State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams Technical Report No

Home , East Gwillimbury, Holland Marsh, Holland River, Lake Simcoe, Ramara, Shift (sculpture)

July 2018 State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams Technical Report No. 2018-01

Alexander Kissel, Habitat Technician & Alice Choi, GIS Technician, Ontario Streams

ontariostreams.ca Summary Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed are critical to the health of the Lake and its surrounding ecosystem. They cover 18.4% of the surface area around the Lake or 52 847 hectares (ha). About 62.4% of these wetlands have been evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual. The distribution of wetlands vary with fewer and smaller wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine (7.1% of surface area), the Schomberg Clay Plains (5.5%) and the uplands west of the the Lake (10.9 to 12.7%), contrasting with the larger valley and shoreline wetlands in the lowlands around the Lake (25.7%). Small wetlands play an important role particularly in the landscapes where they make up a large portion of the wetlands.

A high resolution (15 centimetre pixel) analysis of aerial imagery from 1999/2002 to 2013/2016 for the Lake Simcoe Watershed has shown that many small wetland losses, and the occasional larger ones, add up over this time period to a loss of almost eight square kilometres or 773 ha (1.5% of the total wetland area). This loss is higher than previous estimates using lower resolution (30-metre pixel) satellite imagery which cannot pick out the smaller losses that have a large cumulative impact. The highest losses have been from agriculture (46.4% of all losses), following in descending order by residential (10.5%), peat extraction (10.4%), canals (9.6%), highways/roads (6.6%), industrial/commercial (5.7%), fill (4.6%), dug-out ponds (4.3%), recreation (1.6%) and aggregates (0.3%). Another 88 ha of wetlands have also been degraded by clear-cutting, haying, grazing and ditching. In contrast, 60 ha of wetlands have expanded largely because of agricultural abandonment resulting in a net wetland loss for the Watershed of 713 ha.

Relative losses vary greatly by municipality. Barrie had the highest, losing 10.2% of its Watershed wetlands, followed by East Gwillimbury (4.9%), Newmarket (4.4%), Innisfil (3.2%) and Bradford West Gwillimbury (3.1%). Much below the average, are Scugog and Kawartha Lakes, which had relative losses of only 0.2%. East Gwillimbury had the highest total loss of 257.3 ha, or 33.3% of all the wetland lost in the Watershed, followed by Georgina at 13.9%, Innisfil at 9.9%, Brock at 8.2% and Bradford West Gwillimbury at 8%.

While losses have generally increased since 1999/2002 in the York Region and Simcoe County (including Barrie and Orillia) portions of the Watershed they have finally started to drop a small amount during the most recent sampling period. However, in the Durham Region portion of the Watershed, wetland losses have risen steadily over the three sampling periods. The losses have been highest in the municipalities being urbanised or with extensive market gardens. Rural areas have also experienced losses from agriculture, and particularly from peat extraction.

The Province’s Conservation Wetland Strategy 2017-2030 provides a great opportunity to slow down or stop the continued losses and degradation of wetlands in the Watershed. Correspondingly, the relatively smaller wetland gains that have occurred should be encouraged. This should include increased outreach and incentives to landowners and the acquisition of more wetlands for public enjoyment and to protect those threatened. Existing protection measures also need to be more strongly enforced.

State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams July 2018 Acknowledgements This report is authored by Ontario Streams. Established in 1995, Ontario Streams is a non-profit environmental organisation dedicated to the conservation and rehabilitation of streams and wetlands, through education and community involvement. Since our inception, we have worked closely with numerous communities, landowners, and school groups to develop lasting partnerships in education and environmental stewardship. With over 20 years of experience, Ontario Streams has continued to demonstrate leadership in aquatic ecosystem rehabilitation. Many Ontario Streams' projects have occurred in and around the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), where the need for rehabilitation has been greatest. In addition to the restoration projects that Ontario Streams continues to champion, our organisation has also been involved in the development of several programs, studies, and information-sharing projects. Ontario Streams also coordinates our own Adopt-A-Stream program where we help groups become involved in community stewardship by adopting local streams or wetlands.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), Aurora District and their Geographic Information Services (GIS) and wetland experts provided imagery, technical advice and edited/verified the wetland change dataset. Environment Canada funded the project through the Lake Simcoe/Southeast Georgian Bay Clean-up Fund (LSGBCUF).

Introduction Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed are critical to the health of the lake and its surrounding ecosystem. They harbour a number of species at risk and are critical to the life cycle of many plants and animals including fish, frogs, salamanders, turtles, waterfowl and sensitive forest bird species. They also provide important hydrological functions such as flood attenuation, improving water quality, contributing to groundwater discharge and recharge and serving as long-term nutrient traps. They are used by the public for nature enjoyment, outdoor education, fishing and hunting.

The importance of wetlands to the ecological health of the lake has been recognised by the Province's Lake Simcoe Protection Plan which was approved in 2009. This report on the current state of wetlands in the watershed will hopefully contribute to discussions on the effectiveness of the Plan, and on its upcoming ten-year review in 2019. This report tracks the changes that have occurred to wetlands within the Lake Simcoe Watershed between the years 1999/2002 and 2013/2016. These include wetland losses and gains, as well as the degrading of wetlands by logging, ditching and other disturbances. The cause for each change is noted and is summarised for the Watershed's seven upper tier and 16 lower tier municipalities (see Figure 1) and by landscape type including its six physiographic regions and four ecodistricts (see Figure 2). Historic aerial photography back to 1946/1954 has also been used to further quantify wetland losses from peat extraction and the conversion of most of the Holland Marsh to market gardens. The Watershed’s seven upper tier municipalities vary in size with the largest being York Region, followed closely by Durham Region, Simcoe County and the City of Kawartha Lakes (see Figure 1). Much smaller in size are the City of Barrie and Orillia and a very small corner of Peel Region

1 represented by its local municipality of Caledon. The upper tier York, Durham and Simcoe have a total of 15 lower tier or local municipalities. The largest in the Watershed is Brock closely followed by Uxbridge, Georgina, East Gwillimbury, King, Ramara, Innisfil, Oro-Medonte and Bradford West Gwillimbury (see Figure 1). In contrast, only a small part of Richmond Hill is in the Watershed.

Wetlands in the Watershed currently cover 18.4% of the landscape around Lake Simcoe (see Figure 3). The distribution of wetlands varies with fewer and smaller wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine and Oro Moraine, contrasting with the large valley wetlands around the Lake and lining its shores. This variation is a reflection of the terrain or physiography of the Watershed. Four ecodistricts, characterised by having similar physiography and climate, make up the Watershed (see Figure 2). It is dominated in the centre by the Simcoe Lowlands and Uplands Ecodistrict 6E6 which consists of four physiographic regions: Simcoe Lowlands, Simcoe Uplands, Schomberg Clay Plains and Peterborough Drumlin Field. Most of ecodistrict 6E6 encompasses the former lake bed and islands of Glacial Lake Algonquin. With the retreat of the continental ice sheet, about 12 000 to 10 400 years ago, this glacial lake covered today’s Lake Huron, Lake Simcoe and the intervening lowlands. In the northwest corner of the Watershed, an island (Simcoe Upland) in Lake Algonquin supports the thick sands of the Oro Moraine and a rolling till plain. West of Cooks Bay, there is another till plain with scattered tear-dropped shaped hills called drumlins that were left behind by the ice sheet. Finally, ecodistrict 6E6 includes, in the southwest, the former clay beds of Glacial Lake Schomberg created 12 000 years ago when meltwater built up between the ice sheet and the up to 125 meters high Oak Ridges Moraine Ecodistrict 6E7. Southern Ontario’s largest moraine, it demarcates the southern edge of the watershed, and its aquifers provide the headwater source for many of its watercourses. In the southeast, between the lake and the Moraine, is the Peterborough Drumlin Field Ecodistrict 6E8, consisting of thousands of these hills scattered on a till plain. In the northeast corner of the Watershed, where the limestone bedrock of southern Ontario comes close to the surface, you have the Carden Plain Ecodistrict 6E9.

The wetlands on these diverse landscapes have been variously impacted by our agricultural and urban activities. A wetland conversion analysis by Ducks Unlimited from pre-settlement times (1800) to the year 2002 has estimated considerable wetland losses over the years (DU 2010). For municipalities, which largely or entirely reside in the Lake Simcoe Watershed, these losses have varied from a low of 22% of all the pre-settlement wetlands in Uxbridge to highs of 75.7% in King, 80.4% in Barrie and almost 100% in Newmarket. In the mid-range, are Aurora at 59.3% loss, Innisfil 50.4%, Bradford West Gwillimbury 50%, Georgina 49.8%, East Gwillimbury 47.5% and Brock 37.5%. Most of these losses are historic, but Ducks Unlimited has estimated wetland losses for these municipalities in the range of 0.1 to 2.3% over the two decades from 1982 to 2002. This report provides the first detailed examination of more recent wetland changes in the Lake Simcoe Watershed down to small fractions of a hectare in scale. A coarser scale analysis by OMNRF through the Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS), using satellite- derived wetland baseline mapping, found losses of 464.3 ha in the Lake Simcoe Watershed between 2000 and 2010 (OMNRF 2018).

Methodology In 2011, wetland baseline mapping for the Lake Simcoe Watershed was completed by OMNRF, Aurora District with funding assistance from Environment Canada through the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund (LSCUF). The mapping was based on aerial imagery from 2009 for the York

Region portion, 2008 for the Simcoe County (including Barrie and Orillia) and Durham Region portions, and 2002 for the Kawartha Lakes portion. The imagery for the Watershed was divided into 618, two by two-kilometre squares (see Figure 4). This spring (leaf-off), true colour, ortho- rectified imagery from J. D. Barnes and Land Information Ontario (LIO) was at a detailed 15 centimetre (cm) pixel resolution, allowing for mapping of wetlands down to less than 0.01 hectares (ha) in size. In addition, county/region soil maps, two meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) derived contour lines, and 1997/1998 summer (leaf-on) infrared OMNR aerial imagery was also used to assist in the identification and mapping of wetlands. The initial mapping was field checked in 2010 along the public roads that bisect the wetlands, and wetland adjustments were made based on the field visits. Wetland types were also characterised for each wetland. These types included: deciduous, mixed and conifer swamp, thicket swamp, closed marsh, open water marsh, fen and bog.

To further test the accuracy of the 2011 baseline wetland mapping, Ontario Streams, as part of this project, undertook wetland evaluation fieldwork in 2015 and 2016. The inventories included five areas in York Region: North Keswick Wetland Complex, Willow Beach Wetland Complex, Black River at Sutton Wetland Complex, Roger’s Reservoir Wetland Complex, and a two concession block portion of the Pefferlaw-Udora Wetland Complex. The fieldwork revealed that the 2011 baseline mapping varied in accuracy from 92.3 to 99.7%.

Based on this high level of accuracy, the 2011 OMNR mapping was used as the baseline for analysis of wetland changes in the Watershed. In 2016/2017, Ontario Streams used 15 cm pixel resolution (25 cm resolution for 1999 imagery) spring ortho-rectified imagery from J. D. Barnes and LIO. The images were divided into the same 618, two by two-kilometre squares (see Figure 4). Images were then examined from the years 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 for York Region; 2002, 2008 and 2013 for Durham Region; 2002, 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2016 for Simcoe County (including Barrie and Orillia); and 2002 and 2013 for Kawartha Lakes. Changes to the wetlands, which include losses, gains, and degradations were identified and recorded using ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) software. For each recorded change the cause, the year range, and the size in hectares was recorded. The causes of wetland losses were grouped into ten categories: agriculture, canals, residential, industrial/commercial, recreation, fill, peat extraction, dug-out pond, highway/road and aggregate. Wetland gains occurred because of agricultural abandonment or the wetland simply expanding in size, often as the result of beaver activity. Factors degrading wetlands were grouped into eight categories: tree removal, ditching, grazing, haying/mowing, regeneration following recent ploughing, trails used by ATVs or farm machinery, ponds dug out of wetlands with no berms, and siltation.

The wetland changes and their causes were then summarised for the Watershed by upper and lower-tier municipality, and by physiographic region and ecodistrict. Wetlands changes were also grouped into six size categories for analysis. They include wetland changes less than 0.1 ha in size, those 0.1 to under 0.5 ha, 0.5 to under one ha, one to under two ha, two to under ten ha, and over ten ha.

The most complete series of images for the Watershed are found in York Region. Images every two to three years from 1999 to 2013, enabled analysis to be done of trends in wetland losses over

3 time. Trends were also done for the series of images in Simcoe County (including Barrie and Orillia) and Durham Region in which there were fewer and more variable intervals.

Historical wetland losses back to 1946/1954 were also determined for the Holland Marsh and three major peat extraction areas. These losses are based on a series of black and white, summer aerial photographs from the OMNRF Aurora District files that include the years 1946, 1954, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1988, 1989 and 1992, as well as 1997 infrared summer imagery.

An update was also carried out of the 2011 OMNR wetland baseline mapping. The occasional missed wetlands, or misidentified wetlands, were noted and adjustments were made to some existing wetlands. OMNRF, Aurora District will be putting these wetland refinements into the provincial LIO database. This database will be available on the OMNRF website and are part of shared agreements with municipalities and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA).

Finally, a comparison was made between wetland losses found in this study and in the coarser satellite-derived SOLRIS mapping from 2000 to 2010.

Results Wetland Distribution The revised 2017 baseline mapping for the Lake Simcoe Watershed shows that wetlands cover 18.4% of the landscape around the Lake, a total of 52 847 ha. This mapping found 120.6 ha of wetland that were missed from the original 2011 mapping and removed 99.4 ha which were deemed not to be wetlands. Approximately 62.4% of these wetlands have been evaluated using the provincial standard of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual (MNR 2014).

The municipality with the largest amount of wetlands is Kawartha Lakes, followed closely by Georgina, Brock, Uxbridge and East Gwillimbury (see Table 1). These same municipalities, as well as Ramara and Scugog, also have the highest wetland coverage ranging from 18.7 to 27.4% of their surface area. Relatively few wetlands occur in the Watershed portions of Barrie, Newmarket, Aurora, Caledon, New Tecumseth, and Richmond Hill. Here wetland cover ranges from only 1.6 to 4.3% of the municipal lands. The other municipalities are in the mid-ranges of 7.6 to 15.3% for wetland coverage.

The wetlands are also not evenly distributed in the Watershed’s ecodistricts and physiographic regions (see Table 2, see Figure 3). Wetlands are generally smaller and less frequent on the Oak Ridges Moraine Ecodistrict 6E7 where they cover only 7.1% of the surface area, and wetlands under two hectares in size constitute 80.5% of all the wetland units and 17.2% of the total wetland area (see Table 3). Thus on the Moraine, smaller wetlands contribute a significant portion of the wetlands on the landscape. Here wetlands typically consist of small depressional or kettle wetlands, with some larger wetlands along the Moraine fringes where there are groundwater discharge areas serving as headwater sources for watercourses such as the Holland, Black, Pefferlaw and Beaver Rivers. An analysis by MNRF of the Moraine’s East Humber River Wetland Complex shows that wetlands under two ha and even those under 0.5 ha in size can have important ecological functions supporting amphibian breeding, turtle habitat, and significant species and

4 communities at the provincial, regional or local level (OMNR, Aurora District 20012, 2014). Moreover, amphibians appeared to preferentially breed in the smallest wetlands. For example, an analysis of breeding sites in an ecodistrict 6E7 wetland complex for the endangered Jefferson Salamander found that 37% of the sites were located in wetlands under 0.5 ha in size (OMNR, Aurora District 2014).

Wetlands reach much larger sizes on the Lake Simcoe Lowlands and Uplands Ecodistrict 6E6 and the adjoining Peterborough Drumlin Field Ecodistrict 6E8. Here wetlands cover 19.7% and 19%, respectively, of the surface area (see Table 2). There are extensive wetlands in the broad flat valleys of the Holland, Black, Pefferlaw, Beaver, White’s and Talbot River. These northeast to southwest trending valleys were possibly carved out by subglacial meltwaters under the kilometre thick ice sheet that once covered the Province. Within two kilometres of the Lake Simcoe shore, there are also a series of sizeable wetlands ranging from those at McGinnis Point and Sand Point Beach in the northeast, to Willow Beach, Paradise Beach and Morning Glory to the south, Georgina and Thorah Islands in the Lake, and ones on the west side of Cook’s Bay. The Carden Plain Ecodistrict 6E9 also has a large number of wetlands covering 25.4% of the surface area. Here there are wetlands fringing watercourses such as the Talbot River and Canal, Raven, Talbot and Johnston Lakes. In ecodistricts 6E6, 6E8 and 6E9 wetlands over two ha in size cover a relatively larger 94.5 to 96.6% of the total wetland area, in contrast to the lower proportion of 82.8% in ecodistrict 6E7 (see Table 3). Smaller wetlands under two ha, however, are more numerous on the Schomberg Clay Plains, and on the Peterborough Drumlin Field portions of ecodistrict 6E6 where they make up 83.3 and 77%, respectively, of all the wetland units, and 17.6 to 9.2% of the total wetland area. There are also very few wetlands in the Oro Moraine portion of the Simcoe Upland of ecodistrict 6E6 (see Figure 3).

The four physiographic regions which make up ecodistrict 6E6 also show great variability in their wetland coverage. There is only 5.5% coverage on the Schomberg Clay Plains, 10.9% on the Peterborough Drumlin Field west of Cook’s Bay and 12.7% on the Simcoe Upland which includes the thick sandy ridge of the Oro Moraine in the northwest corner of the Watershed. The Oro Moraine has very few wetlands. In contrast, wetland coverage is 25.7% on the larger Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region which encompasses all the low-lying lands around the Lake.

The most common communities within the Watershed are deciduous and coniferous treed swamps and thicket swamps, followed by closed marshes typically of cattails, graminoids or forbs, and open water marshes. Much less frequent, are rich fens with small examples at the Holland Marsh, Gibson Hill and Mount Albert Creek, and poor fens that are intermediate between fen and bog at Wilfrid “Bog”, Victoria Road “Bog”, Johnston Lake “Bog” and at Victoria Point, There is only one true bog in the Watershed at Derryville Bog in Brock.

Wetland Losses Between 1999/2002 and 2013/2016, 773.3 ha of wetlands or 1.5% of the total wetland area in the Lake Simcoe Watershed has been eliminated (see Figures 5, 8-14). Relative losses vary greatly by municipality (see Table 1). Barrie had the highest, losing 10.2% of its Watershed wetlands, followed by East Gwillimbury (4.9%), Newmarket (4.4%), Innisfil (3.2%) and Bradford West Gwillimbury (3.1%). Much below the average, are Scugog and Kawartha Lakes, which had relative losses of only 0.2%. East Gwillimbury had the highest total loss of 257.3 ha, or 33.3% of

5 all the wetland lost in the Watershed, followed by Georgina at 13.9%, Innisfil at 9.9%, Brock at 8.2% and Bradford West Gwillimbury at 8%.

Relative wetland losses also varied across the four ecodistricts and six physiographic regions of the Watershed (see Table 2). Losses reached a high of 2.1% of the wetland area in the Simcoe Lowlands & Uplands Ecodistrict 6E6 which encircles the Lake and encompasses most of the major settlement areas in the Watershed. They were in the mid-range of 0.8% on the Peterborough Drumlin Field Ecodistrict 6E8, and 1.2% on the Oak Ridges Moraine Ecodistrict 6E7. By far the lowest was a loss of 0.2% of the wetland area from the Carden Plain Ecodistrict 6E9. These later three ecodistricts are largely rural with the exception of the community of Uxbridge which straddles the first two ecodistricts. Total wetland losses were also highest in ecodistrict 6E6 with 81.6% of all the Watershed losses, followed by ecodistrict 6E8 with 12.5%, ecodistrict 6E7 with 4.3% and ecodistrict 6E9 with 1.7%.

As well the four physiographic regions that make up ecodistrict 6E6, varied in their wetland losses (see Table 2). The highest relative loss at 3.3% was on the Peterborough Drumlin Field west of Cook’s Bay, followed by 2.2% for the Schomberg Clay Plains, 2.1% on the Simcoe Lowlands and 1.2% on the Simcoe Upland.

The detailed 15 to 25 cm pixel resolution mapping resulted in a total of 2315 areas or units of wetland loss in the Watershed (see Figure 5). These individual units of wetland loss range in size from 0.001 ha to 64.52 ha. Most of the wetland losses have occurred in small bites. For example, losses under 0.5 ha make up 87.4% of the individual units, and 24.2% of all the destroyed wetland area (see Table 4). Individual losses of between 0.5 and two ha are another 9.7% of the units and 26.9% of the total hectares lost, while those over two ha in size make up the remaining 48.9% of the hectares lost. These very numerous, small incremental losses thus add up to a considerable amount over the entire Watershed. In contrast, estimates of wetland loss based on satellite imagery with typical 30-metre pixel resolution will underestimate losses. The resolution is simply not fine enough to pick out smaller losses under 0.5 ha in size.

The highest losses have been from agriculture (46.4% of all losses), following in descending order by residential (10.5%), peat extraction (10.4%), canals (9.6%), highways/roads (6.6%), industrial/commercial (5.7%), fill (4.6%), dug-out ponds (4.3%), recreation (1.6%) and aggregates (0.3%) (see Table 4, Figure 15). The following sections provide more detail on these causes:

Agriculture A total of 358.7 ha of wetlands have been lost directly due to agriculture with almost half (43.3%) of these losses in East Gwillimbury, followed by a range of 16.1 to 13.3% in each of Georgina, Innisfil and Brock (see Table 5). The losses have been most severe in the Holland Marsh with 112 ha eliminated, or about a third of the total agricultural losses. The Marsh also had the largest single loss of 96.7 ha of wetland in the span of a few years (see Figure 16). Generally, losses from agriculture tended to be larger in size than other causes, with 37.8% of the total area lost occurring in units over ten ha in size, 32.3% between two and ten ha in size, and 26.8% between 0.1 and two ha. Over half of the individual losses were under 0.1 ha in size, and they added up to the remaining 3.1% of the total area lost (see Table 4). The smaller losses generally involve wetland edges being ploughed and turned into crops, especially during drier years.

Historically, the Holland Marsh was once the largest wetland in southern Ontario reaching a size of 12 916 ha (see Figure 17). Today only 40.7% of the wetland remains with another 1.3 % in upland woodland and 1.1% for the Holland River. Most of the remaining 56.9% has been converted into market gardens, or associated uses such as drainage canals, or facilities to store and process the produce. A few areas have also been converted into urban uses, several marinas and two golf courses. Before the earliest 1946 photos, about 44.6% of the Marsh had already been converted to market gardens, particularly the central portion around Bradford and Highway 400, as well as along the fringes. Another 10.3% of the Marsh was lost between 1946 and 1999 and a further 2% between 1999 and 2016. These losses were scattered through the Marsh with the largest towards Cook's Bay. The losses near the Bay were particularly significant because this part of the Marsh supported the largest graminoid fen communities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed and one of the largest in southern Ontario. This provincially rare wetland type is characterized by calcareous rich groundwater flows and supports a number of species at risk. Only smaller remnants now remain on crown land fringing Cook’s Bay.

Residential Residences have eliminated 81.1 ha of wetlands (see Table 4). Losses include those from single houses to large subdivisions (see Figure 18), as well as minor expansions of existing residences such as filling in a wetland edge to expand their backyard. As expected, the highest losses in this category occur in urbanising municipalities such as Georgina with 27.8% of all the losses, Innisfil with 21.2% and Barrie with 16.1% (Table 5). While losses were much lower for rural municipalities, most of the losses, with the exception of several subdivisions, are small with 15.5% of the total hectares under 0.1 ha in size, and 31.5% between 0.1 and 05 ha in size (see Table 4). One subdivision in Innisfil eliminated 9.5 ha of wetlands, and another in Barrie destroyed 13.1 ha.

Pre-existing approval for a trailer park in the middle of the provincially significant Paradise Beach- Island Grove Wetland Complex in Georgina would result in the destruction of 33 ha of wetland. The three concentric rings of roads and associated trailers would also fragment one of the largest forested blocks near the Lake Simcoe shore; greatly reducing forest interior habitat for sensitive species. This one development, if it goes ahead, would represent by far the largest single wetland loss from residential development in the Watershed over the past 15 years.

Peat Extraction Peat extraction is almost tied for the second highest losses, with 80.3 ha of wetlands eliminated (see Table 4). These losses incorporate those from 2013 to 2015 based on 2015 imagery obtained from York Region and Google Map for Durham Region. Peat extraction is confined to three areas: ten sites in East Gwillimbury along a three-kilometre stretch of Highway 48 (56.6% of the total), four grouped sites in Uxbridge (34.9%), and the remaining 8.5% at a site in Brock (see Table 5, Figures 19-22). These areas were selected for their deep peats and nearby access to markets in the Toronto area. The extraction involves the removal of all trees and other wetland vegetation to access the underlying peats, which consist of poorly decomposed plant material with the best peats, such as at Wilfrid Bog, rich in Sphagnum moss. The peats are removed and packaged as peat moss, for sale in garden centres and to greenhouses. The peat removal leaves behind progressively larger and larger open ponds as the peat is extracted below the water table until the mineral subsoil is

7 reached. Once the peat has been exhausted, abandoned ponds sometimes become fish farms, aquatic recreational areas or, in some cases, are filled in with trucked in subsoil or other materials.

These peat extraction sites occupy large contiguous areas that include active mining areas, abandoned ponds, access roads and buildings for packaging and processing the peat. These mines occur in the middle of three provincially significant wetlands, where the peats are generally thickest. They include the Mount Albert Wetland Complex along the Highway 48 sites (see Figure 20), the Uxbridge sites in the Zephyr-Egypt Wetland Complex (see Figure 21), and the Brock site in the Wilfrid Bog Wetland Complex (see Figure 22). The latter is also a provincially rare low shrub fen, one of only a handful in the Watershed. The Wilfrid mining over the years has eliminated most of this rare wetland type. Because these mines are located right in the middle of large wetlands, they have much more impacts than other conversions such as from agriculture which tend to nibble at the edges of wetlands. The mines, in contrast, open up large areas of former undisturbed interior treed swamp, which would have supported many sensitive forest species, to edge effects.

To determine the full extent and growth of the mining operations, an analysis was carried out of earlier air-photos from 1954 to 1999/2002. These images show that a total of 150.1 ha of wetland have been lost due to peat extraction between 1954 and 2015 (see Figures 20-22). The average rate of wetland lost has increased over time from an average of 1.9 ha per year between 1954 and 1999, to 2.9 ha per year between 1999 and 2015.

Holland Canals The recent relocation of the canals that encircle the market gardens at the Holland Marsh resulted in a further 74.4 hectares of wetlands being destroyed (see Table 4, Figure 23). These canals serve as the main source of drainage for the market gardens. The relocation of the southern canal in King resulted in the loss of 27.1 ha, while the shift in the northern canal through Bradford West Gwillimbury caused a further loss of 47.3 ha (see Table 5). The losses came about when the canals were relocated further into the remnant wetlands on the edge of the Marsh, and away from the associated service roads that once abutted the canals. In addition, fill from the newly excavated canals destroyed more wetlands.

Highways/Roads Highways, roads and driveways have eliminated 51.1 ha of wetlands (see Table 4). The recent northern extension of Highway 404 to Woodbine Avenue was responsible for 17.3 ha of this loss (see Figure 24). Further extensions of Highway 404 would result in the loss of another 63.1 ha of wetlands if it were extended east to its terminus at Highway 7/12. The combined wetland loss of 80.4 ha from Highway 404 would represent the second largest single loss in the Watershed over the past 15 years.

The remaining losses in this category are from road widenings, a few new roads, new driveways, and several instances of new private roads on fill that have been cut through large wetlands (see Figure 25). This later disturbance greatly impacts on forest interior habitat and its sensitive species by allowing edge species to gain access along the roads. About 51.2% of the total road/highway losses have occurred in East Gwillimbury, another 10.5% in Georgina, and losses of 5% or less are scattered through the other municipalities (see Table 5).

Industrial/Commercial Losses due to industrial or commercial development account for 44.1 ha (see Table 4, Figures 23 & 26). They include commercial buildings, aeroplane landing strips, utilities and municipal services, automotive services such as wreckers, repair shops and lots and outdoor storage areas. The highest losses were in East Gwillimbury, followed by Georgina, Oro-Medonte and King.

Fill The wetland losses from fill add up to 35.3 ha (see Table 4), with the largest losses in East Gwillimbury (28%), followed by Barrie (16.3%), Uxbridge (11.2%), Georgina (10.2%) and Innisfil (10%) (see Table 5). In urbanizing areas, fill has been dumped into wetlands probably to allow for future development, while in rural areas they are a source of revenue from tipping fees (see example, Figure 27). Most of the fill is small scale (under two ha). However. 23% of the total loss is from those two to ten ha in size (see Table 4).

Dug-out Pond Dug-out ponds have eliminated 33.5 ha of wetlands with the highest losses in Georgina and East Gwillimbury, closely followed by Brock, Uxbridge and Kawartha Lakes (see Tables 4 & 5). The ponds are excavated out of wetlands with the resulting material placed around the pond to form an upland berm (Figure 28). They replace a diversity of wetlands, many of them groundwater-fed, with an open sterile pond typically ringed by a berm covered in lawn. As well, the ponds are often lined by clay further retarding recharge and discharge. Most of the dug-out ponds scattered throughout the Watershed’s wetlands have been constructed before 1999/2002. Since then there has been a trend towards fewer ponds being created, as more restrictions have been placed on digging out ponds, particularly in wetlands. For example, in York Region, 64.3% of the ponds had been constructed between 1999 and 2007 with the remainder between 2007 and 2013 (see Table 10).

Recreation Another 12.2 ha of loss is due to the construction and expansion of recreational facilities with the largest losses in Georgina, King and Ramara (see Tables 4 & 5). The sources include parachuting and hang gliding facilities, golf courses, marinas, municipal parks, go-karting and dirt biking race tracks and sport fishing ponds. Recreational losses were higher in the past based on the marinas in former wetlands along the Holland River, at the mouth of Pefferlaw Brook (see Figure 30), and in Lagoon City (a mix of marina and homes) in the northeast part of Lake Simcoe (see example, Figure 29). Golf courses were also placed in wetlands such as the lakeshore Riverview Beach (see Figure 30) and several in the Holland Marsh.

Aggregate The final wetland losses from aggregates have been a minor 2.6 ha in Uxbridge and Kawartha Lakes (see Tables 4 & 5). Limestone quarries are confined to the Carden Plain in the northeast portion of the Watershed, and the gravel and sand pits largely occur on the Oak Ridges and Oro Moraines. The moraines typically have fewer wetlands, and the aggregate companies have generally avoided wetlands when acquiring licenced areas.

Degraded Wetlands In addition to the outright losses, some wetlands in the Watershed have also experienced a reduction in their ecological functions. It is estimated, that 87.5 ha of wetlands have been degraded since 1999/2002 (see Tables 6 & 7, Figure 6, 8-14 & 31). This includes 238 areas or units that range in size from 0.005 ha to 5.63 ha (see Figure 6).

Most of the degradation is due to the clear-cutting of treed swamps (59.2% of the total), followed by the haying/mowing of marshes (15.5%), the pasturing of wetlands by grazing animals (10.4%), and the excavation of drainage ditches through wetlands (5.7%) (see Table 6). Other less frequent impacts noted included the excavation of ponds from wetlands (4.8% of the total), trails in the wetlands created by ATV's or farm machinery (1.5%), recent ploughing of marshes which have since regenerated (2.6%), and one instance of siltation (0.3%). Individual degradations were generally smaller in size, however, they were larger for clear-cuts, with 28% of them in the two to ten ha size range. Degradation from clear-cutting has been highest in Innisfil (20.3% of the total), closely followed by Georgina (16.3%), Uxbridge (16%) and Brock (14.7%) (see Table 7). This clear-cutting of forested swamps greatly reduces the complexity of the wetland and eliminates habitat for sensitive forest species (see Figure 32).

Haying and mowing activities were found to be highest in East Gwillimbury (28.8% of the total) and Georgina (24.7%), followed by Brock (15.9%) and Ramara (11.4%) (see Table 7).

Over half of the grazed wetlands occurred in Innisfil (53.5%) followed by Bradford West Gwillimbury (13.7%), Kawartha Lakes (11.8%), Georgina (10%) and Brock (9.4%). Kawartha Lakes would have had by far the largest amount of grazed wetlands, but most of them were already being grazed before the 2002 start period of the analysis, so they were not included in the totals.

New drainage ditches were noted cutting through largely undisturbed wetlands with the highest number in Brock (35.1% of the total), followed by East Gwillimbury (25.3%), Georgina (20%), and Kawartha Lakes (19.6%) (see Table 7, Figure 33). While the ditch and the adjoining line of excavated material occupy a relatively small area, they have a profound effect on the surrounding wetland. They will lower water levels throughout the length of the ditched wetland, as well as any upstream wetlands.

Unmaintained trails in the wetlands that do not have filled substrates are found in highest numbers in Kawartha Lakes (39.6% of the total), followed by Scugog (23.1%), Georgina (13.2%) and East Gwillimbury (9.9%) (see Table 7). Some of these are short trails used by farm machinery to access adjoining farm fields. Others are more damaging, long ATV trails through the wetlands.

Open water ponds excavated out of wetlands are most frequent in Brock and East Gwillimbury, which each have about a third of the total area. These excavated ponds do not have surrounding upland berms of excavated material so they are still contiguous with the surrounding wetlands and still have some functions.

A few marsh areas have been damaged by recent plowing. They have since come back into wetland. The largest example is one in Innisfil that is 1.92 ha in size (see Table 7).

Finally, 0.3 ha of treed swamp in Whitchurch-Stouffville was damaged by siltation coming off an adjacent fill site (see Table 7, Figure 34).

Wetland Gains Not all the wetlands in the Watershed have experienced loss or degradation. There has also been a gain of 60.3 ha of wetland through the same time period (see Tables 8 & 9, Figures 7-14). These include 230 areas or units that range in size from 0.005 ha to 5.61 ha (see Figure 7). Forty-six hectares of the gains have come about due to wetland regrowth after agricultural abandonment (see Figure 35) with the remaining 14.3 ha coming about due to natural expansion of the wetland. For instance, beaver dams have resulted in some natural expansion to wetlands, particularly in Kawartha Lakes. The individual gains from natural expansion tend to be smaller in size with 66.8% of the total increase due to increments under 0.5 ha in size (see Table 8). In contrast, the gains from agricultural abandonment tend to be larger with only 29.8% of the total area in those additions under 0.5 ha, while 53.8% are in those between two and ten ha in size. The municipality with the highest gains from agricultural abandonment includes Bradford West Gwillimbury with 41% of the total increase followed by King (19.5%) and Brock (14.3%). Those with the highest gains from natural expansion are Kawartha Lakes at 35.4% of the total followed by Newmarket (17.7%), King (10.7%) and Uxbridge (8.5%) (see Table 9).

Trends over Time The multiple years of aerial photo coverage for the York Region portion of the Watershed and, to a lesser extent, for the Simcoe County (including Barrie and Orillia) and Durham Region portions provide an opportunity to look at general losses, gains and degradation over time, and the trends for causal losses and degradation (see Tables 10-12 & Figures 36-38). Trends could not be determined for the Kawartha Lakes portion of the Watershed because there were only two years of imagery from 2002 and 2013.

Losses for York Region have generally gone up and down from 1999 to 2013. The lowest yearly losses were in the 1999 to 2002 interval with the second lowest from the most recent 2011 to 2013 period. Losses were highest in the 2002 to 2005 interval with a smaller peak in the 2009 to 2011 period. The highest peak is mostly attributable to a large agricultural conversion in the Holland Marsh. In Simcoe County, from 2002 to 2016, the highest losses were from the mid-2008 to 2012 interval with the lowest losses from the earliest 2002 to 2008 period, followed by the latest one from 2012 to 2016. In contrast, Durham Region from 2002 to 2013 has shown a steady increase in losses from 42.4 ha in the 2002-2008 period to 67.5 ha in the 2008-2013 period (see Table 10).

Causal trends for these losses have also varied over time for York, Durham and Simcoe. For example, in all three areas, dug-out ponds generally have declined from year to year, while urbanising uses such as highways/roads, fill, residential and commercial/industrial have largely increased in respect to wetland losses. Peat extraction and agricultural conversions appear to have finally started to slow down in the last few years.

The degradation of wetlands has generally trended up from year to year in Simcoe, York and Durham. The causal trends for wetland degradation have also tended to go up from year to year

11 especially for clear-cutting, and to the lesser extent for haying/mowing and grazing. The digging- out of ponds has tended to decline, while unmaintained trails show no clear pattern.

General trends for wetland gains varied over time. There was an increase in gains for Durham while there was a decrease in Simcoe. In the case of York Region, there was an initial increase, but in the latest period, there were fewer gains.

Comparison with SOLRIS Wetland Losses The wetland loss of 773.3 ha in this study contrasts with the lower loss of 464.3 ha for the satellite analysis done by SOLRIS from 2000 to 2010 (OMNRF 2018) (see Table 13, Figure 40). This is probably due to the longer time span of this study, and its finer resolution analysis which was able to pick out numerous smaller losses down to a fraction of 0.01 ha in size. The SOLRIS analysis, due to its 30-metre pixel resolution, could only pick out losses that were over 0.5 ha in size. When comparing wetland losses over 0.5 ha for both analyses, this study still had a higher loss of 575.9 ha. About 42% of the area for these larger losses was also found in the SOLRIS mapping. For example, the larger agricultural losses in the Holland Marsh, and the bigger peat extraction areas showed up in both mapping exercises.

The major causes of wetland losses were similar in both studies with agriculture (included in the SOLRIS undifferentiated category) the leading cause with the loss of 279.2 ha of wetlands in SOLRIS and 358.7 ha in this study. SOLRIS found peat extraction was the second leading cause with the loss of 138.9 ha of wetlands, which is higher than the 80.3 ha loss in this study. SOLRIS’s urban impervious category (combines this studies residential and commercial/industrial categories) was the third leading cause with a loss of 32.3 ha in SOLRIS and a much higher 125.2 ha in this study. Roads and highways (noted as transportation in SOLRIS) were responsible for losses of 5.7 ha in SOLRIS and a higher 51.1 ha in this study. SOLRIS’s urban pervious category which probably fits with this studies recreation category had a loss of 3.4 ha in SOLRIS and 12.2 ha in this study. In both studies, aggregates were a minor cause for wetland losses of 2.6 to 4.8 ha. Other causes identified in this study such as canals, dug-out ponds and fill were not differentiated in SOLRIS.

It should be noted that the two analyses used different wetland baseline mapping, making direct comparisons difficult. Both used the Province's evaluated wetland layer which encompasses about 62% of all the wetlands in the Watershed. The additional unevaluated or identified wetland layers, however, were derived independently. About 74% of all the wetlands in this study overlapped with the SOLRIS wetland layer, with generally less wetlands identified by SOLRIS (see Figure 39). For example, this study had 52 847 ha of wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed, while SOLRIS identified 48 949 ha with a 39 044 ha overlap between them.

Conclusions The high-resolution analysis of aerial imagery from 1999/2002 to 2013/2016 for the Lake Simcoe Watershed has shown that many small losses, and the occasional larger ones, add up over this time period to a loss of almost eight square kilometres. This is a higher loss than previous estimates done using lower resolution satellite imagery. Such imagery simply cannot pick out smaller losses which as has been demonstrated in this study have a large cumulative impact on wetlands in the

Watershed. This study has also demonstrated that small wetlands can play an important role on the landscape particularly on those where they make up a large portion of the wetlands.

As expected agriculture is responsible for the largest proportion of the wetland losses, but surprisingly, peat extraction is almost equal with residential development as the second highest cause. The relocation of the Holland Canals came as the third largest cause, while highways and roads were the fourth leading cause. Another 88 ha of wetlands have also been degraded by clear- cutting, haying, grazing and ditching. In contrast, some 60 ha of wetlands have expanded largely because of agricultural abandonment. With these gains, net wetland loss for the Watershed is reduced to 713 ha.

While losses have generally increased since 1999/2002 in the York Region and Simcoe County portions of the Watershed, they have finally started to drop a small amount during the most recent sampling period. In contrast, wetland losses in the Durham Region portion of the Watershed have risen steadily over the three sampling periods. The losses have been highest in the municipalities undergoing urbanization or with extensive market gardens. However, rural areas have also experienced losses from agriculture, and particularly from peat extraction.

The loss of 1.5% of the Watershed’s wetlands since 1999/2002 suggests that the rate of loss is not slowing down when compared with earlier periods. Ducks Unlimited in their analysis found wetland losses from the earlier 1982 to 2002 period in the range of 0.1 to 2.3% for municipalities that largely or entirely occur in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. In their 1967 to 1982 period, Ducks Unlimited found municipal losses in the range of 0.2 to 2.5% with half of the municipalities even showing a net wetland gain of 0.1 to 2.6%. In this study, net losses from 1999/2002 to 2013/2016 for these same municipalities range from 0.6 to 11%, with many in the mid-range of 3 to 5%. It should be noted however that the Ducks Unlimited analysis used different wetland baseline mapping, which appears to have underestimated the extent of wetlands.

The continued loss of wetlands in the Watershed, in spite of various protection measures, is worrisome. For example, the destruction since 1999/2002 of 112 ha of the Holland Marsh for market gardens and, during the same time period, the loss of 80.3 ha for peat extraction largely occurred in wetlands that should have been fully protected by their provincially significant status.

Recommendations The Province’s Conservation Wetland Strategy 2017-2030 (OMNRF 2017) provides a great opportunity to slow down or stop the continued losses and degradation of wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Correspondingly, the increase in the relatively smaller wetland gains that have occurred in the Watershed should continue to be encouraged.

One of the keys to preventing further wetland losses and degradations is the better enforcement of existing legislative tools such as the Provincial Policy Statement (OMMAH 2014), the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (OMOE 2009), the Greenbelt Plan (OMMAH 2005) and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (OMMAH 2002) together encompassing the southern two-thirds of the Watershed, Conservation Authority wetland/floodline regulations and municipal fill/tree bylaws. Wherever there are deficiencies with these tools, they need to be strengthened. They

13 should be able to, for example, stop the continued expansion of peat mines into provincially significant wetlands, or the loss of wetlands to fill or residential and agricultural expansion.

The other key to stopping wetland loss, and the key for encouraging wetland gains, is a concerted and co-ordinated multi-agency outreach effort to local landowners and the general public. Such outreach should include the province, municipalities, schools and NGOs.

An expanded array of incentives should be part of this outreach. Such incentives can go a long way to encouraging landowners to protect and expand our wetlands. For example, the Province has the Conservation Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) which provides a 100% municipal tax break to landowners for the portion of their lands that have been evaluated as provincially significant wetlands. Consideration should be given to expanding this program to cover all wetlands including the 38% of wetlands in the Watershed that have yet to be evaluated. There should also be an expanded array of incentives for farmers and other landowners to, for example, restore poor quality farmland back into wetland, or to fence off grazing animals from wetlands. Grazing currently occurs in a number of marshes, particularly in Kawartha Lakes and parts of Brock.

We also need to acquire more wetlands in the Watershed for the enjoyment of the public and to provide more educational opportunities for highlighting their ecological importance. The Federal Government, the Province, municipalities and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority should collaboratively devote more funds to wetland acquisition with the focus on those in jeopardy, or those of great significance. Partnerships should also be encouraged with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation which have some of the largest coastal wetlands in the Watershed, and with land trusts, and other land securement organisations.

Currently, major provincial holdings include the wetlands on the bed of Lake Simcoe, Holland Marsh Crown Land Area, Duclos Point Nature Reserve, and Carden Alvar, Mara, McCrae Point and Sibbald Point Provincial Parks. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has Scanlon Creek, Sheppard’s Bush, Pangman Springs, Whitchurch and Thornton Bales Conservation Areas, Zephyr Creek Wetland, the 500 ha Beaver River Wetland, and a recently acquired section of Derryville Bog, the Watershed’s only example of a true bog. York Regional Forests protect a number of wetlands on the Moraine and on the Simcoe Lowlands such as the Pefferlaw Tract. Municipalities have wetlands in their parks including Aurora’s McKenzie Marsh. The University of Toronto’s Koffler Centre Research Station protects headwater wetlands. The Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust and Nature Conservancy of Canada have wetlands in their holdings including those at Happy Valley. The 44-kilometre public trail through the heart of the Beaver(ton) River Wetland provides an unparalleled opportunity to see one of the Watershed’s largest wetlands.

Finally, we need to improve our knowledge on the value of wetland ecosystems, and how to restore them. To help elucidate trends, it is recommended that wetland losses, gains and degradations be examined in subsequent years right up to 2019 when the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan comes up for review. This would include analysing high-resolution aerial imagery from 2013 to 2018 for the York, Durham and Kawartha Lakes portions of the Watershed, and from 2016 to 2018 in the Simcoe portion.

References Ducks Unlimited. March 2010. Final Report, Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion Analysis. Ducks Unlimited, Ontario Office, Barrie, Ontario. 23 pp. + appendices.

OMMAH. 2002. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Toronto, Ontario. 82 pp. + map.

OMMAH. 2005. Greenbelt Plan 2005. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Toronto, Ontario. 56 pp. + 6 maps.

OMMAH. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Toronto, Ontario. 50 pp.

OMOE. July 2009. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario. 95 pp.

OMNR, Aurora District. June 2001 Draft. Natural Heritage Features of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District, Peterborough District & Midhurst District.

OMNR, Aurora District. January 2012. Summary and Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record for the Provincially Significant East Humber River Wetland Complex. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District, Aurora, Ontario. 125 pp. + 2 maps.

OMNR. 2014. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual, 3rd Edition, Version 3.3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 283 pp.

OMNR, Aurora District. 2014. Small but Mighty! The Natural Heritage Significance of Small Wetlands in Southern Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District presentation at the Lattornell Symposium on November 20, 2014.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). 2017. A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2017-2030. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto, Ontario. 52 pp.

OMNRF. April 2018. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) wetland database and wetland losses database from 2000 to 2010 for southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario.

Figure 1. Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 2. Ecodistricts and Physiographic Regions in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 3. Wetland coverage and size distribution in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 4. Grid squares for mapping wetland changes in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 5. Dot distribution of wetland losses in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 6. Dot distribution of wetland degradations in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 7. Dot distribution of wetland gains in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 8. Wetland changes in the south-western portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 9. Wetland changes in the south-central portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 10. Wetland changes in the south-eastern portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 11. Wetland changes in the north-eastern portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 12. Wetland changes in the northern portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 13. Wetland changes in the north-western portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Figure 14. Wetland changes in the west-central portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Wetland Losses 400

350

300

250

200

150 Losses (ha) Losses

100

Cause

Figure 15. Wetland losses by cause in the Lake Simcoe Watershed in descending order

Figure 16. Expansion of agriculture in the northern portion of the Holland Marsh Wetland Complex (outlined in green), East Gwillimbury, from 1999-2013

Scale 1:30,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 17. Wetland losses over time in the Holland Marsh

Figure 18. Loss of wetlands (outlined in green) in Barrie due to residential development from 2002-2013

Scale 1:10,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 19. Expansion of peat extraction in the Mount Albert Wetland Complex (wetlands outlined in green), East Gwillimbury, from 1999-2013

Scale 1:12,500

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 20. Loss of wetlands due to the expansion of peat extraction over time in the Mount Albert Wetland Complex (East Gwillimbury)

Figure 21. Loss of wetlands due to the expansion of peat extraction over time in the Zephyr- Egypt Wetland Complex (Uxbridge)

Figure 22. Loss of wetlands due to the expansion of peat extraction over time in the Wilfrid Bog Wetland Complex (Brock)

Figure 23. Loss of wetlands (outlined in green) in the south-eastern portion of the Holland Marsh wetlands (Ansnorveldt Wetland Complex) due to the relocation of a canal and industrial development from 1999-2013

Scale 1:10,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 24. Extension of Highway 404 through a wetland (outlined in green) in East Gwillimbury

Scale 1:15,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 25. Development of a private road through a wetland (outlined in green) in East Gwillimbury from 2009-2013

Scale 1:10,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 26. Wetland loss in the Black River Wetland Complex #1 (wetlands outlined in green) due to expansion of an automotive wrecking and recycling yard from 1999-2013

Scale 1:5,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 27. Successive placing of fill in the Zephyr-Egypt Wetland Complex (wetlands outlined in green) in Georgina from 1999-2013

Scale 1:5,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 28. Wetland loss from the creation of a dug-out pond in the Mount Albert Wetland Complex (wetland outlined in green) from 1999-2007

Scale 1:2,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 29. Historic loss caused by Lagoon City (homes, marinas and boating canals) going into a coastal wetland in the north-eastern part of Lake Simcoe

Scale 1:30,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION 1954, 1971 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Aurora District aerial photo files

2002 Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 30. Historic loss caused by a golf course and marinas going into a coastal wetland at Riverview Beach

Scale 1:20,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION 1954, 1971, 1992 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Aurora District aerial photo files

2002 Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Wetland Degradation 60

Degradation (ha) Degradation 20

Cause

Figure 31. Wetland degradations by cause in the Lake Simcoe Watershed in descending order

Figure 32. Degradation of the Ansnorveldt Wetland Complex (outlined in green) due to tree clear-cutting from 2009-2011

Scale 1:5,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 33. Wetland degradation from a drainage ditch cutting through a formerly undisturbed wetland in the Grass Creek Wetland Complex (outlined in green) from 2002-2013

Scale 1:2,500

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 34. Wetland degradation from silt runoff into the Musselman Lake Wetland Complex (outlined in green) from 2009-2013

Scale 1:2,500

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Figure 35. Wetland gain from agricultural abandonment in the North Keswick Wetland Complex (outlined in green) from 2009-2013

Scale 1:4,000

SOURCE OF INFORMATION Spring ortho-rectified aerial imagery from J.D. Barnes & Land Information Ontario

Wetland Loss, Degradation and Gains in York Region from 1999 to 2013 140

120

100

Loss

60 Degradation Hectares Hectares (ha) Gain

0 1999-2002 2002-2005 2005-2007 2007-2009 2009-2011 2011-2013 Years

Figure 36. Wetland loss, degradation and gains in York Region through years 1999-2013

Wetland Loss, Degradation and Gains in Durham Region from 1999 to 2013 80

40 Loss

Degradation Hectares Hectares (ha) 30 Gain

0 1999-2002 2002-2008 2008-2013 Years

Figure 37. Wetland loss, degradation and gains in Durham Region through years 1999-2013

Wetland Loss, Degradation and Gains in Simcoe County (including Barrie & Orillia) from 2002 to 2016 120

100

60 Loss

Degradation Hectares Hectares (ha) Gain 40

0 2002-2008 2008-2012 2012-2016 Years

Figure 38. Wetland loss, degradation and gains in Simcoe County through years 2002-2016

Figure 39. Comparison between the MNRF SOLRIS and the MNRF Aurora District wetland layers in the Lake Simcoe watershed

Figure 40. Comparison between the MNRF SOLRIS and Ontario Streams wetland losses

Table 1. Wetland coverage, loss and degradation by Upper and Lower Tier Municipality in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

% of % of Upper/Lower Tier Total Surface Total Wetland Degradation % of % Wetlands Loss (ha) % of Loss Watershed Watershed Municipality Area (ha) Area (ha) (ha) Degradation Loss Degraded

BARRIE 5532.81 207.28 3.7% 21.22 10.2% 2.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% DURHAM 78732.97 15014.30 19.1% 118.74 0.8% 15.4% 26.04 0.2% 29.8% BROCK 38898.56 7362.27 18.9% 63.68 0.9% 8.2% 14.13 0.2% 16.1% SCUGOG 5845.62 1288.14 22.0% 2.91 0.2% 0.4% 1.79 0.1% 2.0% UXBRIDGE 33988.79 6363.88 18.7% 52.15 0.8% 6.7% 10.11 0.2% 11.6% KAWARTHA LAKES 39437.51 8911.65 22.6% 21.28 0.2% 2.8% 4.16 0.0% 4.8% ORILLIA 1698.40 407.38 24.0% 3.06 0.8% 0.4% 1.02 0.3% 1.2% PEEL - CALEDON 401.28 34.97 8.7% 0.04 0.1% 0.01% 0 0.0% 0.0% SIMCOE 66528.61 11514.85 17.3% 183.74 1.6% 23.8% 28.02 0.2% 32.0% BRADFORD WEST 13831.60 1963.84 14.2% 61.50 3.1% 8.0% 4.10 0.2% 4.7% GWILLIMBURY INNISFIL 16553.04 2426.26 14.7% 76.87 3.2% 9.9% 17.87 0.7% 20.4%

NEW TECUMSETH 2250.67 96.08 4.3% 0.45 0.5% 0.1% ORO-MEDONTE 16405.06 2516.37 15.3% 20.05 0.8% 2.6% 1.87 0.1% 2.1% RAMARA 17488.24 4512.30 25.8% 24.87 0.6% 3.2% 4.18 0.1% 4.8% YORK 94820.19 16757.05 17.7% 425.17 2.5% 55.0% 28.28 0.2% 32.3% AURORA 4624.48 198.17 4.3% 1.16 0.6% 0.1% 0.03 0.0% 0.0% EAST GWILLIMBURY 24757.18 5199.75 21.0% 257.31 4.9% 33.3% 8.82 0.2% 10.1% GEORGINA 30403.86 8325.90 27.4% 107.77 1.3% 13.9% 14.16 0.2% 16.2% KING 19190.83 2067.88 10.8% 48.83 2.4% 6.3% 4.81 0.2% 5.5%

NEWMARKET 3825.02 60.59 1.6% 2.66 4.4% 0.3%

RICHMOND HILL 98.52 2.16 2.2% 0.10 4.8% 0.01% WHITCHURCH- 11920.30 902.60 7.6% 7.34 0.8% 0.9% 0.47 0.1% 0.5% STOUFFVILLE Lake Simcoe 287151.76 52847.47 18.4% 773.25 1.5% 100.0% 87.52 0.2% 100.0% Watershed

Table 2. Wetland coverage, loss and degradation by Ecodistrict and Physiographic Region in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Total Total % of % of % Degradation % of Physiographic Region and Ecodistrict Surface Wetland Loss (ha) % of Loss Watershed Watershed Wetlands (ha) Degradation Area (ha) Area (ha) Loss Degraded

6E6 150130.00 29551.10 19.7% 630.97 2.1% 81.6% 64.19 0.2% 73.3% Peterborough Drumlin Field 17660.33 1917.89 10.9% 62.84 3.3% 8.1% 14.81 0.8% 16.9% Schomberg Clay Plains 22497.41 1245.35 5.5% 27.72 2.2% 3.6% 1.39 0.1% 1.6% Simcoe Lowlands 95737.71 24586.03 25.7% 519.20 2.1% 67.1% 46.59 0.2% 53.2% Simcoe Uplands (Oro Moraine) 14234.55 1801.83 12.7% 21.06 1.2% 2.7% 1.41 0.1% 1.6%

6E7 - Oak Ridges Moraine 40115.97 2858.76 7.1% 32.97 1.2% 4.3% 1.82 0.1% 2.1%

6E8 - Peterborough Drumlin Field 64751.28 12278.28 19.0% 96.49 0.8% 12.5% 20.42 0.2% 23.3%

6E9 - Carden Plain 32146.08 8159.34 25.4% 12.82 0.2% 1.7% 1.09 0.0% 1.2%

Lake Simcoe Watershed 287143.33 52847.47 18.4% 773.25 1.5% 100.0% 87.52 0.2% 100.0%

Table 3. Wetlands by size for Ecodistricts (6E6, 6E7, 6E8 & 6E9) and Physiographic Regions in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

<0.5 ha 0.5-2.0 ha >2 ha Total # Wetland % of # of % of Wetland % of # of % of % of # of % of Total Ecodistrict and Physiographic Wetland of Area Wetland Wetland Wetland Area Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Region Area (ha) Wetland (ha) Area Units Units (ha) Area Units Units Area Units Units Area (ha) Units

6E6 447.76 1.5% 2603 53.5% 1187.93 4.0% 1158 23.8% 27915.41 94.5% 1105 22.7% 29551.10 4866

Peterborough Drumlin Field 40.09 2.1% 256 50.7% 136.30 7.1% 133 26.3% 1741.50 90.8% 116 23.0% 1917.89 505

Schomberg Clay Plains 72.95 5.9% 400 60.9% 145.81 11.7% 147 22.4% 1026.59 82.4% 110 16.7% 1245.35 657

Simcoe Lowlands 299.82 1.2% 1739 52.3% 837.30 3.4% 803 24.2% 23448.91 95.4% 780 23.5% 24586.03 3322

Simcoe Uplands 34.90 1.9% 208 54.5% 68.52 3.8% 75 19.6% 1698.41 94.3% 99 25.9% 1801.83 382

6E7 - Oak Ridges Moraine 133.92 4.7% 681 54.0% 360.29 12.6% 335 26.5% 2364.54 82.7% 246 19.5% 2858.76 1262

6E8 - Peterborough Drumlin 101.83 0.8% 621 46.0% 314.40 2.6% 304 22.5% 11862.06 96.6% 424 31.4% 12278.28 1349 Field

6E9 - Carden Plain 73.56 0.9% 392 46.0% 209.41 2.6% 208 24.4% 7876.37 96.5% 252 29.6% 8159.34 852

Lake Simcoe Watershed 757.07 1.4% 4297 51.6% 2072.03 3.9% 2005 24.1% 50018.38 94.6% 2027 24.3% 52847.47 8329

Table 4. Wetland losses for the Lake Simcoe Watershed by size and by cause

Aggregate Agriculture Dug Out Pond Fill Highways/Roads

# (%) # (%) # (%) # (%) # (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Size of Loss Units Units Units Units Units 0.09 2 1106 313 1.59 34 4.35 113 6.31 215 <0.1 ha (3.6%) (50.0%) (3.1%) (53.8%) (4.8%) (32.1%) (12.3%) (61.1%) (12.3%) (70.3%) 0.14 1 37.83 169 12.17 53 12.72 57 15.08 71 0.1-0.5 ha (5.4%) (25.0%) (10.5%) (29.0%) (36.4%) (50.0%) (36.1%) (30.8%) (29.5%) (23.2%) 36.90 53 10.24 14 8.55 12 6.37 10 0.5-1.0 ha (10.3%) (9.1%) (30.6%) (13.2%) (24.2%) (6.5%) (12.5%) (3.3%) 21.55 16 6.33 4 1.53 1 6.32 5 1.0-2.0 ha (6.0%) (2.7%) (18.9%) (3.8%0 (4.3%) (0.5%) (12.4%) (1.6%) 2.40 1 115.89 27 3.12 1 8.11 2 17.05 5 2.0-10.0 ha (91.0%) (25.0%) (32.3%) (4.6%) (9.3%) (0.9%) (23.0%) (1.1%) (33.3%) (1.6%) 135.47 4 >10 ha (37.8%) (0.7%) Grand Total 2.64 4 358.71 582 33.46 106 35.26 185 51.13 306

% Total Loss 0.3% 46.4% 4.3% 4.6% 6.6%

Total Ha # (%) Total Holland Canal Industrial/Commercial Peat Extraction Recreation Residential (Total %) Units # (%) # (%) # (%) # (%) # (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Size of Loss Units Units Units Units Units 0.56 12 5.31 146 4.75 103 1.59 61 12.59 392 48.20 1392 <0.1 ha (0.8%) (17.9%) (12.1%) (62.7%) (5.9%) (51.8%) (13.0%) (70.5%) (15.5%) (71.9%) (6.2%) (60.1%) 4.16 18 13.53 63 13.46 57 4.41 20 25.58 124 139.08 633 0.1-0.5 ha (5.6%) (26.9%) (30.7%) (27.0%) (16.7%) (28.6%) (36.1%) (22.7%) (31.5%) (22.8%) (18.0%) (27.3%) 7.18 9 11.62 16 10.23 14 2.95 4 13.70 21 107.74 153 0.5-1.0 ha (9.7%) (13.4%) (26.4%) (6.9%) (12.7%) (7.0%) (24.2%) (4.5%) (16.9%) (3.9%) (13.9%) (6.6%) 27.09 18 9.10 7 24.34 17 1.24 1 3.05 2 100.55 71 1.0-2.0 ha (36.4%) (26.9%) (20.7%) (3.0%) (30.3%) (8.5%) (10.2%) (1.1%) (3.8%) (0.4%) (13.0%) (3.1%) 35.39 10 4.48 1 27.59 8 2.01 1 26.17 6 242.21 62 2.0-10.0 ha (47.6%) (14.9%) (10.2%) (0.4%) (34.3%) (4.0%) (16.5%) (1.1%) (32.3%) (1.1%) (31.3%) (2.7%) 135.47 4 >10 ha (17.5%) (0.2%) Grand Total 74.38 67 44.05 233 80.35 199 12.20 88 81.08 545 773.25 2315

% Total Loss 9.6% 5.7% 10.4% 1.6% 10.5% 100%

Table 5. Wetland losses by cause for Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Holland Dug Out Highways/ Industrial/ Peat Aggregate Agriculture Fill Recreation Residential Canal Pond Roads Commercial Extraction Total Ha Upper/Lower Tier Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) (Total Municipality %) 5.73 0.69 1.73 13.07 21.22 BARRIE (16.3%) (1.4%) (3.9%) (16.1%) (2.7%) 2.49 56.86 10.28 6.28 2.95 2.28 34.87 0.19 2.54 118.74 DURHAM (94.6%) (15.9%) (30.7%) (17.8%) (5.8%) (5.2%) (43.4%) (1.5%) (3.1%) (15.4%) 47.86 4.67 2.28 0.19 0.32 6.86 0.15 1.36 63.68 BROCK (13.3%) (13.9%) (6.5%) (0.4%) (0.7%) (8.5%) (1.2%) (1.7%) (8.2%) 1.54 0.93 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.16 2.91 SCUGOG (0.4%) (2.8%) (0.1%) (0%) (0.5%) (0.2%) (0.4%) 2.49 7.46 4.68 3.95 2.74 1.75 28.02 0.04 1.02 52.15 UXBRIDGE (94.6%) (2.1%) (14%) (11.2%) (5.4%) (4%) (34.9%) (0.3%) (1.3%) (6.7%) 0.14 10.32 4.44 0.34 2.34 0.27 0.16 3.26 21.28 KAWARTHA LAKES (5.4%) (2.9%) (13.3%) (1%) (4.6%) (0.6%) (1.3%) (4%) (2.8%) 0.06 0.02 1.82 0.1 1.07 3.06 ORILLIA (0.2%) (0%) (4.1%) (0.8%) (1.3%) (0.4%) 0.04 0.04 PEEL - CALEDON (0.1%) (0%) 71.37 47.29 3.7 5.88 9.6 13.72 3.44 28.73 183.74 SIMCOE (19.9%) (63.6%) (11.1%) (16.7%) (18.8%) (31.1%) (28.2%) (35.4%) (23.8%) BRADFORD WEST 3.99 47.29 0.53 1.15 2.64 0.83 5.08 61.5 GWILLIMBURY (1.1%) (63.6%) (1.6%) (3.3%) (5.2%) (1.9%) (6.3%) (8%) 49.95 0.08 3.54 2.83 2.94 0.36 17.16 76.87 INNISFIL (13.9%) (0.2%) (10%) (5.5%) (6.7%) (3%) (21.2%) (9.9%) 0.12 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.21 0.45 NEW TECUMSETH (0%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.1%) 4.38 2.75 0.65 1.54 7.38 3.34 20.05 ORO-MEDONTE (1.2%) (8.2%) (1.9%) (3%) (16.8%) (4.1%) (2.6%) 12.92 0.33 0.47 2.57 2.56 3.07 2.95 24.87 RAMARA (3.6%) (1%) (1.3%) (5%) (5.8%) (25.2%) (3.6%) (3.2%) 220.16 27.09 15.03 16.98 35.52 24.24 45.48 8.31 32.36 425.17 YORK (61.4%) (36.4%) (44.9%) (48.1%) (69.5%) (55%) (56.6%) (68.1%) (39.9%) (55%) 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.11 0.02 1.16 AURORA (1%) (0.7%) (0.8%) (0.9%) (0%) (0.1%) EAST 155.36 6.41 9.86 26.2 9.44 45.48 0.54 4.02 257.31 GWILLIMBURY (43.3%) (19.1%) (28%) (51.2%) (21.4%) (56.6%) (4.5%) (5%) (33.3%) 57.63 6.82 3.6 5.35 7.7 4.15 22.51 107.77 GEORGINA (16.1%) (20.4%) (10.2%) (10.5%) (17.5%) (34%) (27.8%) (13.9%) 6.11 27.09 1.41 2.03 1.72 4.01 3.46 2.99 48.83 KING (1.7%) (36.4%) (4.2%) (5.8%) (3.4%) (9.1%) (28.3%) (3.7%) (6.3%) 0.24 0.35 0.38 1.69 2.66 NEWMARKET (0.7%) (0.7%) (0.9%) (2.1%) (0.3%) 0.05 0.05 0.1 RICHMOND HILL (0%) (0.1%) (0%) WHITCHURCH- 1 0.15 1.15 1.56 2.31 0.05 1.13 7.34 STOUFFVILLE (0.3%) (0.5%) (3.3%) (3%) (5.2%) (0.4%) (1.4%) (0.9%) 2.64 358.71 74.38 33.46 35.26 51.13 44.05 80.35 12.2 81.08 773.25 Grand Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) % Total Loss 0.3% 46.4% 9.6% 4.3% 4.6% 6.6% 5.7% 10.4% 1.6% 10.5% 100.0%

Table 6. Wetland degradations for the Lake Simcoe Watershed by size and by cause

Drainage Ditch Dug Out Pond (No Berm) Grazing Haying/Mowing Size of Degradation Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units 0.31 10 0.58 11 0.12 3 0.36 8 <0.1 ha (6.3%) (50%) (14%) (52.4%) (1.3%) (20%) (2.7%) (28.6%) 1.86 7 1.73 8 1.59 6 2.68 10 0.1-0.5 ha (37.7%) (35%) (41.3%) (38.1%) (17.4%) (40%) (19.8%) (35.7%) 1.36 2 0.51 1 2.53 4 4.12 5 0.5-1.0 ha (27.5%) (10%) (12.2%) (4.8%) (27.7%) (26.7%) (30.4%) (17.9%) 1.41 1 1.36 1 1.32 1 6.39 5 1.0-2.0 ha (28.5%) (5%) (32.5%) (4.8%) (14.5%) (6.7%) (47.1%) (17.9%) 3.56 1 2.0-10.0 ha (39%) (6.7%) 4.94 20 4.18 21 9.13 15 13.56 28 Grand Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) % Total Degradation 5.7% 4.8% 10.4% 15.5%

Previous Plowing Siltation Trail Tree Clear-cut (Regenerating) Total Ha # (%) Total Size of Degradation Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units (Total %) Units 0.37 14 2.43 48 4.19 94 <0.1 ha (28.6%) (82.4%) (4.7%) (36.1%) (4.8%) (39.5%) 0.39 2 0.3 1 0.93 3 14.38 55 23.86 92 0.1-0.5 ha (16.9%) (66.7%) (100%) (100%) (71.4%) (17.6%) (27.8%) (41.4%) (27.3%) (38.7%) 12.47 18 20.99 30 0.5-1.0 ha (24.1%) (13.5%) (24%) (12.6%) 1.92 1 8.07 7 20.47 16 1.0-2.0 ha (83.1%) (33.3%) (15.6%) (5.3%) (23.4%) (6.7%) 14.45 5 18.01 6 2.0-10.0 ha (27.9%) (3.8%) (20.6%) (2.5%) 2.31 3 0.3 1 1.3 17 51.8 133 87.52 238 Grand Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) % Total Degradation 2.6% 0.3% 1.5% 59.2% 100.00%

Table 7. Wetland degradation by cause for Upper & Lower Tier Municipalities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Dug Out Previous Drainage Haying/ Tree Clear- Pond Grazing Plowing Siltation Trail Ditch Mowing cut (No Berm) (Regenerating) Upper/Lower Tier Total Ha Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Ha (%) Municipality (Total %) 1.73 2.01 0.86 3.31 0.39 0.33 17.4 26.04 DURHAM (35.1%) (48.1%) (9.4%) (24.4%) (16.9%) (25.8%) (33.6%) (29.8%) 1.73 1.36 0.86 2.15 0.39 7.64 14.13 BROCK (35.1%) (32.5%) (9.4%) (15.9%) (16.9%) (14.7%) (16.1%) 0.3 1.49 1.79 SCUGOG (23.1%) (2.9%) (2%) 0.65 1.16 0.04 8.27 10.11 UXBRIDGE (15.6%) (8.5%) (2.7%) (16%) (11.6%) 0.97 1.08 0.44 0.51 1.15 4.16 KAWARTHA LAKES (19.6%) (11.8%) (3.2%) (39.6%) (2.2%) (4.8%) 0 1.02 1.02 ORILLIA (0%) (2%) (1.2%) 0.1 6.14 2.56 1.92 0.13 17.18 28.02 SIMCOE (2.3%) (67.2%) (18.9%) (83.1%) (10.4%) (33.2%) (32%) BRADFORD WEST 1.25 0.05 2.8 4.1 GWILLIMBURY (13.7%) (3.6%) (5.4%) (4.7%) 0.02 4.89 0.51 1.92 10.54 17.87 INNISFIL (0.5%) (53.5%) (3.7%) (83.1%) (20.3%) (20.4%) 0.5 1.37 1.87 ORO-MEDONTE (3.7%) (2.7%) (2.1%) 0.08 1.55 0.09 2.47 4.18 RAMARA (1.8%) (11.4%) (6.8%) (4.8%) (4.8%) 2.24 2.07 1.06 7.25 0.3 0.32 15.05 28.28 YORK (45.3%) (49.6%) (11.6%) (53.5%) (100%) (24.2%) (29%) (32.3%) 0.03 0.03 AURORA (0.7%) (0%) EAST 1.25 1.5 3.9 0.13 2.03 8.82 GWILLIMBURY (25.3%) (36%) (28.8%) (9.9%) (3.9%) (10.1%) 0.99 0.3 0.91 3.35 0.17 8.44 14.16 GEORGINA (20%) (7.2%) (10%) (24.7%) (13.2%) (16.3%) (16.2%) 0.16 0.15 0.01 4.49 4.81 KING (3.8%) (1.6%) (1.1%) (8.7%) (5.5%) WHITCHURCH- 0.08 0.3 0.09 0.47 STOUFFVILLE (1.9%) (100%) (0.2%) (0.5%) 4.94 4.18 9.13 13.56 2.31 0.3 1.3 51.8 87.52 Grand Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) % Total Degradation 5.6% 4.8% 10.4% 15.5% 2.6% 0.3% 1.5% 59.2% 100.0%

Table 8. Wetland gains in the Lake Simcoe Watershed by size and cause

Agricultural Abandonment Wetland Expansion Total Ha (Total # (%) Total Ha (%) # (%) Units Ha (%) # (%) Units Size of Gain %) Units 2.63 56 3.46 74 6.09 130 <0.1 ha (5.7%) (45.9%) (24.2%) (68.5%) (10.1%) (56.5%) 11.1 50 6.08 31 17.18 81 0.1-0.5 ha (24.1%) (41%) (42.6%) (28.7%) (28.5%) (35.2%) 4.3 6 0.75 1 5.05 7 0.5-1.0 ha (9.4%) (4.9%) (5.2%) (0.9%) (8.4%) (3%) 3.23 3 1.85 1 5.08 4 1.0-2.0 ha (7%) (2.5%) (13%) (0.9%) (8.4%) (1.7%) 24.73 7 2.13 1 26.87 8 2.0-10.0 ha (53.8%) (5.7%) (14.9%) (0.9%) (44.6%) (3.5%) 45.98 122 14.27 108 60.25 230 Grand Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) % Total Gains 76.3% 23.7% 100.0%

Table 9. Wetland gains by cause for Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Agricultural Wetland Expansion Abandonment Total Gains Upper/Lower Tier Municipality Ha (%) Ha (%) (Total %) 9.29 1.93 11.22 DURHAM (20.2%) (13.6%) (18.6%) 6.58 0.36 6.94 BROCK (14.3%) (2.5%) (11.5%) 0.2 0.35 0.55 SCUGOG (0.4%) (2.5%) (0.9%) 2.51 1.22 3.73 UXBRIDGE (5.5%) (8.5%) (6.2%) 0.42 5.05 5.47 KAWARTHA LAKES (0.9%) (35.4%) (9.1%) 0.57 0.57 ORILLIA (1.2%) (1%) 0.11 0.11 PEEL - CALEDON (0.8%) (0.2%) 22.03 2.45 24.48 SIMCOE (47.9%) (17.2%) (40.6%) 18.87 0.22 19.09 BRADFORD WEST GWILLIMBURY (41%) (1.5%) (31.7%) 0.21 0.07 0.29 INNISFIL (0.5%) (0.5%) (0.5%) 0.22 0.22 NEW TECUMSETH (0.5%) (0.4%) 1.8 0.18 1.99 ORO-MEDONTE (3.9%) (1.3%) (3.3%) 0.93 1.97 2.9 RAMARA (2%) (13.8%) (4.8%) 13.67 4.73 18.4 YORK (29.7%) (33.1%) (30.5%) 0.47 0.14 0.61 AURORA (1%) (1%) (1%) 1.38 0.35 1.73 EAST GWILLIMBURY (3%) (2.5%) (2.9%) 1.44 0.09 1.53 GEORGINA (3.1%) (0.7%) (2.5%) 8.97 1.53 10.5 KING (19.5%) (10.7%) (17.4%) 2.52 2.52 NEWMARKET (17.7%) (4.2%) 1.42 0.08 1.5 WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE (3.1%) (0.6%) (2.5%) 45.98 14.27 60.25 Grand Total (100%) (100%) (100%) % Total Gains 76.3% 23.7% 100.0%

Table 10. Wetland losses (in hectares) over time by cause for York, Durham and Simcoe in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

York Region Holland Dug Out Highways/ Industrial/ Peat Grand Years Aggregate Agriculture Fill Recreation Residential Canal Pond Roads Commercial Extraction Total 1999-2002 17.32 0.19 3.75 3.51 0.62 4.40 12.84 0.22 0.76 43.61 2002-2005 86.01 1.07 4.42 7.75 0.48 0.67 13.57 1.27 2.82 118.06 2005-2007 40.41 0.37 1.49 0.91 1.11 2.45 3.49 1.19 7.90 59.30 2007-2009 30.82 0.63 3.08 0.82 5.98 2.45 8.33 2.76 14.07 68.93 2009-2011 36.11 23.30 0.98 1.28 11.52 7.02 5.98 2.78 3.43 92.39 2011-2013 9.47 1.53 1.32 2.71 15.82 7.17 0.89 0.09 3.39 42.38 Grand 0.00 220.14 27.09 15.03 16.98 35.52 24.15 45.10 8.31 32.36 424.69 Total

Durham Region Holland Dug Out Highways/ Industrial/ Peat Grand Years Aggregate Agriculture Fill Recreation Residential Canal Pond Roads Commercial Extraction Total 1999-2002 0.02 2.78 2.80 2002-2008 0.06 17.56 6.25 3.88 0.22 0.62 11.90 0.18 1.75 42.43 2008-2013 2.43 39.30 4.04 2.40 2.71 1.65 14.20 0.00 0.79 67.53 Grand 2.49 56.86 0.00 10.28 6.28 2.95 2.28 28.89 0.19 2.54 112.76 Total

Simcoe County (Including Barrie & Orillia) Holland Dug Out Highways/ Industrial/ Peat Grand Years Aggregate Agriculture Fill Recreation Residential Canal Pond Roads Commercial Extraction Total

2002-2008 16.26 2.20 2.13 0.55 2.71 1.05 6.20 31.11

2008-2012 29.09 0.81 0.58 0.85 3.80 8.62 0.33 12.51 56.60

2012-2016 26.02 46.48 0.92 2.90 5.25 2.38 2.06 10.02 96.03 Grand 0.00 71.37 47.29 3.70 5.88 9.60 13.72 0.00 3.44 28.73 183.74 Total

Table 11. Wetland degradations (in hectares) over time by cause for York, Durham and Simcoe in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

York Region Dug Out Previous Drainage Haying/ Tree Clear- Years Pond (No Grazing Plowing Trail Siltation Grand Total Ditch Mowing cut Berm) (Regenerating) 1999-2002 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.36 2002-2005 0.02 0.42 0.04 1.83 2.30 2005-2007 0.94 1.67 0.35 0.08 0.03 0.94 4.01 2007-2009 0.98 0.16 0.60 1.89 0.22 0.92 4.77 2009-2011 0.05 0.22 0.02 5.47 5.76 2011-2013 0.19 0.09 4.64 0.30 5.86 11.08 Grand Total 2.24 2.07 1.06 7.25 0.00 0.32 0.30 15.05 28.28

Durham Region Dug Out Previous Drainage Haying/ Tree Clear - Years Pond (No Grazing Plowing Trail Siltation Grand Total Ditch Mowing cut Berm) (Regenerating) 1999-2002 0.00 2002-2008 0.09 0.62 0.29 0.39 9.12 10.51 2008-2013 1.64 1.39 0.56 3.31 0.33 8.28 15.53 Grand Total 1.73 2.01 0.86 3.31 0.39 0.33 0.00 17.40 26.04

Simcoe County (Including Barrie & Orillia) Dug Out Previous Drainage Haying/ Tree Clear- Years Pond (No Grazing Plowing Trail Siltation Grand Total Ditch Mowing cut Berm) (Regenerating) 2002-2008 1.32 0.51 1.75 3.58 2008-2012 0.72 0.50 0.09 4.72 6.02 2012-2016 0.10 4.09 1.55 1.92 0.05 10.72 18.42 Grand Total 0.00 0.10 6.14 2.56 1.92 0.13 0.00 17.18 28.02

Table 12. Wetland gains (in hectares) over time by cause for York, Durham and Simcoe in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

York Region Agricultural Wetland Grand Years Abandonment Expansion Total 1999-2002 0.52 2.33 2.85 2002-2005 4.11 0.37 4.48 2005-2007 3.93 1.40 5.32 2007-2009 1.47 0.38 1.86 2009-2011 2.54 0.24 2.78 2011-2013 1.11 0.01 1.11 Grand Total 13.67 4.73 18.40

Durham Region Agricultural Wetland Grand Years Abandonment Expansion Total

2002-2008 0.00 2002-2008 2.71 0.80 3.51 2008-2013 6.58 1.13 7.71 Grand Total 9.29 1.93 11.22

Simcoe County (Including Barrie & Orillia) Agricultural Wetland Grand Years Abandonment Expansion Total 2002-2008 10.64 0.22 10.86 2008-2012 11.05 0.31 11.36 2012-2016 0.34 1.92 2.26 Grand Total 22.03 2.45 24.48

Table 13. Comparison of wetland losses by cause between Ontario Streams and SOLRIS analyses for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Ontario Streams SOLRIS* Overlap Area All Sizes <0.5 Ha >0.5 Ha Only >0.5 Ha >0.5 Ha Reasons for Wetland Loss # of # of # of # of Ha % Ha % Ha % Ha % Ha % (SOLRIS Categories in Brackets) Units Units Units Units

Agriculture (Undifferentiated) 358.71 577 47.6% 48.89 477 6.5% 309.82 100 41.1% 279.16 184 60.1% 177.84 69.9%

Peat Extraction 60.00 141 8.0% 11.83 109 1.6% 48.17 32 6.4% 138.86 52 29.9% 61.02 24.0% Residential, Industrial/Commercial 125.12 735 16.6% 56.29 683 7.5% 68.83 52 9.1% 32.28 38 7.0% 11.75 4.6% (Urban Impervious) Road/Highways (Transportation) 51.13 280 6.8% 20.87 260 2.8% 30.26 20 4.0% 5.69 5 1.2% 3.54 1.4%

Recreation (Urban Pervious) 12.20 86 1.6% 6.00 80 0.8% 6.21 6 0.8% 3.44 4 0.7% 0.39 0.2%

Aggregate (Extraction - Other) 2.64 4 0.3% 0.24 3 0.0% 2.40 1 0.3% 4.82 8 1.0% 0.00 0.0%

Canal 74.38 59 9.9% 3.61 24 0.5% 70.77 35 9.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Fill 35.99 184 4.8% 16.21 167 2.2% 19.78 17 2.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Dug-Out Pond 33.46 106 4.4% 13.76 87 1.8% 19.70 19 2.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Grand Total 753.63 2172 100.0% 177.70 1890 23.6% 575.93 282 76.4% 464.25 291 100.0% 254.53 100.0%

* The SOLRIS undifferentiated category largely consists of agriculture. SOLRIS did not separate out losses from fill, canals and dug-out ponds.