas. For instance, the City of Waterloo (1990) has included 'utility open spaces' as part of their classification of open space areas. This designation includes easements, rights-of way (ROW). utility corridors and storm water management areas (City of Waterloo, 1990). The City of Windsor ( 1999) has included areas such as gravel and mining sites, airport operating areas, floodplain zones and waste disposal sites. Cemeteries are identified within Brantford as -providing large landscape and garden areas within the urban environment' (City of Brantford, 1987). The identification and inclusion of such areas is important when looking at the potential for preserving remnant natural communities and restoring natural plant communities to open space systems. Many of these areas can serve multi-use purposes. Utility corridors, easements and rights-of-way can be planted with natural plant communities appropriate for those areas to provide natural habitat areas and recreational uses, as well as reduced maintenance costs; floodplain zones and associated upland habitat can be restored to include natural plant communities which provide natural habitat areas and flood control measures; cemeteries have historically been associated with natural areas such as tallgrass prairie communities and codd once again provide an area for restoring or preserving natural habitats while providing a 'green' space within the city; and by including gravel, mining or other temporary land uses within open space systems there is the potential to restore these areas to natural communities and provide recreational and habitat value. Other opportunities exist to include abandoned rail lines, vacant lots, abandoned fields, and parks and open spaces within existing and proposed residential, commercial and industrial areas. The continued growth and development of a system of open space areas sensitive to the protection of natural areas within the community while providing for other uses will depend largely on the Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipafities 73 overall framework used in the planning of the system. 4.2.2 Integrating the Planning of Natural and Open Space Afeu Many frameworks and planning tools exist to assist municipalities with the integrated planning of open space areas. Some municipalities have been using or have begun to use tools such as ESA studies. corridor studies. natural heritage studies. and watershed studies (Riley and Mohr. 1994) to guide the development of their open space planning framework. These will be reviewed as well as other tools and frameworks which could influence the policies and planning of open space areas. Windsor. York and Waterloo are examples of municipalities which have adopted a greenway strategy for the planning of open space areas. This type of an approach provides open space areas as a 'planned network of natural environment and recreational elements' (City of Windsor, 1999). It incorporates all park types fiom city to community to neighbourhood parks and all natural features from waterfront areas to significant natural areas preserved within the municipaIity. Policies are created to implement the connection of these areas as effectively as possible and. where appropriate, naturalization of existing parks or restoration of areas may be encouraged to help create links. The Official Plan for the City of Windsor (1999) states 'the city shall encourage the naturalization of those components of the greenway system that are deficient in existing natural cover'. Policies have also been created to encourage links with the surrounding region (City of Windsor, 1999). Various management systems are in place and being developed that could assist in the coordination of data at the municipal level and between municipal and regional leveIs. The Ecological Land Classification System (ELC) (see section 3.2.3) could align municipal information with the classification of natural communities throughout the rest of Ontario. Use of the ELC system to map and describe vegetation communities within municipalities would ensure consistent data within the city and provide an ability to compare data with adjacent areas (ESG Consultants, 1999). Consultants undertaking a review of the Official Plan for the City of 74 Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipalities Brantford (1 999) are proposing to use the ELC system to map and describe vegetation communities within the city for use in the creation of drafi policies to control development and use in and adjacent to those areas. This work could also help form the basis of designating natural areas for inclusion within a system of open space areas. As well. the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) initiated a project with the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) beginning in 1992 to develop a data base of information on provincially significant areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI), wetlands and parks. and species-at-risk in site regions 6 and 7 in Ontario (Riley and Mohr, 1994). T&isincludes information on existing tailgrass prairie communities. which have not typically been considered for ANSI designation (Bakowsky and Riley, 1992), but are significant natural features within these site regions. One of the purposes of this project is the delivery of natural heritage information to land-use planners for use in making land-use planning decisions (Riley and Mohr, 1994). Open space planning decisions could also incorporate information from these data bases. A final tool that could influence the planning of open space areas is the development of a natural heritage planning strategy. Natural heritage planning is a strategy proposed to shift land-use planning toward integrated landscape planning (Riley and Mohr, 1994). It encourages the identification of the full range of environmentally significant features. functions and linkages within the landscape (Riley and Mohr, 1994). The identification of these features can provide the necessary image of the natural landscape as a 'foreground' and an ecological context for the land uses that occur there (Riley and Mohr. 1994). It can also be used to provide the basis for the planning of an integrated system of open space areas that are representative of the natural plant communities and features within the municipality. Natural heritage planning is a strategy to more effectively implement the natural heritage component of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest in municipal land-use planning under the Planning Act (OMNR, 1999). Section 2.3.1 of the natural heritage component of the PPS states 'natural heritage features and areas will be protected fiom incompatible development' and section 2.3.3 states 'the Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Southern Ontario Municipaliries 7 5 diversity of natural features in an area and the natural connection between them should be maintained, and improved where possible' (OMNR. 1999). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources created a manual (1999) to assist planning authorities with a summary of recommended identification and evaluation procedures for including natural heritage features into their land-use planning strategies (see section 5.1.1.2). Natural heritage planning allows for individual natural heritage features to be assessed and planned for within the context of the overall landscape (OMNR, 1999). For instance. the City of Brantford has completed an Archeological Resources Master Plan (1 997), which identifies and ranks sites where significant archeological resources occur or are suspected to occur. This plan will be used to guide land-use planning decisions in an effort to protect sites with archeological significance (Radford. pers. comm.). Similar plans can be created to guide development for the protection of all natural and cultural heritage features within municipalities. These plans can guide land use decisions and assist in the creation of a system of open space areas that identifies key sites for the protection, restoration. and/or re-creation of natural areas. 76 Chapter Four: Planning of Open Space Areas in Soulhern Ontari~Municipalities Chapter 5: Integrating Tallgrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities - A Site Selection Process "A healthy complex of prairie. oak openings and prairie grove would be an enchanting place". (Steve Pac kard 1 988) 5.1 Development of the Site Selection Process Remnant tallgrass prairie and savanna communities dot the landscape throughout southern Ontario. Some of these remnants are larger patches. protected and managed by local municipalities or the provincial government. Most of the remnants exist in isolated patches. unprotected and unknown to many. Many of these exist as small pockets within the urban fabric of towns and cities in southern Ontario and face the risk of extinction through uninformed planning decisions. It doesn't have to happen that way. Information is being gathered which could guide planning decisions. The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) has identified many of the significant remnants of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities throughout southern Ontario. These areas can form the basis of a region wide network of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. Each region and municipality has a part to play in the process to ensure the success of an endeavour to provide a network of tallgrass communities throughout southern Ontario. Identification and protection of local tallgrass prairie and savanna communities, combined with the protection of regionally significant sites and the re-creation of tallgrass communities in key locations will help to build a network of tallgrass communities representing a significant part of the natural heritage of southern Ontario's landscape. For optimum success, the identification and selection of existing remnants and areas for the re- creation of tallgrass communities will require the development of a systematic site selection process. The development of this process requires the development of a framework and a set of criteria to guide the decision making process. 5.1.1 Development of the Framework Chaprer Five: Integrating TaZlgrass Communities into Open Space Systems ofSouthern Uniario Municipalities 79 Site selection processes have been used for many purposes. They have been instrumental in evaluating natural areas for the selection of a set of protected reserves and/or park areas: determining land uses within a specific region; and assigning uses for specific sites. The framework for each of these processes varies with the purpose for selecting sites. They can generally be categorized as Natural Areas Evaluation Schemes. Land Suitability Analysis. and Site Specific Design Approaches. Frameworks developed under each of these categories have been examined and will be presented here. Elements of frameworks or entire fiameurorks applicable for use in this project have been explored in more detail. A variety of approaches have been used to identify sites for inclusion in a system of natural reserves. Each varies based on the approach used to select the sites, the criteria to evaluate the sites and the method of evaluation. The framework, or approach. also varies depending on the scope of the project. A broader or narrower approach will be used depending on whether the sites are being assessed at the local. provincial. national or international level. The selection criteria. although varied, typically involves assessing areas for representational qualities of the site, such as areas representing significant ecosystems, habitats or landforms; ability to retain function of key ecological processes, including parameters such as site size, diversity. sensitivity to disturbance, linkage with other natural areas and existing condition; and some measure of the site's value for educational and scientific uses (Beechey, 1989; Bradstreet, 1990; Roth et al., 1997). Other criteria may include administrative considerations such as legal and financial realities of obtaining and preserving the site (Wright, 1977). Sites are then evaluated using the set of criteria developed for each project. This involves completing a standardized survey of each site to gather information under each set of criteria. The information from each site can then be ranked to make a comparative evaluation of each of the sites. The ranking of sites may be useful when numerous examples are available for similar -- 80 Chapter Five: Integrating Tiallgrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities sites (Tans. 1974: Beechey. 1989). when budgetary constraints limit the availability of selection (Wright. 1977). or when values are assigned to land types to guide planning decisions (Tubbs and Blackwood, 197 1 ). The ranking of sites typically involves the assignment of a value or weight to each element in the set of criteria. An overall score is attained for each site by either adding the assigned value for each element under each category of criteria and arriving at a final score. or by multiplying the value for each element by the value assigned to its category and adding the products to arrive at a final score (Gelbach, 1975). The ranking of sites provides the investigator with a numerical value for each site. but it is based on subjective measures and can not be tested empirically (Westman. 1985). This method of evaluation has also been criticized for its inconsistency among investigators (Westman, 1985). One attempt to remove the subjective and inconsistent element of evaluative frameworks is to use an advisory committee formed by field biologists. personnel ~vithknowledge of the region and sites under consideration, and experts familiar with evaluative methods for each stage of the selection process (Beechey, 1989). Natural areas assessments have also been completed to rank potential impacts on natural grasslands from specific uses (Howell. 198 I), and to identify tallgrass prairie sites to recommend for consenration (Joyce, 1989). The first of these implements a similar ranking system as discussed above. but the latter uses a standardized ranking format that gives a coarse description of habitat quality, rather than a numerical vaiue, and will be discussed in more detail here. The Manitoba Naturalists Society initiated a taligrass prairie conservation project to identify existing tallgrass prairie remnants in Manitoba and to create a conservation and management strategy for those remnants (Joyce, 1989). It was the first systematic inventory undertaken for tallgrass prairie communities in Manitoba (Joyce, 1989). Potential sites were located by aerial photographs and then systematically ground checked. The sites were originally filtered by size: remnants Iarger than 1 ha were sought (Joyce, 1989). Sites were then ranked using a set of three criteria: native species dominance and diversity; cover/ abundance and sociability; and relative abundance of physical disturbance to the site (Joyce, 1989). These elements were recorded on Chaprer Five: Inlegrating Tallgrass Communities into Open Space Systems ofSouthern Ontario Municipalities 81 site survey cards. The information from the surveys was then processed and a descriptive ranking was given to each site associated with a letter rank of A. B. C. or D. The description of the ranks are as follows: A) Sites virtually undisturbed by man or recovered to an extent where community structure and composition is intact and reflects pristine conditions: soil not disturbed; high native species diversity; lack of weeds; B) Sites with light to moderate disturbance, such as grazing, haying. or fire suppression which may have lead to the encroachment of 'weedy' shrubs andlor trees. These areas may have a minimal amount of weeds but maintain a more natural condition; C) Sites with moderate disturbance reflected in a significant number of weeds which have replaced native species and low native species diversity; or D) Heavily disturbed sites where the vegetation is dominated by weedy species (Joyce, 1989). Different categories were provided under each of the three criteria for assessing sites, but it was not clear which categories lead to which rank. Whereas. a more distinct correlation was made among the criteria and the rank when a numerical value was assigned to the criteria. To remain descriptive. and become more effective. one would need to clearly explain which criteria or set of criteria lead to each of the overall rankings. Land suitability analyses are inventories used in the planning process for identiving homogeneous areas within a region and rating them as to suitability for specific uses (Hopkins, 1977). The most common use is the generation of maps to determine land uses for development patterns (Hopkins. 1977). Related uses include the identification of patterns and characteristics of natural hazards and determining potential impacts on a site from an adjacent source (Hopkins, 1977). These types of projects are related in that they use similar methods and are typically used as preliminary steps to generate suitability maps for locating land uses for development purposes (Hopkins, 1977). Land suitability analysis projects have also been used to determine ecological 82 Chaprer Five: Integrating Tallgrers Communities into Open Space Systems ofsouthern Ontario Municipalities areas for land use planning (Hills. 196 1). Many methods have been developed to perform land suitability analyses, the most notable being McHarp's overlay technique in his 1969 work 'Design With Nature'. Other variations include the gestalt method (Hopkins. 1977), mathematical combination methods (Hopkins, 1977). and an adaptation to McHargTsapproach that identified both the physical and socio-cultural systems of a region within the analysis (Steiner. 199 1). The outcome of a land suitability anaiysis. with any method, is a set of maps, one for each land use. showing which level of suitability characterizes each parcel of land (Hopkins, 1977). This involves two steps, identified by Hopkins (1977). as: 1) a procedure for identifying parcels of land that are homogeneous (e.g. valleys, forest. open field); and 2) a procedure for rating these parcels with respect to suitability for land use. When assessing lands for development, the suitability of each land parcel is typically determined by applying to the map a set of land-use principles which relate suitability to ecological zones and features (McAllister, 1980). In the assessment of ecological areas for land-use planning, the suitability of each land parcel is determined by applying to the map natural characteristics of an area (vegetation and physiography) and the relative usefLlness of an area (Hills, 1961). Natural heritage planning is a recent approach to land-use planning for the preservation of natural systems within an identified region or watershed. The planning of a system of natural heritage areas also uses a land suitability analysis approach for the identification of key areas to include in the system. This framework will be reviewed in detail since many of the concepts in this method could be used in the development of a system of tallgrass communities within urban open space areas. Chapter Five: Integrating Tallgrass Communiries into Open Space Systems o/Sourhern Ontario Municipalities 83 The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has included a framework for identifying and protecting natural heritage areas in their Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999). This framework involves three steps outlined below. I) The completion of an inveniory of the relevant bio-physical and socio-economic information in the region. This includes the mapping of streams and lakes; topography. steep slopes and landforms; forest cover; vegetation. habitat types and areas. and fish and wildlife populations; soil and geological information; and areas of existing development. The identification of natural heritage features and areas. This involves identifying the areas and features from the inventory in step one that should be maintained for their natural heritage values and related ecological functions. Provincially and locally significant sites can and should be included in the inventory. This can be accomplished by completing an inventory of each area in accordance with the description of natural heritage features and areas as identified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), including significant wetlands, significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species (including tallgrass communities), fish habitat, significant woodlands. significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs). Where these inventories have not been done or cannot be done due to various restrictions, locd OMNR offices, conservation authorities. naturalist groups. and/or watershed and sub- watershed planning exercises may be consulted to assess relevant features and hnctions. 3) The identification of areas requiring protection in order to maintain diversity and connectivity. This includes the identification of connecting links, comdon and buffer areas between or adjacent to areas identified in step two that should be maintained and/or restored. It also includes the identification of other significant natural areas of features that were not identified in step two in order to maintain diversity of natural features (OMNR, 1999). 84 Chuprer Five: integrating Tallgrass Communiries into Open Space Systems ofloathern Ontario Municipafiries Each of these maps can be overlaid once completed to identify a system of natural heritage features for protection and use in making land use decisions. 5.1.1.3 Site SpccXc Dbsign AaaMis This type of framework is developed when sites are assessed for a specific use. They generally take on a more focused approach than the previous frameworks. but can embody elements of both. For instance. a land suitability approach is used when 'classi@ing the ability of land attributes to support a use' (Lyle. 1985). Instead of mapping a region to define limitations and potentials for a variety of uses, either a specific site feature is assessed for its ability to support a use. such as mapping slope characteristics to determine where a trail could be built; or a variety of sites are assessed based on a set of parameters specific to one identified use. An evaluative method can also be used. especially with the latter approach. similar to the methods identified with natural areas assessments. Burley (1 986) used a ranking scheme and land suitability analysis to identify areas in the urban environment suitable for the use and creation of prairie landscapes. Two areas where prairie was planted as a substitute for mown lawn were compared within the framework. The design analysis incorporated both physical and aesthetic factors into the framework, including physical suitability, land use, spatial program functions, design cues and palatability. These factors were determined significant by the author based on an intuitive analytic method, where case studies are reviewed and significant factors contributing to the success and form of those studies are applied elsewhere (Burley, I 986). The use of both the checklist and land suitability analysis provided a means to incorporate the physical suitability and land use factors with the aesthetic and program requirement factors that would generate public response and are not adequately addressed through a mapping exercise (Burley. 1986). The checklist provided a range of scores (0-10) for each of the factors in the analysis. These scores, when added for each set of factors provided the magnitude: the impact of a particular factor upon a certain dependent variable (Burley, 1986). The magnitude for each Chapter Five: Integrating Ta/Igrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipaliries 85 factor was multiplied by an importance value assigned to each factor, which indicated the relative weighted significance each factor has upon the dependent variable. and a factor score was derived (Burley. 1 986). The sum of each of the factor scores provided a grand index score to rank each of the sites. This design analysis was usefbl to compare two existing sites but appears complicated when comparing a range of sites, or even one particular site, to detennine suitability for creating tallgrass prairie. The relative importance of each factor appeared to be arbitrarily assigned based on the investigator's opinion. as did the scoring of each of the factors. Criteria were not provided to determine which score to assign to each factor beyond a general description that a low score indicated good prairie landscape suitability and a high score indicated low landscape suitability. All things being equal. it would be difficult to distinguish importance among scores that fell within each range of low, medium or high. 5.1.2 Development of the Criteria Each of the frameworks explored above include a set of criteria for the evaluation of each site, which are developed based on the objectives of the project. A site selection project identifying areas for the preservation and re-creation of tallgrass communities has been determined to require the development of criteria based on a set of bio-physical factors and land-use factors. A number of site conditions have been identified in the literature that influence, or are required to support tallgrass communities. Restoration practitioners have also identified site conditions that are needed in the creation or may limit the creation of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. These criteria include topography, soil conditions, existing vegetation and site size (see Appendix 2). Each of these factors is explored in detail below to determine criteria to include in the site selection process. ------86 Choprer Five: Integrating Taligrass ~ommunirikinro Open Space Sysrems o/Sourhern Ontario Municipalities 1. Topography Remnant tallgrass communities have typically been found on steep slopes. although they can -grow well on either level or slightly sloping land (Kline, 1997), as long as the site is open and receives full sun (Delaney, pers. cornm.). The location of remnants on steep slopes is more likely a result of the conversion of land in level areas to agriculture or urban development and not representative of where these communities can or prefer to grow. The restoration and/or creation of tallgrass communities is generally preferred on level to gently rolling topography. mimicking the landscape that is historically believed to support tallgrass communities and the ecological processes. such as Cue. that maintained them, In most situations, topography of a site will influence selection of species. site preparation and pIanting techniques (Kline, 1997) rather than the selection of the site as adequate for the creation of prairie or savanna. Topography may limit accessibility to the site and the type of equipment needed for restoration projects. Tallgrass remnants have also been typically found on warmer southern aspect of slopes, although slope exposure. as with topography, will generally influence the selection of species for the site rather than the selection of the site (Kline, 1997). 2. Soil Conditions Soil texture. moisture, and nutrient levels have been identified as factors influencing the type of community present on a site. Tallgrass remnants have typically been found on sandy soils, due to the conversion of tallgrass communities on loam soils to agriculture and other land uses, but tallgrass communities historically existed and can be created on a range of soil conditions. Prairies have been established on sites with a range of soil conditions (Kline, 1997), including all soil textures (Delaney, pers. comm.). Prairies establish well on nutrient-poor soils, where weeds are less competitive (Kline, 1997) and areas were there is adequate drainage (Delaney, pers. cornm.). Rich soils with an average moisture level may encourage the growth of woody vegetation and weedy species which will out compete the growth of prairie species (Kline, 1997; Pratt. pers. comm.). The creation of tallgrass communities in richer soil areas is not impossible, but more intense management practices may have to be incorporated as a result. Chapler Five: Inregraring Taf/passCommunities inro Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipa fities 87 Depending on the area, the primary considerations for site selection have been identified as soil pH and nutrient levels (Delaney. pers. cornm.). Soil texture and moisture will dictate the types of species to plant. but are usually not deciding factors for the selection of sites (Diekelmann. Howell and Harrington. 1986; Morgan. 1995; Kline, 1997). 3. Existing Vegetation Existing on-site vegetation as well as vegetation on adjacent sites will affect site selection decisions. The first priority is to determine if a significant component of native prairie or savanna exists on the site for protection (Kline. 1997). In many instances. due to the rarity of tallgrass communities. a significant component may refer to any natural character of the community from an intact seed bank. to site hydrology, to some amount of remaining species identifying it as a remnant tallgrass community (Packard and Ross. 1997). Within fragmented landscapes. common in urban areas. even severely degraded remnants can provide a vestige for species of tallgrass communities that would otherwise be lost. These areas can often be restored by restoring their natural processes such as fire. or a combination of weeding, inter-seeding and restoring the fire regime (Packard and Ross. 1997). It is also important to assess existing vegetation for restoration of a degraded remnant or determine if the site is better suited for restoration of another community type, such as woodland. In southern Ontario tallgrass prairie. savanna and woodland all developed as a continuum of community types. Wetlands, fens. bogs and alvar communities are also part of the system of natural communities in southern Ontario. Many times a degraded prairie or savanna community may be overtaken by invasive shrub and tree species, either through mismanagement or loss of natural processes maintaining that community, and appear like natural areas (Packard, 1997). These areas need to be analysed to identify the conservative plant species that are representative of the original natural community and tend to disappear when a site is disturbed (Packard, 1997). This will help determine if the degraded site should be restored to prairie, savanna, woodland, or another natural community found in that area and then the appropriate management practices can be employed. This is an important step in the site selection process to identify degraded remnants 8 8 Chapter Five: Integrating Tallgrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities and balance the restoration of those remnants with the protection and restoration of the other natural communities comprising the southern Ontario landscape. Existing vegetation also needs to be assessed for its ability to support the re-creation of a tallgrass community. Areas such as mown lawns, open fields and abandoned agricultural fields contain vegetation communities that could be converted to tallgrass prairie or savanna (Pratt. pers. comm.). Canada and Kentucky bluegrass (species in lawns) are persistent species. but not competitive Lvhen sites are burned and managed for the creation of tallgrass communities (Kline. 1997). Abandoned agricultural fields. which have recently been cultivated, have also been found to contain fewer perennial weeds that can persist in competition with prairie plants compared to pastures (Kline, 1997). Most open sites wiil be suitable for re-creating tallgrass communities as long as persistent weedy species are not present in high numbers. Species that compete with talIgrass prairie species will vary by region and site conditions. but typically include Canada thistle. twitch grass, sweet white clover. reed canary grass and black locust (Delaney, pers. comm.; Kline. 1997). Alternate sites should be considered when persistent weeds are well established (Kline, 1997). Vegeration on adjacent lands needs to be assessed in the site selection process to ensure health and longevity of existing or re-created tallgrass prairie and savanna sites. Adjacent areas that are wooded may eventually encroach on the prairie or savanna site (Pratt, pers. comm.; Kline, 1997) or. depending on proximity, may shade out prairie species that require full sun (Kline. 1997). As well. the effective size of prairie as habitat could be increased if surrounding land is not wooded (Kline. 1997). However, it should be noted that where other options are not available, a site adjacent to a wooded area may just mean more intense management practices to account for a higher tree seed source (Rodger, pers. comm.). Compatible vegetation on adjacent lands have been identified as plowed fields, golf courses, lawns and pastures (Kline, 1997), wetlands, fens, meadows. upland habitat areas and other natural areas (MacMillan, pers. comm.). Although floodplains are areas typically preserved in developments they rarely remain as a prairie or meadow due to the inflm of seeds brought in by flood conditions (MacMillan, pers. comrn.). Chaprer Five: Inregrating Tallgras Communities into Open Space Systems ofsouthern Ontario Municipalities 89 4. Site Size and Landscape Connectivity The size of the site is ultimately dependent on the goals of the project. A site that is one acre or less is large enough to represent prairie flora. but Iarger sites are more desirable if the intention is to create severaI prairie communities and provide wildlife habitat (McCIain, 1983). Sites greater than 100 acres are optimum, but sites of 10 to 20 acres are considered acceptable to restore or re- create much of the habitat associated with tallpass prairie and savanna communities (Pratt. pers. comrn.). Of course. the preservation of any remnant community. regardless of size is important to maintain the diversity of local plant populations (Delaney. pers. comm.) and to provide demonstration sites that educate the community about tallgrass communities and their natural heritage value (Rodger. pers. comm.). Larger sites are preferred because they can support Iarger and more genetically diverse populations of species (Kline, 1997; Dramstad, Olson and Forman, 1996). A variety of soils and topographic gradients are more common on larger sites which in turn support a variety of prairie and savanna community types (Mine. 1997), the species associated with those communities and the fauna that inhabit and use those communities and species. A variety of community types ~kithina particular site also provides more transition zones between communities. resembling the pre-settlement landscape (Kline. 1997). Larger. more diverse sites are also better adapted to changing site conditions, providing more stability for the species dependent on those areas (Kline. 1997; Dramstad, Olson and Forman. 1996). Small sites have their value as well, especially in a fragmented landscape. Sites as small as % acre can harbour species not present in adjacent agricultural and urban landscapes and provide a place of rehge for species (Kline, 1997). They can act as stepping stones between larger remnants in a fragmented landscape (Dramstad, Olson and Forrnan, 1996). One tenth of an acre patch of prairie along a linear right-of way can have the same species composition as a similar sized area within a 300 acre prairie (White cited in Breitman. 1998). Aesthetic, environmental and economic benefits can also be derived from any size natural plant community within the urban landscape. Prairie and savanna restorations replacing lawns in 90 Chapter Five: ince&ating TaffgrassCommunities inio Open Space Systems of Southern 0nrario Municipalities parks. school yards. private yards and business grounds include substantial numbers of grasses and forbs which can add beauty and interest to neighbourhoods; improve environmental quality: provide an educationat resource to foster a better understanding of natural communities: reduce the use of ~vater,fertilizers, chemical pesticides, be1 consumption, noise and air pollution associated with the maintenance of lawns; reduce run-OR and improve rainwater penetration helping to re-charge the water table (Kline, 1997). Various factors associated with the planning, development, regulation and ownership of land in the urban environment will affect the selection of sites for the preservation, restoration, and/or re-creation of tallgrass communities. These factors include zoning of land, by-laws controlling the use of land, ownership of land, and human use and impact in these areas. 1. Zoning Considerations Zoning maps identie existing and fiture land uses which will help determine potential sites for the presemation and re-creation of tallpass communities. They wi11 also provide information regarding adjacent land uses, which could impact the selection of sites. Compatible sites could include existing and future parkland, utility corridors, rights-of way, storm water management greenways and faciIities, well-head protection areas, school yards, cemeteries. vacant lots. and open space areas associated with residential, commerciaI and industrial areas. Gravel pits and temporary use areas could also be considered as fiiture sites for the re-creation of tallgrass communities. These sites could be considered when identieing necessary linkages between significant natural areas in a natural heritage framework. (MacMillan, pers. comrn). Incompatible sites would include hture expansion areas where development is imminent; sites with industries and businesses that deal with flammable products or may have contaminants in Chaprer Five: Inregraring TaIfgrassCommunities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipolirks 9 1 the soil: areas where a buffer does not or could not exist between existing or re-created prairie sites and residential, active recreational. commercial or industrial use areas: and special use areas such as seniors complexes where residents could be affected by pollen and smoke (MacMillan. pers. comm.). Adjacent hture expansion areas or areas being re-developed also need to be considered cautiously since development could lead to drainage and erosion impacts on either existing remnants or restored sites (Morgan, 1995). Compatible sites will also be dependent on the by-laws that control use and management practices on them. By-laws usually correlate to the types of land uses zoned within a region. They should be reviewed for the compatible sites identified from an assessment of the zoning maps. By-laws to look for include noxious weed regulations. regulations controlling the use of fire. regulations controlling the use of herbicides. and any regulations addressing public health and safety concerns. 3. Ownership of Land The ownership of land will affect the selection of sites by determining which are publicly and privately owned. For the most part. municipalities will focus on the identification of public lands to include in the site selection process, but private lands should also be included in the initial assessment. Many opportunities may exist to work with private landowners in the preservation, restoration and/or creation of tallgrass communities that provide key habitat areas or important linkages in the landscape. identifying both private and public lands early in the process will also provide information to help municipalities create a strategy for approaching private landowners to become involved in a voluntary stewardship program. A history of the land use, development rights and private property rights for each parcel of land will help to assess which lands, whether public or private, could be included in the site selection process (Langrnaid, pers. cornm.). 92 Chapter Five: Integrating Tallgrass Communities into Open Space Sysrems ofSouthern Ontario Municipalities The key to the successful selection and implementation of sites is to bring the community into the process from the start (Burridge. pers. comm.; Lapaid, pers. comm.; Pratt, pers. comm.; MacMillan. pers. comm.; Sinclair. pers. comm.; Delaney, pers. comm.). This includes the seIection of both public and private lands for either the preservation or re-creation of tallgrass communities. This approach is obvious when private Iand is considered for preservation efforts. Beyond that. there is also a 'perceived ownership' in many open space areas where a community or neighbourhood has been using a space for many functions over the years (Lanpaid. pers. comm.). Any change to that space, implemented by the municipality, will be met with resentment unless the community has been inlcuded in the process (Langmaid. pers. comm). 4. Human Use and Impact Open space areas have traditionally been developed for human use and enjoyment in the urban landscape. The inclusion of natural areas within !he scope of open space planning should not disregard human use considerations. The majority of considerations will affect education and management programs rather than site selection. However, sites with high human use and impact. such as playing fie Ids and neighbourhood playgrounds, should generally not be considered for tallbass prairie and savanna restoration or re-creation purposes. Areas supporting passive recreational needs tend to be better suited for restoration and re-creation of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. Prairie and savanna species can be damaged or destroyed and invasive exotic species may take their place when sites are exposed to continuous trampling. Sites selected for re-creating tallgrass prairie and savanna communities need to be designed with designated trails, educational signs and visual and physical barriers in mind to protect the restoration efforts, while allowing the community to enjoy the benefits of a natural area. Existing tallgrass and savanna remnants will also need to be carefully managed with educational signs and trails to either discourage or control use in designated areas. Chapter Five: Inregraring Taflgrms Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities 93 5.2 The Site Selection Process The preceding section provided the basic principles for the creation of a process to select urban open space areas for the preservation and re-creation of tallgrass communities. The process will be outlined in detail in this section- The process is a two step approach that involves a landscape analysis phase followed by a descriptive ranking phase. The result will be a map that wifl identi@ key areas for the presewation, restoration and/or re-creation of tallgrass communities and a prioritization strategy for acquiring and implementing those sites. The framework for the process was selected to maintain consistency with existing natural heritage strategies and current approaches to land use planning, as well as to provide for a flexible process that can be adapted as new information is obtained. The site selection process is intended to be used as a guide for municipal planners when making open space and natural heritage planning decisions, but private landowners, school andlor community groups could also use certain sections of the process, especially when becoming involved in preservation, restoration andlor re-creation initiatives. Criteria for the framework includes the following land-use factors discussed in Section 5.1 : land use zoning designations, site specific by-laws and regulations. and property ownership; and the following biophysical factors: existing and adjacent site vegetation. Site size is not being considered as a criterion for site selection, although it may be important in defining site boundaries or site planning goals once sites have been identified and prioritized. Soil pH and nutrient levels, although important selection criteria will not be addressed individually, but will be addressed within a broader category of land-use constraints since many changes to soil pH and nutrient levels are a result of past and current land uses. Soil texture and moisture, and site topography have been identified as factors determining species present within different community types and species to use in restorations and will therefore not be used as site selection criteria but will form part of the species selection tables in Section 6.2.3. 94 Chapter Five: Integrating Taligrass Communities into Open Space Systems ofSouthern Ontario MunicipaIities 5 .2.1 landscape Analysis Step One: Identification of Existing Tallgrass Communities Existing tallgrass remnants Existing urban dcvcloprncnt Future residential arcas Commercial deveiopmcnt areas Mixed dcvcloprnent area Opcn space areas Natural environment areas Rail line A bandoncd rail line Figure 8: Identification of existing tallgrass communities. This step involves locating and mapping existing tallgrass communities, including: i) Existing remnants that are currently protected and/or managed by the municipality; ii) Existing intact remnants that are not currently protected or managed by the municipality; and iii) Existing tallgrass restoration areas that are a protected part of the municipal natural open space system. Chapter Five. Inregraring TaffpassCmmunirier into Open Space System of Southern Ontario MunicipaIiries 95 The identification of these areas should be done on both public as well as private lands. Identification of remnant conlmunities on private lands will help target landowners to include in a private stetvardship program. The locating and mapping of these areas will involve the use of many resources including municipal land use maps identifying existing preserves; municipal and/or other local resources which identify areas restored or re-created by private landowners, industries or community groups: information regarding remnant communities obtained from local naturalist groups: Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) maps and descriptions of existing remnant communities; and historical records, aerial photographs and field checking methods to identify and map local sites not provided by any of the above sources. These areas will form the base layer of the landscape analysis map (Figure 8). Step Two: Identification of Potentially Compatible Land-Use Areas This step involves identifying and mapping areas where tallgrass communities could be restored and/or re-created. It includes locating open areas for the re-creation of tallgrass communities as well as locating degraded sites for restoration. Both public and private lands should be assessed in this step to help identify key areas where landowners could become involved in restoration and/or re-creation projects. This step will provide a general overview of potentially compatible sites based on land-use planning criteria and will form the second layer of the landscape analysis map (Figure 9). It involves reviewing land-use zoning plans, by-laws, and land registry information to identify compatible natural areas, environmental constraints areas, utility open space areas, parks and open spaces, institutional open space areas? residentid open space areas, commercial and industrial open space areas, and abandoned or unused open space areas. The identification of these areas will vary by municipality, depending on variations in land-use zoning plans, existing land use patterns, plans for hture development, existing natural areas, and existing open space 96 Chaprer Five: Integrating Tallgrass Communities info Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipaliries areas. Typically. the following areas may be considered as compatible land-use areas for tallgrass restoration andlor re-creation projects or as areas where degraded remnants may occur and be restored: i) open areas adjacent to existing tallgrass communities; ii) open areas adjacent to plowed fields. golf courses. and/or lawns iii) areas adjacent to other natural communities; iv) park areas; v! utility corridors and road rights-of way; vi) abandoned rail lines; vii) school yards. cemeteries or other institutional open space areas; viii) vacant lots; ix) storm water management areas; and x) residential, commercial or industrial open space areas. I ...... 1:; .:: / 2.;:::: . , Potentially wrnpatiblc land-use arras Figure 9: Identification of potentially compatible land-use areas. Chapter Five: integrating Tuffgrass Communities into Open Space Systems o~SowlrernOntario Municipalities 97 Step Three: Selection of Sites for the Restoration and Re-creation of Tallgrass Communities The selection of sites for restoration and re-creation involves a more detailed assessment of the areas identified in step two to determine any bio-physical andlor site specific land-use constraints affecting the selection of sites. This involves field checking the potentially compatible sites identified in step two to assess existing and adjacent vegetation communities, human use factors or other site conditions that may hinder the development of tallgrass communities. These factors may vary by site. but the following factors may act as a guideline: i) Areas where development is imminenf heavy human use is present and will continue, such as recreational fields, and areas that may contain contaminants, soil nutrients or pH not suitable to species in tallgrass communities should be avoided. It should be noted that not all contaminated sites should be excluded from the process; some opportunities may exist for creation of a tallgrass reserve in areas unsuitable for human use due to contamination but suitable for tallgrass species (e-g. old waste disposal sites). ii) Compatible site vegetation may include the presence of prairie or savanna indicator species in a degraded area, mown lawns, open fields, and/or abandoned agricultural fields. iii) Sires where there is a serious infestation of aggressive exotic species, such as Canada thistle, dog-strangling vine, or canary reed grass, should not be included. Sites with some exotic species should not be excluded, but will need to prepare more rigorous management plans. The result will be either removing areas originally selected as sites for re-creation and/or restoration, or changing site boundaries to reflect site specific regulations or constraints. It will also involve identifjring more accurately sites that are located on private land that are key to providing links betsveen the areas selected for restoration andor re-creation. This step will be an ongoing process in the strategy to preserve and restore tallgrass communities, incorporating new information as it emerges at the regional and site pIan level. 98 Chapter Five: Integrating TalIgtass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario MunicipaIities The map generated from this step will be overlaid on the other two to develop a final landscape analysis of sites for preserving and restoring tallgrass communities (Figure 10). The sites can then be prioritized for acquisition and implementation strategies can be developed. w i- i- s- ,-s- Selected compatible land-use arras I _ ..- -__i :-:.- . .: . PotentialIy compatible land-use areas Figure 10: Selection of sites lor the restoration and re-creation of tallgrass communities. 5.2.2 Site Prioritization Strategy Each selected site will be ranked according to its priority for preservation and restoration within the overall system of tallgrass communities. The rank assigned to each site will not assess which site is best and which is worst: any site that either has a remnant tallgrass community or could support a restored tallgrass community is important in the preservation of these endangered ecosystems. Rather, the ranking will provide a systematic strategy for acquiring sites to preserve, restore and/or re-create tallgrass communities and create a network of tallgrass communities within the urban landscape. Chapter Five: Inregraring TafIgrass Communities into Open Space Systems ofsouthern Ontario Municipafities 99 The numerical rank (1 -4) provided is based on a descriptive value of the site. and are as follows: 1 - Includes existing remnant tallgrass communities that are either protected or under management at the municipal level. and existing intact remnants not already protected or managed that should be considered significant and protected as part of a system of natural heritage areas. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) provides a recommended approach for determining significance of natural areas that proposes all tallgrass prairie and savanna communites be considered significant and protected (Appendix 1). This rank also includes existing restored areas as part of municipal natural open space areas that could form part of a network of tailgrass communities in which to build and expand with the location of new sites. 2 - Includes existing degraded tallgrass remnants that could be restored within the municipality. This includes sites within open space areas (e-g. along rail lines or abandoned fields) where they will not be destroyed or encroached by existing or firture development. and may include sites on private property where suitable. Target areas would also include sites that provide links between existing natural areas (e.g. water systems) or preserved tallgrass remnants. 3 - Includes sites compatible for re-creating tallgrass communities that are adjacent to existing tallgrass community remnants and/or other compatible natural areas. or fonn part of an existing natural, environmental constraint, or utility open space area designation. This may include either public or private land where development will not encroach and where there is not a serious threat from aggressive exotic weed species. 4 - Includes sites compatible for re-creating tallgrass communities that are not adjacent to existing tallgrass community remnants or natural areas but will provide areas of local habitat where there is little to no habitat currently existing. This may include manicured neighbourhood parks, school yards, cemeteries and private residential, commercial or industrial open space areas where development will not encroach and where there is not a serious threat from aggressive exotic weed species. 100 Chapter Five: Integrating Taligrass Communities into Open Space Systems ofsouthern Ontario Municipufities The site selection and prioritization strategy presented here provides a theoretical framework for selecting and implementing sites. It demonstrates the types of sites that could ideally make up a regional system of tallgrass communities based on land-use opportunities within municipdities. The actual combination of sites included in the network will vary among municipdities based on resources and availability, type and location of sites within the municipdity. Although the strategy outlines the preservation of existing remnants as first priority, followed by the restoration and re-creation of adjacent sites, it should be noted that any opportunity for the restoration and re-creation of tallgrass communities is encouraged regardless of where the site is located within the municipality. Existing protected or managed remnants Existing degraded remnants appropriate for restoration efforts Sites suitable for re-creation and are adjacent to compatible natural or open space areas Sites suitable for re-creation where they will add habitat value Figure I 1 : Site prioritization strategy. The goal is to develop a strategy for creating a system of existing tallgrass communities and sites for preserving and restoring tallgrass communities (Figure 1 I ). This plan can then be used to Chapter Five: Inlegraring TaIIgrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipa!ities 101 guide land-use planning decisions, become part of an open space masterplan, and/or be used as a component within a larger natural heritage planning strategy. To be used as a land-use planning guide and to ensure successful implementation of the site selection process considerations need to be made for implementing the process within the existing municipal land-use planning process. Chapter six provides recommendations that should be used in conjunction with the strategy developed here. 1 02 Chapter Five: Integrating Tallgrass Communities into Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipaiities Chapter 6: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities - Recommendations and Conclusions "It 's roots ... The prairie represents fhe past. It represents something you can grab onto, something chat endures" (Robert Betz cited in Farney, 1980) 6.1 Integrating the Site Beledion Process into the Municipal Planning Process 6.1 .I Publie Involvement The municipal planning process is required to include a pre-consultation or public meeting phase when introducing changes to an official plan or implementing a new oftical plan to allo\y for public input on matters that will affect the community (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1997). This process should be no different. The public should be notified of the plan to incorporate a strategy to identifv key sites within the municipality for the preservation and restoration of tallgrass communities. The framework for ho~vthis will be achieved as well as information on how the plan would be implemented within the current planning structure and how it will guide and affect planning decisions should also be presented. The community needs to adequately understand the importance of such work: be allowed the opponunity to voice their opinion: and be given a chance to participate in the impkmentation of such a strateglr. 6.1.2 Planning and Regulatory Measures To effect iveI y guide land-use planning decisions and adequately provide for and preserve a system of tallgrass communities within their regions. municipalities will need to address key elements of the site selection process within their official plans. zoning by-laws, and open space masterplans. 6.1.2.1 Mcial Ptms The foIlowing elements should be provided within official plans: I. The strategy to preserve and restore tallgrass communities should be one of the main goals and objectives within the oficial plan. CI~oprerSi.r.- The Flrrure of Tallgrass Communitres in Southern Onrario Municipalities 105 This goal should be consistent with other preservation and naturatization strategies. It should also be consistent with provincial policy statements and objectives for preserving and restoring natural heritage systems. 2. Appropriate land-use designations should be provided for existing tallgrass communities. Land-use designations are required to preserve existing sites and provide adequate protection from adjacent or on site uses that are not consistent with the ecological functions of the tallgrass community. Locally and regionally significant remnants identified by the NHIC or by the municipality that are not provided with provincial designations, such as ANSIs, should be provided with natural environment designations or a similar designation that provides adequate protection for those areas. Other remnant sites or restored areas that can support passive recreational activities could be provided with natural park designations or a similar level of designation that signifies its importance as a natwal habitat area within the community. 3. Provisions should be made so the designations assigned to significant remnants can not change as lands are sold or surrounding areas are re-zoned. Remnant tallgrass communities need to be protected in perpetuity. Stipulations can be provided with those land-use designations that ensures their protection. For instance, conservation easements can be applied to natural areas on public or private property that remain with the property as it changes hands. 4. Appropriate land-use designations should be provided for remnant communities located within areas zoned for future development. These areas should be zoned as environmental constraint areas, or a similar designation, which allows for protection of that community from development pressures. It would be left to the descretion of the municipal planning authority to determine whether that area could also serve as part of the 5% park land dedication if land for other park purposes was not needed. I06 Chapter Sir: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario MunicipaIities 5. Areas identified as compatible for restoring or re-creating tallgrass communities (important linkages, areas with habitat potential) should be provided with an appropriate open space designation. Designations identifying these areas as distinct from open space areas for playing fields and active recreation will allow for the creation of by-laws for the implementation, maintenance and presewation of those sites. These areas could be designated as significant open space areas. or similar designations that denote their importance as potential natural habitat areas. This ty-pe of designation may also correspond with multi-use areas, such as utility open space areas or storm water management areas. The designation could also be used for open space areas within areas zoned for future development so plans can reflect and incorporate future restorations within their open space areas. 1. By-laws need to be created that are consistent with the land-use designations provided for tallgrass community remnants. The zoning of existing tallgrass communities and subsequent by-laws need to address permitted uses for those areas that have no negative impact on the community as a whole. species present in the community or the ecological hctions of the community. 2. By-laws need to be created for adjacent and surrounding lands to address uses and development of those lands. Development of consistent zoning by-laws and policies for adjacent lands will help to mitigate negative impacts to remnant and restored tallgrass communities through development and use of those lands. Any substantive change in the land-use will require an ammendment to these zoning by-laws. allowing for an assessment of the potential affects of the proposed land-use (OmR 1999). 3. By-laws need to be created, or modified, to address implementation and management strategies for the maintenance of tallgrass communities within selected sites. Chapter Six: The Future of Tallgrass Communiries in Southern Onrario Municipali~ies 107 By-laws will need to be created or modified to allow and provide guidelines for the use of fire as a natural areas management practice. Weed control and property standards by-laws will also need to be updated in those communities where tallgrass communities are an important feature of the natural landscape to allow for the creation and restoration of these communities in a manner that is consistent with community health and safety standards. Open space masterplans function as another layer within the land-use planning process. They provide details for the hll spectrum of open space areas within a municipality and are useful on a regional scale as well as at the site plan level. Municipalities should update and expand their masterplans to include the land-use designations for the open space areas where existing or re- created tallgrass communities have been identified. This information should be consistent with the regulations outlined in the Official Plan and where necessary provide more specific information on a site specific basis. The information provided within open space masterplans can then be changed or updated as new information arises within future development and/or re- development areas. Municipalities -&out open space masterplans should consider developing one that includes the full complement of open space areas within their region (e.g. environmental constraint areas. natural environment areas, utility open space areas, environmentally significant areas. significant open space areas). This will provide a comprehensive open space plan to better guide land-use planning decisions. C This section focuses on planning and regulatory measures under municipal jurisdiction, however it is important to recognize that changes could also be made at the provinical level to assist the municipality in such an endeavour. The present 5% land dedication limits the land municipalities can acquire or put into natural areas. The Provincial Policy Statement requires municipalities to adhere to matters of provincial interest, but in order to do so changes may need to be made within the Planning Act to recognize and provide support for planning of natural heritage areas within local municipalities. I08 Chapter Sir: The Future of TalIgrass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities 6.2 Recommendations for the Implementation of Sites Selected for the Preservation and Restoration of Tallgrass Communities Once sites have been selected for inclusion in a system of tallgrass communities. considerations arise regarding the implementation of those sites. This section outlines general considerations for education. community involvement. site preparation, species selection and management of selected sites. The suggestions provided here are not exhaustive and it is recognized that there may be other approaches to implementing sites that may be used as well. 6.2.1 Education Educational proprams are many times the most important aspect to implementing projects of this nature. Section 6.1.1 outlined the importance of including the public within the planning process: public education and involvement at the implementation level needs to work in concert with involvement at the planning stage. The community needs to be provided with information regarding what tallgrass communities are. why they are important. what they need to remain healthy natural areas and the fact that they do exist in their community and need to be protected. This needs to happen before sites are implemented and continue throughout their existence. Once sites are implemented. signs and information should be provided on the site and throughout the community to explain the restoration and/or site preservation and its importance. Educational information also needs to address the community's involvement in caring for these sites. such as staying on designated paths. not picking wildflowers or collecting seed, as well as how they can get involved with the planting and nurturing of the sites. Management practices for the site should also be included in the information provided on site and throughout the community. Many people within the community may already be aware of these facts and may be able to assist with the educational component of the project by forming community organizations to provide support, resources and information to the rest of the community. Community Chapter Sir: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities 109 organizations could work in concert with organizations such as Tallgrass Ontario. the Rural Lambton Stewardship Network (RLSN). Carolinian Canada or the Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON) (see Appendix 3). These groups have educational materials and resources for communities, such as information pamphlets or seeds for prairie creation projects: or they may be able to provide names of people and other organizations who can provide assistance and fimding to restore tailgrass communities or provide necessary educational information. Planners. landscape architects, decision makers, maintenance crews and any one working in the business of designing and maintaining open space areas need to be educated as well (Sinclair. pers. cornm.). Incorporating natural areas into urban open space systems involves a new approach to thinking about those spaces. Developing a knowledge base of new approaches to incorporating natural communities, such as tallgrass prairie and savanna communities. in open space areas may influence more sensitive design and foster partnerships between planners, developers and ecologists. The Ontario Parks Association has been active in the development of research and educational programs with consultants and municipalities to provide this type of knowledge and information to communities (see Appendix 3). Restoring Nature 's Place is a program and guide developed to support the growing trend for naturalizing parks and open spaces and provide information to communities and individuals to help meet the challenges of the restoration process (Daigle and Havinga, 1996). It is also important to recognize that landscape maintenance crews can not be expected to change their practices over night. Changes within the scope of open space areas that have been traditionally maintained need to be made known through an educational program- Educational programs need to encompass all aspects from the initial site design, preparation and planting to short and long term mainatenance and management of sites. The language for developing and maintaining tallgrass prairie and savanna communities within open spaces will be different than the language and design presently used to create parks and recreational fields. Municipalities may wish to work with members of the design field, consultants and park, road and utility maintenance staff to develop an approach to 'spec' writing for these types of jobs. 110 Chapter Sir: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario Munic@alities 6.2.2 Site Planning, Preparation, Planting and Maintenance The restoration and re-creation of tallgrass communities requires time. effort and a number of resources for the planning and preparation of the site, planting. and creation of a maintenance program to help get the community established. The approach to each of these may be different depending on the site and objectives of the project. The following section provides some general considerations when undertaking restoration projects. However. the suggestions do not provide a step by step approach necessary to complete a restoration. Many guides and resources exist that address site preparation. planting and site maintenance considerations in detail (see Appendix 4) md should be used by individuals and municipalities once ready to begin a restoration. 1. Site Planning Before beginning preparation work on any site a site plan is needed. This may involve: Designing and designating areas for trails on restored. re-created and/or preserved sites, placement of educational signs and materials, and planning for any other passive recreational activities. Designating and locating fire breaks. Many times traiis or roads or other property delineations may double as fire breaks. Establishing check plots and permanent monitoring plots for existing remnants and restored areas. 2. Site Preparation Site preparation is the most important step in a prairie restoration and may take a few years depending on the conditions of the site. It generally involves the following: Removing weeds and unwanted vegetation, which may include raking, cultivation, burning. mowing, applying herbicide or a combination depending on whether the site is bare or covered in vegetation. Preparing the soil for seeding and/or planting by cultivating and/or roller packing depending on the method of seeding or planting. Sites may need to be cultivated to a depth of 4 inches, especially in clay areas, when planting plugs. Chapter Six: The Future of TaI fgrass Communities in Southern Ontario MunictpaIities Ill Soil amendments such as compost, manure and fertilizer are not required to prepare the soil since prairie species do not need nutrient-rich soils. 3. Plan tinglseeding Sites can be seeded with either a drill seeder or broadcast spreader. planted either by hand or by mechanically inserting plugs. or a combination of seeding and planting. The method will vary depending on site size. site topography, erosion potential and project goals. C Drill seeding should be done right after the last cultivation or roller packing, whereas broadcast seeding should be done after the last cultivation but before the site is packed. Seeding should be done in the spring (May) when optimum soil moisture and other conditions for germination occur; or seeds can be grown indoors over the winter and planted in the spring. Seeding rates vary with site size and project goals. Drill seeding at a rate of 1 1 kg. PLSha for psesand 2 kg. PLS/ha for forbs (doubled for broadcast seeding) will provide a ratio of 75% grasses to 25% forbs. In urban areas the ratio may be adjusted to 50% grasses: 50% forbs for aesthetic purposes. On smaller sites the seeding rate for forbs has been suggested as 30-50 seeds/ft2 and in residential gardens 4-5 seedslft'. Plug planting rates have been suggested as 25,000 plugshectare (1 0,00O/acre), or I plug every 40cm on smaller sites. 4. Maintenance Smaller restoration or re-creation sites can be mulched (with weed-fiee mulch) once sites have been seeded to conserve soil moisture, enhance germination and reduce soil erosion. It is important to note, however, that once species are established the use of mulch may hinder Mergermination of species through natural seed dispersal. Irrigation may be beneficial after seeding or plug planting (usually only possible on smaller sites) depending on rainfall amounts after seeding/planting. If rainfall is not adequate, two to five cm of water every 3 days for the first month will help to get the young plants established. 112 Chapter Sir: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities The first few years are critical to the establishment of a prairie and require continual control of some weed species. Perennial weeds can be controlled by selectively spot- spraying with herbicide. Annual weeds can be controlled by mowing with the blade set high enough to miss the prairie seedlings, but low enough to cut the weeds off before they go to seed. Prairies should be burned as soon as enough he1has accumulated (usually afier 2 or 3 years) ia early to mid spring. Sites are usually burned in rotational sequence to provide habitat for species on the site and take into consideration any special needs of various species. Controlled burns should be done with specially trained individuals to take into account all safety and ecological issues. Sites that can not be burned should be mown close to the ground. clippings raked and taken to be burned and then returned to the prairie site and sprinkled on the ground to provide beneficial nutrients fiom the ashes. 6.2.3 Species Selection The selection of species should be done on a site by site basis. The first priority should be to understand the composition of species fiom adjacent local prairie or savanna remnants to build species lists for use in restored or re-created sites. However. some municipalities may not have good. intact remnants as guides or existing sites may be located some distance away from C planned restoration sites. In this instance it is necessary to consult records of the communities that were present in the area. As presented in chapter three, many classifications of community types and lists of species have been developed, most correlating to site moisture. These classifications were reviewed along with regional and county species lists developed by various organizations for the creation of species selection lists for use on restored sites. The lists. presented here, are intended as a guideline only and an individual or organization with expertise in tallgrass restoration should be consulted to develop planting mixes for specific sites. As well, a more detailed list of species will be available in the Environment Canada prairie creation manud (see Appendix 4). Chaprer Six: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario MunicipaIities 113 The lists prepared for this project are organized by site moisture for prairie and savanna species. in accordance with natural site moisture classifications (Tables 5 to 10). The lists include information about soil texture, topographic position. the geographical range of the species. and where applicable. a notation as to whether it is a core species or rare species. Core species are the common. or dominant, species that form the backbone to naturally occurring prairies and should form the most common component of the species mix (Delaney et. al. 2000). The other species in the list can make up the remainder of the mix and compliment the core species in the planting. Rare species have been noted as well. and although opinions may vary. it is generally recommended that an ecologist from the local OMNR office be consulted before these species are used in the planting mix. It is also important to note that some larger sites may have a diversity of moisture gradients and species mixes may be created from either list. Information regarding soil texture is provided for each of the species in the lists. Typically, prairie species prefer sand or loam soils. Sandy soils are well drained providing dry, nutrient deficient conditions where prairie species can thrive and weed species are out-competed. Sandy soils in wet areas also provide prairie species with an advantage by providing inundated conditions throughout the spring followed by drier, nutrient poor conditions throughout the gro~vingseason which other species cannot tolerate as readily. Loam soils are the best growing medium for any plants: they are also well suited to the growth of weed species. Some species may also grow in heavier clay soils, suggesting it is important to match species with the soil conditions of the site- The range for each species has been provided to show where the species currently occurs or historically occurred and has been based primarily on regional distribution lists (Delaney et. al., 2000). Although opinions vary, it is recommended that species be planted within the general range of its current or historical occurrence throughout southern Ontario. Tallgrass communities occur throughout an extensive and diverse range of southern Ontario. therefore making it important to understand and base restorations on the natural character and existing plant communities within each region. 114 Chapter Six: The Future o/Tal~g~assCommuniries in Southern Ontario Municipalities XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Lambton County XXXXXI Elgin County I XXXX Bmt County X XX Waterloo XI I Dufferin County 1 Grey County Huron County Bruce Countv I. - Middlesex County 1 Oxford Counn. -- Y ork -- - Peel 1 Toronto I I Prince Edward C. 1 Northumberland C. Simcoe Countv kuno3=3111!S I -x X -x 'X X X X IX X X X X kun03aullmH xx x x x XXX X X -3PmIJaq='nrluoN x xx x x x X X X mm u* 4 = g Cr m gg z 2 IF zwa 3 K ms 2 UY 2% C"2 -3-gL gX f~ an. -. a =p g= = -. g =m z-fl 57% EEd .=a -0 3 c:E -' E = 3 on0 -0p 3 = 3 2% g -. fo= OZ 5 52 'g E. s. a ZS= g 5% 1 gf =C 3 L Y" gz gC) -&4 = fc.C) - En .3 aw \3 -.f- xa m 3E g zz g 5 5- 5-a y 'R3=. S - d 33 .- gE. - z.= =0 " 5 S. ICluno3 sa'u!ase~ -3puellaqurnquoN -3 @nolocpaiad Awn03 quad '3panlpg aauud OlUOJOL X XXX XXXXX XXXXX I X X X XXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXX i 1 1 1 I I X XXX I i XXXXXXX' XXX X X X X XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX I IX IX IX I 1 kuno3=3u!S X X X X X X X X X X X X .Cluno~au!i=~ xxx x x x '3 P~lJa9unWoN x x x x x x x X X -2 u 2 aE S -C 3 u .C X X XXX X X X XXX X X X XX XXxXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX m4 F w 1.5.CI) a i XXXXXXXXXXXXX Sand W I E. I xxxxxxxxx X X X Loam -3 Y xxx x x x Clay Jn L x x x x x x Bottom .I i '2a XXXXXXXXXXXXX Mid g.I. 2 '33 xxxxxxxxxxxxx Top F Essex Counry Chatham-Kent Larnbton Counv Elgin County Hastings Counry 1 I I I I I I I i I I I Sirncoe County I I I XXXXX X X I X X X X X X X XXXYXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I I X XXXX XXXX XXXX 13 CT CP MZ A- G. 2 g * .a VJV) VJE XxXX XX'XX X X % XX Sand C& -2. XXXX XXXXXXXXX Loam 4 1 Y x x x Clay T x x x x Bonom d 2 # 3" z xxxx xxxxxxxxx Mid L.Z. q =' P 5 = XX XXX X x Top Essex County Chatham-Kent Lambton Counv Elgin County Brant County Waterloo Dufferin County Durham County 5 ~ z Grey County L,a Y Huron County Bruce County 3 Middlesex County = Haldimand-Norfolk ==& '3.= i Oxford County k-% I P Niagara -CLL. Hamilton-Wentuonh 2 P Halton 2. Y ork 2 I. x x X Peel C, x XXX x Toronto X X X Prince Edward C. , I I X X X X I Penh Counry X X X X Peterborough C. X X X X, Nonhumberland C. x X X Hastings County 1 x x xxx x Simcoe County 6.2.4 Management Plans Many of the processes that have sustained tallgrass prairie and savanna communities no longer occur naturally. Direct management is required to restore those processes to existing and restored sites. The creation of a management plan is necessary to make knowledgeable decisions for each site. Management plans involve understanding the natural history of the site, the ecological and hnctional needs of the community. and any special needs of individual species (Dunevitz. 1986). This information will assist in making decisions about management regimes, such as burning. mowing. herbicide applications and/or interseeding, that benefit the community and will not adversely affect any rare species or encourage invasion by exotic species (Dunevitz, 1986). Management plans also provide an opportunity to monitor and evaluate the site to detemine if preservation. restoration and/or management goals are being met. Information about the management of these sites should also be provided to the community in the form of educational material or otherwise. This provides people with an opportunity to learn more about specific features of the site such as rare species, specific management practices and why such management practices are important. Notice of management plans should also be provided as a warning to people within the area so they can take necessary precautions (e-g. closing windows) while burns are taking place. For instance, the City of Windsor incorporates a clause within deeds of houses that are in the vicinity of Ojibway prairie notiQing the home oxtners that the prairie is burned every spring (Pratt. pers. comm.). 6.2.5 Partnerships and Community Involvement The public has been identified as an important element in the implementation of the site selection process. Partnerships with local and regional organizations and community involvement at the site implementation level are also an important element to guarantee the success of preservation and restoration efforts. Partnerships and community involvement can take on many forms and are discussed in detail in some of the guides listed in Appendix 4. The following provides some main suggestions for including the community and other organizations. Chapter Sir: The Future of Taligrass Communities in Southern Onrario Municipa1 iries 143 1. Landowner incentives and stewardship programs Regulatory controls are only one form of providing protection for tallgrass remnants. Remnants that occur on private property (including private citizens and corporations) can be protected through the use of landowner incentives such as conservation easements, the conservation land tax program and landowner stewardship agreements. Programs can also be established to encourage landowners to become involved in tallgrass restoration and/or re-creation projects in priority areas. 2. Promotion of preservation and restoration projects Promotion of tallgrass community projects can be carried out in many ways from early education and support for the protection and restoration of tallgrass prairie and savanna sites to active involvement in the implementation of the sites. The community can take an active role in the collection of seeds. preparation and planting of sites as well as with the early maintenance of sites. They can also be involved in helping with site signage or educational materials throughout the community. Community involvement in the education of these sites can continue once they have been implemented by developing programs and events with the members of the community that allow the community to experience the prairie and savanna landscape. This could include anything from photography. art. demonstrations, school curriculum activities. walking tours, and festivals or rituals of any nature that embrace the connection between society and the land. 3. Coordination of preservation, restoration and naturalization efforts with other municipal departments This could include the development of consistent educational, policy, implementation and management objectives and plans between each of the municipal authorities controlling land uses. It could also include developing strategies with utility companies for effective implementation and management of tallgrass prdirie on their lands and working with the local fire department to carry out prescribed bums on tallgrass community sites. 4. Coordination of preservation and restoration efforts with regional authorities 144 Chapter Sir: The Future of TaIIgr(zss Communities in Southern Ontario Municipaiities This could include working with local conservation authorities. local representatives from the Ministq- of Natural Resources or regional municipalities to develop management and restoration plans. as well as the sharing of knowledge between jurisdictions to provide consistent information regarding local and regional tallgrass communities and promote links between local and regional sites. 6.3 Conclusions Less than 3% of pre-settlement taIIgrass communities remain in southern Ontario. Tallgrass communities are becoming recognized as an important part of southern Ontario's natural heritage. Even so. coordinated protection and restoration efforts are required to prevent the continued loss and destruction of these diverse ecological communities. Because of the ever- increasing urbanization of the southern Ontario landscape, urban open spaces have been identified as areas providing an opportunity for the protection and restoration of tallgrass communities. This research has presented a process for identifying and selecting sites for the preservation and restoration of tallgrass communities within urban open space areas. It builds on the current open space planning process and the proposed natural heritage framework developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The site selection process developed incorporates a landscape analysis phase to identify sites, followed by a site prioritization strategy for acquiring and implementing those sites. The landscape analysis phase identifies areas for the preservation and restoration of tallgrass communities based on opportunities and constraints of individual sites, determined through an analysis of bio-physical and land-use criteria for each site. The main criteria included existing site vegetation, land-use zoning and zoning by-laws, ownership of land and human use and impact on each site. Chaprer Six: The Furure o/Taf/grass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities 145 The site prioritization strategy provides a systematic framework for acquiring and implementing sites. It is a guideline for the types of sites to be targeted for preservaton and restoration based on the landscape analysis. The actual number and location of sites will vary among municipalities. but the following strateey was created as a guide: Existing tallgrass communities should be targeted first. Existing degraded remnants, available for restoration, should be targeted- Sites adjacent to existing tallgrass communities or other natural areas should be targeted for restoration andor re-creation. Individual sites not adjacent to my natural areas, but will provide areas of habitat throughout the municipality should be targeted. AIthough provided in this order, it is important to recognize that any opportunity for the restoration and re-creation of tallgrass communities is important regardless of its location within the municipality. The process also addresses the changes required with the planning of municipal open space areas. Open spaces within the urban environment are no longer just for recreational purposes. They are aIso no Longer just for single-use purposes. Municipal open space area designations and classifications must be changed to accommodate a hierarchy of open space areas that address each of the needs associated with open space areas within the urban environment. Tallgrass communities can comprise natural environment areas. utility corridor areas, storm water management areas. upland habitat and flood control areas, natural habitat areas, and natural park areas to mention a few possibilities. They can be found and re-created on vacant lots. old rail lines. steep slopes. manicured parks, or neighbourhood yards. Therefore, land-use designations need to be developed that address the diversity of these natural areas and provide protection from incompatible land-uses. It is intended that the protection and restoration of tallgrass communities through a coordinated site selection strategy could comprise one component of a system of natural heritage features within southern Ontario's diverse landscape. 146 Chaprer Six: The Future of Tallgrass Communities in Southern Ontario MunicipuIities It is important for the community to be involved with a process of this nature to understand the significance of such work. have input with the design and implementation stage. and help to preserve. restcre. nurture and maintain the tallgrass communities once a part of their environment. The preservation and restoration of tallpass communities can provide many economic. aesthetic. and community benefits. The planting of tallgrass prairie in parks. schoolyards. private yards and business grounds will help to cut down on traditional lawn maintenance costs. including the use of water and fertilizers. as well as provide a diverse assemblage of plant and animal species enjoyed throughout each season. *-Ji71?atif our civic energies were directed tobcrards rhe healing of the land thar maintains trs7 /f children had a place right outside the schools' doors to learn about rratural processes through working with the land? If vacanr lots were native plant meadows where we could have unstructured e-xperiences ,r*ith native flora and fauna? gthe buzz and roar of lmvnmo~uerswere replaced with the hum of insects? Ifparks were not rigidly controlled spaces of manicured grass and single-firnction ornamentals? If our 'landscapes without afirrure ' were replaced with places of &amism and change. where natural processes charge ahead with their long-evolved wisdom. and our role is one of srercardship and learning rather than conrrol?" (Lorraine Johnson cited in Daigle and Havinga. 1996). The integration of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities into the open spaces of our urban environment could be one small part of the beginning to realizing a vision of this magnitude. Figure 12: The pre-settlement tallgrass landscape... and r future vision for southern Ontario open space (Source: Packard, S. and C.F. Mutel, eds. 1997). Chapter Sir: The Future of Tallpass Communities in Southern Ontario Municipalities 147 References Literature Reviewed Archeological Services Inc. and Geomatics International Inc. 1997. The Master Plan of Archeological Resozcrces for the Cify of Branrford. Brantford, Ontario: Corporation of the City of Brantford. 40 p. Bakowsky. Wasyl Danylo. 1988. The Phytosociology of Midwestern Savanna in the Carolinian Region of Southern Ontario. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Botany, University of Toronto. I2 I p., appendices. Bakowsky . W .D. 1 993. A Revierc*and Assessment of Prairie, Oak Savanna and Woodland in Sire Regions 7 and 6 (Southern Region). Unpublished report (draft)by Gore and Stome Ltd. For Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southern Region, Aurora. 89 pp.. appendices. Bakowsky . W .D. unpublished, in Lee, H.T., In Prep. Ecological Land Classificationfor Sorrrhern Ontario: Community Factsheets. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS FG-03. Bakowsky. Wasyl and John L. Riley. 1994. A survey of the prairies and savannas of southern Ontario. In Wickett, R.. P. Dolan Lewis. A. Woodliffe and P. Pratt. eds. Spirif of The Land, Orir Prairie Legacy: Proceedings of the Thirteenth North American Prairie Conference. August 6-9. 1992. Windsor, Ontario: Corporation of The City of Windsor. Pp. 7-16. Bazzaz. F. A. and J. A. D. Parrish. 1982. Organization of grassland communities. In Estes. J. R.. R. J . Tyrl and J . N. Brunkin, eds. Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. Pp. 233-254. Beechey. T. J. 1989. Guidelinesfor the Selection of Protected Ecological Areas. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. Occasional Paper No. 5. 14 pp. Bradstreet, Michael S.W. 1990. The natural areas inventory of Haldimand-Norfolk regional municipality. In Allen, G.M., Paul F.J. Eagles, S.D.Price, eds. Conserving Carolinian Canada: Conserving Biodiversity in the Deciduous Forest Region. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press. Pg. 3-6. Brei tman. Terri-Lee. 1998. A Restoration Project for Bearspaw Meadow Lands Disturbed by Construction of the Stoney Trail Roadway. EVDS Masters Degree Project, University of Calgary. Alberta. References 149 Brown. Lesley P. 1992. Holistic stewardship of prairie hgrnents. In Holroyd. G. L.. L. Dickson. M- Regnier. H. C. Smith, eds. Proceedings of the Third Prairie Consenvation and Endangered Species U.brkshop. February 1992. Brandon, Manitoba. Pp. 165- 168. Burley, Jon Bryan. 1986. Design and planning principles for urban savanna revegetation utilizing prairie and meadow plant associations. In Davis, A. and G. Stanford. eds. The Prairie: Roots of our Culture; Foundation of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth .Worth American Prairie Conference. June 22-26. 1986. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 26.02. Burton. P.J.. K.R. Robertson, L.R. Iverson and P.G.Risser. 1986. Suggested applications of ecological theory to prairie restoration. In Davis, A. and G. Stanford. eds. The Prairie: Roots of ozir Culture; Foundarion of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth North Anrerican Prairie Conference. June 22-26, 1986. Denton. Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 0 1-16. Burton, Thomas L., Jack B. Ellis, and HI Peter M. Homenuk. 1977. Guidelinesfor Urban Open Space Planning. Vanier City, Ontario: Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. 105 p. Cau&&ey. G. and A. Gunn. 1996. Reserves in theory and practice. In Conservation Biology in Theoty and Practice. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science. Pp. 3 11-340. City of Brantford. 1987. Ofjicial Plan. Brantford. Ontario. City of Brantford. Date unknown. Property Standards By-Zmv. Brantford. Ontario. City of Brantford. 1999. Oflcial Plan Review Study. Terms of Reference. Brantford, Ontario. City of Waterloo. 1990. Oficial Plan of the Cify of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario. City of Windsor. 1999. Drafr Oficial Plan. Volume I: The Primary Plan. Windsor, Ontario. City of Windsor. 1984. By-law Number 7786: A By-law for the Use, Regulation, Protection and Government of Parks. Windsor, Ontario. Collins. Scott L. and Ernest M. Steineauer. 1998. Disturbance, diversity and species interactions in tallgrass prairie. In Knapps, Alan K., John M. Briggs. David C. Hartnett, and Scott L. Collins, eds. Grassland Dynamics: Long-term Ecological Research in TaIIgrass Prairie. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 140- I 56. Collins. Scott L. and Linda L. Wallace, eds. 1990. Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 175 p. Collins, S. L. 1987. Interaction of disturbances in a tallgrass prairie: a field experiment. Ecology 68: 1243-50. 150 References Ibid. 1992. Fire frequency and community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie vegetation. Ecology 73: 200 1-6. Daigle. Jean Marc and Doma Havinga- 1 996. Resroring Nature 's Place: A Giride To !Vaturalizing Onrario Parks and Greenspace. Schomberg, Ontario: Ecological Outlook Consulting, in association with the Ontario Parks Association. 226 p. Delaney. K.. L. Rodger. P.A. Woodliffe. G. Rynard and P. Morris. 2000. Planting the Seed - A Guide to Establishing Prairie and Meadow Communities in Sour hern Ontario. In Press. Diekelmann, John, Evelyn -4. Howell and John Harrington. 1986. An approach to residential landscaping with prairie. In Clambey. Gary K. and Richard H. Pemble, eds. The Prairie: Past, Present and Fztture: Proceedings of the Ninth Norrh American Prairie Conference. Moorehead. Minnesota: Tri-College University Centre for Environmental Studies. Pp. 242-248. Dramstad, Wenche E., James D. Olson and Richard T.T. Forman. 1996. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape A rchitec f ure and Land Use Planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 80 p. Dunevitz. Vicki L. 1986. The need for management planning: a minnesota prairie preserve case study. In Davis. A. and G. Stanford, eds. The Prairie: Roots of our Culture; Foundation of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Prairie Conjerence. June 22-26, 1986. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 26.10. Dyksterhuis. E. J. 1957. The savanna concept and its use. Ecology 38 (3): 435-442. Eagles. Paul F. J. and Godson Adindu. 1978. A Manual for Environmentally Sensitive Area Planning and Managemenr in Ontario. Waterloo, Ontario: School of Urban and Regional Planning. Department of Man and the Environment Studies, Faculty of Environmental Studies. University of Waterloo. 1 16 p. ESG Consultants. 1999. Ciry of Branqord Oflcial Plan Review Study. Unpublished document. Brantford, Ontario. Faber-Langendoen? Donald. 1984. The Ecology of Tallgrass Prairie in Southern Onrario. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Botany, University of Toronto. 205 pp. Faber -Langendoen, D. and P. F. Maycock. 1994. A vegetation analysis of tallgrass prairie in southern Ontario. In Wickett, R.G.,P. DoIan Lewis, A. Woodliffe and P. Pratt, eds. Spirit of the Land, Our Prairie Legacy: Thirteenth North American Prairie Conference. August 6-9, 1992. Windsor, Ontario: Corporation of the City of Windsor. Pp. 1 7-32. Fame y, Dennis. 1980. The tallgrass prairie: can it be saved?. Canadian Geographic. 15 7:37-6 1. References 15 1 Gehlbach. Frederick R. 1975. Investigation, evaluation and priority ranking of natural areas. Biological Conservation. (8): 79-88. Goldstein - Golding. E.L. 1991. The ecology and structure of urban greenspaces. In S. S. Bell et. al, eds. Habitat Structrcre: The Physical Arrangement of Objects and Space. Pp. 392-4 1 1. Gordon. David. ed. 1990. Green Cities: Ecologicafly Sound Approaches to Urban Space. Montreal. Quebec: Black Rose Books Ltd. 299 p. Harrington. John. 1986. Influences on forb species visibility. In Clambey, Gary K. and Richard I-I. Pemble, eds. The Prairie: Past. Present and Furure: Proceedings of the Ninth hbrih American Prairie Conference. Moorehead, Minnesota: Tri-College University Centre for Environmental Studies. Pp. 256-26 1. Hills, G. A. 1 96 1 (reprinted 1 966). The Ecological Basis for Land- Use Planning. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Research Branch. Technical Series. Research Report No. 46.204 p. Hopkins. Lewis D. 1977. Methods for generating land suitability maps. Journal of the American lnstittrte of Planners Vol. 43, No. 4. Pp. 386-400. Hopkins. William G. 1995. Introduction to Plant Physiology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 464 p. Howell. Evelyn. A. I98 1. A quality analysis technique for Wisconsin grasslands- In Stuckley, R.L. and K.J. Reese, eds. In the Shadotr?of Transeau: Proceedings of the Sixth North American Prairie Conference. Ohio: Ohio Biological Survey, Biological Notes No. 15. Pp. 206-208. Huis. Brian. 1999. Ojib~vayPrairie Provincial Nature Resenye Preliminary Management Plan. London, Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resources. 9 p. Hulbert, Lloyd C. 1986. Fire effects on tallgrass prairie. In Clambey, Gary K. and Richard H. Pemble, eds. The Prairie: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings of the Ninth North American Prairie Conference. Moorehead, Minnesota: Tri-College University Centre for Environmental Studies. Pp. 1 38- 142. Jenny. H. 1961b. Derivation of state factor equations of soils and ecosystems. Sod Sci. Soc. Am., Proc. 25: 385-388. Johnson. Karen L. 1986. Tallgrass prairie in Canada: an overview and status report. In Holroyd, G. L.. P. R. Stepney, G. C. Trottier. B. McGillivray. D. M. Ealey, K. E. Eberhart, eds. Endangered Species in the Prairie Provinces. January 24-26, 1986. Pp. 43-47. 152 References Joyce. J. 1 989. Tall Grass Prairie Conservation Project Final Report. Manitoba Naturalists Society. 4 10-63 Albert Street, Winnipeg. Manitoba R3B 1 G4. 29 p.. appendices. Kline. Virginia M. 1997. Planning a restoration. In Stephen Packard and Cornelia F. Mutel. eds. The TulZgrass Restoration Handbook. Society for Ecological Restoration. Nrashington. DC: Island Press. Pp. 3 1-46. Kline. Virginia M. 1997. Orchards of oak and a sea of grass. In Stephen Packard and Cornelia F. Mutel. eds. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook. Society for Ecological Restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press. Pp. 3-21. Latta. Marilyn. 1992. Tallgrass prairie conservation in Manitoba. In Holroyd. G. L., L. Dickson. M. Regnier. H. C. Smith. eds. Proceedings of the Third Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Workshop. February 1992. Brandon, Manitoba. Pp. 163-1 64. Leach. Mark K. and Laurel Ross. eds. 1 995. Midwest Oak Ecosystems Recovery Plan: A Call to Action. 24 pp. URL site http://www.epa.gov/gInpo/oak~oak95/call. Lyle. John and Ronald D. Quinn. 1991. Ecological corridors in urban southern California. In Adams. L. W. and D.L. Leady. eds. Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments. Columbia, Maryland: National Institute for Urban Wildlife. Pp. 105-1 16. Lyle. John Tillman. 1985. Design for Human Ecosystems: Landscape, Land Use, and Natlrral Resources. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 279 p. McAllister. Donald M. 1980. Land suitability analysis and landscape assessment as expert judgement methods. In Evaluation in Environmental Planning: Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic and Political Trade-offs. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Pp. 184-234. McClain. W.E. 1983. A Guide to Prairie Restoration. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Conservation. 2 1 p. McHarg, Ian L. 1969. Design With Nature. Garden City. New York: Natural History Press. 197p. Mills. Stephanie. 1995. In Service of the Wild: Restoring and Reinhabiting Damaged Land Boston: Beacon Press. 237 p. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1997. Citizen S Guide to the Land Use Planning System in Ontario. Queen's Printer for Ontario or URL site http://www.mmah.gov.on.ca/business/guides/index-e.htrn Monk, David. 1986. The role of railroads in prairie preservation. In Davis, A. and G. Stanford, eds. The Prairie: Roots of our Culture; Foundation of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Prairie Conference. June 22-26,1986. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 25.01. References 153 Morgan. John P. 1992. Restoring native prairie ecosystems. In Holroyd. G.L. L. Dickson. M. Regnier. H. C. Smith. eds. Proceedings of the Third Prairie Conservarion and Endangered Species Workshop. February 1 992. Brandon. ~Manitoba.Pp. 77-78. Morgan. John P.. DougIas R. Collicut and Jacqueline D. Thompson. 1995. Restoring Canada 's Xarive Prairies: A Practical Manual. Argyle, Manitoba: Prairie Habitats. 84 p. Noss. Reed F. 198 7. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas Joztrnal Volume 7( 1 ): 2- 13. Noss. R.F. and A.Y. Coopemder. 1994. Saving Nature S Legacy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 41 6 p. Nuzzo, Victoria A. 1986. Extent and status of midwest oak savanna: pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6(2): 6-36. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual. For Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. 127 p. Otto. Laurie. 1986. New landscapes need new laws. In Davis, A. and G. Stanford, eds. The Prairie: Roots of our Culture; Foundation of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth .krorrh American Prairie Conference. June 22-26. 1986. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 25.04. Packard. Stephen. 1986. Rediscovering the tallgrass savanna of IIlinois. In Davis, A. and G. Stanford, eds. The Prairie: Roots of our Culture; Foundation of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Prairie Conference. June 22-26, 1986. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 01.14. Packard. S. 1988. Just a few oddball species: restoration and the rediscovery of the tallgrass savanna. Restoration and Management Notes 6 (1): I 3-22. Summer 1988. Packard, Stephen. 1997. Restoration options. In Packard, Stephen and Cornelia F. Mutel, eds. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook. Society for Ecological Restoration. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Pp. 47-62. Packard, Stephen and Laurel M. Ross. 1997. Restoring remnants. In Packard, Stephen and Cornelia F. Mutel, eds. The Tallgruss Restoration Handbook. Society for Ecological Restoration. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Pp. 63-89. Pirk, Herb. Commissioner of Parks and Recreation. High Park: Proposalsfor Recommendation and Management and Framework for hplernentution. A Report to the Neighbourhoods Cornmitree. November 1992. Toronto. 92 p. Ibid. High Park: Drafr Proposals for Restoration and Management. A Report to the .eighbourhoods Cornrnittee. May 1992. Toronto. 79 p. Pran. Paul D. 1998. Spring Wildflowers of the Ojibway Prairie Complex (Version 14MARCH98). Ojibway Nature Centre Home Page. Department of Parks and Recreation, Windsor, Ontario. http://ww.city. windsor.on.cdoj ibway/apr-flrs-htm Pratt. Paul D. 1998. Summer Wildflowers of the Ojibrvay Prairie Complex (Version 14MARCH98). Ojibway Nature Centre Home Page. Department of Parks and Recreation. Windsor. Ontario. http://www.cit)..windsor.on.cdojibway/jdaug.htm Pratt. Paul D. 1998. Rutzrmn Wildflorvers of the Ojibrvay Prairie Complex (Version 14MARCH98). Ojibway Nature Centre Home Page. Department of Parks and Recreation. Windsor. Ontario. http://www.city.windsor.on.ca/ojibway/septoct.htrn Pran. Paul D. 1999. Provincially Rare Vasczrlar Plants of the Ojibway Prairie Complex (Version 14JULY99). Ojibway Nature Centre Home Page. Department of Parks and Recreation, Windsor, Ontario. http://www.city.windsor.on.ca~ojibway/raresp. htm Pyne. Stephen J. 1986. 'These conflagrated prairies': a cultural fire history of the grasslands. In Clambey. Gary K. and Richard H. Pemble, eds. The Prairie: Past. Present and Future: Proceedings ofthe Ninth North American Prairie Conference. Moo rehead, Minnesota: Tri-College University Cenw for Environmental Studies. Pp. 13 1- 13 7. Reaume, T. 1993. Manitoba 's Tall Grass Prairie: A Field Guide to an Endangered Space. Eco Series No. 3. Manitoba Naturalists Society. 40 1-63 Albert Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B I G4.60 p. Reinartz. James A. 1997. Restoring populations of rare species. In Stephen Packard and Cornelia F. Mutel, eds. The TalZgrass Restoration Handbook. Society for Ecological Restoration. Washington. DC: Island Press. Pp. 89-95. Riley. John L. and Pat Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage ofSouthern Ontario's Settled Landscapes. A review of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR-001.78 p. Risser, P.G.. E.C. Bimey, H.D.Blocker. S. W. May, W.J. Parton and J.A. Weins, eds. 198 1. The True Prairie Ecosystem. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company. 557 p. Risser, P.G. 1985. Grasslands. In Chabot, B.F. and H.A. Mooney, eds. Physiological Ecology of North American Plant Communities. New York: Chapman Hall. Pp. 232-256. Rodger, Lindsay. 1998. Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan. Prepared for World Wildlife Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 66 p. Roth. D., L. Fay, K. Moyer and R. Warne. 1997. Environmental Lands Acquisition and Maintenance Srrategy Discussion Paper. Waterloo. Ontario: City of Waterloo, Development Services. Rust. Susan P. 1986. Promoting prairie preservation. In Davis, A. and G. Stanford. eds. The Prairie: Roots of our Culture; Foundation of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Prairie Conference. June 22-26, 1986. Denton. Texas: Texas Woman's University. Pp. 25 -03. Samson. Fred B. and Fri~L. Knopf. eds. 1 996. Prairie Conservation: Preserving North America's ,West Endangered Ecosystems. Washington. D.C.: Island Press. 339 p. Schramm. Peter. 1990. Prairie restoration: a twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. In Smith, D. D. and C. A. Jacobs, eds. Proceedings of the Trvewth Xorth American Prairie Conference: Recapturing a bnishing Heritage. Cedar Falls, Iowa: University of Northern Iowa. Pp. 169- 177. Skarphol. L., M. Torgerson and J.B. Burley. 1986. A design model to integrate prairie planting with non-biospheric landscapes. In Clambey. Gary K. and Richard H. Pemble. eds. The Prairie: Past, Present and Ftitiire: Proceedings of the Ninth North American Prairie Conference. Moorehead. Minnesota: Tri-College University Centre for Environmental Studies. Pp. 248-253. Steiger. T. L. 1930. Structure of prairie vegetation. Ecology 1 1: 170-2 17. Steiner. Frederick. 1991. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. 356 p. Stewardship Kent, in cooperation with Ontario Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Association. Unpublished draft document. Prairie Information Kit. Sumner. R.N. .4n Introduction to Tallgrass Prairie in Southern Ontario. URL site ~w.fes.uwaterloo.ca/Resources?Ecology?Projects/subpage/prairie.html Tans. W. 1974. Priority ranking of biotic natural areas. Mich. Bot. 13:3 1-39. The Friends of Ojibway Prairie. 1996. Building a Prairie- A Guide to Creating Prairie Habitat. Windsor, Ontario: Ojibway Nature Centre. 63 p. Trottier, Gamy C. 1992. A Landowner 's Guide: Conservation of Canadian Prairie Grasslands. Edmonton, Alberta: Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 92 p. Tubbs. C.R. and J.W. Blackwood. 1971. Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes. Biological Conservation 3 (3): i 69- 172. 156 References Watts. F. B. 1969. The natural vegetation of the southern great plains of Canada. In Nelson. J. G. and M. f . Chambers. eds. Vegetation, Soils and Wildlife. Toronto. Ontario: Meuthen Publications. Pp. 93- I I 1. Westman, Walter E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment and Environmenfal Planning. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 532 p. White. John. 1986. Why bother to protect prairies dong railroads? In Clambey, Gary K. and Richard H. Pemble, eds. The Prairie: Past, Present and Furure: Proceedings of the Ninth North American Prairie Conference. Moorehead. Minnesota: Tri-College University Centre for Environmental Studies. Pp. 172- 1 73. Wlitford. P. B. and Kathryn Whitford. 197 1. Savanna in central Wisconsin. Vegetatio 23( 1-2): 77-87. Windsor Parks and Recreation. 1996. The First Nine& Years: The Growth of Windsor's Parks. Windsor, Ontario: Department of Parks and Recreation. 122 p. Wood. J. David. I96 1. The woodland-oak plains transition zone in the settlement of western Upper Canada. Canadian Geographer 5( I ): 43-57. Woodii ffe, P. A1 len. 1997. Resource Ste~vardrhipPlan for Ojibway Prairie Provincial lVatztre Reserve. Chatham, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 24 p. Wright. D.F. 1 977. A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves. Biological Conservation. (1 1): 293-305. References 157 Personal Cornmunitations Wasyl Bakowsky. Community Ecologist, Natural Heritage and Information Centre. May 2 1. 1999. Lloyd Burridge. Parks Commissioner. City of Windsor Parks and Recreation Department. July 16. 1999. Kim Delaney. Tallgrass Prairie Specialist, Rural Lambton Stewardship Network. July 17. 1999. Cori~eGoldrup. Technician. Community Services, Naturalist Services. City of Winnipeg. April 29. 1999. Faye Langmaid. Co-ordinator of Design and Development, City of Windsor Parks and Recreation Department. July 16, 1999. Wayne MacMillan, Supervisor, Land Resources, Grand River Conservation Authority. July 27, 1999. Paul Pratt. Naturalist. Ojibway Nature Centre. July 16, 1999. Don Radford, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Brantford. July 28, 1999. Lindsay Rodger, Species Recovery Manager. World Wildlife Fund Canada. August 18. 1999. Maureen Sinclair. Brantford Parks and Recreation Department. July 20. 1999. Allen Woodliffe. District Ecologist, Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham. August 1 1, 1999 158 References Appendices Appendix 1: OMWR Recommended Approach for the Evaluation of Rare Vegetation Communities Factors Suggested Standards 1. Degree of rarity Highest priority should be given to provincially rare communities (S 1, S2, S3 ranking) identified by the NHIC Consider protecting all prairie and savanna remnants identified in the municipality Next, identifl, evaluate and protect vegetation communities that are rare in the planning area (e-g. i criteria for local rarity from the Nature I Conservancy includes communities that represent ~3%of remaining natural area or are found in 5 or fewer locations within the planning area) 2. Diversi~of site Priority should be given to sites with more than one rare vegetation community. 3. Condition of community Undisturbed or the least disturbed sites are the most significant The highest quality representatives of vegetation I communities found in the planning area are most significant. Evaluation criteria could include: I fewest number of non-native species; greatest I number of community indicator species; greatest number of large trees and/or older age classes. 4. Size and location of site The largest sites and sites that are part of large I, natural areas are generally most significant. 5. Potential for long term protection of the site Sites providing the best opportunity for long term protection are most significant. 6. Level of threat Accord higher significance to currently or potentially threatened rare communities 7. Provision of wildlife habitat Vegetation communities providing wildlife habitat are more significant than those that do not (e.g. hunting areas for raptors; nesting areas for waterfowl and/or grassland birds; forging areas for L shorebirds; food sources for rare buttefflies) Source: OMNR. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual. Appendix 2: Interview Responses for the Development of Site Selection Criteria 160 Appendices Appendix 3: List of Organizations Canadian Rails to Greenwavs Network #306 - 1600 James Naismith Drive, Gloucester. Ontario. K1 B 5N4. Ph. 61 3-748-565 1. Canadian Parks and Recreation Association 1600 prom. James Naismith Drive. Gloucester. Ontario. K1 B SN4. Ph. 6 13-748-565 1. Guidelines for developing naturalization policies for municipal parks and open space areas are akrailable from CPRA as well as other park mandates and information. Carolinian Canada c/o OMNR. 659 Exeter Road, London, Ontario. N6E 1L3. Ph. 5 19-873- 163 1. inforZJcarolinian.org www.carolinian.org An organization working for the protection and conservation of carolinian species in the carolinian life zone. Carolinian Canada offers factsheets, books, and guides on birds. plants, hikes and landowner stewardship in the carolinian region. Ecolo~icalOutlook Consultinc Box 93 Schomberg. Ontario. LOG 1TO. Fax: 905-939-7044. An interdisciplinary consulting team established in 1990 to support the protection and restoration of healthy ecosystems and the development of healthy, sustainable communities. Partners with OPA in the 'Resroring Narure 's Place ' research and educational program. EOC offers facilitation and education in a variety of environmental. community and organizational contexts- The Evermeen Foundation 355 Adelaide St. W. Suite SA Toronto. Ontario. MSV 1S2. Ph. 4 16-596- 1495. www-evergreen-ca [email protected] Provides information and fimding for school yard naturalization projects and community projects that preserve and restore natural areas in the urban environment. The website has a listing of other hding agencies for community based projects. Federation of Ontario Naturalists 355 Lesmill Road, Don Mills, Ontario M3B 2W8. Ph. 4 16-434-84 19; 1-800-440-2366. www.ontarionature.org [email protected] Educational resources and citizen guides available, such as the backyard habitat guide, to encourage preservation and re-establishment of significant natural areas in Ontario. FON is involved in the acquisition and preservation of natural lands in Ontario and local FON groups may be able to provide support for local initiatives. Field Botanists of Ontario RR1 Acton, Ontario. L7J 2L7 Local groups involved in the knowledge, education and protection of local native flora. Appendices 161 Ontario Heritage Foundation 10 Adelaide Street E. Toronto, Ontario. MSC 1J3. Ph. 4 16- 325-5000. \n%w.heritagefdn.on.ca propms6JZJeritagefdn.on.ca An organization dedicated to preserving. protecting and promoting Ontario's rich and valued heritage. The foundation acquires natural heritage properties and conservation easements, builds partnership agreements and land ownership agreements. They also encourage and assist communities to identify and protect local natural heritage areas through conservation projects. Natural Heritage Information Centre Box 7000, Peterborough, Ontario. K9J 8M5. Ph. 705- 755-2 159. ~~~~w.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhi~~html Maintains and provides information on rare, threatened and endangered species and spaces in Ontario. The information is accessible for conservation applications. land-use planning and park management. Part of this information includes a list of remaining tailgrass prairie and savanna communities in site regions 6 and 7. Ontario Parks Association 1185 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 404, North York. Ontario M3C 3C6. Ph. 4 16-426-7 1 57; wr.opassoc.on.ca [email protected] Works to protect parks, open spaces and the natural environment. A variety of educational resources. seminars. events and community activities are availabie. Involved with the 'Restoring Xarrrre 's Place ' research and education program with Ecological Outlook Consulting. Stewardshir, Networks: www.ontariostewardship.com Grass roots organizations working under the Private Land Resource Stewardship Program (PLRSP). initiated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 1992. to advocate and implement stewardship on private lands in Ontario. There are now 32 stewardship networks in the province. This site contains a list and link to all stewardship councils in Ontario. From there each council has links to local organizations and programs. Rural Lambton Stewardship Network Box 1 168, Chatham, Ontario. N7M 5L8 Kim Delaney, Tallgrass Prairie Specialist 5 19-354-6842. Ron Ludolph, Stewardship Coordinator 5 19-354-5013. The lead stewardship organization for the re-establishment of tallgrass prairie in Ontario. RLSN provides restoration services, educational seminars, and supplies native seed and plugs for restoration projects from their Ontario Tallgrass Prairie Nursery. Tall~rassOntario 659 Exeter Road, London, Ontario N6E 1 L3. Ph. 5 19-873-463 1. [email protected] http:Nw~~.tallgrassontario.org The principle organization working to coordinate recovery efforts of tallgrass communities in Ontario through the building of partnerships and public awareness, communication and education, and promotion of research. 162 Appendices Appendix 4: Restoration Reference Guides Tallenss Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recoverv Plan. 1998. Prepared by Lindsay Rodger for World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Provides background to the status of tallgrass prairie and savanna communities in Ontario and a strategic plan to preserve, recover and reconstruct a representative network of the full complement of plant and animal life making up these diverse communities. The plan is available electronically on the Tallgrass Ontario website. The Tallprass Restoration Handbook. 1997. Stephen Packard and Cornelia F. Mutel. Eds. Island Press. A comprehensive guide for the preservation, recovery. planning and restoration of prairies. savannas and oak woodlands. Although developed in t!!e mid-westem United States, much of the theory and applications are useful in Ontario. rest or in^ Canada's Native Prairies. 1995. By John P. Morgan, Douglas R. Collicutt and Jacqueline D. Thompson. Published by Prairie Habitats, Box 1, Argyle, Manitoba. ROC OBO. Additional copies are available from The Manitoba Naturalists Society. 40 1-63 Albert Street, Winnipeg. Manitoba. R3B 1G4.204-943-9029, or the Rural Lambton Stewardship Network. c/o OMNR, Box 1 168 Chatharn, Ontario. N7M 5L8. A practical manual for the selection, design, preparation and seeding of sites for prairie restoration; the selection. acquisition, processing and propagation of native seeds and plants; prairie restoration techniques: and management practices. This book covers native prairie communities found throughout Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Restoring Nature's Place. 1996. By Jean-Marc Daigle and Donna Havinga. Published by Ecological Outlook Consulting and the Ontario Parks Association. Additional copies can be purchased from the Ontario Parks Association (OPA). 1 185 Eglinton Avenue ~&t,Suite 404, North York, Ontario. M3C 3C6.416-426-7157. Restoring Nature's Place is a guide book and educational program providing information, support and networking opportunities to groups, individuals and communities across Ontario who are engaged in naturalization and ecological restoration programs. This book provides information on landscape and site level scale restoration planning and implementation and covets each of the natural ecosystems in Ontario including meadows and tal lgrass prairies. Plantinp the Seed - A Guide to Establishing Prairie and Meadow Communities in Southern Ontario. 2000. Published by Environment Canada. Downsview, Ontario. The first comprehensive guide for the creation of tallgrass prairie in southern Ontario. it will contain a detailed list of species for use on restored sites, including soil and moisture preference for each species, height, germination codes, successional stage and the geographical range where each species occurs and can be used in plantings. Appendices 163 Building a Prairie: A Guide to Creating Prairie Habitat. 1996. Published by Friends of Ojibway Prairie. c/o Ojibway Nature Centre. 5200 Matchette Road, Windsor, Ontario. N9C 4E8. A guide to planning and planting a prairie in small scale residential landscapes. Includes site and soil preparation. sowing and planting and maintenance suggestions. The plant lists are specific to the Windsor area. but may be applicable to other areas. 1 64 Appendices Appendix 5: Policy and Legislative Considerations Conservation Land Act - provides for property tax rebates for specific conservation lands; allows landowners to enter into covenants and easement agreements for conservation. protection or restoration. Heritage Act - provides for the protection and restoration of natural and cultural features. Municipal Act - gives municipalities the right to pass conservation related by-laws. Municipal and Regional Policies - various policies are in place at the municipal and regional level that may encourgae or otherwise affect restoration. Examples include: Pro~ertvMaintenance Policies - The City of Brantford has adopted this policy to maintain private yards in a neat. tidy and safe fashion. Although applied predominatly to rubbish-and debris, noxious weeds and excessive growth also falls within this policy and, as with the Weed Control Act, may sect naturalization or restoration efforts if complaints are made or projects do not fall within the standards outlined in such a policy. Invasive Exotics Policv - The regional Municipality of Waterloo discourages planting of invasive exotics near natural areas. Naturalization Policies - Ottawa and Guelph have adopted policies to guide and support naturalization. Other municipalities are also encouraged to do the same and can obtain guidelines for developing these policies from the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. Plannin~Act - municipalities can enforce prevention of damage, mitigation and restoration through official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivision plans and agreements, and site development agreements. Provincial Plannin~Policies - all decisions within official plans, by-laws and agreements must have regard for provincial planning policies. These policies are part of the Provinicial Policy Statement, effective May 22, 1996. Weed Control Act - originally designed to control plants thought to be problematic for farmers, muncipalities can enforce this law if complaints are made about public or private restoration projects. Naturalization groups are advocating for changes to the Act (contact the Ontario Parks Association for more infomation). Appendices 165 Appendix 6: Letter of Informed Consent A copy of the following letter was sent to each person for the interview process to ensure their understanding of the project and agreed involvement. The letter is consistent with University of Calgary ethic guidelines. Consent for Interview Research Project Title: Integration of Tallps Communities in Open Space Systems of Southern Ontario Municipalities: Deveiopment of a Site Selection Process Investigator: Krista Long, BLA and currently enrolled in Masters of Environmental Design (MEDes) This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research project is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carehlly and to understand any accompanying information. The purpose of this research is to develop a method of identi@ing and selecting sites for integrating tallgrass prairie and savanna communities into urban open space systems in southern Ontario. This method will ultimately function as a vehicle to coordinate tallgrass prairie restoration effons within urban environments. The research will be used for Krista Long's Masters Degree Project to be submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Environmental Design (Environmental Science) in the Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary. The research may subsequently be used by community groups and municipalities across Ontario. You have been contacted because you have knowledge and/or experience with either: 1) tallgrass prairie and savanna ecology; 2) urban ecology; 3) political and social factors affecting urban open space systems in Ontario; or 4) tallgrass prairie and savanna restoration projects. This consent form will describe the informal interview process and seek your consent to participate. The interview will be conducted in an informal manner and will consist of a variety of questions I would like to ask you regarding one or more of the topics listed above. Many of the questions will deal with your experience and/or opinions of restoring tallgrass communities in urban environments. The interview is expected to take approximately 2 hours of your time. Some respondents may be asked to participate in a foilow up phone call if further clarification of your response is necessary. The information fiom the interview will be audio taped with your consent and all transcribed information will be stored on computer disk and as hard copy. Audiotapes, disks and notes will be stored in a confidential file for a period of one year after the completion of the research and destroyed thereafter. The nature of this research involves a comparison of restoration projects and/or municipal open space planning guidelines, For this purpose, project names, municipality names and contact names may need to 166 Appendices be used. Please indicate, in the following spaces, the level of confidentiality you would like to maintain in this research project. By answering ''yes" and signing your name beside the 'yes" box. you are agreeing to let the information be used. The information related to questions to which you answered -'no" will not be used in any form- 1. May the NAME OF YOUR CITY be used? D Yes O No 2. May the NAME OF YOUR ORG.4NIZATION be used? P Yes P No 3. May a description of YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL OR PROFESSIONAL ROLE be used? P Yes D No 4. May YOUR NAME be used? 0 Yes O No Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights or release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. If you have any further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact: Krista Long (403) 270-9625 If you have any questions concerning your participation in this project, you may also contact the Environmental Design Research Ethics Committee, Professor Richard Revel, (403) 220-3622. Participant Date - - Date A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. Appendices 167