MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM A Project of the D~ct Municipality of MUlkoka and the MUlkoka Heritage Foundation 10 Pine Street, Bracebrldge, Ontatlo P1 L 1N3

RESULTS

OF \ 1991

FIELD PROGRAM

MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM REPORT NO. 2

RESULTS OF THE 1991 FIELD PROGRAM

Ron Reid Bonnie Bergsma Bob Bowles Adr i ane Po 11ard Dan Whittam Andrew White

February 1992

The Heritage Areas Program is sponsored by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, with major financial support from the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING ... 1

2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM ... 6

3. RECOMMENDATIONS .. 17

RECOMMENDED NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS 8;g East River .. 20 Novar Bog .. 36 Axe Lake .. 43 Lewisham wetlands ,.. 48 Jevins Lake .. 54 Br itann·; a Es k e r . . 5 9 Beaumont Bay Carbonates .. 64 Dwight Bog .. 71

OTHER SITES OF INTEREST .. 76 LITERATURE CITED .. 83 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING: The Muskoka Heritage Areas Program was established to identify the best examples of the Distrlct's natural and cultural heritage, using a systematic, objective evaluation process, and to seek mechanisms for the protection of these heritage landscapes. 1991 was the second year of a planned three-year program, with field activities relating to natural heritage features, both biotic and abiotic. Evaluation of cultural heritage wi 11 begin in 1992. This report provides a preliminary analys;'s of the significance o~ candidates studied in 1991 by the Heritage Areas field crew. The final evaluation of all candidates will take place late in 1992, after field work has been completed. A review of technical measures such as regional rarity of species, the 'diversity/area index, and the percentage of introdu~ed species will be carried out in preparation for this final evaluation. Evaluation of heritage areas is guided by a series of selection criteria, approved by District Council in March 199q after review by various agency staff and interest groups. (Table 1) Program direction is provided by a Technical Steering Committee, with representation from the District Municipality, the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, the Ministry of Natural Resources Bracebridge District and Algonquin Region. The 1991 field program had two major components: i) A joint earth sc;ence program was carried out by the Ontario Geological Survey, with participation by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the District Municipality of Muskoka. This program mapped surficial geological deposits and evaluated landform features for inclusion in the "Heritage Areas Program and the provincial Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest program. OOS field work is ·direc·ted Andy Bajc. Total co~t of the two-year program is appro~imately $140,000. F;.W mapp;ng was completed for the Huntsville and Br.eebr;dge map sheets in 1990; 1991 work covered the Gravenhurst and Penetanguishene sheets, to provide complete coverage for the District. The results of the 1991 mapping will be published by the' Ontario Geological Survey in the spring of 1992. As well, the ·OOS will provide a sunmary document of

- 1 ­ surficial geology in Muskoka, together with their recommendations on candidate areas for protection. This report is expected early in 1992. i;) The second year of the biological field program, at a cost of approximately $120,000, was co-sponsored by the District Municipality and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation. Additional support for this program included: * Funding provided through the Regional Parks and Recreational Areas program of the Ministry of Natural Resources; * The secondment of a knowledgable local field naturalist from Ontario Hydro for part of the field season, along with a support vehicle; * The provision of an Environmental Youth Corps grant from the Ontario Ministry of Environment to hire two field assistants and one data input person;

* A three-year grant provided by Wildlife Habitat Canada to assist with landowner contact. and stewardship components of the program. * A,Natural Heritage Grant provided by the Ontario Heritage Foundation to assist in carrying out studies along the Georgian Bay coast; * Financial support provided for the Severn River corridor study by the County of S~mcoe, Ministry of Natural Resources Southern Region, and Canadian Parks Service.

The 1991 biological field· program included three components: a) Severn River Corridor study: . A contracted study" carried out by the consulting firm Gartner Lee, examined nine candidate areas on both sides of ta.. Severn River. As well, the consultants examined the length of the River to document the presence of speci.l flor;stic elements, particularly aquatic and prairie yegetation 'features.

- 2 ­ b) Georgian Bay study: A contracted study carried out by Geomatics International examined ten candidate areas in Georgian Bay Township. c) Heritage Areas Field Crew: A seasonal field crew based in Bracebridge carried out field work on fifteen candidate areas, plus initial reconnaissance of another nine areas. Results of this field work is included in this report. Field staff for 1991 included: Project Coordinator: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises Field Biologists: Bob Bowles Bonnie Bergsma Field Assistants: Adriane Pollard Dan Whittam Data Input: Andrew White

Field work was also assisted on several occasions by the volunteer input of Bill Crins, Jim Goltz, Barrie Malloch, Jan McDonnell, Bob Whittam, and several members of the Muskoka Field Naturalists.

- 3 ­ Table DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS SELECTION CRITERIA January 1990 ABIOTIC CRITERIA: Objective: To identify a system of physical landscapes that incorporate the full diversity of bedrock, surficial, and aqu~tic landform types and features within Muskoka. 1. The area has landform features or elements that are distinctive or unusual in the District, Ontario, or Canada. 2. The area is representative of at least one landform type, process, or phase of development not adequately represented within existing protected areas. 3. The area exhibits unusually high diversity of landform features or types. 4.· The area contributes to regional hydrological systems through ground or surface water storage or protection or enhancement of water quality.

BIOTIC CRITERIA: Objective: To identi,fy in a systematic way the best examples of the full range of Muskoka's biological heritage, including both aquatic and terrestrial habitats critical to the survival or healthy populations of native wild ·species. . 1. The area is representative of at least one biotic community type not adequately represented within existing protected areas. 2. The area exhibits high diversity of native flora and fauna, either at the species or community level,. 3. The area contains biotic communities of unusually high quality or showing little recent disturbance, or remnants of community types greatly reduced from their earlier distribution.

- 4 ­ 4. The area provides habitat for species of plants or animals that are rare, threatened, or endangered in the District, Ontario, or Canada. 5. The area serves as a breeding,· shelter, or feeding site for seasonal concentrations of wildlife or fish. 6. The area is large enough to support species requiring extensive undisturbed habitats, or provides linkages between other significant natural areas.

CULTURAL CRITERIA: Objective: To identify a system of significant cultural landscapes and features within Muskoka, including historic and contemporary elements. 1. The area is representative of an historic or prehistoric theme or process significant to the development of Muskoka. . 2. The area contains sites or landscapes associated with well-known events or people, or distinctive ethnic groups. 3. The area contains buildings, artifacts, travel routes, or landscape patterns of relative antiquity or duration.

4. The area exhibits cultural charact~ristics unusual or unique to Muskoka, possessing high artistic values, or embodying distinctive examples of a type, period, or method of construction. 5. The area contains elements that reflect the distinctive values, attitudes, traditions, and lifeways of the people of Muskoka. 6. The area has high archaeological potential, or known -archaeological significance. 1. The area contains sites or landscapes with patterns of form, line, colour, or texture that together present outstanding scenic value.

- 5 ­ 2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM: 2.1 Selection of Candidate study Areas:

Candidate study areas wer~ selected on the basis of:

i) local knowledge of signif~cant or interesting features; i;) previous records of rare species from the National Museum Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants, the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary, or the 'Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas; iii) distinctive or unusual landform features which could be combined with potential biotic significance; iv) representation of biotic types not adequately represented within existing protected areas; v) candidates identified during previous studies for potential park status, ANSI designation, or Atlantic coastal plain species.

2.2 Boundary Delineation: Tentative site boundaries were established using air photo analysis and preliminary site visits. Boundaries were refined and confirmed during field study, with buffer zones incorporated where necessary to protect sensitive ecological areas. On the individual Heritage Area maps, buffers have been noted with broken dash lines. Although final bounda~y and buffer delineation was made on Ontario Base Maps at a 1:10,000 scale, all boundaries must be considered as approximate.

In defining boundaries, the following gu,del~nes were' used:, ;) boundaries should incorporate the full range of natural heritage features present;

ii) boundaries should follow the edge ~f significant g~ological features-or habitat types; iii) where no habitat boundary is apparant, boundaries should follow watershed or sub­ watersh~d l1mits, ridges, or other distinctive

- 6 ­ topographical features;

iv) where appropriate, boundaries should fo11ow cultural delineations s~ch as roads, railways, or hydro lines;

v) in some cases, boundaries may be ~nf:~~~ced by property boundaries, particularly between Crown and private lands, although this is a secondary consideration; vi) boundaries should generally exclude developed and agricultural areas, a.lthough scattered residences or cottages may occasionally be included within large candidates; vii) minor intrusions of other habitats should be incorporated if they have a direct or indirect ecological influence on the ~rea. 2.3 Data Collection: Field Coverage: Candidate areas considered most significant on the basis of existing information received the most intensive field work. Field work was oriented to provide a visit early in the season, a second site visit during the bird breeding season, and a third visit in late summer to provide more complete botanical coverage. Areas known or suspected to include coastal plain flora were visited in August or early September when these species are visible. Wherever possible, prior records of rare species were checked to confirm their continued presence. other candidate areas received as much field time as possible, with an emphasis on visiting each area at least once during the bird breeding season. During the field season, new candidate areas were identified by the field staff. These potential candidates, plus other are.s referred from such sources as Dan Brunton's ANSI work:.("Brunton, 1991a and b), received initial field visits to recommend whether further study would be of value.. Reconnaissance of most of these potential candidate~ took place in the early fall.

- 7 ­ Inventory methods:

Tentative boundaries were drawn onto OBMs. With the assistance of these maps and airphotos, the field crew selected suitable routes for field visits. Of necessity, access was a prime consideration in determining routes; however, the goal was to visit all distinctive habitats and features identified from airphoto analysis. UTM coordinates were recorded for the start and finish point of each transect. Orientation by compass was often required within large candidate areas. River habitats were usually visited by canoe, with frequent stops to inventory and map adjacent habitats. Field data was recorded on pre-printed data sheets for vascular plants, birds, amphibians and reptiles, mammals, butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies, and mushrooms. Collection of data on bird life was generally limited to birds observed in suitable habitat during their breeding season. Where breeding was confirmed, by nests, fledged young, or other evidence, that evidence was noted on field sheets. Photographs and/or voucher plant specimens were taken when fi·eld identity was questionable. Plant specimens, particularly of rare species, were not taken if the population would be endangered by removal of an individual. Mammal sightings as well as tracks, scats, dens and corpses were used as evidence to confirm the presence of a species within an area. Birds were identified by song and by visual sightings. All other wildlife was recorded on the basis of sight identific~tion.

Small·.ammal trapping in some of the 1991 candidate ar••& had been carried out in 1990-. No marrmal trapping wa'~~one in 1991. Vegetation mapp;ng: For each area, the vegetation was identified and convnu·n ities mapped on the bas i s of qua 1i tat i ve observations undertaken during field transects. The v·egetation association mapping was carried out using

- 8 ­ categories adapted from the Canadian Vegetation C1ass i f i cat ion S ystem (S t ronget a 1, , 99a) . T his mapping is based on a combination of dominant tree, shrub, or forb associations, degree of coverage, and terrain type. This information was used to assist in identifying the range of plant community types within the study area and in better defining area boundaries.

The original hierarchy of associations used is shown in Table 4 of the Results of 1990 Field Program report (Reid et a1, 1991); this will be revised at the end of the program to reflect a more complete understanding of the full spectrum of plant communities in Muskoka. In most areas, a more detailed breakdown of habitats was also recorded on airphoto overlays, and retained on f i 1e. 2.4 Data Compilation: The data from field checklists was entered on computer records using dBase IV, to permit full access to data for each area, and to facilitate regional c6mparisons. Master lists of vascular plants, birds, and so on are used as the basis for computer entry. These master lists were generated from the files of Bob Bowles, and for vascular plants, from the previous work of Whiting and Goltz. The data collected during each field visit was recorded on its own computer file (except for consultant study data, which was merged into a single file). Details such as date, coordinates, observors, and additional remarks are part of the program. A printout of the data was made for proof-reading by the field staff. Coordinates for individual rare species were noted and kept on file. Composite files for each study area were generated near the end of the field season'. The original fi les were not artered during this process. All ~omposites and originals were duplicated on back-up disks. Usine the composite files and a master list of rare species, a query was created to produce a ,list of rare species for each study area. Paper copies 'of ,these rare lists, pl~s complete species lists for each area, are kept in the project files.

- 9 ­ 2.5 Rare Lists: working lists of nationally, provincially and regionally rare species, along with regionally uncommon species, were developed near the beginning of the program. These lists are included as Appendix 1 of the Results of the 1990 Field Program report. Based on the results of field work, and the review and comments of outside experts, it is expected that some of these rarity status assignments will change. These final changes wi 11 be made during a formal r'ev;ew late in 1992, near the end of the program. 2.6 Evaluation of Candidate Areas: Evaluation of candidate areas took place after the geological and biological attributes had been assembled, based on field data, published literature, unpublished reports, and personal communications. Assessment of the significance of individual candidate areas was carried out through the application of the selection criteria listed in Table 1. In order to reflect a differentiation based on degree of significance, candidates are recommended in two categories. Within Natural Heritage Areas, at least one of the' selection criteria is met fully, in most cases with two or more criteria involved. In Natural Heritage Sites, a specific feature of interest i s present, 0 n a c 1ear 1y- def i n·e d site ' 0 f 1i m; ted· e' xtent . At the end of the Program, the recommended designation of each candidate will be reviewed, to ensure that the selection criteria have been applied consistently and fu 1. 1y • At this stage in the Program, the recommendation of Areas and Sites must be considered preliminary, since further fi.ld~work may reveal better candidates of a similar nature, or suggest greater significance for candidates now considered marginal.

- ,a ­ Application of Criteria: Abiotic Criteria: In association with surficial geology mapping undertaken in Muskoka District, the Ontario Geological Survey made recommendations on geological features for inclus~on under this program. The identification of distinctive or unusual, representative, or diverse landform elements (Criteria A-', A-2, A-3) was made in consultation with Andy Bajc, who directed the OGS survey_ The application of criterion A-4, related to a contribution to regional hydrological systems, was limited to candidates which clearly act as source areas for one or more streams (such as Lewisham Wetlands), or . where broad undisturbed floodplains act to protect water quality (e_g. the Big East River valley). Since no detailed hydrological studies were carried out, this criterion was applied co~~ervatively. Biotic Criteria: Criterion B-1: Representation One of the goals of the Heritage Areas Program is to have the full range of biotic community types represented within a system of protected areas. Since this criterion is addressed through the MNR Life Science studies currently underway, it has been applied sparingly in the candidates to date. When the results of Dan Brunton's study (Brunton 1991a, 1991b) are finalized, the Heritage Areas and Sites identified will be reviewed to determine which should fit within this representational system.

As well, a matrix of landform/microclimate/community type representation for Muskoka is being. developed to assess the adequacy of habitat representation. For lowland sites, this matrix will reflect the wetland clas••• used in An Evaluation System for wetlands of Northern<·Ont.•r i 0, whi ch shou 1d be ava; 1ab 1e ear 1yin 1992. Application of this matrix may result in the fult~4.11m.nt of this representational criteria for cert--a;n candidates, and possibly a shift in the';r r~commended status. .

- 1 1 ­ Criterion B-2: Diversity Diversity can be measured at either the species or community level. In applying this criterion, it was recognized that diversity is also to some degree a function of area. For each candidate (not including buffer zones), the total number of species was ranked for vascular plants (native species only), birds, mammals, and herpetofauna to obtain an index of overall diversity. This diversity index was plotted against the area of the candidate, using the computer program Harvard Graph"ics. A trend line of this relationship was plotted for all the 1990 and 1991 candidates surveyed by Heritage Areas staff. Only those candidates which were plotted significantly above the trend line qualified under Criterion B-2 as having high diversity. This index will be further refined and applied to all candidates at the conclusion of the project. Vegetation community mapping was used to define community diversity, which is usually related to topographic variability and size. A candidate with a large number of distinct vegetation .communities, or with a high degree of interspersion among communities, was considered diverse. For example, this criterion was used to recognize the diversity of wetland communities within the Bruce Lake Marshes candidate. A diverse community structure usually supports a high species diversity. However, field data showed that the converse is not always true - some candidates with relatively limited conmunity diversity (such as Novar Bog) showed strong species di·versity within the wetland communities.

Criterion B-3: Quality and Disturbance

A natural are. fulfilled this criterion if there was 1; tt1- "or no'· recent ev i dence of extens i ve disturbance, partfeularly·related to human actlvity. The percentage of ~~troduc.d species of vascular plants was also noted as .~~~ugh measure of disturbance. While most of the cand·fa.te. have a "10-15% rat i 0 of introduced plants, a few fell well outside this range. Dwight Bog, for example, had no recorded non-native plants; the Port Severn Outlier had 50% introduced plants.

- 12 ­ The quality of biotic features in a candidate was judged oh their maturity, abundance, or successional stages present, relative to the District as a whole. For instance, mature hardwood forest on good s~tes could qualify under this criterion, since these cond-tions are scarce in Muskoka. A wetland complex with good examples of a wide range of successional stages would a;so qualify.

Criterion 8-4: Significant Species Species considered rare, threatened, or endangered on a national, provincial, ,or regional (i.e. Muskoka District) level have been identified in the rare species working lists described above. Most natural areas in Muskoka will support a few uncommon species, and often one or two regionally rare species. As well, some of the species with a national or provincial designation, such as Red-shouldered Hawk, Eastern Bluebird~ and Eastern- Massassauga, are fairly common in parts of Muskoka. Therefore, the presence of a single rare species could not be used to automatically qualify a candidate under this criterion. As a general guide, this criterion should be used as a determining factor in judging a candidate's status only when more than a single national or provincial rare species, or at least three regionally rare species, are present. However, exceptions have been made in the case of known disjunct or isolated populations, such as the single occurrence of Broad Beech Fern. In all cases, consideration of ecological distribution and the characteristics of the species in' question should playa part in applying this criterion. Criterion 8-5: Fish and Wildlife Concentrations For the most part, this criterion was applied to known seasonal concentration areas for fish spawning, colonial bird nesting, and migratory bird staging areas. It can also be applied to core deer yards, if there is evidence of retlular use over a number of years.'

Criterion 8-6: Extensive Size or Linkages To qualify under the size criterion, a candidate must be sufficiently large to support species requiring extensive undisturbed areas, such as Lynx or Bobcat. No specific minimum size was defined, but a candidate

- , 3 ­ would have to be well over 1000 ha to be considered under this criterion. The linkage provision was used only where there was evidence that valleys or other habitats were acting as corridors for species movement, or where adjacent uplands had been c:eared of natural habitats.

Cultural Criteria:

At this stage, cultural criteria have not been included in the evaluation process. As the results of an Archaeological Master Plan for Muskoka become avai~ab~e, it is likely that some of the candidates now recommended may overlap with historic features. If so, the relevant cultural criteria will be added.

2.7 Landowner Contact: Landowner contact is an integral part of the Heritage Areas Program, with the intent of building positive landowner ,relations from the beginning of the program. In part, the landowner contact process is intended to lead to improved stewardship of natural areas by private landowners; in part, it serves to involve landowners early in the course leading to municipal designation and protection of Heritage Areas through the planning process.

Landowner contact in 1991 was carried out by the staff of the Muskoka Heritage Foundation stewardship Program, as their contribution towards the Heritage Areas Program. Landowner contact was carried out within those candidate areas where the ~ost extensive field work was expected. Land ownership mapping and addresses of owners were -obtained from assessment records. Landowners were cont.ct~d initially by mail, then by telephone, to obtain permission to carry out field w6rk on their properties. In addition, owners of cottage lots or adjacent properties were contacted with an information letter, briefly explaining the program. Near the end of the field season, landowners were again contacted to distribute site summaries of the results of" field work, and to arrange personal meetings where possible. The site summaries also contained relevant

- 14 ­ habitat sheets and information on wildlife species typically found on the site, along with sheets explaining the 6riteria for the program and Muskoka geological and glacial history. In general, the landowner contact process worked well. Some difficulty was encountered in making ccn:ac~ w~t~ ~andowners in cases of unlisted telephone numbers, properties recently sold, or invalid addresses. 3eca~3e many 1andowners are not permanent Muskoka res i dents, ~ t often proved difficult to arrange personal visits, par t ; c u 1a r 1y 1ate ; nthe season . This w.a spar t .; a 1 ; i overcome through telephone discussions and ;nformat~o~ through the mails.

A total of 286 landowners in 14 candidate areas were contacted in 1991 to request permission for access. Among these, 12 (4.2%) refused access. In one instance, Quarry Island, the single major landowner refused ac~ess to Heritage Areas staff. Unfortunately, this prevented work in almost the entire candidate, so it was not pursued further at this point. The low level of access refusals elsewhere did not significantly hamper field work. An additional 169 information letters were sent in 1991. Site summaries were produced and distributed for 13 candidate areas. Virtually all of the visits with landowners were with interested, supportive individuals. In many cases of telephone contact, the attitude of landowners also appeared positive, although distance or other factors prevented a personal meeting. While there was some conce~n expressed about the implications of Heritage Area designation on future land uses, generally there ;s a very positive response among landowners to the program. Potential leads for land donations, conservation easements, and Heritage Awards are being followed up by the Muskoka Heritage Foundation.

- 15 ­ 2.8 Report Format:

The written accounts of recommended Her~tage Areas and Sites contained in this report have two major sect~o~3. The first section for each candldate describes its location, the coverage received, and its landfor~ an~ soils, hydrology, flora and fauna. Vegetation commun~ty descriptions are accompanied by a map of community types, keyed to one or more air photos.

The second part of each account is the rationale for fulfillment of the selection criteria, an explanation of how boundaries and buffers were determined, and recommendations for protection of the candidates significant features. Recommended boundaries are drawn on the accompanying map in solid lines; buffers are shown in dotted lines.

- 16 ­ 3. RECOMMENDAT10NS:

RECOMMENDATION ONE: Based on 1991 field work, the following cand~date areas are recommended as Natura l' Her i tage Areas: Big East River Novar Bog Britannia Esker Lewisham wetlands Jevins Lake Axe Lake Gibson River McRae Lake Bone Island Cognashene-Longu;ssa P ; ne Is 1ands McLean Bay - Elison Bay Ne~page Lake Lost Channel B;g Chute Dwight Bog Beaumont Bay Carbonates RECOMMENDATION TWO: Based on 1991 field work, the following are recommended as Natural Heritage Sites, with their status to be reviewed before completion of the project: Moose Lake Lion's Head Lower Swift Slope Long Island Tern Colony Moreaus Bay Coldwater-Swan Lake Lower Moon River Potato Island Marshes RECOMMENDATION THREE: The following candidate areas, which 'received preliminary field work in 1991, warrant further study in subsequent field seasons: Riley Lake South Riley Lake North Lower Oxtongue River Langmaid's Island Fawn Lake Wetland McKay Creek B;gwind Park Shack Creek Wetland Brandy Creek Wetland Scareliffe Bay

- 11 ­ Three Mile Wetland Muldrew Lake Stoneleigh

RECOMMENDATION FOUR: While other sites for 1992 can be fina1~zed at a later date, other candidates for field work should ~nc~ude: Tasso Creek - Upper Big East Kennedy Point McRae Lake North Extension

RECOMMENDATION FIVE: Air photo analysis of deeper soil deposits and discussions with .MNR forestry staff should be used to identify candidates for rich upland forest, wh1ch are under-represented in the program to date.

RECOMMENDATION SIX: As well as continued participation in the development of District of Muskoka policies for Heritage Areas, discussions should be initiated with the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding MNR recognition of Heritage Areas valu~s in management of Crown Land. RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: Agencies who supported the Prog~am in 1990 and 1991 should be requested to renew their support, most notably the Ministry o~ Natural Resources and Ontario Hydro. RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: In the final year of field work in 1992. every effort sho~ld be made to have at least one field staff person available in late spring (from April 15 onwards) to document occurrences of herptiles and ephemeral wildflowers. RECOMMENDATION NINE: . In order to maximize flexibility in the final year of the program, field work in 1992 should be carried out by s •••aa.l contract staff, under the direction of a field ch~. rather than through consultant contracts.

- 18 ­ TECHNICAL SUMMARY: RECOMMENDED HERITAGE AREAS AND SITES

On the basis of 1991 field work by Heritage Areas staff, the following candidates are recommended as Heritage Areas and Sites. The information presented in this report represents a summary of their values, and particularly the manner in which each candidate fulfills the selection criteria. More detailed information, including complete species lists, ;s maintained in the files of the District Municipality.

- 19 ­ BIG EAST RIVER

Topographic References: 1 :50,000 31E/6 and 31E/2 1:10,000 10 17 6350 50200 10 17 6350 50250 10 17 6400 50250 10 17 6450 50250 10 17 6450 50300 10 17 6450 50350 10 17 6500 50350 10 17 6550 50350 10 17 6550 50400 10 17 6600 S0400 The Big East River was divided into five sections for study purposes. The Sections are as follows: I - from Ravenscliff Road to Hwy 11; I I - from Hwy l' to Williamsport Road; I I I - from Williamsport Road to the Distress Chutes; IV - from Distress Chutes to above McBrien Pond; V - from McBrien Pond to Finlayson Pond. Concession: Lots: Township: 4 8-16 Chaffey, Huntsville 5 . 11,12,15,16,17 6 14-17 7 15-17

I I 6 18-30 Chaffey, Huntsville 7 18,19,23,24,25

I I I 6 31-34 Chaffey, Huntsville 7 .32-35 1 24,25 Sinclair, Lake of Bays 8 19-25 9 16-20 10 14-17 11 13-16

IV 1 1 3-12 Sinc 1a 'i r, La ke 0 f Bay s 12 1-11 B- 29,30 It 30,31

v 13­ 1-21 Finlayson, Lake of Bays 14 20-22 ·Area: 4270 ha

Ownership: 55' Crown land; 45' private .

.- 20 ­ Coverage: There was a total of '10 field days of coverage on the Big East River. Section III was explored during July 3-4, 1990 with plant, bird, mammal and reptile and amphibian checklists. Small mammal trapping was made on August 28-30, 1990 with a total of 200 trap-nights. In 1991 field work was done in Sections I, II and IV. The dates for the field visits were May 31, June 12, 15-'16 and 19, July 12 and 17, August 8, 12 and 26. Plant, bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian species were recorded at each visit while mushroom, dragonfly, damselfly and butterfly species were recorded during the July and August visits. Description: a) Landforms and Soils: The valley now occupied by the Big East River was once a major glacial spillway that poured me1twaters from the retreating glaciers off the Algonquin Highland into Lake Algonquin 10,000 years ago. During this time large quantities of glacial outwash deposits accumulated in the bedrock valleys and in the delta of the old shoreline in the vicinity of Arrowhead Provincial Park. When the Lake Algonquin shoreline receded these deposits were exposed. Later, -a, new stream, the ancestor of-the present Big East, drained the Algonquin Highlands. The exposed deposits were easily eroded, creating new valleys. When this stream met the unconsolidated deltaic sands, the rate of flow was reduced, causing the river to develop into a sinuous meandering system (Warner, 1918). Huge quantities of the eroded materials were carried downstream and deposited in the new delta. The lower Big East valley from the mouth to Williamsport is now described as a sand plain, consisting entirely of older alluvium composed of sand and silt with minor" gravel (Bajc, 1990). The valley has such thick deposits of silt, sand and grayel (up to 23 metres) that it is still rapidly evolving and chan:2'"8 the course of the river. This process creates numerou, xbow lakes and incised channels, many which are sti 11 b' ~ ~8 formed today.

From the Wi 11.; amsport Road upstream to Distress Dam (Se.ct; on I I I), the river is contained within a broad,' steep-sided valley. This section of the former spillway presents a gradual transition from deltaic sands to the tills-and bedrock drift of the upper river. Both Sections I I I and IV are characterized by glaciolacustrine coarse-grained deposits on the river edges, glaciolacustine outwash deposits, and elements of bedrock drift complex.

- 21 ­ The upper section of tr ~ River takes on a different character. The river flows through a more rugged landscape with numerous waterfa~ls and rapids. The waterfalls were formed when the rivers cut down to expose the rock sills in the bedrock. The basins between these sills became ponds and pools. The total descent of the river is 88 metres with most of the drop in the upper 24 km coarse from Finlayson pond to the Distress Chutes. Distress Chutes are a series of rocky waterfalls, long stony rapids and quiet pools which twist through 600 metres of forest. They are among the most scenic waterfalls in Muskoka (Long, 1989). Two other areas of bedrock outcrop are located in the section below McBrie'n Pond (Bajc, 1990). McBrien Pond contains swamp and organic deposits consisting of peat and muck. Above McBrien Pond the landscape is dominated by shallow till and rock ridges, and the valley becomes more narrow, with tributaries entering reg~larly in a trellis pattern. Hardwood forests dominate the till-covered slopes and knoll-tops (Noble,1983). b) Hydrology: The Big East headwaters rise on the rugged rim of the Algonquin Highland. water pours off the hills into a number of creeks that run through narrow valleys into Finlayson pond, giving rise to the river that flows SO km across northern Muskoka to its mouth on Lake Vernon. The North Branch of the Muskoka River begins here. The Big East River is characterized by a shallow channel, broad floodplain and steep, rocky headwater regions. These conditions along with the low proportion of lake surface area make flooding a regular seasonal occurrence on this river. In the 1880's lumbermen began to regulate the waters to facilitate logging. They built timber dams to raise water levels and created artificial lakes to store water for the log drives. Distress Pond, McBr'ien Pond and Finlayson Pond were cre.ted or expanded th i sway. Large l,og dr i ves were conducted on an annual basis until 1936 (Long, 1989). In 1953 concrete government control dams were erected at the Distress and Finlayson Dam sites. McBrien Pond has returned to its natural level. c) Vegetat ion ·Conmun it; es: -The vegetation along the Big East shows a transition which corresponds to the change in geology 'rom the low, sandy valley plains near its mouth to the higher elevation and cooler, rocky regions of the northeast corner. Especially in the eastern sections, there is a strong northern influence on the river valley ecology due to a biogeographic corridor.

- 22 ­ Species appear to move from the Algonquin highlands down the corridor formed by the river val ley. The most COrMlon plant associations found throughout the entire Big East River Sections were Red Maple mixed deciduous forest and White Spruce mixed forest. In the predominately alluvial downstream landscape, wetland vegetation consisting of thicket and forested swamps and marshes are typical. Further upstream the cooler valleys are dominated by mixed conifer associations with Sugar Maple, White Spruce, Yellow Birch, Balsam Fir and Hemlock. Successional Aspen and White Birch forests were often encountered. White Pine was found scattered throughout the forests. The following vegetation association descriptions are relevant to each of three Sections [I, II & IV]. Corresponding vegetation maps are on file at the District Municipality. Vegetation mapping done by Brownell in 1978 covers the sections missed in this report.

SECTION I- Ravenscliff Road to Highway"

1. Mixed relatively mature upland forest with Trembling Aspen, White Spruce, Red Maple, White Elm, White Birch on mesic soils. Open canopy with Bracken Fern, Goldenrod, Pin Cherry, Wild Raisin, Fly Honeysuckle understory.

2. Mixed immature upland forest dominated by White Spruce, White Pine, Red or Sugar maple and White Birch.

3. Red and Silver Maple, American Mountain Ash, Black Cherry, White and Yellow Birch and Black Ash on sandy wet mesic to very wet soils (wooded swamp). Sometimes·remnant White Pine are present. The canopy is 80% closed with Wood Fern understory.

4. White Spruce, Balsam Fir with some-Yellow Birch and Red or Sugar Maple on moist soils in low-lying areas. Mountain Maple and fern understory. 5. Hemlock, Whit. Pine, White Spruce, White or Yellow Birch and· Wh; t. Cedar .~~ Understory of sap 1; ngs and Wi 1d Sarsapuill•. a) .n a steep cliff in granite rock. b) on a low ,lope.

6. Red Mapl~ mixed forest with White and Yellow Birch, Sugar Maple, White Spruce, Balsam Fir and occasional White Pine on an upland slope with deep, moist sandy-loam soils. 7. Upland deciduous for'est with White Birch,· Sugar Maple, Yellow Birch and some Balsam Fir. Hemlock sometimes found along the water. Mountain maple, Striped Ma~le, Hobblebush,

- 23 ­ Ferns and saplings present in the understory. On steep sandy slopes and rocky til~. 8. Mixed mature upland forest with White Birch, White Spruce, Red Maple and Hemlock on gently sloping sandy ti 11.

Meander Scars. These generally are at various stages of filling in. Often there are portions of open water with floating aquatics such as Bullhead Lily and Large Blue Flag in standing water. The generally wet soils in the vegetated portions support Winterberry, Holly and Sedges. SECTION (( - Highway l' to Williamsport Road 9. Hemlock, Yellow Birch closed canopy forest with moist rich soils, sometimes with red maple and White Spruce.

10. White Spruce with some White Birch. Some White Cedar or Balsam Fir by the river edge and scattered White Pines. Dense understory of saplings and Ferns. '1. Aspen and White Birch successional deciduous forest with closed canopy.

1~. White Cedar, Balsam Fir or Hemlock', Black Ash and Red or Sugar Maple on wet soils. Conifers are at their greatest concentration along the river edge. Understory of Wild Sarsaparilla and Canada Yew.

13. Balsam Fir, White Birch sometimes with Red or Sugar Maple. Mountain Maple understory.

14. Dogwood,Speckled Alder and Green Ash on wet soils.

15. Mature White Elm forest. SECTION IV - Distress Chutes to McBrien Pond

16. Mature White Birch forest.

11. Matur~ Black Cherry with an open cariopy and an ~nderstory of Bracken Fern and Milkweed.

18. Sugar and Red Maple closed canopy forest with an understory of Bracken and Wood Ferns, saplings and Balsam Fir. White Cedar becomes more dominant closer to the shorel ine.·

19. Sugar Maple, Yellow Birch, Green Ash mixed with Balsam Fir and Hemlock. 20. White Cedar, Hemlock, White Spruce with saplings, Bracken Fern and Wild Sarsaparilla understory.

- 24 ­ 21. Black Spruce treed bog. 22. Meadowsweet field.

23. Sedge-grass meadow often in standing water. 24. Floating aquatics with submergent aquatic plants along shallow mucky shores. 25. Emergent aquatics along mucky shorelines with fluctuating water levels. d) Flora: Vascular Plants: A total of 424 species of vascular plants were recorded within the Big East River valley, including data from ;990 and 1991 field seasons plus the record of species recorded by Vivian Brownell in her 1978 inventory. The flora is composed of both southern and northern elements,. with most of the southern plant species such as Silver Maple, Blue Cohosh, Dutchman's Breeches and Wild Leek concentrated on the floodplain and oxbows. Northern or boreal species such as Juneberry, Wintergreen, Tamarack, American Mountain Ash, Labrador Tea and Velvetleaf Blueberry are common in the upper sections of the river. One provincially rare plant, Clinton's Bulrush (Scirpus clintonii) is found growing in cracks in the exposed bedrock along the McBrien rapids in Section IV. This was identified in 1978 by Brownell and again in 1990 by this study. Seven species found along the Big East River were regionally rare. Carex michauxiana was found in a wet sedge meadow on McBrien Pond. This is the first record for Muskoka. Carex flava (Yellow Sedge) was found growing in the same wet· meadow. Dryopteris fragrans (Fragrant Cliff. Fern) was found on a granite cliff on M~Brien Pond. A single historical record existed for this particular species but it had not been recorded in Muskoka for over 40 years. Gentian. linearis (Narrow-leaved Gentian) was found on three occasion.~ at McBrien Pond, McBrien ~apids and Distress Chutes " in-·damp open places. I n the same hab i tat at the Distres~ Chutes, Cicuta maculata (Water Hemlock)· was identified in both 1990 and 1991. from Brownell's (1978) report, Convolvulus spithameus (Upright Bindweed) was found growing. along the sandy river bank. In addition, a Crataegus species, probably cf. macrosperma, was found growing along the river bank in Section I I. This species is considered regionally rare. Only the vegetative

- 25 ­ gro~th was available for identification so the voucher specimen could not be confirmed. Twenty regionally uncommon plants have been recorded, including 10 identified in 1990 and 1991 and 10 more ident i fied ; n 197' 8 by Brownell. Mc Br ; en P0 nd suppo r ted the majority of the uncommon species identified in 1991. The sandy, shallow quiet waters supported Potamogeton fil iformis (Filiform Pond Weed), Sparganium fluctuans (Floating Bur­ reed) and Utricularia ;ntermedia (Flat-leaved Bladderwort). The peaty shoreline and marshy sedge meadows supported Carex tuckermanii (Tuckerman's Sedge), and Eleocharis robbins;; (Robbin's Sedge). The latter sedge was also found at Distress Pond. Parthenocissus v;tacea (Thicket Creeper) was found in the damp wood,s around McBr; en Pond. Th; s spec; es was also found in 1978 by Brownell. The following uncommon species were identified in 1990 along Section I I I. All of these species grow in open, damp ground: Glyceria melicaria (Slender Manna Grass), Oenothera perenn;s (Small Sundrops) also identified by Brownell in 1978, Pan;cum boreale (Northern Panic Grass) and Solidago gigantea (Late Goldenrod). Mushrooms: Thirty-five species of mushrooms were identified over four separate field visits during July and. August, 1991. This represents a relatively diverse field. The status of mushrooms is not well known with respect to rarity. e) Fauna: Birds: 95 bird species were recorded along the Big East River, some confirmed as nesting, but the majority of these observed ;n suitable' habitat during'breeding season. Five of these species are from Brownell's 1918 record along the Big East. Six species are considered regionally rare and four are regionally uncommon. The valley provides an excellent diversity of warbler species during breeding season, and has an exceptional abundance of Northern Parula Warblers, which are considered a rare nester elsewhere tn Muskoka. At least two active Osprey nests are located in Distress Pond. Manvnals: Eighteen mammals were recorded along the Big East River~ Small mammal trapping was carried out over the period August 28-30, 1990 at Tonawnada Creek Mouth on Distress Pond. Two hundred trap-nights yielded ~ Shorttail Shrew, 28 Deermouse, 2 Woodland Jumping Mouse and 4 Southern Redback Vole. The voles are considered regionally uncommon and are approaching a southern limit for their distribution.

- 26 ­ Herpetofauna: Records were obtained for a total of 10 amphibians and 5 reptiles based on the 1990-91 records plus the 1978 inventory by Brownell. Eight frogs and toads were located including th.e regionally rare Pickerel Frog which was identified on a number of occasions at the McArthur Chute and Distress Chute areas, however never in large numbers. The other species recorded were two salamanders, two turtles and three snakes. other Species: The Big East River presents a habitat particularly suitable for butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies. The Green Comma is a regionally rare butterfly that occurs here along with five other species. Eleven ·species of dragonfly and damselfly were recorded. On one day in July over 100 individuals of the Black-winged Damselfly were counted in Section II. At least 15 of the very similar Black-banded Band Wing was found among the former species. This;s a regionally rare species that had not been identified on the Big East in previous inventories. Fifteen Yellow-spotted Streams and 10 Black Dragons were also recorded that day. Sampling for minnows was done one day on Distress Pond. Redside Dace, Pumpkinseed and Smallmouth Bass were caught in the minnow traps and released. The central sections of the River are known to provide habitat for resident Brook Trout populations (MNR, Bracebridge District). Disturbance and Condition: The Big East River has a long history of disturbance resulting from extensive logging along its entire length from 1920-1930 'and agriculture and housing in the lower sect"ions. In some parts of the lower valley, housing, industries, gravel extraction, and campgrounds present ongoing disturbances. Nevertheless, the over.ll quality of the regenerated forests and the sandy banks 'i s very good. The lack of extensive development can be attributed to spring flooding. Low summer water levels and the presence of rapids reduce the River's potential as a canoe route. While logging is still carried out along the Big East, the steep valley walls ar. a constraint to timber operations, and small remnant stands of white pine and hardwoods can be found. Extensive wetland communities and a small amount of open, shallow water support a wide variety of marsh birds and wildlife in the three ponds in the upper -settion of the Big East River, and have limited development to a few scattered ~unt camps and cabins.

- 27 ­ Criteria Fulfilled A-1, A-2, A-4, B-2, B-3, 8-4, 8-6

Criterion A-1: The Big East River is a good example of a glacial spillway valley- It is significant for the District only, as other examples of spillways occur throughout Ontario. The only other spillway in Muskoka occurs at the headwaters of the Oxtongue River. The large sand bluffs in Sections; and I I are deltaic deposits left from the ancient Lake Algonquin. They are representative of the geological history of the area and they are thought to be the only naturally well-exposed delta of this type in the province (Warner, B.G., 1978; Spek, 1979).

Criterion A-2: The lower area of the Big East River contains steep deltaic sand bluffs which are still geologically active. Each spring floodwaters spill through the valley, eroding the banks on the convex side of the river bank and depositing sands in quieter waters. The modern Big East River is a classic example of meander morphology. The channel is constantly changing as meanders are cut off and abandoned. The oxbow lakes formed then undergo a process of gradual filling in. Concave banks eventually collapse while material is being d~posited on pOlnt bars.

Criterion A-4: The Big East River contributes high quality water to the Muskoka River System." The sandy valley floor, with its many pockets of wetland, acts to sustain the quality of the river water, and likely provides some degree of seasonal storage of floodwaters. Criterion B-2: Species diversity is generally high in all elements studied, with the species .diversity index plotting well above the Muskoka-wide trend line. The diversity at the plant community level is low; although there are good examples of aquatic-wetland, treed swamp, and mixed coniferous and deciduous ~ardwoods.

Criterion B~3: The Big Ea.t River valley provides examples of a number of biotic communiti.. of unusual quality. The valley walls support mcture stand's of Wh ite Spruce domi nant .and mi xed forests. Their quality is reflected in the abundance of Northern Parula and some fourteen other warbler species. The McBrien Pond aquat;-c-wetland community supports a diversity of aquatic and marsh plant species as well as birds and other wildlife. The oxbows on the lower river floodplain provide excellent wildlife habitat as their quiet waters g~ad~ally are invaded by aquatic and then terrestrial vegetation.

- 28 ­ The abundance of dragonflies and damselflies along the r~Yer, together with the Brook Trout population, are indicative of excellent water ~uality and habitat conditions.

Criterion 8-4: The area provides habitat for the following rare species: NR PR RR Vascular Plants: Carex flava Yellow Sedge x Carex michauxiana X Cicuta maculata Water Hemlock X Convolvulus spithameus Upright Bindweed X Dropteris fragrans Fr~grant Cliff Fern X Gentiana linearis Narrow-leaved Gentian X Scirpus clintoni; Clinton's Bulrush X X Wi ldl ;fe: Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye x Empidonax flaviventr;s Yellow-bellied Flycatcher X Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser X Parula americana Northern Parula X Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker X

Rana palustris . Pickerel Frog X

Polygonia faunus G"reen Corrrna X

Agrion aequabile Black-banded Band Wing X

Criterion 8-6: The B;g East River acts as a biogeographic corridor allowing species movement from the Algonquin Highlands down the river valley as evidenced by the occurrence of northern species such as Black-backed Woodpecker and Goldeneye.

Boundaries and Buffers: The boundaries for the'Big East River generally follow the heights of land so that the valley walls on either side of the river would be protected. In some cases railways and roads foonman--made bound'aries. Arrowhead Provincial Park incorpor,tes a large section of the lower Big East River. There ....f:"o buffer areas reconmended. Reconwnendat;ons: 1. The Big East River should be given Natural Heritage Area designation because it meets seven criteria. 2. The following significant features should be protected from .any form of deve 1opment: a) Sand Bluffs (in particular accelerated erosion due to vehicles or stripping of natural vegetation at the top of the bluffs).

- 29 ­ b) McBrien Pond aquatic-wetland community (in particular the protection of water quality through minimization of nutrient input). c) Sc;rpus clinton;; stand (in particular alterat10n of the adjacent shoreline or changes ·to the hydrology of the river). d) Oxbows (in part;c~lar the construction of mun~cipa; or private roads through the wet habitats). 3. More field work in the Finlayson Pond area wouid be valuable to check on significant features identified by Brownell.

4. Stewardship should be encouraged with the private owners along the B;g East River in order ·to encourage them to protect the significant features of the area. 5. The B;g East River, or specific parts of the river valley, should be considered by the Ministry of Natural Resources for waterway Park status, or for designation as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. 6. Municipal policies should recognize the value of the Big East as a continous natural corridor, and should protect its continuity from inappropriate development. 7. Through its permit authority under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources should prohibit erosion control works along the lower river designed to stabilize its course, since such works are likely to be both ineffectual and environmentally damaging .

.... to

- 30 ­ A

31 /, /,' I,'; , /: /' ~ I ~ I," "" / -"...-----' i /" 1., I· , i I i . '­ ;

cL ~ \ 1F\ ~~ ~.." uJ r­ 0 J)u1 ~Vl dl I

..

; . , "

C N

I , ,.. WOW" "­ --r­ ,--­ .. " ~, , ~ "\~' , '\. I , '. " '. , , -...... ,. ­ ,.....' \ _T , ...~ ...... ~ '. ""'1. - .. _­ ~ ".... ./.J• ./ ( . '. '.9/­ Ct'l..J' /, ~~ ..~ ~(E taw '. "" <.tu ~ ...... "

~--=- ~C _.. _-=-:~--::;.,

...­ ...... "'.~, ~

K .--!J , '. f " q) , ..

,,---­ ' .. , \ ~ w , ,1 '" E> \G EA~\ R\Vt..~, w ,, '\ ., { ..... , \ I \) I,. \ SEC'\ON --....m . " \ ~ ...... _-J. ,~ , I ~~. \ '6'\ :\ .... 1 "'tin

c

\ ", I' .•. : ", .\~ .:~:. ~ ~ ._, "--.~ '/ "'" . .\ .' \ ) "'y \. , t ;, .~ " .'

...... ""

I --:­ I - !.-­

.... ---- ... -. ..

, I,.f "

~\

';'.. ~;: '. . Q - , - -~-'

34 \

I .

l'

I

-'-'''"----­ ,.

- 35 ­ NOVAR BOG

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 31E/6 1:10,000 10 17 6350 50300 Township: Chaffey, Huntsville

Concession: 1 2 Lots: 18-23 13 18- 2 1 14 18- 2 1

Area: 342 ha

Ownership: 98% pr i vate;' 2% Crown 1and. Coverage: Field work was conducted on June 3, June 1S, and July 16 in 1991. 1990 visits were on June 27, June 29, August 12 and 13, October 15 and 19. Small mammal trapping was undertaken on August 13-17 and October 15-19, 1990. Only the sections south of the Parry Sound-Muskoka boundary, on both sides of Highway 11, were surveyed. Site Description: a) Landform and Soils: Novar Bog is largely a treed bog based on deep organic soils. Small patches of lacustrine sand, overlain by shallow peat, occur along the shore of Fish Lake and in the section west of the highway. An extensive esker complex occurs along the north and west sides of the bog. One small section of this upland is' included within the proposed boundaries, where glacial Lake Algonquin created a foreshore platform and wave­ cut notch. b) Hydrology: The' Little East River flows south fr'om Bay Lake in Parry Sound District into Fish Lake, and then travels the length of the bog ••st of H;ghway 1.1. The river is shallow and narrow with many beaver dams, but is of sufficient quality to support'cQld water species of fish .. The esker complex to the north and ••st, combined with the organic deposits in the bog, appears to playa significant role in the ground and surface water. hydrology of this area. c) Vegetation Communities:

The vegetation of Navar bog is typical ~f.a northern peatland site, with variations related to landform, drainage, and past disturbance. The following vegetation communities correspond to a vegetation map of Novar Bog on file at the District of Muskoka.

- 36 ­ 1. Treed bog of almost exclusively Black Spruce with a closed canopy and sparse understory on sphagnum moss. 2. Ash-Elm swamp where sandy soils occur near the Little East R·i·ver.

3. Sedge meadow on coarse-grained sand deposits where the Little East River empties into the lake.

4. Emergent aquatics including Waterlilies, Horsetails, Pickerelweed, and Arrowhead, dominating the bay where the lake flows into the Little East River.

5. Partially open Black Spruce, Tamarack and Balsam Fir conifer swamp with Mountain Holly, Cinnamon Fern, and Fir understory.

6. Part i all y open treed bog of Black Spruce 'and Tamarack with an understory of a variety of ferns.

7. Speckled Alder, with Winterberry and Mountain Holly, along the mesic low shore of the Little East River. 8. White Spruce, White Birch, and Sugar Maple in a low area bordering a stream.

9. Sugar Maple and American Beech on the upland area to the east of the site. '0. Mixed coniferous and hardwood trees on the slope immediately to the east of the bog. ". Open White ·Spruce, Tamarack, and Cedar swamp with an Alder and Mountain Holly understory.

'2. Aspen-Spruce upland area separating the treed bog.

13. Small pockets of disturbed areas including pine plantations and an old field overgrown with grasses and shrubs. Major disturbed areas border the railway, Highway 11, and gravel roads running through the·site.

d) Flora: A total 0' 340'vaseular plant species were recorded. This is a high species diversity, especially for such a small area with a nor·thern character. The cOrTlTlunity diversity, however, is low as the site is dominated by Tamarack and Black Spruce. Most of the plants are' associated with the bog and river communities although some can be attributed to the . disturbance caused by the transportation routes within the site~ The. provincially rare variety of Marsh st. John's Wort (Triadenum virginicum) was found. Nine regionally uncommon plant species were found on the site.

- 37 ­ Twenty-five mushroom species were identified. Although there ;s not enough information in Muskoka to compile a rare species list for mushrooms, the Larch Waxy Cap (Hygrophorus speciosus) is thought to be significant. The Orange Peel mushroom (Aleur;a aurant;a) was noted as unusually abundant at the site. e) Fauna: Birds: Ninety-eight bird species were recorded in 1990 and 1991 during the breeding season. This can be considered a very high diversity, especially for this habitat type. This diversity is likely due to the presence of a mix of southern and northern species. Thirteen significant birds, eight regionally rare and five regionally uncommon, were found. Mos~ of these rare species have a more northern r~nge and are at or close to their southern limit. In September 1991, 25 to 30 Mallard and Black Ducks were seen in the emergent aquatic zone of Fish Lake, 'which appears to act as a migratory sto~-over for these waterfowl. Mammals: Sixteen mammal species were identified, which can be considered diverse in the context of Muskoka District. Small mammal· trapping undertaken in 1990 revealed high numbers of regionally uncommon Southern Red-backed Voles, along with Northern Water Shrew, Shorttail Shrew, Meadow Jumping Mouse, and several other species. Herpetofauna: Eight amphibians were located on the site, mostly along the Little East River. The regionally rare Pickerel Frog was found in 1990. other Species: One of the four Butterflies found on the site is rare, the Green Comma. Seven Dragonflies and Damselflies were recorded~ Creek Chub and Yellow Perch were caught in a minnow tr.p in the Little East River. ~rook Trout are known to inh.bi~ the River (Ministry of Natural Resources, BracebriQ8e). Disturbance and Condition: Although the bog areas and river are relatively undisturbed, the site as a whole has seen considerable disturbance. A major ·transportation corridor, Highway 11, and a railway divides the site in half. Fill has been used ·to make gravel roads through the northeast part of the bog. As it now exists, the condition of the bog is not disturbed past the tolerance of most species~ However, there are· development

- 38 ­ proposals, including housing, highway expansions and Hydro lines; that will significantly reduce the capacity of the bog to support its curre~t diversity and natural significance.

Criteria Fulfilled: A-1, A-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, 8-4 Criterion A-1: The foreshore platform and wave-cut notch, which identifies the Lake Algonquin shoreline, ;s an unusual and significant landform feature in Muskoka. According to Andy Bajc of the Ontario Geological Survey, who identified this feature, good examples of such landform elements are rare in Muskoka because the complex shorelines of the glacial lake restricted the. wave action necessary for their development.

Criterion A-4: The extensive organic soils and associated source areas along the edges of the esker comp 1ex contr i buteo to ma i nt"a in i ng the baseflow and high quality water of the Little East River.

Criterion B-1: The peatlands and associated conifer communities at Novar Bog provide the best representation of this biotic community type found to date within Muskoka, particularly the mature Black Spruce community. Criterion B-2: The site has high species diversity in plants, birds and mammals, especially as the bog represents a northern community. In general, northern communities have lower species richness than their southern counte~parts. Criterion B-3: Much of the Black Spruce bog is of high quality with little recent disturbance. About 14% of the plants are introduced species. The presence of an exceptional number of northern bird species, together with the ma~urity of some vegetation corimunities, attests to the high quality of the bog. The Little East ~iver aquatic communities add to the quality of Bro~k the area, e as evidenced by the resident Trout "population.

Criterion B'~4: Novar Bog provides habi·tat for the following rare species:

Vascular Plants: PR RR Puccinellia fernaldii storrey's Manna X Triandenum virginicum Marsh st. John's Wort x

Wi ldl ife: Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin X Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren X Dendragapus canadensis Spruce Grouse X

- 39 ­ Empidonax flav;ventr;s Yellow-bellied Flycatcher x Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco X Parus hudsonicus Boreal Chickadee X Pico;des arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker X Rana palustris Pickerel Frog x Polygonia faunus Green Comma x In addition, 15 regionally uncommon species of flora and fauna were located on site.

Boundaries and Buffers:

The boundary outlines the extent of the bog within Mus~oka District. In the southwestern corner the boundary extends onto a small area of adjacent disturbed upland to include the foreshore platform. A buffer zone to the west encloses less significant wetlands and slopes which drain into the bog ecosystem. The eastern buffer is a steep wooded slope adjacent to one of the more significant parts of the bog. Reconmendations:

, } Novar Bog shou 1d be -des i gnated a Natura 1 Her i tage Area, since it meets six selection criteria. 2) All future developments within the Bog and buffer areas should be required to assess potential environmental effects in advance, including the cumulative effects of forest fragmentation. 3) The Ontario Ministry of Transportation should be made aware of the significance of Novar Bog and encouraged to consider alternative highway designs for Highway" expansion, and possible realignment of service roads and interchanges. Construction methods should include use of maximum flow-through culverts, minimal grade and swaths, and compatibl~ aggregate materials. 4) A t;.eld monitoring and evaluation process should occur after anY- development to monitor the survival of significant species and the ~unctioning of the hydrological system.' 5) The wetland north of the Muskoka border should be assessed for significance and possibly linked with Novar Bog - in order to protect the largest area possible. This may ass i st the surv i.va 1 of 'area-dependant spec i es in the f ace of habitat loss.

- 40 ­ 6) The Muskoka Heritage Foundation should be asked to continue landowner contact within this area to encourage stewardship. 7) Municipal policies should discourage future road construction, severences and building within the Bog area.

- 41 ­ ... ,- .'

.~. ; """"

liS 0

~o .,~

~\...

~

~ ",. I! ~. "40 ~ .\' ."0 S4' 0 \~

SH·O

~_. y~ _ -'.-0.

42 AXE LAKE

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 31E/6 1:10,000 10 17 6150 50250 10 17 6150 50200 Township: stisted, Huntsville Concession: 13 Lots: 1-3 14 1-4 Cardwell, Muskoka Lakes Concession: 14 Lot: Area: 246 ha Ownership: 83% Crown; 17% private. Coverage: The study area was visited seven times including two days in sections subsequently omitted. Small mammal trapping was undertaken during October 15-19, 1990. Site visits in 1991 occurred on June 11 and 24, July 15, and August 27. Due to the difficulty of access, the western section was not surveyed on foot. Axe lake and its immediate surroundings have been designated as a Life Science ANSI of provinicial significance, based on previous work (Keddy, 1981, 1982, 1983). The shallow waters of the lake and the sandy-peaty shorelines provide habitat for an outstanding collection of Atlantic Coastal Plain flora. While most of these disjunct plants occur on the Parry Sound side of Axe Lake, the Muskoka section is a important part of the ecosystem. This study also examined the conifer wetlands to the south of the lake, to determine their natural heritage value. Field work there did not reveal additional significant features; however, this extended, area provides a valuable buffer for the ANSI features, and contributes to the maintenance of species requiring large blocks of continuous habitat. . Site Description: a) Landform and Soils: Axe Lake is set within an extensive basin of deep organic soils" which stretch both to the north and south. On knolls within this wetland, and bordering its sides, there are intrusions of gneissic bedrock with a thin mantle of till. b) Hydrology: Several small creeks flow northwards across the site into Axe Lake. The lake itself'nutrient rich and very shallow with islands of mud and shrubby vegetation. Axe Creek flows out

- 43 ­ of the lake eastwards to Buck Lake. The lake is thought to be an fmportant oxidation-sedimentation basin (MNR, 1977), and the surrounding wet,lands 1ikely moderate downstream flows. Water levels within Axe Lake show considerable annua1 fluctuation, which is essential to the survival of the coastal plain species. c) Vegetation Communities:

The Axe Lake site has a variety of coniferous wetlands, mixed uplands, and aquatic communities. The following vegetation community descriptions correspond with the Axe Lake vegetation map in this report.

1) Balsam Fir-Sugar Maple forest on deep soils with a closed canopy. Northern Wild Raisin and Mountain Holly dominate the understory, especially nearing the lake. 2) Floating peat mat 1ining the southern_ shore of the lake. Notable species are Pitcher Plant, Calopogon, and Bladderworts. 3) Black Spruce and Tamarack on sphagnum with a Cinnamon Fern understory. 4) Shrub bog on the edge of the lake. 5) Second growth forest of Sugar Maple, Hemlock, and Black Cherry. 6) Upland Cedar, White Birch, Balsam Fir and Sugar Maple. 7) Stream bed with Leather1eaf, the sedge Carex oligosperma, and sparse Black Spruce. 8) Sugar Maple forest with a regenerating understory. 9) This community was not surveyed but, based on air photo interpretation, it is likely a Sugar Maple mixed forest. d) Flora:

A total of 204 vascular plants were found in the Axe Lake study area. One species, Yellow Sedge, is regionally rare and four are regionally uncommon, including Dalibarda, Robbin's Sedge, Round-leaved pyro1., and Humped Bladderwort. Most of the convnon species are representatfve of the extens i ve wet 1ands and up 1and wood areas, a 1though. the conifer wetlands have a strong northern affinity.

In addition, 58 mushroom species were identified, a relatively high diversity.

. - 44 ­ e) Fauna:

') B i r d"s : Sixty bird species were recorded including two regionally rare species and two regionally uncommon. The bird life of this area again reflects northern influences, with such species as Gray Jays and Golden-crowned Kinglets seen during nesting season. Black-backed Woodpeckers were seen bringing food to their young, representing a confirmed nesting of another northern species rare to Muskoka. 2) Mammals: Eleven manma 1 spec i es were found on site. "4 of these species, including the regionally uncommon Southern Red­ backed vole, were identified through small mammal trapping. 3)Herpetofauna: Seven common reptiles and amphibians were found on site representing both open water environments and moist upland woods. 4) Other Species: Ten butterfly species and 16 dragonfly and damselfly species we r e ; dent if; e don site. " Axe La ke had the mo s t drag0 n fly and damselfly species of any of the study areas examined to date.

Disturbance and Condition: The area within the ANSI boundaries is relatively undisturbed. The east shore of the lake is used as an unserviced campsite and is the only part of the lake shore su i tab 1e for recreat ion. Much. of "the ANS lis bordered by logging roads and upland areas; Outside the boundary are large logged areas and well developed snowmobile trails. As the wetland is not a prime timber resource, it remains relatively intact.

Criteria Fulfilled: B-3, 8-4

Criterion B-3: The Axe Lake ANSJ has been identified as the second most significant coastal plai.n lake in Ontario, with the richest coastal plain".species assemblage (Keddy and Sharp, 1989). While examples of the disjunct Atlantic coastal plain vegetation communities occur across Muskoka, the Axe Lake area is recognized as particularly high quality habitat.

- 45 ­ Criterion 8-4: Axe Lake provides habitat for the following rare species: NR PR RR Wildlife: Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo x Piciodes articus Black-backed Woodpecker X vascular Plants: Carex flava Yellow Sedge x The regionally rare Spruce .Grouse was also found within the original study area boundaries, to the 'south"east of the recommended area. Boundary Rationale:

The boundaries of the recommended core area follow the ANSI border within Muskoka. Buffer zones are recommended to extend into the wetland area and the immediate drainage area.' The northeastern buffer provides additional· protection to the shoreline, especially ~ince this is the most heavily used part of the lake. An upland area in the south was included in the buffer because of the good condition and diversity of the edge of the upland forest. Reconmendations:

1. Axe Lake should be designated a Heritage Area to correspond with the Provincial ANSI designation and to protect the significant species found there. . . 2. Recreation activities within the Area should be limited to non-motorized use, at least during the non-winter seasons when damage to vegetation and terrain is likely.

3. Forest m~nagement .ctivity should not be permitted on lands within the ANSI boundary; management within the buffer areas should emphasize protection of habitats and of downstream water quality. 4. The Muskoka Heritage Foundation, ·in conjunction with the Huntsville and North Muskoka Heritage Foundation, should contact private landowners within the Area and buffers to encourage natural heritage stewardship.

- 46 ­ I J~"

A J'.'

_\)0 ..~o( ./' 4f'_-,,/ - .-./' ... --­ / '\ .. ---- ... ~ U.O •

Il ~ \ g • ......

• \ . -. \ ..

• ..

»" •

-, ... e r"- '\ \ .... • 'J• .... • \ • • • • .,'(7

J K~

47 LEWISHAM WETLANDS

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 31D/14 1:10,000 10 17 6450 49650 10 17 6450 49700 Township: Ryde, Gravenhurst Concession: 4 Lots: 7-10 5 6 - 1 1 6 6-11 7 5-10 8 8-10 Area: 786 ha Ownership: approx. 86% crown Coverage: Five days of field work, including one day during the bird breeding season in June of 1990 were conducted. In 1991 field work was done on June 5, 21, July 9 and September 17. Parts of the area on the western side including Beatty's Lake and a section in the middle were not visited due to difficulty of access. Site Description: a) Landform and Soils: The area occupies a large basin of organic peat and muck surrounded by bare rock ridges and ~ha1low till. The northwest section of the area contains gneissic bedrock ridges wi·th shallow overburden. These ridges are separated by wet depressions oriented in a northeast direction. The remainder of the area is a low-lying basin with accumulations of organic deposits supporting bog associations and open marshes subject to seasonal flooding. b) Hydrology:

The dr.in~9. of Lewisham Wetlands is largely southward into the Bl.ck~R;v.r via Riley Lake. Riley Creek begins at Beatty·.·l.k.~which is situated in the southwest corner of the stu~, are.. The lake receives drainage from two· sizeable tributary streams to the north. The tributary immediately above Beatty's Lake has a series of beaver dams which have blocked the drainage, creating bog and marsh habitats. To the northeast of the lake are a ser~es of small marshy ponds, all in the process of filling in with sedge-rich vegetation. Beaver dams, low-lying depressions and another small stream along the eastern edge of the area have resulted in the form~tion of large open areas of marsh and graminoid bog mats. The drainage here is southwards and then east to South

- 48 ­ Longford Lake and finally the 31ack River.

A sma 11ke ttl e - 1ike 1~ ke i n t ~,e souther n part 0 f the study area is the source of a third large tributary which also meets Riley Creek to the west. South of this ;s a 'arge flat area of muskeg habitats in various stages of succession. c) Vegetation Communities:, The area supports a number of bog and marsh communities as well as some upland forest and rock barren associations. The following descriptions correspond to a vegetation map of Lew isham Wet 1ands, ke pton f i 1eat the. 0 i s t rict Mun i c i pal i t y . The inaccessible section which was not visited appears unlike other habitats in the.wetland according to airphoto interpretation, and may contain additional communities. 1. Pure stands of Aspen (mainly Trembling) in dry, open woods. 1b. Aspen, White Birch and some Red Maple on drier, slightly elevated areas. The stands are early succes~iona1 on deeper soils. 2. White Pine- mixes with Aspen, both Trembling and Large­ toothed, and White Birch on rock barren type landform. Generally the pine flanks the edges of the barren rock ridges. The ridges alternate with low-lying areas of Yellow Birch, "Black Cherry, Wild Raisin, and herb understory and/or Bracken Fern and Spiraea, Aster and Goldenrod meadows.

3. Balsam fir, Red Maple upland with deep, moist, rich soils. 4. Tamarack and White Birch with some Speckled Alder. This is a transitional association.between an alder swale and a tamarack ·treed bog. S. White Pine on rock, closed canopy. 6. Red and White Pine with a Bracken Fern understory on sha,llow· so; 1s. 7. TaJn4rack, Black Spruce treed bog with an open canopy, herb understory and Orchid species.

8. H~rb-ric~ Black Spruce, Spaghnum and Bunchberry bog. 9. Alder swale or swamp with Winterberry and Spiraea in a closed canopy, seasonally flooded. 10. Sweet Gale with' emergent Cattail and Calla. ".' Speckled Alder, Holly, Winterberry, Wild Raisin on moist, organic soils. .

- 49 ­ 12. Leatherleaf shrub bog with Bog Rosemary, Labrador Tea, Pale and Sheep Laurels, Cranberries and Blueberries, Chokeberry, some Tamarack and a graminoid (sedge) layer with Bog Sedge on a Spaghnum mat. 13. Speckled Alder with an open understory of Rattlesnake Manna Grass, Bugleweed and Enchanter's Nightshade on an intermittent stream bed. 14. Spiraea and Aster meadow with some Tamarack. 15. Forb meadow of Bracken Fern. 16. Sedge-grass meadow on wet-mesic soils. 16a. Bluejoint Grass with Swamp Candles and Willow shrubs. 16b. Sedge Bulrush beaver meadow with dead trees and open water with aquatic emergents at the southwest end. 17. Open muskegs with Sphagnum and Sedges on floating organic mats. 17a. Bog with er;caceous plants and Tamarack. 17b. Bog with Bog Rosemary and Three-leaved Solomon's Seal. 18. Chain Fern bog in a very wet swa1e. 19. Aquatic emergents in open water, 1-3 metres wide with Water Shield, Calla and Bladderwort.· 20. Marsh/fen lake complex consisting of sections of open water interspersed with sedge-rich vegetation such as Three­ way Sedge, Cotton Grass, Rushes, Bulrushes and Sedges. The lake is in the process of filling in. d) Flora:

A total of 154 species of vascular plants were recorded within the study area. Two species, Purple-flowering Raspberry (Rubus odoratus) and storrey's Manna Grass (Puccinellia fern&ldii) are regionally rare. Four regionally uncommon plants were found. In the cold, swampy wet areas Tufted Loosestrife (Lysimachia thyrsiflora) and Balsam Ragwort.(Senecio paupercu1us) were found. Sheep Laurel (Kalmia angwstifolia) was found in the shrub bogs and Dalibarda (Dalibarda repens) was found growing on the edge of the Black Spruce bog in rich soil. e) Fauna:

1) Bi~ds: 73 species of birds were recorded during the breeding season including many aquatic/marsh birds and warblers. A brood of the regionally rare Blue-winged Teal was found, as well as a pair of the uncommon Ring-necked Duck. In addition, a

- 50 ­ heronry of 17 nests with 6 of them active was observed at a sma 11 1ake northeast of the study area.' These herons 1 ike 1y use the wetlands as feeding grounds since Great Blue Herons were observed inside the area. 2) Mammals: Five mammals were recorded including the large game mammals, Moose, Black Bear and White-tailed Deer. 3) Herpetofauna: Four amphibians and three reptiles were recorded alt~ough none of them are considered rare.

4) Other Species: The wetland area was home for 12 species of butterflies, two of which are regionally uncommon. These are the Roadside Skipper (Amb1yscirtes viol is) and Dreamy Dusky Wing (Erynnis icelus). Disturbance and Condition: Much of the study area is protected from disturbance by di·fficu1ty of access. There is a trail along the southern edge which acts as an access for hunters and snowmobilers. A few houses, mainly seasonal dwellings are located along the road. The condition of the wetlands is excellent and shows a diversity of successional stages of marsh and bog plant associations.

Criteria Fulfilled A-4, B-3, B-4 Criterion A-4: The area i s an extens i ve wet 1and with three '1 arge strearns and a number of ponds and lakes, and serves as a headwater for several tributaries of Riley Creek.

'Criterion B-3: The area contains marsh and bog communities of high quality and show i ng 1itt 1e di sturbance. Th'ere are many success i ona 1 stages present, and representation of almost the full range of Huskoka wetland types. Criteria 8-4: The area·~rov;d•• habitat for the following rare species: NR PR RR Wildlife: Anas discors Blue-winged Teal x Vascula.r Plants: Rubus odoratus Purple-flowering Raspberry x Puc~inellia fernaldii storrey's Manna X

An' additional 2 species of butterfly, 1 bird and 4 species of vascular plants are considered regionally uncommon.

. . - 51 ­ Boundaries and Buffers: The boundaries of the area fol low the edge of the major portion of the wetland, although associated smaller wetlands do extend in all "directions. Buffer zones were established on the upland areas along the road. The other sections to the north and west are protected by their inaccessibility. The section of private land to the south would not greatly influence the rest of the wetland as the drainage does not flow into the area. Recommendations:

1) Lewisham wetlands should be designated a Natural Heritage Area because of the high quality and extent of its wetland habitats. 2) No excavation, municipal or private road construction on Crown land, or removal of vegetation should occur in the marsh and bog areas. 3) The drainage of the wetland should be protected from man­ made alterations in order that the natural dynamics of the wetland be allowed to continue. 4) Landowner contact should be made by the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, and stewardship encouraged to protect the natur.a1 values of the wetland. 5) The wetland should be referred to the MNR wetland evaluation program once an accepted evaluation procedure is available. 6) Further field studies in the wetland should be encouraged, in particular "access into the areas missed on the habitat mapping, to identify additional significant species and features. 7) The buffer areas should be protected from vegetation removal or other development which may lead to nutrient enrichm.n~~of the adjacent wetlands or erosion of the upland slopes into the wetland area.

- 52 ­ :-1 /

\ •\\--. r' ~, ' 8 \ \ .-1

- 53 ­ JEVINS LAKE

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 31D/14 1:10,000 10 17 6300 49700 10 17 6250 49700 Township: Morrison Concession: East Range Lots: 34, .35 , 2 , 5, , 6 Muskoka Concession: East Muskoka Road 2-4 1 , 5 - 18 2 1 7, 18 Area: 193 ha

Ownership: approx. 28% Crown Coverage: One day of field work was conducted in 1990 on August 26. I~' 1991, Jevins Lake was visited on June 6" July 3 and 23. Data collected on July 23, 1991 was not used in this analysis because the area covered is no longer within the boundaries of the site. Site Description: a) Landform and Soils: Jevins Lake is surrounded by shallow glaciolacustrine sands and bare rock ridges running roughly north-south. 'Between the ridges are wet depressions with shallow organic accumu 1at ions. The 1ake has float i ng peat mats ex'tend i ng along sections of its shore. To the northeast of the lake are three potholes in the gneissic bedrock. b) Hydrology: Surface drainage into Jevins Lake comes mainly from the northeast slope. A se~ies of small creeks, ponds formed by beaver dams, and wet depressions flow into the lake. Jevins Lake flow8 ;nto Cornall Lake to the south via a creek slowed by beaver dams. c) Vegetation Communities: The" vegetation communities of Jevins Lake are typical of the wetland depressions and upland rock barrens of south Muskoka. The following descriptions correspond with the vegetation map of Jevins Lake retained on file. 1. Beaver ponds with dead standing trees and submergent aquatic plants, gradually filling with organic materials.

- 54 ­ 2. Red Oak-White Pine barrens on shallow soils or bare rock.

3. White Pine on shallow soils and rock.

4. Virginia Chain Fern dominating this low, wet area between rock ridges. 5. Sedge-grass meadow where a creek runs into the lake. 6. Leatherleaf dominating a floating peat mat on the lake. 7. White Oak and White Pine on shallow soils with an open crown, with Trembling Aspen and Sugar Maple. Red Pine dominates in small po~kets. 8. Sweet 'Gale with Pickerel Weed and other emergent aquatic plants. In one area, Arrow Arum (Peltandra virginica) dominates the shoreline. 9. Red Maple with a variety of other tree species. 10. Black Spruce and Tamarack on peat along two areas of shoreline. '1. Mixed forest of White Birch, White Pine, Sugar Maple, and young American Beech with a sparse understory. 12. White Pine with Red Oak and a sparse understory of Common Juniper and woodferns. This is a relatively high, rocky area which features potholes. d) Flora:

A total of 318 vascular plants we~e identified including " sign.ificant species. The most notable plant is a disjunct, thriving patch of Arrow Arum, or Tuckahoe (Peltandra virginica) which was originally discovered by Rick Bobbette. Th~ plant grows in the low, muddy lakeshore ahd is nationally, provincially, and regionally rare. It is the on,ly known site in Muskoka of the plant. e) Fauna: Birds: 55 bird speci.es were recording during the nesting seasQn. All of' the birds are typical of lake and rock barren areas. Mammals: Three ·mammals were ident'ified although more species are likely to inhabit the site.

- 55 ­ Herpetofauna: 10 species of amphibians and reptiles were found in the wet depressions and lakeshore area.

O~her Species: 5 common butterflies were identified on site. Disturbance and Condition:

There are a few signs of human usage around Jev;ns Lake consisting of paths and firepits around the l·ake. A Hydro 'distribution line runs through the north of the site. Highway" and gravel roads surround the lake outside the study site boundaries. Overall the site is largely undisturbed and in good condition.

Criteria Fulfilled: A-1, 8-4

Criterion A-1: The potholes northeast of the lake have been identified as a significant landform feature within Muskoka (Bajc, pers. comm.). Three potholes are clustered along the edge of a bedrock ridge, with the rims of two intersecting_ The largest of the three is approximately two metres in diameter, and at least ffve metres deep. Based on their location, the potholes are probably sub-glacial in origin, created by the spinning action of stones as a major outburst of water flowed under the ice in late glacial times. Criterion 8-4: Jevins Lake provides habitat for the following rare plant species: NR PR RR Bulbostylis capillaris Hair Rush X X Peltandra virginica Arrow Arwm X X X Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania Smartweed X Puccinellia fernaldii Storrey's Manna X Sporobolus neglectus Overlooked Dropseed X Xyris difformis Slender Yellow-eyed Grass X

In additton, 4 regionally uncommon plants were found.

Boundary~and ,.. . Buffers: The boundaries enclose ,the lake and associated wetland areas, together with most of the uplands that drain i,nto the lake. The northeastern corner is extended slightly to include the potholes. The western border follows the height of land where the drainage and wetlands begin. The eastern border is flanked by a buffer zone which includes the remaining watershed area feed'ing the lake and wetlands.

- 56 ­ Recommendations:

1) The study site should be d~signated a Natural Heritage Area as it meets two criteria. 2) The potholes should be protected from disturbance, ard the landowner contacted regarding more formal arrangements for public viewing and education. 3) Future management of the shoreline and watershed areas should protect vegetation and drainage patterns in order to safeguard the significant vascular plants within this area. Future development upstream of Jevins Lake, "notably on the Hahne F.arm area north of Highway 11, should incorporate measures to ensure that stormwater impacts do not affect the lake ecosystem.

4) Prior to any realignment of Highway" wi"thin or adjacent to this area, environmental assessment studies should identify measures to ensure that its significant features will not be impacted by run-off or other means, with particular attention directed to the close prox\imity of the Arrow Arum location and the potholes. 5') Construction of roads and cottages within the Heritage Area should be discouraged on private lands, and not permitted on Crown lands. Any proposals for future development should include ecological studies to demonstrate how the natural heritage values of the area will be protected. 6) The Muskoka Heritage Foundation should be requested to contact landowners within the area to encourage private stewardship.

- 57 ­ - 58 ­ BRITANNIA ESKER

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 31E/6 1:10,000 1a 17 6.450 50 15a Township: Brunel, Huntsville Concess ion: 9 Lots: . 29-32 , 0 30-32

Area: 189 ha

Ownership: 100% private

Coverage: Four days of field work were conducted in 1991 on May 24, May 28, June 13, and July 10. The data collected on June 13 was not included because large areas of clear cutting were discovered and the boundaries were realigned accordingly.

Site Description:

a) Landform and Soils:

"A largely unexploited esker complex terminating in a fan­ shaped depos; t occurs 2.5 km west of Br; tann i a ; n Brune 1 township. The esker is situated well above the 1 imits of glacial Lake Algonquin (380 m as1) and is therefore unmodified and easily recognized. A few small gravel pits are situated within the deposit, however, for the most part the feature is pristine.

The feature cons i sts of a north-trend i ng ser; es of anastamosing ridges composed primarily of ~andy gravel. The ridges vary from 3 to 10 metres in height and are bounded by small ice block depressions or kettles 100 to 200 m in diameter at the southern end of the comp 1ex. The esker 'complex terminates at what is presumed to be an ice-marginal position where glaciofluvial sedirt:'entation passes from the subglacial to the prog1aica1 environment. A flat-topped, fan-shaped depos it.. of sand and grave 1 approx i mate 1y 300 m long anti' 2:00 . fA wi de, fr i nged by a peat 1and to the south, protrude. __thw'ard form the esker comp 1ex . A spur of i ce­ contact ".•trati f ; ed dr i ft extends eastward down a narrow val'ley tOWar_ds Brit.annia." (Bajc, 1990)

~A .. b) Hydrology:

The hydrology of the site is linked to its glacial origin. 0; sapp·ear i ng streams and dry pond beds with in the s'; te ar e ev i.dence of the permeab 1e nature of the so; 1s, and suggest a hi gh'l y act i ve groundwater system. Two stream systems dra i n to the southeast with several ponds created by beaver dams. An' organic wetland area with restricted drainage is found at the southern end of the esker complex.

- 59 ­ c) Vegetation Communities:

Most of the area is heavily wooded with sub-mature upland hardwoods typical of Muskoka. The following descriptions correspond with the vegetation map of Britannia Esker kept on file.

1. Upland Sugar Maple-Beech forest on mesic fine sands with some Black Cherry and a Balsam Fir understory rear the wetland edge.

2. Su~ar Maple and Hemlock upland forest with a closed canopy on deep well-drained soils.

3. Sugar Map 1e and Ba 1sam Fir on parts of the esker and surrounqing upland area.

4. Low, wet areas with dead standing trees and grasses su r round a creek and pond system. The pond canta i ns Water Lilies and other emergent aquatics.

5. Sloping area of fine sand dominated by Sugar Maple with sparse Yellow and White Birch and Black Cherry. Balsam Fir dominates the u~derstory nearing the bog.

6. Mixed wetland forest of Cedar, Fir, Ash and Maple located on wet areas adjacent to the main bog.

7. Large graminoid bog with clumps of Leatherleaf and Sweet Gale on deep organic soils.

8. Upland Sugar Maple and Yellow Birch with some Black Cherry on fine sands.

9. An irrmature success ion.a 1 forest of Aspen and Birch w; th a closed canopy on fine sands.

10. Forest domi nated· by Red Map 1e, Large-toothed and Trembling Aspen with some Balsam Fir'on deep soils.

11. Balsam Fir and Red Maple forest with rock outcroppings. d) Flora:

159 vascular plant species were recorded during the 1991 f i·e 1d season. No rare spec i es were found but there were three regionally uncommon plants. In the low areas near the main wetland, Tall Blue Lettuce (Lactuca biennis) and Slender ·Manna Grass (Glyceria melicaria) were located. Round-leaved Pyro 1a (pyro 1a rotund i fo 1i a) was found .in the dry upl and woods in the 'south of the· site. The relatively low diversity of plants .ref 1eets the domi nanee of closed canopy hardwood stan~s interspersed with relatively few wetland communities.

- 60 ­ In addition to the vascular plants, 14 species of mushrooms were found on site. e) Fauna: Birds: Forty-four bird species were recorded, none of which are considered significant. Interior forest species were well represented along with a few birds of more northern affiliation such as Olive-sided Flycatcher.' Mammals: Six mammal species, all common, were noted including Moose and Deer. Herpetofauna: Seven common amphibians were found including the Yellow­ spotted Salamander. While this species is. thought to be widespread, it is difficult to detect outside breeding season, and there i s some concern that ismay be vu 1nerab 1e to acidic deposition. other Species: Three butterfly species were recorded in incidental observations. Disturbance and Condition: The or; gina 1 size of the study area was reduced because of past clear cutting. As a result, only approximately half of the esker is included within the reconvnended area. The recommended area does not contain any major disturbance, only a f'ew pat'hs and overgrown dirt roads. The wet 1and and up 1and forests are in good condi t ion with i n the area boundar i es , showin~ little evidence of recent cutting. Criteria Fulfilled: A-', A-2 Criterion A-1: The esker is an unusual landform feature on a District level and has b••n identified as the best example in Muskoka. (Bajc, 1$90) Former eskers below the level of 'glacial Lake Algonquin have been modified by wave action; Most other esker deposits have been exploited as sources of gravel. Criterion A-2: The esker ends ina sandy fan depos i ted by the or ; gina 1 stream as it emerged from beneath the glacier. The occurrence of' sma 11 kett 1e depress ions and disappear i ng streams a 1so represent the effects of the 9 1ac i ers on the site. These landform features provide excellent examples of the process of glacial retreat, which could be used for educat ; ona l' and sc i ent i f i c study.

- 61 ­ A 1th'ough the esker is reasonab 1y und i sturbed and surrounded by good quality wetlands and upland forests, and three regional!ly uncommon 'plants were found, no biotic criteria were fulfilled. Therefore, the recommendation of the Britannia Esker as a Natural Heritage Area is based solely on its abiotic qualities.

Boundary Rationale:

The esker, outwash fan, and kettle depressions are located within the boundaries. The buffer zone follows the surrounding high ground to protect drainage into the area. A small upland area to the south has been included because of its good quality forest communities.

Reconmendations:

1) . The mod; f i ed Br i tann; a Esker study area ; s recommended as a Natural Heritage Area, based on fulfillment of two abiotic criteria.

2) The esker, outwash f an and associ ated wet 1ands shou l.d not be ; dent if i ed as potent i a 1 sources of m; nera 1 aggregate for Muskoka and no licensed or wayside pit extraction should be permitted.

3) Muskoka Her i tage Foundat i on or Lake of Bays Her; tage Foundat ion shou 1d carry out 1andowrier contact to encour age stewardship of the landform features, maintenance of the associated f,orest cover and stream quality, and to discourage commercial logging and private road construction within the Area and buffer zones.

4) The municipality should not open the road a 11 owance through the area or permit land severance or deve 1opment activities 'within the area.

5) The MNR should consider Britannia Esker as a candidate earth sc i ence ANS I I and shou 1d exam i ne its' pot.ent i a 1 as a representative site for life science ANSI status as well.

- 62 ­ ~'I

II) -,' MIO'

.---­

\ \

.\

,lM'O

172 o.

.3"'0

.1"0

376 !l nl·'.

- 63 ­ BEAUMONT BAY CARBONATES

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 3·1 E/ 3 1:10,000 10 17 6150 50050 10 17 6200 50050 Township: Watt, Muskoka Lakes

Concession: 12 Lots: 6-10 1 1 6 B 26-33 A 26,30,31 Area: 375 ha

Ownership: 100% Private Coverage: A preliminary investigation of the study area was made on August 23, 1990 with emphasis on locating calciphiles (calcium loving plants) which would reflect the presence of 1imestone. Subsequent fie 1d work was carr i.ed out in 1991 on June 17, June 28, July 8, July 19 and September 3. Site Description: a) Landforms and Soils: In middle Ordovician time a meteorite formed a crater in the rocks of the Precambrian Shield, creating the hollow now filled by Skeleton Lake. During Ordovician times marine seas inundated the crater and covered it with limestone beds. Subsequent erosion and glacial scouring removed most of the limestone in the area except for the protected lake bottom depression and some scattered erratics (Waddington, 1979). Erratics of Ordovician limestone were found by Waddington and Dence (1919) along the south shore of Skeleton Lake and in a gravel pit south of the Lake. These erratics are in the form of ." angu 1ar to subrounded, flat bou 1der s up to 30. cm acros s" . No other known source .of Ordovician limestone exists between "Skeletori Lake and Lake Nipissing (Hewit~, 1961). ~ Fi"el"d work ca'rried out by Andy Bajc of the Ontario Geological Survey in 1990 confirmed a number of points with high levels of carbonate .fra~ents in a area surrounded by" low car~onate readin~s to the south of Skeleton Lake. The candidate study area was defined around the known deposits of high carbonate content.

According to Bajc (1990) the southern part of the study area is a kame moraine which is reflected in the number of gravel pits found here. The rest of the area is mainly underlain by shal10w till with some areas of exposed bedrock. The cattail

- 64 ­ marsh in the western part of the area is an area of organic deposits surrounding a small bedrock exposure. b) Hydrology: The study area has a number of small streams, intermittent creeks and a large wetland area which drain into Skeleton Lake, Nutt Lake and Three-Mile Lake (Hammell Bay). A few beaver dams are present in the area, creating small flooded beaver ponds. These are at various stages of succession to grass and shrub vegetation. c) Vegetation Communities:

Th~ study area includes a variety of rich deciduous and mixed forest types, some of unusual maturity, together with several wetland types. The following communities are identified on the vegetation association map kept on file at the District:

1. Red Maple, White Ash, Black Cherry, Trembling Aspen, white Pine, White Birch with an open canopy on dry, rocky soils. The understory consists of Meadowsweet, Juniper and Bracken Fern. 2. Sugar Maple, Beech and some Hemlock with an understory of young White Ash, Striped Maple and Wood Ferns. The canopy varies from open to closed. 3. Sugar Maple, White Birch and some Beech in a closed canopy with an understory of Bracken Ferns on sloping we11­ drained ground. White Pine are scattered throughout.

4. Sugar Maple, Balsam Fir and Black· Cherry on moist soils with an understory of young Sugar Maple, with wet pockets of Sensitive and Royal Ferns. 5. Red Maple, White Birch and White Ash with an understory of Balsam Fir. 6. Yellow Birch and Red Maple .on moist soils.

7. V.ry~matur. Sugar Maple mix forest with few Beech, Yellow Birch, Black Ash, Striped Maple and White Ash on a steep slope with deep, moist soils. The understory is rich with White Ash, False Solomon's Seal, Intermediate Woodfern and Herb-Robert. .

8. Mature Large-Tooth Aspen, White Birch, Sugar Maple, Amer; can Elm, Staghorn Sumac, Ironwood, Basswood and R'ed Oak on ~ steep slope with Sugar and Striped Maple understory.

- 65 ­ 9. White Birch and Trembling Aspen on a steep well-drained slope by the water and elsewhere on drier, gentle slopes.

10. Red Maple mix forest with White Birch and Trembling Aspen, or Sugar Maple, Basswood, Striped Maple, Red Oak, White Spruce and White Pine on gently sloping terrain with deep, rich, moist soils.

11. Beech, Hemlock, Sugar Maple, sometimes with Ironwood and White and/or Yellow Birch, Red Oak and White Pine with an understory of Striped Maple, Fly Honeysuckle and Wood Ferns on loamy, deep, rich soils.

12. Hemlock, Yellow Birch, some Maple, Black Ash and Cedar on a moist site with a sparse understory of Cinnamon and Wood Ferns plus Hobblebush.

13. White Pine, Red Maple usually on drier ridges.

14. Remnant scattered White Pine with ma1nly White Birch, Sugar Maple, and Balsam Fir on an upland slope. Sometimes Aspen, White Ash, Red Oak and Striped Maple are found in this association.

15. White Spruce, White Pine, Red Maple and Red Oak on shallow soils with exposed rock.

16. Very mature Hemlock and Yellow Birch with some young Beech along a sloping intermittent streambed.

17. Hemlock and some White Birch and/or Sugar Maple and Cedar on rocky outcrops or steep slopes.

18. Pond with emergent aquatics (Cattail) and Leatherleaf.

19~ Leatherleaf floating shrub bog with Tamarack. 20. Speckled Alder scrub with goldenrod, grasses and sedges.

21. Speckled Alder-Holly-Winterberry, Black Ash, Sensitive Fern in. an intermittent stream bed.

22. Float; ng grami no i d mat with dead t.rees and an open water channel .urrounding it. 23. Bluejoint Grass wet meadow with Royal and Crested Ferns, Meadowsweet and Joe-pye-weed. 24. Cattail Marsh in open water patches with wooded swamp features in~lud;n9 White Birch, Black Spruce, dead trees, Red Maple and Elderberry. The border of the marsh has Bluejoint Grass, Sedge Bulrush and Balsam Fir.

- 66 ­ d) Flora:

Among the 296 plant species found in the study area, two species, Glaucous Honeysuckle and Panic Grass, are calc;philes. Many other species reflect the presence of a ri'ch woods such as Basswood, Ironwood, Wild Leek, White Baneberry, Downy Yellow Violet, Herb-Robert, Rattlesnake Grape Fern, Rose Twisted Stalk, Smith's Melic Grass, Long Awned Wood Grass, Black Grass, White Grass, Tall Millet Grass, Drooping Wood Sedge and Rough Sedge. Still others have a more southern distribution and thus would be approaching their a northern limit, such as Silver Maple, Prickly Gooseberry, Maple Leaf Viburnum, Poison Ivy, Enchanter's Nightshade, White Trillium and White Baneberry.

Six species are considered regionally uncommon and two are reg i ona 11 y rare. One of the rare spec; es, Wood' Cudweed, was found on disturbed, dry rocky ground at the s9uthern end of the bog lake on the peninsula. The other species, Smith's Melic Grass was found at two locations, both close to high carbonate locations in rich Sugar Maple-White Birch-Beech forest. The regionally uncommon Black Grass (Oryzopsis racemosa) was also found in the rich deciduous woods.

Twelve species of mushrooms were identified in the study area in a one day inventory. The total number of species ;s likely to be much higher. e) Fauna:

') B -; r ds : Forty-three species of birds were identified including a large number of Warblers and Thrushes. The only notable bird was the nationally and provincially rare Red-Shouldered Hawk, which was observed in the area, although no evidence of nesting was found.

2) Mammals: The study area prov ; ded hab i tat for -typ i ca 1 Muskoka mamma 1s including White-tailed·Deer and Black Bear. A Fisher was seen crossing the road into the area.

3) Herpetofauna: Seven common amphibians were observed but no reptiles were seen. 4) Other Species: There were 4 butterfly and 1 dragonfly and damselfly species identified on one day, none of them are considered rare or unconvnon.

- 67 ­ Disturbance and Condition:

The study area has a high degree of d~sturbance associated with gravel pits, a cemetary, a large campground by Nutt Lake, cottages and homes along the shore of Skeleton Lake. A highway cuts through the middle of the area and local access roads are present in many parts. Snowmobile trails and logging of the deciduous forests for firewood have di.st~rbed other areas. Nevertheless, there are sections of very mature forest stands throughout the area as well as undisturbed marsh and small lake communities.

Criteria Fulfilled: A-1, 8-4

Criterion A-1: The presence of strands of high carbonate glacial debris throughout this area is an unusual landform feature that occurs nowhere else in Muskoka. An earth science assessment of the Nutt Lake Limestone Erratics by the Ministry of Natural Resources concluded that the outlier covered by Skeleton Lake was regionally significant. The erratics and pebbles of Ordovician limestone in the outwash and till were considered at least locally significant (Spek, '981). Their distribution can be used to confirm the direction of past glacial ice movement. As well, the presence of carbonates in the soils of the study area contributes to the richness of its vegetation communities.

Criterion 8-4: , The area provides habitat for the following rare species: NR PR RR Wi 1d 1i f e: Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk x x Vascular Plants: Melica smithii Smith's Melic Grass x Gnaphalium sy1vaticum Wood Cudweed X Boundaries and Buffers: The boundaries of this area are largely determined by the four area. of high carbonates. The cottage developments and mar i na a long the south shore of, Ske leton Lake are exc 1uded because of the associated disturbanc~. For the 'same reason, the trailer park on Nutt Lake, the young plantations, some of the residential homes and the cemetary along t~e. Old Parry Sound Road are excluded. Two· small gravel pits remain within the boundaries because these coincide 'with high carbonate read; ngs. Most· of the other boundar i es fo 11 ow ri dge 1i nes or the, edge of wetland communities. The boundaries recognize that the high carboriate deposits are likely to be largely continuous, rather than occurring only in isolated pockets. Known occurrences of rare species and unusually mature woodlands are included within the boundaries.

- 68 ­ Reconmendations:

1. The Beaumont Bay Carbonates should be designated as a Heritage Area because it meets two criteria, despite the degree of past disturbance. 2. All wetland areas within the area should be left in their natural state with development restrictions on the alteration of drainage or filling. 3. Further field work early in the season would be beneficial to document the 'bird and herpetofauna 1 ife of thi3 area, particularly within the large marsh area.

4. The Muskoka Heritage Foundation should be requested to carry out 1andowner contact to encour age' pr; vate s t ewar ds hip to protect the rich forest communities such as the mature trees around Peninsula Road. 5. During review and design of the proposed lifestyle community development in the southern part of this site, consid~ration ~hou'd be given to: a) avoiding the random dispersal of limestone erratics as recommen'ded by Spek (1981), or alternatively, a more comprehensive mapping of their distribution for scientific purposes prior to development; b) protection of known sites of rare species, and of the mature Hemlock-Yellow Birch community (number 16 on the vegetation map).

- 69 ­ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~.r.b·. I · I ..... I ,h.·.. I I I I L' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~ I - 70 DWIGHT BOG

Topographic Reference: 1:50,000 31E/6 1: 10,000 1017 6550 50200

Township: Franklin, Lake of Bays Con c e s s ion : 9 L·o t s : 4 - 9 , 10 5-9

Area: 141 ha

Ownership: 100% Private

Coverage: Dwight Bog was visited twice in 1991, on August 7 and 21. Data from the bird lists was not counted as the inventory was not "done during the bird breeding season. Description: a) Landforms and Soils: The area known as Dwight Bog contains swamp and organic deposits. The bog is in a depression with a very gently slop i ng topography. It; s bor der ed on a 11 but the southern edge by steep hills which are 100 metres higher than the bog. The southern area is a sandy plain o~ly slightly higher than the bog, and is occupied by a private campground. b) Hydrology: Two intermittent streams run through the middle of the site. One stream drains westward from Wilson Lake located just to the east. The other stream drains from a series of small beaver cont·ro 11 ed ponds wh i ch beg i n in the high hi 11 s to the north. .. c) Vegetation Communities: The vegetation of Dwight Bog is typical of northern peat1and communities. The bog forms a very gently sloping surface with a hummock-hollow topography wi~hin a continuous cover of Spaghnum spp., a ground cover of ericaceous shrubs and herbs and open canopy of Black Spruce and some Tamarack. Seven communities were identified during field visits.

1. A closed Balsam Fir dominant forest along portions of the .~dge of the study area. 2. Balsam Fir, Trembling Aspen mixed· forest with some Cedar and Black Ash along the western edge.

- 11 ­ 3. Black .Spruce mixed with Balsam Fir in the interior of the bog. The more open canopy al lows tall shrub vegetation such as Speckled Alder, Mountain Holly and Northern Wild Raisin to dominate the understory, along with a low shrub and herb understory of Labrador Tea, Goldthread, Wintergreen and Bunchberry.

4. A homogenous Black Spruce stand, the largest vegetation community present, with some Tamarack, a rich Spaghnum and herb understory on the hummocks and some Sedges and Ferns on wet interstices.

5. A wooded swamp with Black Ash, Wh;~e Cedar and Balsam Fir in a slightly lower-lying and wetter area.

6. 'Along the intermittent stream beds, a Speckled Alder, White Cedar and Holly thicket with some Balsam Fir. 7. Trembling Aspen dominant upland forest surrounding the area. d) Flora: Vascular Plants: Sixty species of vascular plants were recorded in the study area. Many of these species have boreal affinities, such as Juneberry, Wintergreen, Tamarack, Labrador Tea, American Mountain Ash and Velvet leaf Blueberry, although none of them are considered rare. Two species are considered regionally uncommon: Dalibarda (Dalibarda repens) and Pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys). Twenty-seven species of mushrooms were· found. This is a high diversity for the small, rather homogenous area studied. e) Fauna:

Birds: • Twelve species of birds were recorded including the regionally rare Spruce Grouse which has been previously reported from this area (Ron Tozer, personal communication). All other species were common. Because of·the timing of field visits, no evidence of breeding status was observed. Mammals: Only two mammals were recorded, although other mammals typical of this habitat can be expected. Herpetofauna: Two common amphibians, the American Toad and the Green Frog, were identified in the study area.­ other Species: The Green Darner Dragonfly which ;s often found in wet, boggy areas and one butterfly, the provincially rare Leonardus Skipper, were found.

- 72 ­ Disturbance and Condition:

The entire study area is largely undisturbed. There were no records of any introduced species present in the bog. Some campers and hunters may venture into the bog, but its dense growth and wet surface discourages heavy use.

Criteria Fulfilled: B-3, B-4

Criterion B-3: The area contains a Black Spruce treed bog of high quality showing little recent disturbance. This type of wetland community is uncommon this far south.

Criterion 8-4: The area provides habitat for the following rare species:

Wi ldl i fe: NR PR RR Dendragapus canadensis Spruce Grouse X Hesperia leonardus Leonardus Skipper x Boundaries and Buffers: The northern boundary for Dwight Bog area follows the edge of the bog with natural protection afforded by the steep hills. On the western edge the highway is a logical boundary. On the eastern side, Wilson Lake was incorporated as a buffer since the hydrological input is from this lake. On the southern edge, the boundary again follows the edge of the bog with incorporation of a narrow buffer zone in the area occupied by the campground. Recornnendat ion·s:.

1. Further study should be done in the spring a~d early summer seasons to identify breeding birds and herpetofauna. 2. Dwight Bog should be considered as a Natural Heritage Area, since it meets two criteria. Additional field work may resu'lt in appl ication of other criteria for this area. '3. LandOwner contact shou 1d be estab 1i shed with i n th iss i te so that \he owners can be made 'aware of the significant featuresrof the bog environment and encouraged to undertake pr i vat. ~ew.rdsh.;p to protect these features. 4. No new. roads, hydro cuts, peat extraction or development should be allowed within the bog area. 5. Any new development proposals for Wilson Lake should determine the poten~ial impact on the water quality of the lake-in order to minimize the flow of nutrients into the bog.

- 73 ­ 6. The owners of the ex;stfng campground should be encouraged to minimize disturbances to the edge of the bog, and to avoid any acti~ities which would add nutrients to the wetland "ecosystem.

- 74 ­ l '---­ l­ .. ,' I

~,~ ~~

~

..l) ~

.\~ ~~ ) / / I. "I'::' /' ,'~ ) ) ,~

75 OTHER SITES OF INTEREST:

1) Sites with unchanged status after further field work

PORT CUNNINGTON INTRUSIVES

This 1990 Site fulfilled criterion A-1 because it is one of the only two known examples of late Precambrian intrusions of ultramific rocks in Muskoka (Hewitt, 1967).

A biological field study was conducted on August 15, 1991, to see whether the flora had responded to the distinct soil geochemistry of the site. The forest around the pit was dominated by Sugar Maple and Beech with Wood Ferns and Striped Maple understory. It was heavily disturbed and the vegetation reflected this disturbance. Close to the intrusives, grasses common to disturbed areas such as Witch Grass, Small Crab Grass and Green Foxtail were found in abundance. No unusual or rare species were noted. The status of this site thus remained unchanged with the recommendation being to make it a Natural Heritage Site based on its earth science feature. It is also proposed as an ANSI candidate for earth science.

2) Sites not recommended as candidate Heritage Area or Site

PORT CUNNINGTON WETLAND This wetland was recommended by Brunton as a regional ANSI because it is a site ·type not adequate 1y represented on the Ministry of Natural Resources Algonquin Region matrix. During two field visits in 1991, the regionally rare. Pickerel Frog was identified in the Sedge and Cattail rich wetland, while the regionally uncommon Narrow-leaved Willow Herb was found in a Larch swamp which flanked the wetland. The shoreline of the wetland was dominated by Northern Wild Raisin, Mountain Holly and Winterberry. A population of Virginia Chain Fern was also noted in the wetland. The forest surrounding the swamp and wetland communities was a relatively. ~ndisturbed rich woods. It was dominated by Sugar m&Rl.-ee.ch-White Birch and Hemlock with some Basswood, White A.i'~."" Black Cherry and a diverse understory with spec i es ·,.....oc'.1.•:t..d with a deep, rich so i 1 . . '- . :-. . ';'-.:),~ In the analysis of this site the most significant aspect was the re1at.ively high community diversity ·in 1ight of the fairly small site size. However, the species diversity was low and only one regionally rare frog was found. The status of the Pickerel Frog may be changed from regionally rare to uncommon as it is being found more frequently in Muskoka. Thus, the Port Cunnington Wetland did not contain sufficient biological evidence to recommend as a candidate Natural Heritage Area or Site.

- 76 ­ PORT SEVERN OUTLIER This site was recommended by Andy Bajc for its geo;ogical interest. The area ;s a raised dome of limestone outcropping bordered 'by farm fields and a new subdivision.

A biological inventory was made in 199i to look for the presence of calciphiles. Three such species were found, Red Juniper and Glaucous Honeysuckle which are considered regionally uncommon and Viper's Bugloss, an introduced species. In addition, three other uncommon plants were found including Downy Arrowhead which is approaching a northern limit for its distribution. Red Cedar is also at a northern 1 ; mit. 0 nereg ionall y r are' butt e r fly, the E ast ern B 1ac k Swallowtail was identified. The outlier was covered in Poison Ivy and 50% introduced species. In the analysis for this site, the limestone outcrop was not considered unique enough to meet an abiotic criteria. The presence of one regionally rare' species and five uncommon would meet the criterion for rarity, however this criteria by itself is not sufficient to support a recommendation for candidate Natural Heritage Area or Site designation. WADIS CREEK MOUTH

This site was recommended by Towle (1989) in his Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat in the vicinity of Lake of Bays and by Brunton as a regional ANSI. Wadis Creek was described as a small, slow moving river with an excellent marsh habitat at the delta where the river meets Lake of Bays.

The site was v .i s ,i ted inAugust 0 f 199 1 . The r i ve r itself was fairly disturbed due to the presence of homes and cottages with lawns which in two cases go right to the river edge. The river banks were dominated with Speckled Alder, Elderberry and Winterberry, the forest behind a mix of Balsam Fir, Red Maple, White Birch, Red Oak, White Pine and White Spruce. The delta was the most significant feature with a diversity of Aquatic plants including two uncommon species. The fish pop.ulation was a·1so particularly· high as the shallow lacustrine habitat provides protection for young fish. The diversity,· of wildlife was good considering the' small size of the delta, ,area. However, none of these features were significant enough to fulfill the necessary criteria. Thus the Wadis Creek Mouth was not recommended as a candidate Natural He~itage Area or Site.

- 17 ­ MUSKOKA CANYON

The North Muskoka River val ley area from High Fal15 to Wilson Falls was investigated in the early spring and summer of 1991. While most of the river edge ;s fairly developed with homes and cottages and the vegetation communities show signs of recent disturbance, sections of the va' ley walls and river floodplain still provide a variety of sheltered habitats for wildlife, in particular birds and dee~. The two common mixed forest associations were Red Maple-White Spruce-Aspen and Sugar Maple-Hemlock. The most mature association found was a White Spruce-Balsam Fir-Hemlock mix. This mix, which is more common in the north, attracts breeding birds such as Evening Grosbeak and Wh;te-t~roated Sparrow. A total of 49 species of birds were seen in the valley during breeding season, along with 150 kinds of vascular plants. While some of these plants, such as Christmas Fern, White Baneberry, Blue Cohosh, Rose Twisted Stalk and Early Meadow Rue are indicative of relatively rich"soi1s, none of these plants are considered rare in Muskoka. The only regionally rare pl"ant found was Bloodroot. This plant prefers heavy clay soils and it was found growing in the vicinity of a varved clay exposure. The North Muskoka Canyon provides a locally significant natural corridor for the movement of wildlife and plant species. Analysis of "the Muskoka Canyon area revealed features of interest, like the varved clays, the regionally rare Bloodroot and the natural corridor. However, none of these features were significant enough to meet any selection cr iter i a. Thus, the Muskoka Canyon was not recommend"ed as a candidate Natural Heritage Area or ,Site. 3) Sites recommended for further field work OXTONGUE RIVER

The Oxtongue -Rtver-·Mouth was stud i ed in 199'0 and recommended as "il cat\Alidat.~·ker:1tage Site with a second recommendation for additio~"~e.ld.. ~~rv~ys .d~ring. the early summer season to further"~arlfy.;...~e s1gnlflcance. The Oxtongue R; ver Mouth' and a port i on of the river . above Marsh's "Falls to below Oxtongue Lake were investigated for biological significance. The results of the 1991 field· work indicated that the upper part of the river was not sign"ificant enough to wa~rant inclusion as a Heritage Area or Site; however, the lower Oxtongue River increased in site significance with the identification of a nationally and regionally rare plant (Grass-leaved Arrowhead) as well as two regionally rare birds (Cape May Warbler and Evening

- 78 ­ Grosbeak). In addition, the delta feature fulf i 1:ed criterion A-1.

The fulfillment of a third criteria is contingent upon confirmation of some biological features identified by Spek in 1978 in a section of the delta which has not yet been surveyed by the Heritage Area field staff. This survey should be made early in the 1992 season. RILEY LAKE NORTH AND SOUTH

The 1990 report recommended these two sites as candidates for field work in 1991. They are fairly typical 'examples of the southern Muskoka topography of Pine-Oak rock barren ridges alt~rnating with wet depressions. In both cases the sites fulfilled criterion 8-4 with provincially and regionally rare wildlife and, plants. In particular, Riley South provided habitat for fairly large populations .of the provincially and regionally rare Olympia Marblewing Butterfly, Carey's Knotweed (an Atlantic Coastal Plain Species) and Long Sedge. The provincially rare Five­ lined Skink was found in both study areas.

Both sites require further field work in 1992 as some sections were not surveyed partly due to difficulty of access. On airphotos, these sections appear different than parts already surveyed. The two sites need also be compared with other rock barren study areas in order to avoid overrepresentation of this par~icular community type. LANGMAIDS ISLAND This island ;s the second largest island on Lake of Bays with a close proximity to the mainland •. It was recommended by Towle (1989) in his Evaluation .of Wildlife Habitat study because ;'t represents. an interesting example of both mainland and island wildlife habitat and is relatively undisturbed. It was .also recommended by Brunton as a regional ANSI. The island supports a variety of habitats including coniferous fringe, hardwood forest, mixed forest, rocky pine-clad ·shoreline, sandy beach shoreline and marshland. Topography rises to over 45 m above the lake level.

In two brief field inve.stigations during August of 1991, a number of ~egionally u'ncorrrnon plant species were found on the exposed d~YI rocky pine dominated cliffs. This habitat may support other rare species. The quality of the commun it i es invest i gated was very good. A farge sect i·on of the i.s 1and was not exp 1ored. Th i s area was recorrmended for further fie 1d work 'i n the spr i ng of 1992 as it represents biotic community types not adequately represented in the program and it has the potential to fulfill a number of criteria pending further investigation.

- 19 ­ 4) Reconnaissance sites recommended for 1992 field work FAWN LAKE WETLAND

Fawn lake Wetland was visited on September 12, 1991. The wetland appears to be a fairly homogenous Black Spruce and Tamarack forested swamp with Balsam Fir, White Cedar, Canada Yew and an understory of Spaghnum, Ferns and many species of woodland herbs. One major stream with a number of tributaries drain this wetland into Fawn Lake. The vegetation along the stream ;s an impenetrable Alder swale. The area may support large mammals and breeding birds. ThiS site ;s recommended by Brunton for provincial ANSI status. BIGWIND PROVINCIAL PARK The only ecological study made in Bigwind Park was done by Singh in 1973. He identified a number of significant areas which would warrant further investigation. In addition, Singh identified a large number of plant species which would be considered to be of floristic significance if confirmation by specimen vouchers or photographs could be made. A one day reconnaissance visit in September of 1991 revea 1ed three At 1ant i c Coas'ta 1 P1a in s'pec i es. The park has many quality areas worth.investigating for biological significance as defined by the Heritage Area program and is also a site recommended by Brunton for provincial ANSI status. BRANDY CREEK WETLAND

A one day canoe .tr'i p up Brandy Creek and h; ke to the Black Spruce forested swamp revealed an area of high quality wetland habitats ,and high populations of waterfowl and dragonflies as well as evidence of large mammals like moose 'and bear. A number of regionally rare and uncommon aquatic plants ~ere also found. This area ~arrants further fiel'd invest; gat ion. I t has a 1so been reconvnended by Brunton for regional ANSI' status.

SHACK CRE~ WETLAND The Shack- C,.ek wet 1and appears to be a very 1arge open· Sedge ri,ch are. with some Black Spruce and Tamarack treed sections. Deciduous upland forests flank the edge of the wetland. An intermittent stream running through the wetland may provide access by canoe in the spring when the water . levels are high. This-area may support large breeding bird populations. The wetland is identified by Bajc (1990) ~s an area' of organ i c peat and muck. I t has a 1so been recommended by Brunto~ for regional ANSI status.

- 80 ­ MCKAY CREEK WETLAND

The McKay Creek Wetland is a sedge rich marshy area w~th so~e coniferous bog element of Black Spruce and Tamarack a~ong the margins and deciduous upland forests containing the wetland on both sides. The creek empties into the South Branch of the Muskoka River. This section of the river has numerous offcut channels and ponds, marshes and large bays with ~ ,tt'e development except for one subdivision located along two oxbows. This wetland was identified by Baj'c (1990) as an area containing organic deposits. For this reason, a reconnaissance visit was made in the fall of 1991. The wetland looked similar to the Shack Creek Wetland with access by canoe a more feasible option than i'n the· latter area.

SCARCLIFFE BAY This small wetland area is dominated by a large population of Water Willow, a species which is generally found further south and thus would be at its northern limit here. The wetland was recommended by Brunton for r~gional ANSI status.

THREE MILE LAKE SWAMP

This area was recommended by Brunton for regional ANSI status. It is significant as a lookout point over Three Mile Lake and it also has Walleye swawning beds. The river flows through a low-lying area with upland deciduous forests. Near to the lake the stream drops off rapidly (at the look out point) and then flows across another relatively frat alder dominated lowland to the lake. STONELEIGH

The area investigated'"is a large pr~perty.o~ned by one person. The area has a number of habitats, including wet'land, bog, deciduous· and mixed forests. Some areas investigated may support populations of amphibians which would be· best investigat:ed in the early spring. It was referred to' the program by a staff member.

KENNEDY I*OINT

As part of a development proposal in 1990, this area was investigated by Al Sinclair and as~ociates. A copy of their findings has been provided to us by the local cottagers' association. Based on this material, and depending on the outcome of a pending OMS hearing, parts of Kennedy Point would likely qualify as a Heritage Area or Site. A few days fi.eld work in the site should be enough to confirm the presence of the species and habitats previously identified.

- 81 ­ TASSO CREEK. - UPPER BIG EAST

To complete work on the Big East corridor, it wil ~ be necessary to gain access to the upper valley in Finlayson Township - this may involve a fair walk. As well, MNR Sensitive Area reports indicate an area of mature hardwood forest immediately adjacent along Tasso Creek. This at ~east warrants investigation. McCRAE LAKE NORTH

In their 1991 report, Geomatics have suggested extend~ng the McRae Lake study area northwards to connect to the Gibson Riv~r candidate, in order to incorporate a larger area of representative Georgian Bay landscape. However, no field work has been done in the proposed extension area. Again, several days would suffice to help assess the merits of this proposal. RICH UPLAND SITES On the basis of work carried out to date, it wou·ld appear that rich upland woods are significantly under-represented in the Muskoka Heritage Areas system. In large part, this is because almost all of these sites are intensively managed for resource extraction. Through a process of air photo analysis and discussions with MNR forestry staff, we hope to identify candidates within this site type that can be further investigated during the 1992 field season.

- 82 ­ LITERATURE CITED:

Bajc, A.F., 1990. Quaternary Geology of the Huntsville­ Bracebridge Area. Ontario Geological Survey. Mimeo, 17 pp. Brownell, Vivian R., 1978. A Reconnaissance Life Science Inventory of the Big East River Proposal. OMNR, Algonquin Region.

Brunton, Dan; elF., '991 a. Life Sc; ence Are'as of Natura 1 and Scientific Interest in Site Distr;ct 5-7 (Draft). OMNR, Algonquin Region.

Brunton, Daniel F., 1991b .. Life Science Ar-eas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 5-8 (Draft). OMNR, Algonquin Region.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1984. The PhY$;ography of Southern Ontario. 3rd Ed. Ontario Geological Survey, Toronto. Hewitt, D.F., 1967. Geology and mineral deposits of the Parry Sound-Huntsv i 11 e' area. Ontar i 0 Dept. of Mines, Geological Report 52. Keddy, P.A., 1981. Vegetation with Atlantic coastal plain affinities in Axe Lake, near Georgian Bay, Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 95:241-248. Keddy, P.A., 1982. Quantifying within-lake gradients of wave energy: interrelationships of wave energy, substrate particle size and shoreline plants in Axe Lake, Ontario. Aquat. Bot. 14:41-58. '

Keddy, P.A., 1983. Shoreline vegetation in Axe Lake, Ontario: effects of exposure on zonation patterns. Ecology 64:331-344. Keddy, Cathy J. and Mirek J. Sharp, 1989. Atlantic Coastal P1~in Flora Conservati6n in Ontario. Natural Heritage League and World Wi.ldlife Fund, Toronto.

Long, 'Gary, 1989. This River the Muskoka. Boston Hi 11s Press,' Erin, Ontario.

Noble, T.W., 1983. East River. Ontario Natu·re ,Reserves Program. Life Science Inventory Checksheet. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1911. Sensitive Areas, Brac~bridge District. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1991. An Evaluation System for Wetlands of Northern Ontario (2nd Draft).

- 83 ­ Reid, Ron, Don Sutherland, Bob Bow1es, Linda Sober, a d Steve O'Donnell, 1991. Results of 1990 Field Program. M~skoka Her ita9eAre asPragr ar:l, Rep 0 r t No. ,.

Spek, C. M., 1979. Arrowhead Prav; nc i a' Park Nat~re Reserve Zone 2: Big Bend· Bluffs, Glacial Delta. OMNR, Algonquin Region.

Spek, 'C.M., 1981. Nutt Lake Limestone Erratics Proposal. Earth Science Check Sheet. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Algonquin Region. strong, W.L., E.T. Oswald, and D.J. Downing, 1990. The Canadian Vegetation Classification System. First approximation. National Vegetation Working Group. Canada Committee on Ecological Land Classif;cat~on. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 25.

Towle, Kenneth, 1989. An Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat in the Vicinity of Lake of Bays. The Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation.

Waddington, E.D., and M.R. Dence, 1979. Skeleton Lake, Ontario - Evidence of a Paleozoic Impact Crater. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 16:256-263.

Warner, B.G., 1978. The Origin and Deposition History of the East R;ver Glacial Delta, Huntsville; Ontario. Dept. of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

- 84 ­