7.0 Disturbance Processes (Threats) and their Impact on Sifton Bog ESA

Many natural disturbance processes, modified by human proximity and interaction, are currently disrupting the ecological integrity of the Sifton Bog ESA. This section describes nine threats and their effect on the bog. Some management options are presented here, with additional recommendations in Chapter 8. Timely intervention is needed to manage these threats to acceptable levels that will result in no further harm and, ideally, will allow the naturally resilient ecosystem an opportunity to recover. Many of these threats commonly occur in other natural areas. The relatively small size of Sifton Bog ESA compared with other ESAs in the City makes it an early indicator of ecosystem distress.

The disturbance processes discussed include: • Changes to bog hydrology • Overabundance of White-tailed Deer • Invasive alien plant species and other bog invaders • Human use effects (trails and vegetation and wildlife disturbance) • Effects of adjacent land use and disturbance processes on bog succession • Effects of tree hazard cutting on forest stand basal area • Introduced Goldfish in Redmond’s Pond • West Nile Virus mosquito control program • Effects of fire

7.1 Stress-Response-Intervention-Outcome Model Urban wetlands such as the Sifton Bog require intervention to safeguard biodiversity and to sustain the habitat values that are desirable for educational and research purposes. One cannot assume that a natural park in an urban environment, if it is to remain in a natural, healthy state, can be left to nature unattended. If such lands are in public ownership, then wise and timely intervention are a responsibility. Sifton Bog, for many reasons, is on a trajectory of ecosystem decay (Laurance et al. 2002). In the case of this ESA, it would be inappropriate for a management plan objective to be “to restore the bog to pre-settlement conditions” as such an objective is both non-specific and unlikely to be achieved in the current urban environment. As a case in point, it has been demonstrated that the bog, in pre-settlement days, consisted of a larger kettle lake and fen-like wetland (i.e., dominated by sedges and absence of Sphagnum mosses) that has been shifting to ombrotrophic bog as the peat mound developed.

This section addresses some factors that influence management intervention options using a Stress-Response-Intervention-Outcome (SRIO) model (Bergsma and DeYoung 2007). The model guides thinking about issues and narrows the focus to achievable and timely interventions that will reverse degradation or remove and minimize disturbances, so as to allow for the re-establishment of natural succession or favourable ecosystem trajectory. The SRIO model (Figure 13) is an adaptive management model that identifies the trigger for ecosystem stress and the trajectory of response to this stressor. If the response is leading to ecosystem decay, a planned intervention is applied to affect the response in a positive manner to achieve a targeted outcome or conservation objective. This model is essentially an analysis of ecological viability and integrity, being applied to the bog ecosystem’s essential characteristics of hydrology, biodiversity, disturbance and connectivity. Understanding ongoing changes to these essential functions is necessary to determine what the ecosystem complex needs to survive in the long term.

Bergsma and DeYoung (2007) described the first four stressors to the Sifton Bog ESA in the context of a SRIO model. The four stressors or disturbances that are having perhaps the largest impact on the Sifton Bog are: a) changes to bog hydrology (water quantity, water quality); b) overabundant deer population and ethology (behaviour) of deer; c) invasive alien species Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula); and d) human use effects, both deliberate (vandalism) and incidental. 55 Figure 13. Stress-Response-Intervention-Outcome (SRIO) Model 7.2 Changes to Bog Hydrology Hydrology exerts a primary control on raised bog ecosystems and their biophysical properties. Many factors affect hydrology including climate, geological features, drainage patterns, vegetation, and disturbance. Understanding basic hydrologic patterns in Sifton Bog provides insight into these factors vital to its ecological integrity. Understanding changes in hydrology and their consequences provides tools by which to assess risks to ecosystem sustainability and the factors that affect the level of risk.

Nicks, Bergsma and Briggs (2003) presented a paper at the Canadian Water Resources Association Water Stewardship Conference in 2003 entitled “The Sustainable Management of an Urban Wetland: Can Urban Development and Wetlands Co-Exist?” (Appendix J). The paper examined the role of urbanization and the long-term consequences of decreasing water levels in the Sifton Bog since 1990. Detailed hydrological/ hydrogeological studies that have been made at the Sifton Bog and supported by literature review of bogs demonstrate that fluctuating water levels influence species composition and the chemistry of the bog water. If the water level drops more than 30 - 40 cm within the active acrotelm zone over a season, then the accumulation and growth of Sphagnum will be compromised. 56 A photograph taken in 1926 shows a larger pond area (compared to today) with abundant growth of Southern Pond Lily (Nuphar advena), sometimes called Spatterdock, an aquatic species that grows best in shallow water. Bergsma (personal communication) recalls observing moderate growth of Southern Pond Lily in Redmond’s Pond during field visits in 1993. A photograph from 2005 shows the pond having a large area of open water and very little Southern Pond Lily (Figure 14). Some of the hydrological changes in the bog were related to the installation of two drains, the Kirk Drain in 1896 - 1897 (southwest from the pond) and a second drain from the northwest corner of the bog mat that was dug for drainage and peat extraction several years later. More recent hydrological impacts may be related to a reduction in the hydrological catchment area due to development-related modifications in the size of the bog’s watershed.

Seasonal variations in some environmental variables such as pH, calcium, chloride, phosphate, nitrate and conductivity are also related to the amount of water present in the bog. For example, Applegate Groundwater Consultants analyzed surface water and groundwater quality in the bog from 1990 to 1998. They found that the chemical concentrations of most parameters did not change significantly during the monitoring period except that the concentrations of some parameters were reportedly slightly higher in 1998. These slightly higher concentrations may be due to the low amount of precipitation that occurred in 1998 (Applegate 1998). Changes to water quality and quantity affect the competitive advantage of specialized bog vegetation that is adapted to thrive in acid- and nutrient-poor bog water. The trajectory of stress-response is towards an increase in number, abundance and extent of non-bog species such as cattail and Three-way Sedge. See section 7.5 for more discussion.

One of the first interventions to protect bog hydrology and maintain sufficient water levels in the bog was made in 1989 after Maaike Froelich raised concerns that the bog was losing too much water from the Kirk Drain. As a consequence, the drain was capped and water levels slowly rebounded. A follow-up step entailed the installation of monitoring wells, beginning in 1990, and the development of an extensive monitoring program from 1998 to 2001. This work was a requirement for development adjacent to the bog on the eastern tableland. Also required was the monitoring of storm water quantity and quality by piezometers (wells) (Figure 14) installed in boreholes at strategic locations around the bog perimeter (Map 3) as well as along a transect from tableland through each vegetation community to the bog pond. Targets for water quantity and quality were established to determine when intervention may be necessary; for example, a contingency plan was made for the storm sewer design, which would have the flexibility to increase or decrease the runoff directed to the bog as required, with adjustments occurring no more than once per year (McCormick Rankin 1999). The targeted outcome is to maintain the difference between the static water level in the aquifer and the water level in Redmond’s Pond, such that Redmond’s Pond must be higher than the aquifer.

Surface water inputs from a section of Oxford Street and lands to the east of the site are necessary to maintain the water budget in the swamps that surround the bog. Runoff can be contaminated with salts, nutrients, petrochemicals such as car oils, and pesticides and these pollutants may be making their way into the raised bog area during periods of high water levels or when the bog is frozen (BioLogic, 1999). Future plans to widen Oxford Street must deal with this water issue (i.e., whether to take polluted runoff elsewhere or pre-treat it). The new development on the east side has incorporated stormwater management ponds to allow pollutant-laden sediments to settle out before the water flows into the bog. Continued monitoring of water quantity and quality is necessary to ensure proper operation of these ponds. Any additional changes within the surface water catchment area of the ESA must incorporate comparable stormwater treatment systems to maintain water quality and quantity.

Global change models predict a hotter and drier climate in the Great Lakes area, resulting in a net loss of water to the bog mound. If the water falls below the acrotelm, peat development will be negatively affected. Global and local actions to reduce carbon emissions and increase vegetation cover to take up atmospheric carbon can help slow down the rate of climate change.

57 Figure 14. Ecology of Sifton Bog in response to water levels

58 7.3 Overabundance of White-tailed Deer Changes in the landscape in the last 20 - 30 years, have contributed to the success of white- tailed deer in southern Ontario. Deer are adaptable and do extremely well in rural and urban landscape where forests are fragmented. Populations have increased over time while there has been a progressive conversion of regional habitats such as woodlands, wetlands, soybean and corn fields to other land uses. This, combined with a naturally high reproduction rate, few predators (e.g., wolves) and the absence of hunting in urban areas have led to deer overabundance in southern Ontario. As a result, white-tailed deer populations are being funneled into ever shrinking habitats, while their population continues to increase. Within urban areas, deer frequently are found within and adjacent to natural areas in subdivisions (Figure 15). Deer are adapted to humans and feed on horticultural plants on private properties. Deer are

Figure 15. Deer behaviour (ethology)

59 herbivores and generalist feeders, consuming grasses, forbs (flowering plants) and the leaves and twigs of woody plants. Deer prefer young, newly emerging vegetation. Deer can change forest structure and plant community composition (Frelich and Lorimer 1985) especially at high grazing pressure, because few plant species can tolerate intensive defoliation (Bazely and Jefferies 1986).

7.3.1 Deer Population Size in Sifton Bog In 2003, the City of London requested the UTRCA ESA Management Team undertake deer counts to estimate the population size in the ESA. Conservative population estimates over the period 2003 to 2008 are 24, 26, 53, 52, 52, and 35 deer, respectively (Table 12a). A summary of the methodology for the deer count is included in Appendix K5. The results for each count night are included in Appendix K6.

The biological carrying capacity (the number of deer that an area of land can support over an extended period of time to allow for normal deer survival and reproduction without causing negative effects on native plant communities succession and regeneration) of an area the size of Sifton Bog ESA (50 ha or 0.5 km²) is estimated (by Ministry of Natural Resources) to be 3 adult deer (6 deer/km²).This number is within the range of estimated deer densities for Southern Ontario (Table 12b).In the Provincial Parks where high deer populations have been an issue for many decades and routinely undergo controlled hunting/culling, population densities of 25 - 30 deer/km² have permitted recovery of habitats. Therefore, a reduction of the deer herd at Sifton Bog to a density of 25 - 30 deer/km² may be sustainable. This would require reducing the herd to 12 - 15 individuals (60 - 70% of the population).

Table 12a. Deer Count Results for Sifton Bog ESA Estimated Deer Highest Nightly Estimated Number of Year Notes Population Deer Population Count Nights 2003 24 68 6 Agricultural field still present on east side. 2004 26 45 4 Agricultural field still present on east side. 2005 53 58 4 Development of agricultural field begins. 2006 52 65 5 Development of former agricultural field continues. 2007 52 57 5 Development of former agricultural field almost complete. 2008 35 57 5 Development complete. 1. The estimated deer population is an average of each night’s estimated deer population for that year. 2. The highest nightly estimated deer population is the highest estimated population on one night that year. Each night the deer count is conducted, a population estimate is calculated.

Table 12b. Deer Densities in Selected Ontario Regions and Sites Estimated Deer Density Area Estimated by (# deer per sq. km) Northern Ontario 1 - 5 MNR, through hunter deer tag returns. Southern Ontario 4 - 10 MNR, through hunter deer tag returns. Pinery and Rondeau Provincial Parks 25 - 30 MNR, through actual count. (Deer herd reduction programs underway for many years.) Manitoulin Island, Ottawa region 25 - 30 MNR, through hunter deer tag returns. Sifton Bog 100 UTRCA, through actual count. Source: Ranta 2007

60 7.3.2 Urban Deer Ecology and Ethology Deer in urban environments have an uncertain ecology that is influenced by human intervention and proximity. For instance, some people feed deer and thus encourage them to stay in a habitat that cannot independently support them. In the absence of predators, White-tailed Deer numbers can reach stability at extraordinary densities. However, long before deer numbers have reached an equilibrium determined by their food supply, the effects of heavy browsing are noticeable on vegetation (McCullough 1984). Vegetation communities within Sifton Bog ESA, especially the upland woods, are showing signs of over-browsing. The elimination of plant regeneration and the reduction in plant diversity leads to an impoverished habitat for many other species of wildlife that live in the ESA. There are very few saplings in the understorey and a browse-line is evident (i.e., no foliage or vegetation lower than 2 m). The disappearance of spring flowers such as Red and White Trillium and Mayapple is most likely the result of over-browsing. A community naturalization planting of native trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses to replace asphalt at the Oxford Street entrance was largely consumed by hungry deer. Deer seem to ignore the prairie grasses as some of these plants (e.g., Big Bluestem, Little Bluestem) have survived at the Oxford Street entrance and are now widespread on the former gravel pit on private land to the east of the public ESA boundary.

The response of swamp communities to deer overpopulation has been a decrease in structural integrity of the vegetation communities and an increase in non-bog and alien invasive species (e.g. cattail, buckthorn). Even the young leaves of Glossy and Common Buckthorn, normally rarely eaten because of their purgative properties, are browsed by hungry deer. When deer graze on young buckthorn, they nip off the top of the main stem. Not only does the shrub not die, it also regrows more aggressively with a coppiced stem (multi-stem) making the plants harder to remove. There are openings in the Glossy Buckthorn thicket where tall buckthorn shrubs have been replaced by a “lawn” of buckthorn plants only 15 cm tall. It is hypothesized that, when large trees topple over, an opening in the canopy is created that allows buckthorn seedlings to germinate. As the seedlings grow, the deer chew off the new, palatable leaves and soft green stems. The shrub responds by branching and growing even more vigorously. On a positive note, Miller (2005) noted buckthorn dieback after three successive years of heavy browsing. Deer generally avoid the larger woody buckthorn shrubs.

In the shrub bog mat, numerous deer tracks can be seen. Trampling compacts the organic soils, altering the process of Sphagnum growth and favouring species adapted to disturbance and higher nutrient levels (Figure 15). Deer droppings add extra nutrients to the nutrient poor bog ecosystem. Some of the Tamarack trees at the bog have been browsed. Ericaceous bog plants, however, are not preferred food for deer because many members of the heath family possess compounds (acetylandromedol) in their tissues that are toxic to animals. Research in other areas (e.g., Anticosti Island, Gulf of St. Lawrence) has shown that, if hungry enough, deer will browse almost any available food source including ericaceous shrubs such as Leatherleaf (Rochette et al. 2003 and Viera 2003). In the open bog mat of Sifton Bog, the Leatherleaf, Highbush Blueberry and Black Huckleberry are lightly browsed. In winter or early spring, when food supply is limited, the green leaves of these ericaceous plants may attract deer. The deer may also be feeding on the flowers of Pitcher Plants and orchids. The impact of deer browsing on the growth of Sphagnum is not known.

Another deer behaviour that affects bog vegetation is bark scrapings on conifer trees. Such activity is associated with the rut (sexual excitement of male deer) (Figure 15). The most devastating results of deer overpopulation are the lack of regeneration of trees and shrubs, and possibly the selective grazing of orchids and other uncommon species.

Social impacts of overabundant deer have been reported with increasing frequency. In a suburban setting, it is common for deer to wander out of the Bog into the surrounding subdivisions and feed on horticultural beds, destroying gardens and causing property damage to fences and even backyard swimming pools. They move to and from the Thames River Corridor across busy streets, and sometimes are hit by motor vehicles. In 2004, 205 deer occurrences (incidents involving deer and vehicles or property) were investigated by City Police across the entire

61 City. In 2007 there were 149 reported incidents of deer-vehicle collisions, 16 of these incidents occurring in a one kilometer radius of Sifton Bog. The annual costs of carcass removal across the City are up to $25,000 ($175/deer).The incidence of deer mortality on roads is being replicated across Ontario. In 2004, 13 676 collisions with wildlife were reported across the province, 90% involving deer (Ranta 2007).

Over the past six years, as the number of deer has increased, these impacts have extended further from the Bog and affect more people in the community. Similar impacts are being reported City-wide – this is not just a Sifton Bog issue.

7.3.3 Deer Management Strategies In response to an increasing number of complaints, the UTRCA and City of London established a White-tailed Deer Community Steering Committee in 2001 to explore options, strategies and actions for management around the Bog. The group compiled information on deer ecology and ethology and discussed various lethal and non-lethal management techniques. Appendix K1 includes a chronology of the work done to date to deal with this issue. Although the Community Steering Committee recommended a recreational hunt to reduce the deer population to a minimum of eight (8) deer and this recommendation was endorsed by the UTRCA Board, London’s City Council has not endorsed any lethal deer management strategy to date (Appendix K2 and K3). The Council recommendations supported seven non-lethal strategies. Some of these strategies have been explored and found to be either not feasible or not effective in helping to control deer populations. Others are still being implemented and assessed as to their success in scientifically quantifying the extent of the problem and/or in reducing actual deer numbers.

One of the strategies is the continuation of the deer count. Another strategy was the implementation of a scientific research project to determine the impact of deer on different vegetation communities in Sifton Bog and two other ESA’s. The research will use deer exclosure fencing and will take 2 - 5 years to complete (Appendix K7). Data from this research will be used to determine if there is scientific justification to support a herd reduction and to substantiate any future management decisions. The harvest approach has been used in numerous other parks within southern Ontario (e.g., Point Pelee National Park, Rondeau and Pinery Provincial Parks). In these parks, it has taken 10 - 30 years for the forest to recover following deer herd reduction (Bazely, personal communication).

No special approvals are required from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for deer hunting in urban areas, provided all applicable City By-laws and legal hunting procedures are followed. Discussions between the MNR, the provincial agency responsible for wildlife management, and the City of London are ongoing. The MNR directs few resources to the issue of urban deer at this time. The MNR released a draft strategy called Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario, 2006. This strategy was completed by the MNR in collaboration with other government and non-government interested parties and was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights website in November 2006. Most of the recommendations in this report have been or are being implemented at Sifton Bog already (e.g., avoidance practices, repellants, landscape plantings to discourage browsing, etc.). Recently, the MNR has increased the number doe tags issued in the hopes of reducing the number of deer in Ontario, though the focus will be on rural Ontario.

In 2009, City Council approved the Sifton Bog ESA Conservation Master Plan 2009-2019, with direction to staff to report back on four matters related to deer management (Appendix K4).

62 7.4 Invasive Alien Plant Species One of the main threats to global biodiversity is the introduction of species that are not native to a location outside of their natural geographic range. These are referred to as alien, exotic, or non-adventive species. Some of these plants were brought to North America as food or as ornamental garden plants and others were brought in accidentally in traded goods. In both cases, the plants have spread into the wild, transported by birds, animals, water, vehicles and foot traffic. In North America, the majority of invasive alien plant species comes from Europe or Asia. They have characteristics that allow them to quickly invade new habitats and successfully displace native species because the natural predators that keep them in check in their homelands are not present here. They reproduce at high rates (i.e., may produce thousands of seeds per plant), and often do not provide the type of cover and food that native wildlife require, so their presence degrades the quality of the habitat for birds and animals.

Many exotic species are also classified as highly invasive because they are so hardy and tolerant of disturbance that they can overtake and displace native plant species within a vegetation community. The rapid spread of some exotics results in a homogenization of ecosystems. Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) is an aggressive invasive exotic species of shrub that spreads quickly. It forms an impenetrable understorey that shades out and replaces whole guilds of native species, to the detriment of species diversity, community structure and natural succession trajectories.

7.4.1 Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) Glossy Buckthorn is a wetland shrub that is tolerant of the low pH and low oxygen conditions that exist in the Sifton Bog. A buckthorn thicket does not undergo succession, but rather establishes a self-replacing colony to the exclusion of native species (Figure 16). The presence of Glossy Buckthorn in the Sifton Bog was not reported by Crawford in 1926. However, early descriptions of the bog made by Judd in 1957 noted a dense growth of Rhamnus frangula in zone B (lower damp woods) (SWT3, Map 10b), forming dense thickets and producing many seedlings beneath the mature seed-bearing shrubs. Judd (1966) reported that during the war from 1939 to 1945 many buckthorn shrubs were removed by the Department of National Defense, as the charcoal from this wood was an excellent source of a component for fuse powder. In spite of this extensive removal, the growth had returned to its former abundance by the mid-1960s. We can only assume that buckthorn has been present in the bog since at least the late 1930s since it was large enough to harvest during the early 1940s.

Waldron (1972) recorded Glossy Buckthorn from several plant communities found in the muck soils surrounding the floating mat, including the wet closed deciduous shrubland, wet closed deciduous swamp forest and mesic deciduous forest. In addition, seedlings grow on the hummocks within the narrow band of wet closed coniferous forest on peat. In 1977, vegetation mapping and a description of five main plant communities was made by Small et al. for the Ministry of Natural Resources Significant Sensitive Areas of Middlesex County. Buckthorn was recorded from two communities outside of the Black Spruce-Tamarack forest Glossy Buckthorn (Photo: Brenda Gallagher) zone: in the north and northeast corner the vegetation was described

63 Figure 16. Invasive alien species: Glossy Buckthorn and Common Buckthorn as “a dense shrub thicket with buckthorn-dogwood-salix” and to the south and surrounding the bog was a “closed deciduous maple-birch swamp forest with a dense underbrush composed almost entirely of buckthorn.”

In 1979, Proctor and Redfern Limited prepared an environmental appraisal (similar to an Environmental Impact Study) to support development adjacent to the Sifton Bog (the Hazeldon Subdivision). They identified 16 sampling stations within five vegetation zones in the area extending from the old fields at the south end of the bog to Redmond’s Pond. Buckthorn abundance was recorded from the wooded slopes (16% cover), the lowland zone (62.5% cover), the treed bog zone (67% cover) and the open bog zone (4% cover).

64 R. Graham (1987 unpublished) completed a quantitative vegetation survey limited to the open Sphagnum bog areas. Qiang Wu (1989) used these vegetation data to identify and quantify the vegetation pattern of the bog and to relate some environmental factors (pH, nitrate and phosphate) to the vegetation structures using multivariate analysis, principal component analysis and canonical correlation analysis. Rhamnus frangula was found to be the first ranked species contributing the most to the division of vegetation Group A (open bog with no buckthorn) and the other Groups B + C + D (communities with buckthorn). Group B (treed bog with immature buckthorn only) was distinguished from Groups C + D (woodlands with mature buckthorn). Thus, Rhamnus frangula provides a marker that traces the invasion of buckthorn from the non-bog woodland habitat zones outside the bog, to inside the treed bog zone. In 2008 seedlings of buckthorn were found present in the open bog zone, and it remains present in all other zones. It is uncertain whether the true bog environment has properties that prevent buckthorn from successful establishment. Continued monitoring of the permanent vegetation plots will assist in answering this question.

In 1992, McLeod conducted a very detailed life science inventory and prepared accompanying maps for the Integrated Resource Management Study. He reported “Rhamnus frangula is the greatest threat to the native flora as it was found throughout the entire study area in abundance,” and even noted that “seedlings have begun to show up in the Sphagnum of the floating mat in the core area of the bog.” He recommended that “test plots be established in areas of dense buckthorn growth away from the central bog to experiment with various mechanical and manual extermination techniques such as girdling, pruning of sucker growth and pulling.” Some limited testing of herbicide occurred on the eastern tableland shrub thicket for Common Buckthorn and Tartarian Honeysuckle.

The most recent quantitative study of the bog flora was completed by BioLogic from 1998 to 2000. It established 13 permanent plots, 10 m x 10 m, within the natural bog and swamp communities as defined by McLeod (1992). Most of plots were located east of Redmond’s Pond with roughly two plots in each of the following communities: Bog (3a, 3b, 3c) and Swamp (4a, 4c, 4d and 4f) (Map 10a). Glossy Buckthorn was present in the Maple-Birch deciduous swamp and thicket swamps, the mixed swamp, the Black Spruce-Tamarack swamp, the treed bog and the Leatherleaf shrub bog. These plots were located and sampled in 2008 by Bradwill Ecological Consulting to assess long-term vegetation response in the bog and adjoining swamp communities. The results of this survey will be published in a separate report.

Figure 16 illustrates the extent of buckthorn in the ESA. The presence and abundance of buckthorn in the Sifton Bog was confirmed by field surveys in 2006 and 2007 by Bergsma, Quinlan and Gallagher. Glossy Buckthorn has formed a monoculture in several locations around the bog perimeter, indicated by a dense canopy of mature shrubs, a dense shaded understorey, young shrubs and seedlings on moss. In some locations within the non-bog swamp zone there are no seedlings of any other species and scattered trees in the canopy are either dead or dying. This monoculture of buckthorn represents a very significant stress to the health of the local plant community, which is clearly on a trajectory of ecosystem decay, as evidenced by a decrease in structural diversity (forbs, shrubs, trees) and a decrease in richness and abundance of native species.

For this particular stress, intervention must begin immediately. Hand pulling of buckthorn seedlings that have become established on the open bog mat is needed. A way must be found to mechanically remove shrubs within the Black Spruce-Tamarack zone that separates bog from non-bog vegetation. Within the sensitive peat zone, the buckthorn is still quite young and manageable. Small seedlings, < 20 cm tall, can be carefully pulled by hand but care must be taken to remove the entire root.

The goal of a buckthorn removal strategy is to beat back the advancing line of buckthorn invasion to protect the integrity of the unique bog vegetation. Removal (by cutting then applying a proven herbicide, if necessary and permitted) of the largest, seed-bearing shrubs will control seed dispersal.

65 Pulling buckthorn out of the ground with a tool called a Weed Wrench™ has been successful in other areas of the city, but this tool is not effective in the spongy, soft organic soils at the Sifton Bog. Other removal methods will need to be explored. Extensive work on buckthorn removal across North America has shown that herbicides are often the only effective treatment (see Appendix N). Use of herbicides, however, is not permitted in wetlands currently. Ongoing management is a necessity because the ground is saturated with seed waiting to germinate. In areas of high-density buckthorn growth, after the buckthorn has been removed, it is advisable to install replacement plantings of suitable native species to occupy the vacant ecological niche. Such plantings would need to be fenced to prevent deer browse. Much of the buckthorn closest to the bog zone is not mature enough to produce seed. If and when this population does begin to produce seed, the bog invasion will be complete.

Removal of the large stands of Glossy Buckthorn will be challenging and costly, but needs to be done if the goal of the management plan to protect the unique bog vegetation is to be achieved.

7.4.2 Common Buckthorn Common or European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), a close relative of Glossy Buckthorn, is prevalent on the upland slopes and drier woodland habitats of the Sifton Bog ESA. It behaves much like Glossy Buckthorn. Common Buckthorn has spread widely throughout eastern North America since its introduction in the 1880s from Europe and Asia. Studies have shown that breeding birds do not nest as successfully in habitats dominated by non-native shrubs such as buckthorn and Tartarian Honeysuckle (Schmidt and Whelan 1999).

Like Glossy Buckthorn, Common Buckthorn must also be managed in Sifton Bog. Herbicides and Weed WrenchesTM, however, effectively work on the tablelands. Recent Common Buckthorn removal trials conducted by the ESA Management Team have demonstrated very high soil disturbance from pulling, and buckthorn re-growth from root Common Buckthorn (Photo: Brenda Gallagher) fragments left underground or left touching the soil (Brandon Williamson, pers. com.). Herbicide treatment must remain an option to effectively remove and control the largest seed-bearing shrubs (see Appendix N). Cutting without applying herbicide causes the buckthorn to sucker and form an even more robust and difficult-to-remove root and multi-stem structure. Most conservation and restoration land managers include herbicides as part of their arsenal in the battle against invasive plants. Herbicides and pesticides must always be used as a last resort and only when the risk posed by the invading species exceeds the risk of using a chemical in a sensitive area. Safe application methods are available that allow the chemical to be applied sparingly and directly on the target shrub (e.g., basal bark application) in sensitive areas. The best time to apply herbicide is late summer to fall when the shrub is actively transporting energy back into the roots.

66 7.4.3 Tartarian Honeysuckle and Autumn Olive Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) and Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) are other non-native shrubs that occur in the upland areas of the Sifton Bog ESA, but to a lesser extent than Common Buckthorn. They are mainly found in the south end close to walkways and houses. Like buckthorn, Tartarian Honeysuckle and Autumn Olive also sucker when cut. The methods used to control Common Buckthorn also apply to Tartarian Honeysuckle and Autumn Olive.

7.4.4 Purple Loosestrife Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a herbaceuous wetland plant from Europe. It has become a problem in many North American marshes. In Sifton Bog, Purple Loosestrife was found in the meadow marsh / moat area in the early 1990s. Volunteers and staff of the UTRCA completed a loosestrife pull in 1992 that was surprisingly successful. This plant is not a problem today and only a few stems are seen from time to time. The site should continue to be monitored and any plants that are found should be pulled or cut prior to seeding.

7.4.5 Garlic Mustard Garlic Mustard (Alliaria officinalis) is another European plant invader of North American forests. This herbaceous plant was probably brought to North America by early settlers to use as medicine and a flavoring for food. It has spread prolifically across eastern North America. It is found in the upland woods of the Sifton Bog ESA, especially in areas of high disturbance but low management along fencelines. This plant displaces native ground cover and tree saplings by crowding them out. It may suppress the growth of tree seedlings by disrupting mutualistic associations between native canopy tree seedlings and below-ground arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Stinson et al. 2006). The fungi make soil nutrients biologically available to trees and without it, seedlings do not thrive.

Mechanical methods of control for Garlic Mustard include cutting the plants before they bear seeds or pulling them out of the ground, or burning the immature seedlings with a propane torch. These methods usually need to be repeated for several years because pulling plants will open up the soil, exposing more Garlic Mustard seeds.

There has been some success using a glyphosate-based chemical (e.g., Roundup™) sprayed early in the growing season when the Garlic Mustard is green but before the native flora has emerged. However, the Round-up will not kill the seed bank, from which seeds will Garlic Mustard continue to germinate.

67 7.4.6 Goutweed Goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria) is a green and white variegated European plant used as groundcover in gardens. It readily spreads by rhizomes and invades nearby natural areas, reverting back to its solid green colour. At Sifton Bog ESA, it is found in the drier woods, especially at access points and behind houses, but it is not widespread at this time. It is even more difficult to control than Garlic Mustard. Neighouring landowners should be educated about avoiding the use of this plant in gardens.

7.4.7 Management Options for Invasive Species Control Managing invasive plants is complex and requires long-term, multi-faceted collaborative efforts. The problem requires far greater effort and resources than are currently committed.

Resource managers have spent countless hours and dollars removing invasive alien species, sometimes with limited success. We need to continue these control efforts and learn from successful management experiences. The simplest, but not necessarily the lowest cost, method of control is chemicals. The use of chemicals poses uncertain health risks, requires trained applicators and is generally not recommended for use in wetlands.

Another tactic is biological control of invasive species, which requires finding insects that feed on specific invasive plants without harm to other vegetation (Minnesota DNR 2004). Decade- long trials are required to demonstrate that the introduced insects will not only control the targeted species, but also not become pests themselves. In successional and evolutionary terms, 10 years is not very long. Biological control species must receive government approval for release into the environment. For example, beetles that feed on Purple Loosestrife have been approved for release in Canada and were introduced into Walker Pond at Westminster Ponds ESA by the Western Ontario Fish and Game Protective Association, with positive results.

Another management tactic is mechanical control. Positive results were achieved at the Sifton Bog by a community effort to remove Purple Loosestrife by digging, cutting and removal.

The complicating factor at Sifton Bog is that even if the non-native plants (especially buckthorn) can be removed, replacement native plants will be subject to very high deer browse pressure. Therefore, alien invasive plants and deer must be managed as part of an integrated pest management strategy involving multiple tactics. The following section discusses some of the more threatening invasive alien plant species for Sifton Bog.

7.5 Other Bog Invaders Some species of native plants and animals can pose a risk to the bog’s biodiversity when they are present in large numbers and occupy habitats not natural to their distribution. Past and/or present human disturbances often allow such non-bog plants to enter and spread.

7.5.1 Common Cattail Common Cattail (Typha latifolia) has been present around the pond for more than 70 years, during which time it has had a relatively stable population. It is found around the pond margin and within tracks made by humans and deer. Cattails are not bog plants, but instead are typically found in emergent marshes and some roadside ditches. Their presence indicates some nutrient enrichment from burning fossil fuels, possibly nitrogen, which is carried in precipitation (United States Geological Survey website). McLeod (1992) recommended that cattails in the bog proper be monitored and perhaps removed. The population has not been increasing significantly since then. Control by preventing seed set (e.g., cutting the tops off) may be effective. However, there is some argument that, since cattails are locally native, the process of cattail invasion is also natural and should be allowed to proceed.

68 Common Cattail (left) and Three-way Sedge

7.5.2 Three-way Sedge Three-way Sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum) is a native plant that has formed a dense stand north of Redmond’s Pond in the open bog mat but is also found throughout the shrub bog. It is a grass-like perennial herb with extensive rhizomes (roots) found in swamps, bogs, ponds and sedge meadows. The seeds are eaten by waterfowl. This sedge may have spread after Black Spruce trees were cut in the 1940s and 1950s. Alternatively, it may have been introduced since the time of peat-harvesting. This plant should be monitored to see if it is aggressively displacing other bog species. No action needs to be taken to control this plant at this time.

7.6 Human Use Effects Humans can influence the ecology of natural areas in many ways. Walking trails have impacts, but within most natural areas only passive human uses are permitted. For safety reasons, dead tree hazards are cut and, more recently, wet areas are treated with Bacillus thuringensis to kill larvae of mosquito that may transmit West Nile Virus. This section elaborates further on human use effects of trails, and effects of vegetation and wildlife disturbance.

7.6.1 Trails The location of Sifton Bog within the City of London makes it convenient and easy to access. One of the challenges of managing a natural area within an urban setting is to accommodate visitors while protecting the sensitive ecology and wildlife habitats. Sifton Bog is accessible year round. Most of the trails, including 2.5 km of managed trails on public land and 1 km of unmanaged trails on public and private land, are long-standing trails that have been used for years.

69 The main stress to the environment from trails is due to the number, length and location of trails. The principles of trail design include carefully balancing environmental responsibility while accommodating limited pedestrian use. As trail creation is a fairly permanent and costly investment, long-term plans are needed to predict impacts on ecological integrity. Narrow foot-trails cause the least damage to the environment. Trails in wet areas tend to get wider as users avoid wet terrain; thus, boardwalks are a reasonable solution in these areas. As much as possible, trails should be directed to drier, gently sloping areas. Trails and access points must also be well marked so visitors can follow them easily and know the rules. Neighbours prefer trails be set back from rear yard property lines; however, this may increase habitat fragmentation.

A Year-round, daily visitors for dog-walking, personal enjoyment or research B Narrow setback, limited buffer between residential and natural area C Environmentally Significant Area hemmed in on all sides; no linkage to Thames D Boardwalk, parking, interpretive story boards and entrance improvements to limit access points

Figure 17. Effects of human use and encroachment

70 Sifton Bog has been a highlighted natural area to show off to the public through Natural Areas Day hikes organized by the McIlwraith Field Naturalists and, more recently, through the Doors Open annual event. That event brought 1000 visitors on a single weekend in 2007 (Figure 17).

Now that the bog is surrounded by residential and commercial developments on all sides, the increase in population places a higher recreational demand on this resource. Fortunately for Managed trail this site, the most sensitive zone, the floatingSphagnum mat, is accessible only by a boardwalk. Interpretive signs at the entrance explain the history and uniqueness of the Sifton Bog. Most visitors stay on this boardwalk and view the bog from the platform at the edge of Redmond’s Pond. There is a wilderness feeling at Redmond’s Pond, as other trails and buildings cannot be seen from the floating platform. This aesthetic experience needs to be protected. Maintenance of the boardwalk involves replacing boards when they rot or are vandalized.

Even well designed and managed trails have impacts on natural environments. Most native plant communities can withstand some disturbance from foot traffic and, in fact, many plants produce sticky seeds so that they can be transported on passing animals (human or otherwise). Negative impacts of trails and access points may include: • soil compaction in the immediate area of the trail and access points, • introduction of non-native species carried on shoes and clothing, • excessive widening of trails, especially in wet areas as people avoid getting wet feet, • soil erosion, especially on sloping land, • too dense a network of trails that fragments the habitat and opens up the canopy, • tree cutting (of tree hazards) for human safety, and • disturbance to wildlife because of constant human presence.

As the number of trails and access points increases, the number of users and the potential for damage to ecological integrity also increase. Additional stress to the environment is caused by illegal human activities such as littering, vandalism, bonfires, dogs-off leash, encroachment from neighbours, removing flowers or other plants, and riding bicyles.

The number of illegal trails in the south end of the ESA is a problem. These illegal trails need to be closed as the official trail is improved. It is important to provide boardwalks over sensitive/ wet areas to keep people from compacting the soil or peat. The open bog mat is the most sensitive habitat in Illegal trail the ESA and, thus, should have

71 the most minimal boardwalk trail system. Minimizing the network of trails in ESAs is also important to limit the area subject to negative impacts.

The trails in the other areas of the ESA may not be in the best locations; many were created by hikers and not planned by land managers. There are opportunities through the master planning process to move and restore some sections of trail for safety reasons and/or to avoid sensitive or wet areas. In the past, the trails were probably used by small numbers of people but today, more people are interested in walking through natural areas, so it is very important that the trails be in appropriate locations. Closing trails takes time and ongoing management as signage, barracades and obstacles (e.g., thorny shrubs planted or branches laid over the trail) are required to prevent people from re-using the closed trails. Re-establishing vegetation over old trails is hampered by the deer browse pressure and soil compaction. Increased effort will be needed to fence-off new plantings.

7.6.2 Vegetation and Wildlife Disturbance by Humans There are indications of deer tracks as well as human tracks on the bog mat, where some people may venture to view or photograph bog plants. Trampling on the sensitive bog mat destroys the plant life rooted there, creating a watery path for non-bog species such as cattails. There is a small but serious probability that some visitors may wish to collect specimens for their gardens. Most recently, non-native Goldfish have been deposited into Redmond’s Pond (Chapter 7.9). These fish have probably uprooted the Southern Pond Lilies and disturbed the native amphibians and reptiles living there.

The ecosystem response to trampling, flower-picking and the introduction of non-native species is a reduction in the number and spatial extent of uncommon species (e.g., orchids), and an increase in non-bog wetland species (e.g., cattails). Many beneficial interventions have been achieved through management activities of the ESA Team, including improvement of the boardwalk, consolidation of trails and access points, and educational activities. Other development driven interventions have included the extensive monitoring of environmental variables and vegetation, and the requirement for vegetation buffers and setbacks (Figure 17). Illegally mowed area It is important to protect the most sensitive zone(s) of Sifton Bog ESA from new trails/ boardwalks. There is a need to accommodate the recreational, educational, and scientific research values that this ecosystem offers. Permitted uses in ESAs are limited to passive recreation for education, aesthetic appreciation and as a tonic from urban conditions on trails that are not detrimental to the ESA’s natural heritage features or functions.

The Conservation Authorities Act and the Parks By-law describe prohibited activities within the ESA (see chapter 7). While most people obey the rules, it takes only a few who break the rules to damage areas. The most commonly encountered prohibited activities include: • Vegetation removal or destruction (e.g., cutting trees for bonfires, picking or harvesting flowers and orchids), • Riding bikes on boardwalks and trails, • Allowing dogs off-leash in the natural area, resulting in dog faeces, dogs chasing wildlife, and vegetation damage from digging and trampling, • Encroachments beyond private property limits onto public land (e.g., structures or yard waste, compost, lawn clippings, vegetation mowing),

72 • Vandalism and littering, • Feeding wildlife (e.g., deer), • Introducing non-native species (e.g., goldfish).

These prohibited activities have been policed by the ESA Management Team in all ESAs in London since 2001. Signs posted at all entrances list the permitted and restricted activities (Figure 12). Controlling restricted activities is an ongoing management task.

7.6.3 Impacts of Domestic Dogs on Wildlife Domestic dogs frequently accompany recreationists to protected areas. Despite by-laws prohibiting dogs off leash, dogs are often allowed to run loose under “voice and sight control.” Dogs are a major component of impacts to wildlife, particularly when they are present in high densities. Dogs behave differently than native canid species (e.g., coyotes). Unlike wild canids, dogs are inefficient hunters, but avid chasers. They have high energy levels and are active during daylight hours. They behave as predators and are capable of catching and killing prey species such as white-tailed deer, small mammals, herpetofauna, and ground-nesting birds. Animals that are prey of wild canids perceive dogs as predators and may be subject to non-lethal, fear- based alterations in physiology, activity, and habitat use. Wild canids may also perceive dogs as a threat to their territories and may be attracted or repelled by the presence of dogs.

A recent research study investigated the effects of dogs on wildlife communities by comparing the activity levels of wildlife in areas that prohibited dogs with areas that allowed dogs. Wildlife activity was measured on trails and up to 200 m from trails using five methods (Lenth and Knight 2008). The results showed that wildlife species that are the prey of wild canids exhibited sensitivity to the presence of domestic dogs. In areas that prohibited dogs, mule deer were active within 50 m of the trail. In areas that allowed dogs off-leash, deer showed reduced activity within at least 100 m of the trail. Similar results were observed for small mammals including squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks and mice. These areas represent a loss of otherwise suitable habitat for certain species of wildlife. In addition to these altered spatial patterns of wildlife activity, dogs also alter temporal patterns of wildlife activity including the patterns of other predators such as coyotes.

Trails that are kept dog-free or on leash could protect against the demonstrated ecological impacts that dogs have on wildlife communities and could facilitate increased wildlife viewing opportunities for trail users. The issue of whether to prohibit dogs completely or to enforce leash by-laws should consider the ecological values of the natural area, particularly the presence of wildlife species that have wild canids as natural predators, as well as the area’s recreational values (e.g., trail densities and rates of visitation). The authors recommend before-after control- impact studies be undertaken as new trails are created to further explore the effects of dogs on wildlife communities (Recommendation 2.1.6).

7.7 Effects of Adjacent Land Use and Disturbance Processes on Bog Succession Crawford (1926) noted that the bog had been mainly covered by Sphagnum around 1900, some of which had been “scalped” (i.e., for peat extraction), according to Dr. Dearness. The shrubs she saw in 1926 had grown up in the intervening 25 years. Some 20 years later, around 1945, the Black Spruce trees were cut and sold as Christmas trees. The 1950 aerial photograph in Map 7a shows no mature conifers present. Thus, the peat bog communities present today have rebounded from many major human-induced disturbances over the years. These harvesting activities may have disrupted the natural successional process. Table 13 summarizes the major land use activities adjacent to the bog over the last 60 years.

73 Table 13. Major Land Use Activities Adjacent to the Sifton Bog, 1945 to 2007 Adjacent Land Use Year Drainage Trails North South East West Farm N of Oxford 1945 North drain and Street southwest ditch Redmond Farm Foster Farm 3 residences S of from Redmond’s 1955 Oxford Street Pond to SW pond Commercial and residential N of Farm Market Gardens / Oxford Street greenhouses

Parking lot and Pond in SW corner Ditch improved, Kirk Boardwalk used for irrigation 1972 entrance to ESA Gas station at NE Drain open to bog corner of Oxford installed 2 more homes S of Street and Hyde Sifton Oxford St. Park Road Oakridge Subdivision St. Aidan’s Church Norquay Subdivision Loss of some forest and Kirk Drain capped 1993 Church and 9 homes marsh S of Buffer added Oxford St. Eadie Willcock Stormwater Subdivision; Commercial and Management Pond Boardwalk ESA entrance 2007 12 swimming pools medium density outlet from eastern to bog modified adjacent to bog; no residential tableland extended buffer added Oxford Street Buffer added Future widening

Maps 7a and 7b show the changes to the bog and surroundings over the last 60 years. They present a series of air photos taken in 1950, 1955, 1974, 1982, 1989, 1993, 1998 and 2006 (air photos are available at the UWO map library).

Bunting et al. (1998) theorized that a Picea mariana – Sphagnum (Black Spruce swamp) community represents the most mature point in wetland succession based on pollen samples at Oil Well Bog near Cambridge, Ontario. They hypothesize that Black Spruce swamp is present as a result of changes in the wetland hydrology induced by deforestation in the AD 1830-1845 pioneer period. They also concluded the low shrub vegetation community (which contains locally rare plant species) represents a relic of the pre-European settlement wetland community.

Aerial photographs were scanned from the years 1945, 1955, 1972, 1993 and 2007, which represent years in which species inventories occurred. They were georeferenced and reproduced at the same scale. Generalized community mapping was interpreted by B. Bergsma from the air photos and from community mapping completed by other authors. The successional sequence of the bog from the central pond to the lagg zone shows generally as concentric rings or zones, each representing a slight variation of the previous. Over the years some general trends have emerged in response to adjacent land uses and successional processes (Table 13, Figure 18).

In 1945, the area occupied by graminoid and low shrub bog communities was extensive, occupying more than two-thirds (2/3) of the wetland area including the northeast and northwest corners (Figure 18). It is presumed that there was some buckthorn present in the NE corner as it had been harvested from the bog for many years during WWII. A large area of deciduous and mixed swamp was present at the south end of the bog. Most of the bog was surrounded by forested slopes. There were old field and shrub thickets in the southeast corner and marshes in the southwest corner. Farming was the only land use adjacent to the bog.

74 By 1955, the area of moraine in the southeast was extracted for gravel and sand (Figure 18). Evidence of the Kirk Drain was present (see also Map 7a). To the east of Redmond’s Pond the vegetation succeeded to treed bog. The swamp forests expanded along the western edge. In the northern section of the bog, buckthorn was increasing at the expense of the swamp forests and open bog mat. Some of the cultivated land on the eastern tableland south of Oxford Street was established as apple orchard, and subsequently populated with hawthorn after the orchard was abandoned.

Figure 18. Changes in land use and vegetation communities, 1945 - 2007

75 By 1972, the first Sifton subdivision development had occurred on the western side of the bog on the former Foster Farm (Figure 18). This development saw much of the bog protected and put into public ownership. There was some loss of upland forest and marsh habitat associated with this development. Buffers were not a requirement of development at the time. Redmond’s Pond and the overall area of open bog were relatively unchanged, but there was succession of treed bog to coniferous swamp and shrub bog to treed bog. The area of open graminoid bog was smaller. A gas station had been built at the NE corner of Oxford Street and Hyde Park Roads. Several homes were built along the south side of Oxford Street and St. Aidan’s Church was built on the northwest corner of the ESA.

After another 20 years, in 1993, the second Norquay subdivision was built south of the bog (Figure 18). Mitigation of development impacts included the establishment of buffers adjacent to the mature slope forests. The Kirk Drain was capped to stop the draining of the bog. Buckthorn was a dominant and abundant shrub in the northeast corner of the bog and was identified as occasional to abundant in every bog and swamp community around Redmond’s Pond. No action was taken to control buckthorn despite a recommendation from the Integrated Resource Management Study (Golder 1992). The spread of cattails along drainage ditches and tracks was obvious, and the three small ponds south of Redmond’s Pond were filling in with more fen-like vegetation. Many of the rare orchid observations were located in this zone. The area of open graminoid bog was smaller, while the area of shrub bog and treed bog expanded. The lagg zone continued to be present as isolated marsh and swamp habitats along the outer margins of the wetland.

Today, in 2008, land development adjacent to the bog is complete (Figure 18). The last two developments provided some set-back between the property lines and the natural area. The Crich-Drewlo subdivision and commercial development on the east side of the ESA addressed stormwater management requirements by the construction of a stormwater management pond facility (see Map 2). This pond is on the tableland at the outer edge of the slope and buffer vegetation and outlets directly into the lagg zone. Now, about two-thirds (2/3) of the wetland area is occupied by swamp communities and only one-third (1/3) by open bog communities. Many of the mature trees in the swamps have died or are dying and there are several very large patches of monoculture Glossy Buckthorn in the canopy, sub-canopy and ground layer surrounding the bog mat. The thicket and field habitats in the southeastern end have succeeded to woodland habitat.

The bog peat will continue to consolidate and succeed from shrub to treed bog and eventually to swamp forest. The size of Redmond’s Pond has not changed much over time, although the depth of water has decreased. If buckthorn control is not started immediately, the entire swamp could become a monoculture buckthorn thicket.

7.8 Effects of Tree Hazard Cutting on Forest Stand Basal Area Basal area analysis is a measure of live tree density in a stand, expressed in m2/ha. In February 2007, a UTRCA Forestry Technician carried out basal area analysis in three plots in the mature upland forests in the south and southwest ends of the ESA. The results are summarized in Table 14 (full details in Appendix I). The location of the stands and plots is shown on Map 8.

76 Table 14. Basal Area (m2/ha) of Upland Forests in Sifton Bog ESA (February 2007) Polewood Small Medium Large X-Large Plots Total 10 - 24 cm 26 - 36 cm 38 -4 8 cm 50 - 0 cm 62+ cm Plot 1 8 11 8 6 0 33 Plot 2 8 11 3 2 1 25 Plot 3 1 8 11 15 3 38 Ideal Sawlog BA 4 5 5 4 2 20 Old Growth BA 28 Notes: Size is measured as diameter at breast height (DBH); e.g., Polewood 10 - 24 cm DBH Plot 1 – 60% Sugar Maple, 20% White Ash, 10% Red Oak, 10% Black Cherry Plot 2 – 30% Black Cherry, 20% White Ash, 20% Sugar Maple, 10% Black Walnut and Silver Maple Plot 3 – 40% Red Oak, 25% White Oak, 15% Black Cherry, 15% Silver Maple

The total basal area ranged from 25 to 38 m2/ha for the three stands. These values are close to the ideal of 28 m2/ha for maintaining old-growth characteristics (OMNR 2000). These communities contain a dense stand of sizeable trees. It is rare to find basal areas above the ideal in the larger size classes in southwestern Ontario, as many woodlots are over-harvested and dominated by younger trees. However, many trees in the sampled plots are declining or dying, perhaps due to crowding or age. About 30% of the trees fell into the category of “unacceptable growing stock,” which means they probably will not be alive in 10 years. Very few tree saplings (<10 cm DBH) are present. Two factors of influence are likely deep shade conditions under mature canopy and excessive deer browse.

While no harvesting of living trees has taken place in these forests since the 1950s, dead trees that pose a hazard of falling onto managed trails are cut down and left to decompose. Tree hazards are trees that pose a safety risk to the public because of location, lean, size or deterioration. For risk and liability reasons, the City of London asked the ESA Management Team to design and implement a tree hazard management program for the ESAs. Currently, a tree is deemed to be a hazard if it will impact an identifiable target such as a trail/boardwalk, parking lot or house. Tree hazards are dead trees tall enough to land on a trail or other target.

The ESA Management Team carries out an annual inspection for tree hazards; several members of the team have years of forestry experience. Each year, the managed trails are walked and all tree hazards are mapped and later felled with chain saws at ground level. The trunks and limbs are left on-site to decompose. Conducting basal area measurements Many species of wildlife depend on both living and dying or dead trees. Standing dead trees, called snags, are an important part of a forest. Insects invade the dead wood and are, in turn, eaten by birds. Birds and small mammals nest in the cavities of snag trees. They are also used as perches for larger birds. They are sometimes called “wildlife trees.”

A small percentage of tree hazards (dead trees) could be left standing if it were possible to remove only the most hazardous limbs. Selective limbing entails climbing the tree, and this is

77 not always a safe activity. It is also more time-consuming and, thus, expensive. It is sometimes difficult to bring the needed equipment into the ESAs. The City contracts an arborist company to remove or delimb ESA trees that impact backyards (e.g. private property), when the ESA Team cannot do the work because of time constraints or when climbing is needed. At this time, the ESA Management Team is not licensed to climb.

It is important to minimize the number of tree hazards that need to be cut and to create signage to inform visitors of the contribution dead trees provide to maintaining biodiversity. Minimizing the number of trails in an ESA reduces the area subject to the tree hazard management program and the potential loss of dead wildlife trees.

Recently, the UTRCA conducted a study to determine how many wildlife trees were left in the ESAs in light of the tree hazard cutting program. The study focused on areas within the ESAs that were not impacted by trails and so would never be subjected to tree hazard removal. Several 1-ha wildlife tree plots were located at least 25 m from the official trail network (i.e., outside the tree hazard zone) within forested vegetation communities in each of the ESAs. Map 8 shows the location of the wildlife tree plot in Sifton Bog ESA. Early results showed that all of the study plots, with the exception of plots in Kains Woods, exceed the minimum standards recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for cavity and snag trees. As well, all study plots in the ESAs, with the exception of the Kilally Meadows plot, exceeded the minimum standards recommended by the MNR for mast (fruit and nut-bearing) trees (OMNR 2000).

The MNR’s minimum standard is to retain snags, cavity and mast trees to achieve the following distribution per hectare: • snags - at least four smaller (< 50 cm DBH) and one larger (> 50 cm DBH) snags/ha; • cavity trees (live) - at least six > 25 cm DBH/ha, including one > 50 cm DBH; • mast trees - minimum seven to eight healthy mast trees/ha with DBH > 25 cm, at a spacing less than 50 m apart. • Preference should be given to retaining trees that perform both cavity and mast.

It is hoped that follow-up studies can be carried out to reveal more information on the overall state of forest health in London’s ESAs, both near and away from trails.

7.9 Effects of Introduced Goldfish on Redmond’s Pond Fish are typically excluded from bogs because of a lack of oxygen. Snails and mollusks are usually absent because of low calcium. Goldfish (Carassius auratus) were discovered in Redmond’s Pond in the summer of 2006. Most likely they were dumped into the pond by someone who had too many in their own garden pond. Goldfish are members of the minnow family (of which carp are also members) and are not native to Ontario. Goldfish negatively alter the aquatic ecosystem by increasing turbidity, and uprooting and eating aquatic plants. The abundance of Southern Pond Lily on Redmond’s Pond has Goldfish in Redmond’s Pond, spring 2008 (Photo: Brenda Gallagher)

78 been very low the last few years, coincident with the introduction of the Goldfish. There is no historic record of any fish species being found in the pond.

Experience has shown that when Goldfish are thrown into a small pond, they reproduce at an alarming rate (John Schwindt, personal communication). Fisheries biologists recommended removing the Goldfish immediately. The ESA Management Team experimented with several techniques to remove the Goldfish; the only practical method found was electroshocking in combination with some trapping. Fisheries biologists use electroshocking equipment to temporarily stun fish so they can be quickly netted, identified and released. In this case, the stunned fish were netted, euthanized, and removed from the site. In 2007, more than 1,500 Goldfish between one and four years of age were removed from this small pond. The largest fish were 15 cm long. No other fish species were found. There are no known impacts of electroshock on other Abundant aquatic plants, Redmond’s Pond, 2000 aquatic species at any life stage (egg to adult). Frogs can be temporarily stunned by the electroshock but they quickly recover and move away. Snapping Turtles seem unaffected by the electroshock (Schwindt, personal communication).

7.10 Effects of the West Nile Virus Mosquito Control Program Control of the West Nile Virus is a public health issue. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, in association with the Middlesex-London Health Unit (www.healthunit. com) and its agents, undertake the West Nile Virus control program.

The primary transmitter of the virus is an urban-dwelling mosquito that lives and breeds in small, stagnant pools of water that collect in rain gutters, buckets and storm sewers. Sometimes the mosquitoes are found in natural small bodies of water. Identified areas of standing water are treated with bacterial biological agents called Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus (Bs) (under the trade name Vectobac) that are absorbed by the mosquito larvae. The mosquito larvae fail to mature, and die. Signs are erected at the ESA entrance to inform the public that this pesticide treatment is ocurring.

Two sites in or near the Sifton Bog ESA are treated with Vectobac. The sites include the Silver Maple swamp near the Oxford Street entrance and a catchbasin along Old Hyde Park Road.

It is important to note that healthy wetlands have many features that can reduce the number of mosquitoes naturally. Mosquitoes are part of the food chain and are eaten by birds, dragonflies and damselflies, though they are not the dominant food source of these creatures. Carnivorous bog plants, such as Pitcher Plant and sundews, trap and digest mosquitoes as well as other small insects. Other bog dwellers that rely on mosquito larvae for food include larval salamanders and frogs. At this time, there is no information on the impact of the West Nile Virus mosquito control program on other species in the food chain.

79 7.11 Effects of Fire Fire is a natural occurrence in many ecosystems, but can be very damaging to a bog, which is not fire-tolerant. A carelessly tossed cigarette, unauthorized fire, or lightning may ignite dry peat during a dry summer. Peat can burn and smolder underground for days, as it did in Sifton Bog in the mid-1980s. Contingency planning is needed to direct firefighting in the case of a fire in the Sifton Bog. Communication of this plan with neighbours is also needed.

7.12 Stress-Response-Intervention-Outcome Model Summary It is important not to lose our perspective and “love the Sifton Bog to death.” Therein lies the paradox: Significant and unique natural areas such as Sifton Bog ESA are heavily used and sometimes abused; substantial management interventions are required in order to keep “nature” in the Natural Area, to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem integrity now and into the future. The natural trajectory of the bog ecosystem is toward the filling in of the pond, and consolidation of Sphagnum communities to conifer peat forest. This trajectory has been altered in the past 150 years by drainage, fire, peat harvesting, Black Spruce harvest for Christmas trees, introduction of invasive non-native species, agriculture, residential and commercial developments, road runoff, overpopulation of White-tailed Deer and increasing human uses.

The key objective of the Conservation Management Plan is to develop recommendations and timely interventions with achievable strategies identified to manage the multitude of disturbances that threaten the integrity of the bog ecosystem and to continue supporting scientific research that will aid in the understanding of this unique ecosystem so that we may better protect it. Four principal management targets have been identified: deer overabundance, invasive alien plant species, changing hydrology and human use effects. The following chapter introduces intervention recommendations to address the identified stresses.

80 8.0 Conservation Goals, Management Strategies and Implementation Plans

8.1 Review of the 1992 Integrated Resource Management Study Recommendations A review of the recommendations from the 1992 Sifton Bog Integrated Resource Management Study (UTRCA 1992) was undertaken to document actions that have occurred since that time and to identify issues that need to be brought forward for this Master Plan update. Table 15 summarizes the 1992 recommendations and the outcomes to date.

Of the 25 recommendations, 18 have been implemented, two have been partly implemented, and five have not been implemented or are awaiting proposals for implementation. Many of the recommendations focused on issues relating to the development of lands flanking the east side of Sifton Bog along Hyde Park Road. Figure 19 shows the boundaries of the various Planning Units described.

Table 15. Summary of the 1992 Management Study Recommendations and Outcomes Recommendation Outcome / 2006 Status Earth Science ES.1 With respect to Planning Units PR 2.3 and 4.1: Implemented. a. Near-term surface water management strategies should minimize (a) An extensive study was completed any deviation from the character of the existing hydrologic regime and approved. Report titled Storm Water until additional data collection and analysis is carried out. Management Plan Functional Design. August 12, b. Identify, through any proposal-specific environmental impact 2003. Oxford Street and Hyde Park Road Lands studies required in the future by regulatory agencies: Draining to the Sifton Bog. - Potential post-development surface flows that are compatible with (b) EIS completed for Drewlo Holdings Inc. & the wetland features of the bog Crich Holdings and Building Ltd. and Norquay. - Incompatible post-development surface flows City of London and McCormick Rankin. c. Retain any compatible post-development surface flows within the (c,d) Resource monitoring and stormwater existing hydrological catchment of the bog. pond monitoring completed by BioLogic. d. Modify, as required, the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of surface flows retained within the catchment. Carry Forward: (e) Oxford Street widening in e. Divert incompatible post-development surface flows from the future (see ES.9) hydrological catchment of the bog. ES.2 Determine the extent of land assembly for the Natural Area in Implemented. The Environmental Impact Planning Unit PR 2.2 (2 ha) on the basis of the hydrogeological, Study by Gartner Lee showed these sloping hydrological and biological constraints identified in Section 3.1, and lands functioned as a buffer. The City’s Planning the impact of any proposed landform alterations on the wetland Committee upheld this recommendation as function and special features of the bog. did the OMB decision in 1994. The lands remain undeveloped and have been zoned OS5. This assessment will also recognize the presence of Crataegus dodgei, a nationally and provincially rare plant species on adjoining land at Carry Forward: Look for the hawthorn the north end of Planning Unit PR 2.1 (Crataegus dodgei). ES.3 Retain Planning Unit PR2.1 in its biotically-evolving condition. Implemented. These lands have been zoned OS5. ES.4 The alteration of Planning Unit PR3 to a regulated, intensified urban No current proposal for PR3. This end use would not impact negatively on the hydrogeological, recommendation can be carried forward. hydrological and biological systems of the Bog.

In the future, following a proposal-specific assessment, potential post-development surface flows of comparable quality from this unit might be directed into the hydrological catchment of the bog to compensate for the loss of surface volumes from within the historical catchment.

81 Recommendation Outcome / 2006 Status ES.5 Regulate intensified urban end uses in Planning Units PR 2.3 and 4.1 Implemented. Issues of set-backs, buffers, with respect to compatibility with biological resources. fencing, natural landscaping, stewardship and education of landowners were dealt with in the Environmental Impact Study. ES.6 Decisions relating to landform alterations in Planning Units PR 2.2 and Being Implemented. Fill line no longer 4.2 should be considered within the context of the UTRCA’s fill line applicable as a hazard line. regulation. The ability of these units to support urban use is restricted by their geological characteristics. ES.7 The ability of Planning Unit PR 4.3 to support urban use in a manner Implemented. Medium density residential compatible with the wetland functions of the bog is restricted by its and commercial development on eastern proximity to the Class 2 wetland in Planning Unit PR 5. tablelands based on an OMB and Council approved EIS. ES.8 Retain Planning Unit PR 5 in its biotically-evolving condition, since it Implemented. This parcel is now owned by the consists almost entirely of Class 2 wetland. City of London and zoned OS5. ES.9 Re-engineer or close the parking lot immediately south of Oxford Partly Implemented. The parking lot was Street in Planning Unit P3 to incorporate biotic and abiotic filters to re-graded and the trail head was moved away eliminate the surface entry of chlorides and other municipal road- from the gully that formed as a result of the related contaminants into the aquatic environment of the site. runoff. The gully area was planted with native grasses. A culvert was installed at the bottom of the gully/slope where it crosses the foot path. The non-trail areas were naturalized.

Carry Forward: Issues surrounding runoff from Oxford Street. A set of recommendations should be made regarding Oxford Street widening. ES.10 Conduct long-term monitoring of both the hydrologic and Implemented. Sampling of the groundwater hydrogeological regimes, according to the protocol established in wells has continued. the accompanying hydrogeological and water chemistry reports, for resource planning and management purposes. The recommendations Carry Forward: A long-term monitoring in the reports should be critically reviewed and prioritized as project should concentrate on sampling the additional data become available so that specific questions regarding permanent wells and surface water chemistry the hydrology and water chemistry can be answered. in the bog. ES.11 Consider the feasibility of road surface removal and vegetation Carry Forward: Land use development and community restoration within the road easement of Old Hyde Park public ownership along the Old Hyde Park Road when it is legally closed in the future. Road is not complete.

82 Recommendation Outcome / 2006 Status Life Science LS.1 Prepare a trail management strategy consistent with the Addressed in this Master Plan. accompanying concept that encourages user exposure to the site’s diverse biota if detailed study determines it is compatible with the fragility of certain portions of the site. LS.2 Prepare a vegetation management strategy consistent with the Addressed in this Master Plan. accompanying Management Unit Classification. LS.3 Prepare a vegetation rehabilitation strategy for previously disturbed Partially addressed in this Master Plan. portions of the site. Challenging issues of deer browse pressure discussed. LS.4 Prepare a strategy for the management of alien species consistent Implemented. A Purple Loosestrife pull was with the recommendations of the Life Science Report. Purple carried out in 1992 and was successful. Loosestrife control should be considered an immediate priority. Buckthorn is the most pressing issue and is Alien species control programs should be carefully planned, addressed in this Master Plan. Immediate rigorously monitored and re-evaluated within the context of new action is required. The perimeter of the peat information as it becomes available. zone needs special attention in order to halt the advance of buckthorn. LS.5 Conduct long term monitoring of biotic conditions within the Implemented. Vegetation plots were core pond, marsh and peatland communities for the purposes of established in the late 1990s. These plots were monitoring successional influences and the effects of changes in re-established and re-evaluated in 2008 (to be chemical and biological regimes. reported on later). LS.6 Retain all the deciduous forest community and wetland of Planning Implemented. This parcel is now owned by Unit PR6 in the southwest corner of the site in its biotically evolving the City of London and has been added to the conditions for the purposes of habitat connectivity and habitat public ESA. diversity. LS.7 The rear portions of institutional and residential lands presently Carry Forward. The ESA Team has documented fronting on Oxford Street are not considered a land assembly priority encroachments. There are questions related from a resource management standpoint. Vegetation and nutrient to runoff from Oxford St. being discharged management strategies should be discussed with all adjacent through these properties to the ESA so this landowners. should be dealt with as part of the Oxford Street widening project (ES.1). LS.8 Prepare an information package that Implemented. The Master Plan describes a. describes the site’s fragility most of these issues/features. The Master b. identifies the manner in which prior human activities on the site’s Plan process involved the public. As well, perimeter have impacted its hydrological and biological systems information signs were erected in 2001 and c. explains future management practices designed to protect the site’s 2005 at the Oxford Street entrance. These large critical features signs outline the history and formation of bog, d. seeks community co-operation in the ongoing protection of the and describe plants and animals and threats. Sifton Bog Recognition of volunteers is also given.

83 Recommendation Outcome / 2006 Status Recreational Resources RR.1 Retain the minimum maintenance interior trail in its existing location. Implemented. The existing trails on public land have been maintained and enhanced. RR.2 Retain existing pedestrian access points. Implemented. The seven existing pedestrian access points have been maintained and enhanced with signage. RR.3 Extend a perimeter trail with a higher level of maintenance to access Partly Implemented. The trail that runs along points on the south and east boundaries of the site. the south end of the site (runs east-west) has been maintained and managed.

Carry Forward. The ‘illegal’ trail on the east boundary of the site (runs north-south) is on private land and cannot be managed until land negotiations are complete and it is transferred to the City. RR.4 Connect the perimeter trail to the boardwalk. Carry forward. See RR3. RR.5 Connect the boardwalks to an access point near Oxford Street. Implemented. The boardwalk was extended twice (2002 and 2006) and now stretches from near the Oxford Street entrance to Redmond’s Pond. RR.6 Redesign or close the Oxford Street parking lot to minimize the Implemented. See ES9. The parking lot was impact of perimeter sediment loadings on interior vegetation redesigned and paved. The entrance was communities. naturalized and the trail head re-routed to allow the gully to heal.

84 Figure 19. 1992 Planning unit map (Note: PR = Private Ownership, P = Public Ownership)

85 8.2 Goals, Objectives, Recommendations and Implementation Plans This chapter summarizes the three goals (guiding principles) and key management strategies (objectives and recommendations) generated by the Local Advisory Committee, UTRCA and City of London (Table 16).

The hierarchy and definition of mission, goals, objectives, recommendations and implementation plan are as follows: • Mission – sets direction for what we are trying to accomplish • Goals (guiding principles) – set ecological and social values to be achieved • Objectives – set broad targets to achieve goals • Recommendations – set out steps and actions required to achieve each objective • Implementation Plan – sets priorities, measures of success and outcome, lead agency, costs and funding sources

Table 16. Summary of Goals, Objectives and Recommendations Number of Goals (Guiding Principles) Objectives Recommendations 1. Conserve and Enhance 1.1 Acquire additional lands 3 Ecological Health 1.2 Manage human encroachment 5 1.3 Manage human use impacts on vegetation 8 1.4 Manage invasive species 8 1.5 Monitor permanent vegetation plots and plants of concern in 5 the bog proper 1.6 Manage deer populations 5 1.7 Maintain the hydrological balance and water quality of the bog 5 1.8 Address the threat of fire 1 2. Develop an Access and Use Plan 2.1 Develop and maintain a minimal, well-marked and safe trail 6 that Minimizes Human Impact system and associated access points 3. Encourage Awareness and 3.1 Promote research, education and awareness 5 Environmental Education 3.2 Involve the community in ecological restoration efforts and 4 projects. TOTAL: 3 Goals, 11 Objectives, 55 Recommendations

The majority of management objectives are consistent with the primary mission of conserving the ecological health and uniqueness of the Sifton Bog ESA.

Each objective has specific actions or recommendations to be implemented over the 10 year period of the Conservation Master Plan. The implementation plans detail the recommendations by priority, measures of success, lead agency, approximate costs, and funding sources.

Priority The priorities are set according to perceived urgency, logical progression, and availability of resources. Based on these criteria, the recommendations are grouped into five priority time periods: • A – Top priority - start within one year (2009), including operational items already underway • B – High priority - start within two years (2010) • C – Moderate priority - start within three years (2011) • D – Low priority - start within four years (2012) • E – Long range - projects without specified time frames

86 Lead Agency • ESA Mg Cte – ESA Management Committee includes City of London Parks Planning and Design, Parks Operations and UTRCA staff • ESA Mg Team – ESA Management Team based out of the UTRCA is responsible for day-to-day operations, education and enforcement in publicly owned ESAs.

Funding Sources • City ESA Budget – The City funds the ESA Management Team annually under a special agreement. • City ESA Capital Budget – The City funds capital projects in ESAs, over-and-above the annual City ESA Budget.

The estimated cost to implement all 55 recommendations is approximately $300,000, spread over 10 years (see table below). Some recommendations are inexpensive, others can be absorbed in existing projects, and some are moderately to very costly. Some recommendations can be implemented right away, and others will take more time and/or resources.

Summary of Implementation Projects by Priority Priority Estimated Total Cost A $129,500 – 139,500 A/B 97,000 B $54,500 – 69,000 C $12,000 D 0 E $50,000 – 100,000 TOTAL $343,000 – 417,500 *Note: Projects with unknown costs were not included

The UTRCA and City of London will host annual (or as needed) community meetings as a forum to communicate updates and issues that arise from the implementation of the recommendations.

87 8.2.1 Goal 1 – Conserve and Enhance Ecological Health

Objective 1.1 – Acquire Additional Lands Sifton Bog ESA is a relatively small natural area surrounded by residential and commercial development. From an ecological standpoint, larger natural areas tend to be more sustainable than smaller ones. Natural areas connected to other natural areas are also more sustainable. Thus, it is essential that as much property as possible be included within the protective boundaries of the ESA and that any non-natural areas be naturalized to maximize the site’s functional size. Although the majority of the Sifton Bog ESA is in public ownership, there are parts of the ESA still in private ownership (see Map 2) that have been identified as important to acquire.

Recommendation 1.1.1 The City and/or UTRCA should acquire private lands to the east of the current public ESA boundary and west of the Marsh Trail condominiums and include these lands in any rehabilitation plans for the Sifton Bog ESA (see Objectives 1.3 and 1.4).

Recommendation 1.1.2 If the lands identified in 1.1.1 above cannot be acquired, consider establishing easements for trail use.

Recommendation 1.1.3 The City and/or UTRCA should develop a contingency plan to acquire lands around the ESA that are currently developed, in the event these properties are no longer needed for their current uses (i.e., John Dearness School, parts of CPRI). These lands could be naturalized or rehabilitated to re-establish natural corridors between the bog and the Thames River.

Implementation Rec. Lead Funding Priority Measures of Success Cost No. Agency Source Acquisition complete and lands transferred. Enlarged City Capital 1.1.1 A City Unknown publicly protected site and buffer against adjacent land uses. Budget Signed easement allows users a safe and legal route to both City City Capital 1.1.2 B Unknown ends of the ESA. Budget Acquisition complete and lands transferred and naturalized. City City Capital 1.1.3 D Unknown Enhanced corridor between the bog and Thames River. Budget

88 Objective 1.2 – Manage Human Encroachment Residential and some commercial development surround the Sifton Bog ESA. The ESA Management Team has walked the perimeter of the public ESA and recorded encroachments by type and severity. Some of the more frequently observed encroachments are . Extension of backyard onto the publicly owned area and planting horticultural gardens and mowing naturalized areas, . Erecting sheds, tree forts or swimming pools, . Dumping yard waste and compost in the public natural area, . Feeding deer, . Installing gates in fences and creating personal trails through the natural area to join the managed trails.

These activities are prohibited under the existing Parks By-law and subject to removal by the landowner or, if not compliant, by the City or UTRCA with clean-up expenses added to property tax bills. The cumulative impact of these activities effectively shrinks and fragments the size of the natural area and introduces organic matter (e.g., non-native plants and animals) that threaten the ecological health of the site.

Recommendation 1.2.1 Clarify the City’s encroachment prevention policy/procedure regarding steps to be taken when encroachment is found within ESAs and other public natural spaces. Steps may include education, encouragement, warning, charges, court appearance and order to remove or restore. Implement the policy in the ESA.

Recommendation 1.2.2 Implement an on-going program at Sifton Bog ESA that includes boundary identification and annual monitoring and follow-up of encroachment activities. Target the most serious encroachments first.

Recommendation 1.2.3 Produce and distribute a Sifton Bog-specific package similar to the “Living Next to Natural Areas” factsheet/ brochure to all landowners in the general neighbourhood. Distribute it annually or biannually to educate new neighbours. Emphasize cooperation of all users.

Recommendation 1.2.4 Inventory existing property fencing and document the effectiveness of various designs in minimizing human encroachment. Make recommendations from these findings/ observations. Educate neighbours about the City’s cost-sharing policies regarding fencing.

Recommendation 1.2.5 Once the illegal mowing of the ESA land behind Naomee Crescent is halted, develop a restoration plan for the area.

Implementation Rec. Lead Priority Measures of Success Cost Funding Source No. Agency A written procedural guideline that allows the City and 1.2.1 A ESA Mg Team to take appropriate action to ESA Mg n/a City ESA Budget remedy encroachment problems in all ESAs. Cte Reduced encroachment, illegal trails, non- ESA Mg 1.2.2 A n/a City ESA Budget native species, garbage, etc. Team 1.2.3 A Brochures produced and distributed. UTRCA $5000 City ESA Capital Budget Report on the effectiveness of fencing to ESA Mg 1.2.4 C n/a City ESA Budget control encroachment. Team Foundation grants, partnerships 1.2.5 A Mowing halted. Vegetation diversity increasing. City $2500 with UTRCA or ReForest London, City ESA Capital Budget

89 Objective 1.3 – Manage Human Use Impacts on Vegetation The Sifton Bog ESA contains several habitats that have been negatively influenced by stressors that include the presence of illegal trails and trails in inappropriate locations, development- related construction projects such as storm water management outlet, gravel pit extraction, and management of tree hazards. Impacts of these activities must be mitigated through the use of site-specific best management practices and ecological restoration.

Recommendation 1.3.1 Develop and implement a restoration plan for the former gravel pit area, if and when the City acquires the land. The plan should include maintaining and enhancing the tallgrass prairie/ savanna species that have become established there and controlling illegal uses such as bush parties (fire pits). The restoration could be done through additional seeding and planting, closure of side trails, removing non-savanna shrubs and trees, and possible use of prescribed burns. Prairie grasses are not heavily grazed by deer (judging from their present growth and abundance) and so enhancement of this plant community type is feasible if and when the land is acquired.

Recommendation 1.3.2 Map all unmanaged trails and work towards closing these off using the best available methods (e.g., installing fencing, reworking the ground and covering with leaves, planting alive or dead standing shrubs to block the view of the former trail, etc.). Minimizing the number of trails will reduce disturbance, fragmentation and the number of tree hazards that may need to be removed. Install signage to inform trail users of the closed trails.

Recommendation 1.3.3 Work closely with utility agencies (e.g., London Hydro) regarding tree management issues to ensure any tree/limb cutting is carried out in such a way as to minimize disruption to the environment and neighbours.

Recommendation 1.3.4 Remove the old Paige-wire property fence that follows previous land use and land ownership and serves no current purpose. Cut fence posts to ground level and remove wire to minimize disturbance to the environment.

Recommendation 1.3.5 Investigate the costs and feasibility of road surface removal and vegetation community restoration within the road easement of Old Hyde Park Road, if and when it is legally closed in the future. Implement the restoration work if feasible after deer numbers are reduced. Prior to restoration, if warranted, conduct archaeological surveys.

Recommendation 1.3.6 a) Investigate the effectiveness of selective de-limbing or top removal of dead trees in order to preserve a dead tree’s wildlife value versus removal of the whole tree (e.g., does the standing trunk provide value to birds or raccoons, etc.?). b) If there is evidence that selective delimbing is much more preferable than cutting at ground level, retain foresters or arborists who can climb trees to cut the tops off of tree hazards that are identified as significant wildlife trees.

Recommendation 1.3.7 Monitor forest health and the impact of the tree hazard cutting program on the density and distribution of wildlife trees and wildlife activity.

90 Implementation Rec. Lead Priority Measures of Success Cost Funding Source No. Agency Foundations, grants, C Improved biodiversity and enlargement of an partnerships with other 1.3.1 City $10,000 if acquired uncommon savanna plant community. organizations, ESA Capital Budget 1.3.2 A Mapped trails. Illegal trails no longer or rarely used. ESA Mg Team n/a City ESA Budget ESA Mg 1.3.3 B Reduced impact on habitat from utility work. n/a City ESA Budget Team Removal of fence, minimizing disturbance to the 1.3.4 A / B ESA Mg Team $15,000 City ESA Capital Budget habitat. Report on feasibility of road surface removal. $50,000 – 1.3.5 E Increased extent of natural habitat and ESA Mg Cte City ESA Capital Budget 100,000 connection to rest of ESA. Report on effectiveness of delimbing from a wildlife value point of view. Increased number of City ESA Capital Budget 1.3.6 A City $10,000 snag trees (or tall stumps) left standing for wildlife (contract) use from selective de-limbing. Increased density and distribution of wildlife trees City ESA Capital Budget 1.3.7 A / B City $10,000 and wildlife activity. (contract)

91 Objective 1.4 – Manage Invasive Species Non-native, invasive species pose an immediate threat to biodiversity. Invasive species have no natural population controls outside of their homeland, making them effective competitors against native species. Large areas of natural habitat at Sifton Bog ESA have been severely altered by the spread of Glossy Buckthorn (primarily in swamp areas) and Common Buckthorn (primarily in upland areas). A high abundance of buckthorn leads to both local and system- wide influences on ecosystem processes (Bradwill Ecological Consulting 2008). The effects of buckthorn are far greater than the simple competitive replacement of one or more species; they extend to the loss or reduction of whole guilds or strata, with consequent losses in species diversity and changes to community structure and natural succession trajectories (Lundgren et al. 2004). Soil nutrient dynamics are altered where buckthorn is present; among the changes are elevated pH and higher concentrations of nitrogen and carbon (Heneghan et al. 2006). Buckthorn has high herbivore tolerance due to its stem armature and waxy leaf cuticle. It also regrows vigorously after being cut, making removal challenging.

Integrated pest management suggests that multiple strategies are important for the successful control of a pest. A three-pronged conservation approach is recommended that focuses on protecting areas that are not yet fully invaded by Glossy Buckthorn and reducing the impact of currently invading populations by (1) containment, (2) pre-emptive niche occupancy (i.e., planting native species), and (3) management of the disturbance (Bradwill Ecological Consulting 2008).

Recommendation 1.4.1 a) On teh open bog mat and Black Spruce swamp zone, hand-pull Glossy Buckthorn seedlings (i.e., stems under 30 cm tall) to halt the advance. Allocate a team of 5 - 10 people, 1 - 3 days a year. When grabbed near the base, the entire root should come out easily from the moist ground. Because of the sensitive nature of the bog mat, only trained staff and volunteers should carry out this activity. Track areas completed using GPS to ensure coverage of the entire containment area.

b) Develop a methodology to deal with the mature, seed-bearing Glossy Buckthorn shrubs. Because they are growing in a wetland environment on organic soils, traditional removal methods (i.e., herbicide and Weed WrenchTM) are inappropriate. When removal methodology has been decided upon, locate seed-bearing shrubs with GPS and mark with spray paint. Remove these large shrubs first from the open bog mat and then work outward to the outer swamp zone. Cut the suckers that grow from the stumps for as many years as required to weaken or kill the shrubs.

Recommendation 1.4.2 In the swamp and thicket communities, establish plots that contain some seed-producing native trees and erect deer-proof fencing around them. Restore the vegetation by a) allowing native saplings to establish, removing Glossy Buckthorn shrubs (e.g., by cutting and applying herbicide to the cut stump in the dry season), hand-pulling seedings that germinate, and planting appropriate native species in the bare areas. Monitor progress and adjust the methodology as required. This action may serve to ‘buy time’ for the swamp vegetation until the deer population is reduced and larger-scale buckthorn management is feasible.

Recommendation 1.4.3 Undertake education and awareness programs to make residents aware of the need to control and remove buckthorn and the necessity to selectively use herbicides to control invasive species and achieve positive ecological restoration.

Recommendation 1.4.4 If and when biological controls (i.e., host-specific insects) for buckthorn and Garlic Mustard are approved for use in Canada, consider using them at Sifton Bog ESA.

92 Recommendation 1.4.5 In upland areas, implement the following herbicide management plan for Common Buckthorn, Tartarian Honeysuckle and Autumn Olive: • Locate and map the largest, fruit-bearing shrubs. • Apply Garlon4™ (25% concentration) to the bark of the standing shrub. The shrub will die and remain standing. If it becomes unsightly or hazardous, cut and/or chip the standing dead shrubs. The dead shrubs could be “replanted” over closed trails to block access, but they must be monitored to ensure they do not re-grow. • Make this an ongoing activity, allocating 1-5 days per year of the ESA Management Team’s time. • Locate the rare hawthorn (Crataegus dodgei) for protection.

Recommendation 1.4.6 Continue to remove Goldfish from Redmond’s Pond using electroshocking and other proven techniques, under MNR permits, by the ESA Management Team.

Recommendation 1.4.7 Install signs or update existing signs at access points that warn “Do not dispose of pets or other wildlife in the ESA (e.g., turtles, goldfish, tropical fish).”. Also, install signs that state “No Fishing” and “No Feeding of Wildlife.”

Recommendation 1.4.8 Monitor Purple Loosestrife in the meadow marsh areas (lagg zone) and pull out the plants as needed.

Implementation Rec. Priority Measures of Success Lead Agency Cost Funding Source No. Reduced population of Glossy Buckthorn on $20,000 City ESA Capital Budget 1.4.1 A / B City peat mat and adjoining areas. initial year (partnerships or contract) Presence of intact or reasonably healthy swamp City ESA Capital Budget 1.4.2 A communities within the ESA, mostly free of ESA Mg Team $25,000 (partnership or contract) buckthorn and deer browse pressure. Fewer seed-bearing buckthorn shrubs and 1.4.3 A fewer buckthorn seedlings emerging. Greater ESA Mg Team na City ESA Budget emergence of native seedings. Greater understanding by the public of the UTRCA and $2000 per 1.4.4 A / B City ESA Budget benefits of ecological restoration methods. ESA Mg Cte yr Reduced population of buckthorn and garlic 1.4.5 E ESA Mg Team na City ESA Budget mustard throughout ESA Reduced population of Goldfish and increased UTRCA and $1000 per 1.4.6 A City ESA Budget population of aquatic plants. ESA Mg Team yr Reduced invasive animal presence and reduced habitat damage from deer- feeding areas. This 1.4.7 A will educate the public about the negative ESA Mg Team n/a City ESA Budget impact of dumping and feeding wildlife that are out of balance in the environment. Continued reduced presence of Purple 1.4.8 A ESA Mg Team n/a City ESA Budget Loosestrife.

93 Objective 1.5 – Monitor Permanent Vegetation Plots and Plants of Concern in the Bog Proper The Sifton Bog (specifically, the bog proper) is a boreal community located within the Carolinian Zone of Ontario. Non-bog plants such as Common Cattail and Three-way Sedge infiltrate the bog mat on deer tracks and disturbed areas. However, this process may be a natural successional transition. Further monitoring is required.

Recommendation 1.5.1 Locate the 13 permanent vegetation plots established in the 1998 by consultants (BioLogic). Monitor the plots every three to five years to track successional or other changes in vegetation within the bog that may be caused by development or other disturbances. Prepare vegetation status reports.

Recommendation 1.5.2 Monitor aquatic plants (e.g., Southern Pond Lily) in Redmond’s Pond annually in response to changes in water level or Goldfish populations.

Recommendation 1.5.3 Monitor the abundance, spread and density of Common Cattail and Three-way Sedge in Redmond’s Pond, in ditches and in deer trails in the shrub and treed bog communities annually. Develop a management plan in response to significant increases in cattail or sedge populations.

Recommendation 1.5.4 Conduct basal area analysis on the mature upland woods and the young woods every five years to monitor forest regeneration. Make recommendations on forest management based on the findings.

Recommendation 1.5.5 Conduct counts of orchids and other uncommon or rare plants in the Sifton Bog ESA every three to five years.

Implementation Rec. Priority Measures of Success Lead Cost Funding Source No. Long term vegetation changes documented and $15,000 City ESA Capital Budget 1.5.1 A increased understanding of impacts of development- City every 3 -5 (contract) related activities and ability to intervene if needed. yrs $1,000 per City ESA Capital Budget 1.5.2 A Maintenance of marsh/aquatic communities. City yr (contract) $1,000 per City ESA Capital Budget 1.5.3 A Maintenance of bog communities. City year (contract) Long-term success will be a positively regenerating forest and greater understanding of the stresses on the $2,000 every 1.5.4 C UTRCA UTRCA budget forest and an ability to intervene if needed to ensure 5 yrs forest regeneration. A long term record of rare or unusual species $5,000 every City ESA Capital Budget 1.5.5 A City populations and recommendations for management. 3-5 yrs. (contract)

94 Objective 1.6 – Manage Deer Populations A challenge to managing white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations in suburban and park environments, even when we have agreement on the need to control deer, is finding a method that is acceptable to a broad public, effective at decreasing deer numbers and applicable at reasonable cost (Cote et al. 2004; Porter et al. 2004).Resolving these issues involves discussion of human values, economic realities and ecological feasibilities (Porter 1997). Hunting and culling, translocation and contraception/sterilization methods all meet some of these criteria. Lethal methods have immediate effect; however, without knowing the dispersal rate of the population, the result may be very short-lived and likely need to be repeated. Non-lethal methods to control female fertility may be effective over a longer time period; however, they are time-consuming and costly and deer must be captured and ear-tagged for identification and subsequent booster injections. Depending on the goal for herd reduction, this method may not lower the density to required levels.

There is evidence of negative effects of an overabundant deer population on the ecology and health of Sifton Bog ESA, as examined in this Conservation Master Plan process. Indicators of stress include: • an increase of well-worn wildlife (deer) trails on the sensitive bog mat and throughout the ESA, often leading to the public using these trails and causing further damage to the bog mat; • increased quantities of deer droppings that may affect nutrient levels; • a shift in vegetation structure to a monoculture of buckthorn within swamp communities; • a reduction in the number of orchids and Pitcher Plants on the bog mat; and • a loss of spring wildflowers, shrubs and saplings in the upland forest communities. The absence of regeneration (saplings) threatens the future of these forest communities as old trees die without being replaced with new trees.

Many members of the LAC still strongly support the original recommendation of the White- tailed Deer Community Steering Committee – a recreational hunt to drastically reduce deer numbers – to protect the ecosystem of the ESA and stop damage to private property. The need, rationale, method, cost and efficacy of such a hunt was reported to Council in December 2005. Given the difficulty of carrying out a hunt in the middle of the City and no guarantee that a similar number of deer would not just return to the Bog the following year, Council did not support this recommendation. Council acknowledged that, while this action may address issues in and around Sifton Bog, even a yearly hunt at the bog would likely have no effect on the overall number of deer in the City, and other neighbourhoods would seek similar action to address their similar concerns.

The recommendations below are a balance of population-management strategies and monitoring tools to explore new and evolving deer management options for the City as well as for Sifton Bog.

Recommendation 1.6.1 Continue to implement the Council approved non-lethal deer management strategies including: • education and communication with neighbours as to how to deal with urban deer issues; • enforcement of no feeding of deer, as this only encourages high numbers of deer to remain in the Bog; • annual deer counts to track population trends; and • monitoring of all deer-human incidents (e.g., car collisions) to flag any significant trends.

Recommendation 1.6.2 Work with university academics on a deer exclosure study (now underway at Sifton Bog and other London ESAs) to assess the impact of deer browse on native vegetation communities within London’s natural areas. Examine the vegetation within and outside the exclosures for two or more years.

95 Recommendation 1.6.3 Evaluate the preliminary results of the deer exclosure study (Recommendation 1.6.2) and vegetation monitoring plots (Recommendations 1.5.1 and 1.5.4), yearly deer numbers and trends (annual counts since 2003), and the success of other management strategies to support a herd reduction as the only remaining feasible intervention to protect the unique ecosystem of Sifton Bog ESA by February 2010.

Recommendation 1.6.4 Continue to work with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources on issues related to urban deer management and control. Seek MNR advice and statistics on overall deer population trends in southwest Ontario and how the trends may affect deer populations in London in the coming years.

Implementation Rec. Priority Measures of Success Lead Agency Cost Funding Source No. No deer feeding, less garden damage and City and ESA Mg $15,000/yr for City ESA Capital 1.6.1 A better information on deer population trends Cte and ESA Mg deer counts Budget in and around Sifton Bog ESA. Team Quantifiable results of deer browse pressure on the various ESAs and vegetation communities, City and ESA Mg City ESA Capital 1.6.2 A $34,000 including the bog mat, and recommendations Cte Budget (contract) to address any negative impacts. Min. $50,000 A final recommendation and action plan to City and ESA Mg City ESA Capital 1.6.3 B annually for herd reduce deer browse impacts. Cte Budget reduction City ESA Capital Increased awareness of deer issues, strategies 1.6.4 B City $50,000 Budget (contract and population trends. wildlife biologist) Reduction in deer feeding and vegetation City and ESA Mg 1.6.5 A n/a City ESA Budget trampling at feeding sites. Team

96 Objective 1.7 – Maintain the Hydrological Balance and Water Quality of the Bog The long-term survival of the Sifton Bog is dependent upon maintaining a positive water balance and appropriate water levels in the acrotelm zone. The bog is ombrotrophic, meaning it has no permanent inlets or outlets and relies mainly on precipitation for water supply. The lagg zone receives water from surface runoff within the small catchment area. Contaminants can enter the bog from this surface runoff. In dry to typical years, the surface inputs are either processed by the perimeter lagg zone and swamp areas or are infiltrated rapidly through the Sphagnum layer. In excessively wet years, contaminants within the surface runoff move further out into the bog and cause localized changes (e.g., higher chloride levels detected at the north end of Redmond’s Pond). The stormwater management plan for the most recent development on Hyde Park Road has a built-in contingency measure that can allow more water into the lagg zone of the bog in the event that the water levels in Redmond’s Pond and the bog mat fall below the level of the acrotelm zone. The stormwater management ponds on the eastern tableland are designed to collect sediment that is carried in runoff. Containing the sediment helps to contain contaminants and deliver clean water to the lagg zone. Targets have been established for various environmental parameters.

Recommendation 1.7.1 Establish a Sifton Bog Water Monitoring Committee of agency staff and other hydrological experts to: a) Review and integrate the bog monitoring programs designed by BioLogic (2003) and McCormick Rankin (2003). Re-start monitoring of piezometers within the bog to track water levels and environmental variables (total phosphorus, nitrate, chloride, conductivity, calcium, pH). b) Integrate and revaluate current monitoring by UTRCA of the wells at the periphery of the site and of surface water at Redmond’s Pond. c) On an annual basis, compare the measured values to the target values, and identify the need for any contingency action.

Recommendation 1.7.2 a) Monitor wells 1 (1S, 1D) and 5 (5S, 5D) and water levels in Redmond’s Pond. b) Based on the information from (a) above, take action to maintain the difference between the static water level in the aquifer and the water level in Redmond’s Pond (i.e., Redmond’s Pond must be higher than the acquifer; typical difference is 0.25 - 1.00 m). The difference in water levels prevents contamination and ensures the continued recharge function of the bog and the processing of contaminants prior to reaching the sensitive communities in the Sphagnum bog mat. The monitoring program must be able to distinguish between natural variability in water levels and the role of adjacent development and road runoff from Oxford Street in influencing the quantity and quality of water entering the bog. c) Implement contingency measures if needed. Threshold values for environmental variables (total phosphorus, nitrate, chloride, conductivity, calcium, pH) that would trigger a response and contingency measures have been developed and approved (BioLogic 2002, McCormick Rankin 2003). Overall, it is anticipated that treated stormwater on the tablelands will improve inputs of environmental parameters if Marsh Trail subdivision road runoff is redirected or winter salting reduced or eliminated. The approved SWM pond plan redirects all road runoff away from the bog unless additional water is required in a drought year. Stormwater targets will be more critical in wet years when there is little difference in the static water levels between the bog and the aquifer. d) Produce annual reports summarizing the findings of the monitoring. Make the reports available on City and UTRCA websites.

97 Recommendation 1.7.3 Provide input into the Oxford Street widening project for the specific purpose of assessing and managing water runoff to the Sifton Bog ESA. Chloride loading should be minimized by keeping the extent of roadway draining to the bog to the minimum necessary to maintain the water balance (McCormick Rankin 2003), or by implementing management practices such as the use of beet extract or other salt substitutes, the use of oil-grit separators, or the creation of a stormwater management facility.

Recommendation 1.7.4 Encourage research on the potential impacts of climate change on the hydrology and vegetation of the bog.

Recommendation 1.7.5 In the future, following a proposal-specific assessment for Planning Unit PR3 (Figure 13), consider the possibility of directing potential post-development surface flows of comparable quality from this unit into the hydrological catchment of the bog to compensate for the loss of surface volumes from within the historical catchment.

Implementation Rec. Priority Measures of Success Lead Agency Cost Funding Source No. A well designed monitoring program to track UTRCA and $15,000 – City ESA Capital 1.7.1 A changes in water quantity and quality in the bog and City 25,000 Budget (contract) surrounding groundwater with annual reports. Reduced water contamination reaching the sensitive City ESA Capital 1.7.2 B City unknown bog mat. Budget (contract) Reduced chloride in surface and groundwater and a City Engineering 1.7.3 E City n/a positive water balance. Budget Increased knowledge about the potential impacts of 1.7.4 D climate change on the hydrology and vegetation of ESA Mg Cte n/a All the bog. No changes in surface water input as a result of 1.7.5 D Developer n/a Developer development of this parcel.

98 Objective 1.8 – Address the Threat of Fire Bogs are not fire-tolerant vegetation communities. Peat, once dry, can burn and smolder underground for considerable time, destroying centuries of peat development and releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Fire occurred in Sifton Bog on July 1st, 1988 and at that time firefighters were hampered by their lack of understanding of the ecosystem (e.g., how fire can remain under the surface, smoldering in the dry peat layers) and the distance to fire hydrants.

Recommendation 1.8.1 Request the London Fire Department, in consultation with the City and UTRCA, produce a contingency plan in case of fire in the Sifton Bog ESA (especially peat areas). Share this information with the neighbours by posting the report on the UTRCA and City websites, and adding this information to the “Living Next to Natural Areas” brochure so that people know who to call.

Implementation Rec. Funding Priority Measures of Success Lead Agency Cost No. Source City, 1.8.1 B A contingency plan to control fires in the bog. n/a n/a City Fire Department

99 8.2.2 Goal 2 -- Develop an Access and Use Plan that Minimizes Human Impact

Objective 2.1 – Develop and Maintain a Minimal, Well-marked and Safe Trail System and Associated Access Points Sifton Bog ESA is a popular site for nature appreciation, walking and hiking. To minimize negative effects, it is important to limit the number of trails and access points. Ideally, trails should be strategically aligned so that visitors may enjoy the uniqueness of the place in the safest and least intrusive manner. The current trail system (Map 9a) forms the basis of the Conceptual Trail and Access Plan (Map 9b).

Recommendation 2.1.1 Adopt the following Guiding Principles for Trails at Sifton Bog: • Add no new trails within the bog mat and swamp. • Avoid moving trails to areas of large wildlife trees that would have to be removed because of safety hazard. • On managed trails, to minimize disturbance, provide boardwalks in wet/sensitive areas. • Follow professional trail construction standards and methods, especially regarding appropriate slopes on erosion-prone soils. • Adopt a long term goal of having significant portion of ESA unpenetrated by trails to ensure a large undisturbed area for wildlife. • Avoid Y-intersections in order to minimize trail footprint. • Where a trail is to be re-routed, ensure the old route is effectively closed simultaneously with opening of the new route.

Recommendation 2.1.2 Formalize and implement the Conceptual Trail and Access Plan provided in Map 9b, in consultation with the City, UTRCA, and community stakeholders. The Plan includes the following elements: a) Educational kiosks and bike racks • Create educational kiosks and provide bicycle racks at three major access points: Oxford Street, Naomee Place, Old Hyde Park Road. Build bike barriers at all access points, except the Oxford Street entrance to the boardwalk to enable strollers and wheelchairs to access the bog boardwalk. b) Naomee Place Access • Move entrance to avoid steep terrain and maximize distance from property lines. • Improve and shorten the trail between access points 6 and 4 (Naomee Place and Havenwood Way) by incorporating a boardwalk through the swamp and closing down longer trails. • Close all unmanaged trails as alternative routes are developed. Barricade closed trails by installing fence posts, laying logs and branches on the former trail. c) East-West Trail • Maintain and improve the major east-west trail that runs between Havenwood Way and Old Hyde Park Road. Realign the trail in specific areas as needed for safety. Actual trail alignment to be determined on-site with ecologists, park planners and other staff. The map shows only major trail routes. • Close all unmanaged trails. d) Oxford Street Entrance • If the land to the east is acquired, develop an entrance plan that will place the parking lot and entrance away from erosion-prone areas. If the lands are not immediately acquired, control of erosion and water from Oxford Street needs to be addressed. e) North-South Trail • If the land on which the north-south trail runs is acquired by the city, manage this trail to the same level as current trails within the ESA and realign slightly as needed to avoid sensitive or dangerous areas. Avoid creating new trails where possible.

100 Recommendation 2.1.3 Evaluate and assess the proposed alignment of a bike path (paved) east of the ESA on table land, perhaps next to the sidewalk on the west side of Hyde Park Road or on Old Hyde Park Road, to connect the City’s bikeway system and provide linkages to Sifton Bog and neighbourhouds. This project is part of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and the responsibility of Parks Planning & Design and Transportation Division.

Recommendation 2.1.4 Maintain an appropriate trail marking and guiding system (e.g., blazes, trail names such as the Dr. Judd Boardwalk).

Recommendation 2.1.5 Continue to maintain the safety of the trails through boardwalk repairs, removal of tree hazards (e.g., dead trees at risk of falling on the trail), removal of obstacles on the trails, permitted- activity signage, etc.

Recommendation 2.1.6 a) Request that the City amend its Parks By-law to include provision that ESAs can be designated pet-free zones. Further request that Sifton Bog be so designated and that dogs (and cats), both on and off leash, be prohibited in the ESA. b) Conduct before-after control-impact study for any new trails to study the impact of dogs on wildlife.

Implementation Rec. Priority Measures of Success Lead Cost Funding Source No. City ESA Capital 2.1.1 A No new trails created and sensitive trail design ESA Mg Cte n/a Budget Fewer unmanaged trails and a well-respected City and City ESA Capital 2.1.2 A or B trail and access system that minimizes impacts Transportation $50,000 Budget on the environment. Division An assessment of the feasibility of a bike path to City Parks and City ESA Capital 2.1.3 B $4,000 create a bicycle accessible ESA. Transportation Dept Budget 2.1.4 B A well marked safe trail system ESA Mg Team n/a City ESA Budget 2.1.5 B A low-impact trail system. ESA Mg Team n/a City ESA Budget Reduced conflict with dogs and users and City ESA Capital 2.1.6 E City and ESA MG Cte unknown reduced impact from dogs on plants and wildlife. Budget (contract)

101 8.2.3 Goal 3 – Encourage Awareness and Environmental Education

Objective 3.1 Promote Research, Education and Awareness Sifton Bog offers an environmental experience that is unique in London and southwestern Ontario. It is a disjunct boreal landscape within the Carolinian Life Zone. By encouraging appropriate research within the ESA’s boundaries, the City and UTRCA may learn more about the site’s functions and ways to preserve it. Educating citizens and students about the bog and its formation will foster appreciation and a conservation ethic.

Recommendation 3.1.1 Continue to develop on-site and in-class education programs and materials related to the bog that are geared to the various grade levels and curricula. Consider developing education programs for other areas of the ESA such as the Silver Maple swamps and upland forests.

Recommendation 3.1.2 Continue to encourage and allow responsible research in the bog (e.g., studies on vegetation, insects, climate change).

Recommendation 3.1.3 Where feasible, involve high school students in monitoring, or invasive-species removal that would count towards community service hours.

Recommendation 3.1.4 Make available an updated “Living Next to Sifton Bog ESA” brochure and provide additional information on the UTRCA and/or City of London website (see 1.2.3).

Implementation Rec. Funding Priority Measures of Success Lead Cost No. Source Continued education programs held at the ESA for UTRCA, local school $500 – 3.1.1 B Foundations hands-on learning experience. boards, individuals 15,000 D Ongoing research projects being undertaken in the ESA 3.1.2 Academics, students n/a n/a and increased understanding of the unique habitats. D Additional assistance with studies and increased City, UTRCA 3.1.3 n/a partnerships awareness of the students. City ESA 3.1.4 D Increased public knowledge about the ESA. UTRCA n/a Capital Budget 3.1.5 See 1.2.3 See 1.2.3

102 Objective 3.2 Involve the Community in Ecological Restoration Efforts and Projects Establish and promote partnerships with all stakeholder groups for the betterment of the Sifton Bog ESA.

Recommendation 3.2.1 Encourage neighbours and users of the ESA to undertake “neighbourhood watch” type activities and report any vandalism or encroachment to the City or UTRCA.

Recommendation 3.2.2 Examine the feasibility of using Westervelt College police students in a voluntary or work experience capacity to help with regular surveillance of London’s ESAs and/or to assist with perimeter safety and enforcement if a deer herd reduction is ever approved.

Recommendation 3.2.3 Support the volunteer “Friends of Sifton Bog” group to assist with community input and outreach and projects and fundraising for special projects.

Recommendation 3.2.4 When and where appropriate, encourage community involvement (e.g., neighbours, students) in such activities as: • planting or seeding projects (after deer numbers are reduced), • garbage clean up days, • buckthorn control, • assistance in closing old trails by making them look less like trails, and • erecting deer-proof fencing in trial plots.

Implementation Rec. Funding Priority Measures of Success Lead Cost No. Source 3.2.1 C Increased awareness and knowledge. UTRCA and City n/a n/a Better surveillance and practical experience for 3.2.2 E UTRCA and City n/a n/a students, and budget savings. 3.2.3 C Active volunteers and projects. UTRCA and City n/a n/a Active and positive participation in Sifton Bog City ESA 3.2.4 C ESA Mg Team and City n/a projects. Budget

103

Bibliography

Applegate Groundwater Consultants. 1998. Report of Probe Holes in Sifton Bog.

Applegate Groundwater Consultants. 1999. The Sifton Bog Monitoring Program Groundwater Component London, Ontario. Prepared for BioLogic May 2001.

Applegate Groundwater Consultants. 2000. Sifton Bog Monitoring Infiltration Test. February 9, 2000.

Bazely, D.R., and R.L. Jeffries. 1986. “Lesser Snow Greese and the nitrogen economy of a grazed salt marsh.” J. Ecol. 77: 24-34.

Bergsma, Bonnie, Cathy Quinlan and Brenda Gallagher. Field Notes, Sifton Bog ESA, July 11, 2006 and September 14, 2006. City of London, UTRCA.

Bergsma, Bonnie, and Bill DeYoung. 2007. Paradox of the Natural in Urban Parks. In press. Parks Research Forum of Ontario, April 4-5, 2007, University of Waterloo.

BioLogic. 1999. Proposed Stormwater Management Targets Oxford/Hyde Park Lands. Drewlo Holdings Inc. and Don Crich, London ON.

BioLogic. 2001. Summary data from monitoring stations associated with Crich/Drewlo development lands. City of London Parks Planning & Design.

BioLogic. 2002. Proposed Stormwater Management Targets Oxford/Hyde Park Lands, Final Report. Prepared for Drewlo Holdings Inc. and Don Crich, London, Ontario.

Bradwill Ecological Consulting. 2008 (draft). Containment Strategy for Common (European) Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Summary Report for Park Projects, 2007-2008.

Bunting, M. Jane, Clayton R. Morgan, Mark Van Bakel, and Barry G. Warner. 1998. “Pre- European settlement conditions and human disturbance of a coniferous swamp in southern Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Botany, 76: 1770-1779.

Cestra, Christie. 2008. Assessing the impact of browsing by White-tailed deer on tree regeneration in Southwestern Ontario. April 21, 2008. York University.

Cestra, C., and D. Bazely. 2008. Field Notes, Deer Exclosure Study.

City of London. 2006. City of London Official Plan.

Clymo, R.S. 1964. “The Origin of Acidity in Sphagnum Bogs.” The Bryologist, 67: 427-430.

Colozza, Frank. 1987. Unpublished Master’s thesis on groundwater chemistry. University of Western Ontario.

Cook, Frank S. 1971. “The Distribution of Mosses in the Byron Bog, Southwestern Ontario.” The Michigan Botanist, 10: 14-18.

Cote, Steve D., Thomas P. Rooney, Jean-Pierre Tremblay, Christine Dussault and Donald M. Waller. 2004. “Ecological Impacts of Deer Overabundance.” Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35: 113-47.

105 Crawford, Margaret. 1926. Some Studies on the Byron Bog with Special Reference to Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.) Moench. M.A. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, AS42.l8C8.

Crawley, M.J. 1983. Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions. Blackwell Scientific. Oxford, UK.

Crawley, M.J. 1990. “Rabbit Grazing, Plant Competition and Seedling Recruitment in Acid Grassland.” J. Appl. Ecol., 27: 803-820.

Damman, A.W.H. 1987 “Distribution and movement of elements in ombrotrophic peat bogs.” Oikos, 30: 480-495. Copenhagen.

Damman, Antoni W.H. 1990. “Nutrient status of ombrotrophic peat bogs.” Aquilo Ser. Botanica Tom., 28: 5-14.

Dearness, John. Circa 1890. “The Cyperaceae of Middlesex County.” The Ont. Nat. Sc. Bulletin, 3: 18-22.

Dearness, John. Circa 1890. “The Orchidaceae of Middlesex County.” The Ont. Nat. Sc. Bulletin, 1: 33-34.

Delcourt, H.R., P.A. Delcourt and T. Webb. 1983. “Dynamic Plant Ecology: The spectrum of vegetation change in space and time.” Quaternary Science Review.

Dempster, A., P. Ellis, B. Wright, M. Stone and J. Price. 2006. “Hydrogeological evaluation of a Southern Ontario kettle-hole peatland and its linkage to a regional aquifer.” Wetlands, 26(1): 49-56. The Society of Wetland Scientists.

Deming, Edward. Deming PDCA cycle for continuous quality improvement. Adapted from 1920s.

DeNicola, Anthony J., Kurt C. VerCauteren, Paul D. Curtis and Scott E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing White-tailed Deer in Suburban Environments: A Technical Guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension Media and Technology Services.

Department of Planning and Development. May 24, 1945. Aerial Photograph 745-45, 16. Scale 1000ft=1 inch. Focal length: 8 ¼ inches. Parliament Buildings, Toronto.

Dillon Consulting and Golder Associates. 2004. Middlesex-Elgin Groundwater Study. Middlesex and Elgin Counties. Project No. 02-0394. Submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited in association with Golder Associates Ltd.

Dreimanis, A., C.G. Winder and R.A. Aaltonen. 1998. London, Ontario: Geology, Geomorphology, Geodata. Geological Association of Canada. Geology of Canadian Cities.

Falls, J.B., I.D. MacDonald and T.J. Beechy. 1990. Catalogue of IBP/CT Areas in Ontario with an Assessment of their Current Conservation Status. Unpublished Report, 94 pp.

Felix, Alexandra B., Henry Campa III, Kelly F. Millenbah, Scott R. Winterstein and William E. Moritz. 2004. “Development of landscape-scale habitat-potential models for forest wildlife planning and management.” Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(3): 795-806.

Ferguson, Denise Uretta. 1996. The Use of Integrated Resource Management in Urban Natural Areas: The Sifton Bog Case Study. Honours B.A. Thesis. Wilfred Laurier University.

10 6 Frelich, L.E., and C.G. Lorimer. 1985. “Current and predicted long-term effects of deer browsing in hemlock forest in Michigan, USA.” Biol. Conserv., 34: 99-120.

Gartner Lee Limited. 1979. Detailed Hydrogeological Study Final Report: Sifton Bog. For Proctor and Redfern Limited, Markham, Ontario.

Gartner Lee Limited. 1993. Environmental Impact Study: Crich/Drewlo Property, Sifton Bog, London. Prepared for Crich Holdings, Drewlo Holdings Inc., and c/o Plancan Associates.

Gartner Lee Limited. 1995. Evnironmental Impact Study, Norquay Property, Sifton Bog. Prepared by Bonnie Bergsma.

Givelet, Nicolas, Fiona Roos-Barraclough and William Shotyk. 2003. “Predominant Athropogenic Sources and Rates of Atmospheric Mercury Accumulation in Southern Ontario Recorded by Peat Cores from Three Bogs: Comparison with Natural “Background” Values (past 8000 years).” J. Environ. Monit., 5: 935-949.

Golder Associates Ltd. 1992. Sifton Bog Integrated Resource Management Study: Hydrogeological Evaluation. London, Ontario.

Graham, R. 1987. Vegetation Distribution in the Sifton Bog: Field Sampling Scheme and Vegetation Data from 90 Quadrats at the Sifton Bog. Unpublished Thesis, University of Western Ontario.

Hare, F.K., and J.C. Ritchie. 1972. “The Boreal Bioclimates.” Geogr. Rev., 62: 334-365.

Havinga, Donna, and the Ontario Invasive Plants Working Group. 2000. Sustaining Biodiversity: A Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Plants in Southern Ontario. City Forester, City of Toronto, Parks and Recreation, [email protected].

Hebda, R.J., K. Gustavson, K. Golinski and A.M. Calder, 2000. Burns Bog Ecosystem Review Synthesis Report for Burns Bog, Fraser River Delta, South-western British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Assessment Office, Victoria, B.C.

Heneghan, L., F. Fatemi, L. Umek, K. Grady, K. Fagen and M. Workman. 2006. “The invasive shrub European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) alters soil properties in Midwestern US woodlands.” Applied Soil Ecology, 32: 142-148.

Hilts, S.G. 1977. Byron Bog. Natural Areas in London, Ontario: Towards an Appreciation. Report of the London Ecological Site Survey, produced under the auspices of a Young Canada Works grant and a grant from the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, conducted May 16 to August 19, 1977.

Houlahan, Jeff E., and C. Scott Findlay. 2004. “Effect of Invasive Plant Species on Temperate Wetland Plant Diversity.” Conservation Biology, 18(4): 1132-1138.

Houlahan, Jeff, E., Paul A. Keddy, Kristina Makkay and C. Scott Findlay. 2006. “The Effects of Adjacent Land Use on Wetland Species Richness and Community Compositions.” Wetlands, 26(1): 79-96.

Judd, W.W. 1957. “Studies of the Byron Bog in Southwestern Ontario. 1. Description of the Bog.” Canadian Entomologist, 89: 235-238.

Judd, W.W. 1966. “Studies of the Byron Bog in Southwestern Ontario (XXVI): Distribution of Shrubs and Vines.” Michigan Botanist, 5: 51-56.

107 Judd, W.W. 1967. “Studies of the Byron Bog in Southwestern Ontario. Distribution of club- mosses and ferns.” Cdn. Field-Nat., 81(2): 110-113.

Judd, W.W. 1967. Letters, in The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 81(3): 232-233.

Judd, W.W. 1968. “Preservation of the Byron Bog in London.” Biological Conservation, 1(1): 84-85.

Judd, W.W. 1969. “Studies of the Byron Bog in southwestern Ontario (XL): Distribution of Sphagnum mosses.” Michigan Botanist, 8: 167-170.

Judd, W.W. 1985. Historical Account of Byron Bog (Sifton Botanical Bog) London Ontario. Phelps Publishing Co., London, Ontario.

Judd, W.W. 2000. Diary of William Judd: Sifton Botanical Bog (Byron Bog) London, Ontario 1994-1999. Phelps Publishing Co., London, Ontario.

Kavanagh, Kevin, and Sheila McKay-Kuja. 1992. A Classification of the Natural Communities Occurring in Ontario with Particular Reference to the Carolinian Zone and the Great Lakes Shores. Working Draft August 5, 1992. Carolinian Canada and Great Lakes Conservation Data Centre Projects.

Kilham, Peter. 1982. “The Biogeochemistry of Bog Ecosystems and the Chemical Ecology of Sphagnum.” The Michigan Botanist, 21: 159-168.

Larsen, James. 1980. The Boreal Ecosystem. Academic Press.

Larsen, James A. 1982. Ecology of the Northern Lowland Bogs and Conifer Forests. Academic Press, New York.

Laurance W., T. Lovejoy, H. Vasconcelos, E. Bruna, R. Didham, P. Stouffer, C. Gascon, R. Bierregaard, S. Laurance and E. Sampiao. 2002. Ecosystem Decay of Amazonian Forest Fragments: A 22-Year Investigation. Conservation Biology,16(3): 605-618.

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

Lenth, Benjamin E., and Richard L. Knight. 2008. “The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities.” Natural Areas Journal, 28(3 ): 218-227.

London Public Utilities Commission. Circa 1980. Exploring the Littoral of the Sifton Botanical Bog. Brochure.

London Waterworks Commission. 1896. Report. Engineer’s Report.

Luckman, Brian. 2007. In Press. Dendrochronological Analysis of Black Spruce and Tamarack at Sifton Bog. University of Western Ontario.

Lundgren, Marjorie R., Christine J. Small and Glenn D. Dreyer. 2004. “Influence of land use and site characteristics on invasive plant abundance in the Quinebaug Highlands of Southern New England.” Northeastern Naturalist, 11(3): 313-332.

Marin, Luis E., Timothy K. Kratz and Carl J. Bowser. 1990. “Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Hydrogeochemistry of a Poor Fen in Northern Wisconsin.” Biogeochemistry, 11: 63 - 76.

10 8 McCormick Rankin Corporation. 1999. Stormwater Management Strategy – Lands Draining to the Sifton Bog. City of London, Drewlo Holdings Inc. & Crich Holdings and Building Ltd.

McCormick Rankin Corporation. 2003. Stormwater Management Plan Functional Design – Oxford Street and Hyde Park Road: Lands Draining to the Sifton Bog. Prepared for Drewlo Holdings Inc. and Crich Holdings and Building Ltd.

McCullough, D.E. 1984. “Lessons from the George Reserve, Michigan.” In I.K. Halls (ed.) 1984. White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Wildlife Management Institute, Stackpole Books, Harrington, PA. 870 pp.

McLeod, D., M. Oldham, S. Rake, J. Haggeman and R. Klea. 1989. Wetland Data Record and Evaluation – Sifton Botanical Bog. Second Edition. May 23, 1985 and October 3 & 26, 1989. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Manuscript. 23 pp + 3 maps + 12 pp.

McLeod, David. 1992. Sifton Bog Integrated Resource Management Study, Life Science Inventory. Project sponsors: UTRCA, London Public Utilities Commission, PlanCan (on behalf of private sector participants).

Merrill, Evelyn H., Hawthorne L. Beyer, George P. Jones and Gregory W. McDaniel. 2003. “Deciduous Woodland Conservation under Heavy Deer Browsing on Devols Tower National Monument, USA.” Journal for Nature Conservation, 10: 221-232.

Middlesex-London Health Unit. Website: www.healthunit.com.

Miller, Raymond O. 2005. Regenerating Quaking Aspen on a site dominated by Buckthorn in Upper Michigan: A Case Study. Michigan State University, Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Website: www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/ julaug04/fngarlicmustard.html.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Ed. Van Nostrand Reinbhold. 722 pp.

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). Website: http:// nhic.mnr.ogv.on.ca/nhic.cfm.

Nicks, Linda, Bonnie Bergsma and Ted Briggs. 2003. “The Sustainable Management of an Urban Wetland: Can Urban Development and Wetlands Co-exist?” Paper presented at the June 2003 Conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association titled Water Stewardship: How are we Managing?

Northeast Deer Technical Committee. 2008. An Evaluation of Deer Management Options. April 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System for Southern Ontario. As amended.

OMNR. 2000. A Silvicultural Guide for Managing Southern Ontario Forests, Version 1.1. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 648 pp.

OMNR, 1989. Rondeau Provincial Park Preliminary Management Plan. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

10 9 OMNR. 2006. Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario.

Orloci, Laszlo. 1970. “Analysis of Vegetation Samples Based on the Use of Information.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 29: 173-189.

Ovanin, Viera. 2007. “The Butterfly Whisperer’s Little Friends.” Sun Media. In The London Free Press, July 9, 2007.

Pellerin, Stephanie, Jean Huot and Steve D. Cote. 2006. “Long term effects of deer browsing and trampling on the vegetation of peatlands.” Biological Conservation, 128: 316-326.

Porter, William F. 1997. “Ignorance, arrogance, and the process of managing overabundant deer.” Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(2):408-412.

Porter, William F., H. Brian Underwood and Jennifer L. Woodard. 2004. “Movement Behaviour, Dispersal and the Potential for Localized Management of Deer in a Suburban Environment.” Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(2): 247-356.

Proctor and Redfern Limited. 1979. Environmental Appraisal of Proposed Development Property Adjacent to Sifton Bog. Two Volumes. Prepared for Eadie and Willcock Ltd., London, Ontario.

Ranta, Bruce. 2007. “Deer Hunting 2007: Let the Good Times Roll.” Ontario Out of Doors, February 2007 Issue.

Riley, J.L. 1988. Peat and Peatland Resources of Southeastern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report #5633. 283 pp.

Robinson, Lillian. Circa 1911. Nature Study Scrapbook. Personal scrapbook handed down through the family, now held by Winifred Wake of London, Ontario.

Rochette, B., A. Gingras and F. Potvin. 2003. Inventaire aérien du cerf de Virginie de l’île d’Anticosti – Été 2001. Societé de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Québec.

Rondeau, Daniel, and Jon M. Conrad. 2003. “Managing urban deer.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 85(1): 266-281.

Rooney, Thomas P., and Donald M. Waller. 2003. “Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems.” Forest Ecology and Management, 181:165-176.

Rooney, Thomas P., Shannon M. Wiegmann, David A. Rogers and D. M. Waller. 2004. “Biotic Impoverishment and Homogenization in Unfragmented Forest Understorey Communities.” Conservation Biology, 18(3): 787-798.

Ruhren, Scott, and Steven N. Handel. 2003. “Herbivory Constrains Survival, Reproduction and Mutualisms When Restoring Nine Temperate Forest Herbs.” Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 130(1): 34-42.

Schmidt, K.A., and C.J. Whelan. 1999. “Effects of Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation.” Conservation Biology, 13(6): 1502-1505.

Sifton Bog White-tailed Deer Community Steering Committee. 2003. Final Report of the Sifton Bog White-tailed Deer Community Steering Committee, February 2003. City of London and UTRCA.

110 Small, J. P., R. McBurney and S. MacFabe. 1977. Byron (Sifton Botanical Bog) – The Significnat Sensitive Areas of Middlesex County. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Spearing, A.M. 1972. “Cation-exchange Capacity and Galacturonic Acid Content of Several Species of Sphagnum in Sandy Ridge Bog, Central New York State.” Bryol., 75: 154- 148.

Stinson K.A., S.A. Campbell, J.R. Powell, B.E. Wolfe and R.M. Callaway. 2006. “Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms.” PLoS Biol., 4(5). E140. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040140.

Strobl, Silvia. 1999. “Glossy buckthorn treatments tested (Ontario).” Ecological Restoration, 17(1&2): 88-89.

Theberge, John B. (ed.). 1989. Legacy: The Natural History of Ontario. McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto.

Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecologial Society of America. 2003. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region. Website: www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes.

United States Geological Survey. Website: http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/index.html.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 1973. Twenty-five years of Conservation on the Upper Thames Watershed 1947 - 1973.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 1992. Sifton Bog Integrated Resource Management Study, Summary Report. Project sponsors: UTRCA, London Public Utilities Commission, PlanCan (on behalf of private sector participants).

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services. 2008. Environmental Assessment White-tailed Deer Damage Management in Ohio. Nov. 3, 2008.

Viera, Vanessa. 2003. Long-term Effects of White-tailed Deer on the Structure and Composition of Heavily Browsed Boreal Plant Communities on Anticosti Island. L’Université Laval, Maîtrise en biologie, Département des biologie, Faculté des Sciences et de genie. Website: www.theses.ulaval.ca/2003/21004/ch02.html.

Waldron, Gerry. 1972. International Biological Programme, Checksheet for Region 5, Area 259: Sifton Botanical Bog.

Waldron, G., B. Larsen, S. Aboud, J. Gerrath and H. Kleb. 1998. Pre-development monitoring of 13 geo-referenced 10 x 10 m vegetation plots in the Sifton Bog. Prepared for BioLogic 2000.

Wake, Winifred, and Bob McGee. 2006. “Getting to Know our Local Wetlands.” In The Cardinal, No. 203, April 2006. McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, Ontario Inc.

Warner, Barry G., Helen J. Kubiw and Karen I. Hanf. 1989. “An anthropogenic cause for quaking mire formation in southwestern Ontario.” Nature, 340: 380-384.

Warner, B.G. 2004. “Geology of Canadian Wetlands.” GeoScience Canada, 31(2): 57-68.

Whitfield, Paul H., Richard J. Hebda, John K. Jeglum and Sarah Howie. 2006. “Restoring the natural hydrology of Burns Bog, Delta, British Columbia – The key to the bog’s ecological recovery.” Water under Pressure. Proceedings of the CWRA Conference, Vancouver, October 2006, pp. 58-70.

111 Appendices Wilcox, D.A. 1985. “The effects of de-icing salts on water chemistry in Pinhook Bog, Indiana.” Water Resources Bulletin, 22: 57-65.

Wilcox, D.A. 1986. “The effects of de-icing salts on vegetation in Pinhook Bog, Indiana. “Canadian Journal of Botany, 64: 865-874.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Invasive Species: Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). Website: www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/fact/buckthorn_gloss.htm.

Wu, Qiang. 1989. Quantitative Analysis of theVegetation of Sifton Bog. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Western Ontario.

Personal Communications

Bazely, Dr. Dawn. York University, Department of Biology.

Bergsma, Bonnie. Ecologist, City of London.

Dickinson, Rosemary. Neighbour of Sifton Bog and member of Friends of Sifton Bog.

Keyghobadi, Dr. Nusha. University of Western Ontario, Department of Biology.

Knox, Michael. Environmentally Significant Areas Management Team, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Schwindt, John. Aquatic Biologist, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Tchir, Tara. Ecologist, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Williamson, Brandon. ESA Management Team, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

112