A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River

A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River “For the community, by the community” June 2004 i A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River Sponsored By: Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario, N1R 5W6 Website: http://www.grandriver.ca Copyright Grand River Conservation Authority, 2004 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people collaborated to bring to completion “A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River”. The guiding principle for this process was “ by the community, for the community”, and so the Stakeholder’s Group is at the heart of this success – interested citizens from across the watershed representing various viewpoints. Their knowledge, time, and interest made this plan possible. The following were primary authors of sections of the plan: 1.1 A Brief History - Virgil Martin 2.2 Invasive Exotics and 2.5 Significant Natural Areas – John Ambrose 2.3 Diversity – Cathy Nielsen 2.4 Species at Risk – Jason Culp 3.1 Municipal Planning, Land Use, and the Forest – Wayne MacMillan 3.2 Urban Forests – Andy Kenney 3.3 Agroforestry – Peter Williams 3.4 Tree-Related By-Laws and 3.5 Silviculture – John Irwin 4.1 Education and Communication – Frank Glew 4.2 Tree Planting – Martin Neumann Other sections were compiled from more than one source, and did not as clearly have a primary author. These authors were peer reviewed and guided by other members of the Forestry Working Group: Ted Cheskey, Mary Gartshore, Henry Kock, Terry Schwan, Ted Taylor, Dr. Suzanne Wetzel. Several people from the Stakeholders Group were particularly active in the creation of the plan: Mary Hopkins, Cheryl Huxted, Kevin Parton, Elvin Rudy, Rob Wallis. At editing and layout stages, several people played large roles: Liz Leedham, Jim Reid, Lara Vujanic, Dave Schulz, Virginia Gauley. Much of the behind-the-scenes work related to meetings, communications, postings of drafts to the GRCA website, maps, photos, and much more, was ably done by Jason Culp. All these contributions are much appreciated, and were essential in the process. The financial contributions of TD Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation, the Shell Environmental Fund, the McLean Foundation, and the Grand River Conservation Authority are gratefully acknowledged. Likewise, staff time on this project is gratefully acknowledged from the following agencies: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada), University of Toronto, University of Guelph, and Grand River Conservation Authority. “In a moment the ashes are made, but the forest is a long time growing.”(Seneca) iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables vi. Introduction 1. The Benefits of Trees and Forests 5. Part 1: Description of the Watershed Forest Summary 9. 1.1 A Brief History 10. 1.2 Forest Types and Physiographic Regions 18. Part 2: Forest Health Summary 29. 2.1 Insects, Diseases & Other Stress Factors 30. 2.2 Invasive Exotics 35. 2.3 Diversity 40. 2.4 Species at Risk 47. 2.5 Significant Natural Areas 63. Part 3: Managing the Watershed Landscape and Forest Summary 69. 3.1 Municipal Planning, Land Use & the Forest 70. 3.2 Urban Forests 81. 3.3 Agroforestry 86. 3.4 Silviculture 94. 3.5 Tree-Related Bylaws 101. 3.6 Economics 108. Part 4: The Community and Its Forest Summary 112. 4.1 Education and Communication 113. 4.2 Tree Planting 119. 4.3 Tourism and Recreation 127. 4.4 Wildlife Monitoring & Management Programs 129. 4.5 Community Roles in the Implementation of the Watershed Forest Plan 132. iv Page Part 5: Watershed Forest Plan Action Items 136. Appendix A: Maps 139. Political Map of the Grand River Watershed Watershed Forest Cover % Forest Cover by Lower Tier Municipality % Forest Cover by Ecoregion Interior Forest Cover Occurrences of Rare & Endangered Species Forest Cover and Groundwater Recharge Forest Cover and Groundwater Vulnerability Areas of Significant Non-Point Source Pollution Sawmills & Logger Operations Satellite Classification of Forest Cover Satellite Image of the Watershed Appendix B: Working Groups 153. v LIST OF TABLES Table Of Contents Page Table 1.1. Species at Risk in the Grand River watershed. 56. Table 1.2. Selected Species at Risk – Population estimates and causes for concern, As of March 2004. 58. Table 1.3. Selected Species at Risk – Recovery plan, contacts, status, objectives and progress, As of March 2004. 61. Table 2.1. Desired future forest condition of Grand River watershed. 66. Table 3.1. Status of woodland policies in Official Plans of Grand River watershed municipalities, As of March 2004. 72. Table 4.1. Summary of tree by-law requirements for selected jurisdictions, As of March 2004. 107. vi INTRODUCTION Table Of Contents The Grand River flows through our lives and our communities, stitching them together with a natural shared bond. Together with its many contributing rivers, creeks, ditches, wetlands, source areas, and forests, it weaves a web across the watershed – a green, life-supporting web of trees and water. There is a natural link, too, between water and trees. This three-sided relationship between a grand forest, the Grand community, and the Grand River is explored in A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River.* Why do we need a forest? How did the forest evolve? How did the relationship with people and the river evolve? What is the current condition of the forests of the Grand River watershed? What policies and programs are in place related to forests? What are the issues and opportunities presented by the current and expected circumstances? What actions can we take to make the Grand River Watershed Forest the forest that we collectively want and need? A very diverse and highly qualified group has come together to try to answer these questions. The result is an informative reference and suggested actions for caring for our watershed forest: A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River. This group of people called the “Stakeholders’ Group”**, although dedicated and with highly- regarded expertise, does not control the forests. The future of the watershed forest is controlled by the landowners, and by their communities. Therefore, this plan cannot, and does not, tell people what to do, because the plan has no authority over landowners or land managers. Rather, this plan offers suggestions, recognizing that these are not the only possible scenarios to an improved future for the Grand River Watershed Forest, the Grand River, and the community. Things are good here. We are fortunate to live in the world’s best country. We are fortunate to live in the most affluent part of this country. We are blessed with a location that offers bountiful productivity and a remarkable natural setting. For what better future could we hope? Richard St. Barbe Baker once said, “You can gauge a country’s wealth, its real wealth, by its tree cover”, and the same can be said for a watershed. We live in a watershed that is recovering from an almost complete clearcut during the European settlement phase. There are examples all over the world of areas that never recover from similar abuse, but our watershed forest has made a truly astonishing partial recovery, doubling, or even tripling the amount of forest in the last century. Our story is therefore a story of success and of hope. It is not, however, a completely rosy picture. There are many factors that work against the continuing recovery and health of the watershed forest: urbanization, pollution, climate change, an influx of new insects, diseases, and competing exotic plants and animals. Concerted effort is required just to keep the forest that we have, and to keep it healthy. The amount of forest that we have is not enough to maintain a healthy watershed into the future, and so we have not only a story of hope, but also of challenge. The consensus of the Stakeholders Group was that our forest was not on a sustainable path, particularly on account of population growth and the spread of urbanization in the watershed. One plea from the stakeholders that came through consistently was, “let’s find a way to live sustainably within the “carrying capacity” of the watershed – there is a natural limit to growth beyond which we impair our present and future quality of life”. The suggested actions in this plan are only part of the solution: unless we balance growth with the capacity of the land to absorb more people, the watershed forest is in jeopardy. 1 The following values statement offered guidance to the Stakeholders’ Group in their work: The plan should… help landowners manage their forests get groups talking to each other. have the community suggest ideas to help the forest. help folks find out about these suggested ideas. describe existing conditions of the forest. develop a shared vision of the future forest. Putting the plan into action should help the community… • make the forest bigger and better. • get more involved. • understand the forest and the landscape better. • share successful techniques. • take better care of forests. We believe we must… admit we’re not good enough at creating new forests to accept the destruction of existing natural forests – natural forests are irreplaceable. “live within our means” on the land: transportation, urban areas, agriculture, forestry, etc. – all must follow the principles of sustainable development. direct landscape change toward the landscape that we want. take a holistic approach to the ecosystem. recognize that the community has a right to a healthy watershed, and an obligation to others now and later who have a right to the same. respect and balance landowner rights, values, and responsibilities with community needs, desires and responsibilities. value forest products and benefits. conserve biodiversity at all three levels: landscape, population, and genetic.

Load more