Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy · i Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed to the development of this Biodiversity

Essex RegionBiodiversity Conservation Strategy

Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines and Priorities

! 2002 !

November 29, 2002

Published by: The Essex Region Conservation Authority

Prepared by: Dan Lebedyk, Conservation Biologist - Project Co-ordinator

With funding support from:

Copies* of this report may be obtained from:

Essex Region Conservation Authority360 Fairview Ave. W.Essex ON N8M 1Y6

* Due to the size and cost of producing this document, some restriction in its distribution may be necessary.

This report may be cited as:

Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). 2002. Essex Region Biodiversity ConservationStrategy - Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines (Comprehensive Version). DanLebedyk, Project Co-ordinator. Essex, Ontario. 181 pp.

i Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Acknowledgements

Many individuals contributed to the development of this Biodiversity Conservation Strategy forthe Essex region. The following individuals and organizations are gratefully acknowledged fortheir commitment, support, and involvement on the technical steering committee for the project:

Terry Anderson Essex County Woodlot Owners AssociationJim Boothby Stewardship Co-ordinator, Essex County Stewardship NetworkTom Clark Essex County Federation of AgricultureBob Clay Manager, Western Ontario Field Office, Ducks Unlimited CanadaKen Colthurst Forester, Essex Region Conservation AuthorityLee Anne Doyle County Planning Advisor, County of EssexJodi Dutz EcoServices, Muddy Creek/Two Creeks Implementation StrategyMark Emery Stewardship Co-ordinator, Essex County Stewardship NetworkGeordon Harvey GIS Technician, Essex Region Conservation AuthorityDon Hector Area Biologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesTom Hurst President, Essex County Field Naturalists ClubDan Lebedyk Biologist and Project Co-ordinator, Essex Region Conservation AuthorityJanice Leboeuf Soil and Water Quality Technician, Essex Region Conservation AuthorityJon Lovett-Doust Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of WindsorGeorge McCracken Wildlife Photographer/NaturalistBrian McHattie Contractor to Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and Great Lakes

2000 Cleanup FundGary Mouland Park Warden, Point Pelee National ParkIan Naisbitt Little River Enhancement GroupDan Reive Chief Park Warden, Point Pelee National ParkLarry Silani Prince, Silani & Associates Limited Urban & Rural Planning ConsultantsOwen Steele Biologist, Ducks Unlimited CanadaBill Stephenson Regional Conservation Biologist, Parks CanadaRic Symmes President, STERNSMAN International Inc.Lisa Tulen Citizen's Environment AllianceDoug van Hemessen Program Secretary, Carolinian CanadaGerry Waldron Consulting Ecologist, ECSN Landscape Strategy for Wetlands in the Western

BasinAl Woodliffe Area Ecologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesRichard Wyma Land Management Supervisor, Essex Region Conservation Authority

Special thanks are extended to the following ERCA staff and assistants for their technical workon the project:

GIS technical staff - Geordon Harvey and Christina SmallTechnical assistants - Michael O’Brien and Larisa Pappas

Finally, thanks to Parks Canada, Environment Canada’s Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Essex County Stewardship Network, and Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada for providing funding for the strategy.

iii Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Table of Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 Applicability to Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.1 Detroit River RAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.2 Wheatley Harbour RAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Study Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.1 Database Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.2 Spatial Analysis of Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.2.1 Forest Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2.2 Riparian (Streambank) Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2.3 Imperviousness of Urbanized Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2.4 Wetland Extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2.5 Extent of Prairie, Savanna, Alvar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.3 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.3.1 Environmental Guidelines/Local Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.3.2 Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.3.2.1 Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.3.2.2 Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124.3.2.3 Wetland Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.3.2.4 Fish Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.3.2.5 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.3.2.6 Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1 Southeast Essex Region: Point Pelee, Hillman Marsh, Sturgeon Creek, and Muddy Creek

(Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1.1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1.2 Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.1.2.1 Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.1.2.2 Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.1.2.3 Wetland Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.1.2.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.1.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.1.3.1 Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.1.3.2 Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.1.3.3 Wetland Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.1.3.4 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.2 Greater Detroit River Study Area: Detroit River AOC, Little River, Turkey Creek, and RiverCanard Sub-watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.2.1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.2.2 Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


5.2.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

iv Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy


5.3 Lake Erie Sub-watersheds: Big Creek, Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, Wigle Creek, Mill Creekand Kingsville Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555.3.1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555.3.2 Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55



5.4 Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds: Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, Duck Creek, MoisonCreek, Ruscom River, and Little Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.4.1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.4.2 Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71



5.5 Entire Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925.5.1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925.5.2 Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.5.2.1 Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005.5.2.2 Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.5.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015.5.3.1 Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035.5.3.2 Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

6. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

7. Strategy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057.2 Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067.3 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077.4 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077.5 Priority Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

7.5.1 Social Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087.5.2 Ecosystem Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

7.6 Objectives and Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087.6.1 Planning Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097.6.2 Community Action Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107.6.3 Education Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127.6.4 Ecosystem Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

7.6.4.1 Forest Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157.6.4.2 Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1167.6.4.3 Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

7.7 Summary of Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

v Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

9. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Appendix I:

Acronym Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Appendix II:

Steering Committee/Reviewers/Natural Areas Task Force (NATF) Members . . . . . . . 123Appendix III:

Contributor Backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Carolinian Canada (CC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Citizens Environment Alliance (CEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Ducks Unlimited Canada (DU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Essex County Federation of Agriculture (ECFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Essex County Field Naturalists Club (ECFNC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Essex County Stewardship Network (ECSN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Essex County Woodlot Owners Association (ECWOA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Little River Enhancement Group (Lil’Reg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Point Pelee National Park/Parks Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133University of Windsor, Department of Biological Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Appendix IV: Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species of the Essex Region . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix V: Southeast Essex Region Detailed GIS Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Appendix VI: Greater Detroit River Detailed GIS Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Appendix VII: Lake Erie Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Appendix VIII: Lake St. Clair Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Appendix IX: Forest Bird Associations and Rarity Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

vi Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

List of Figures

Figure 1: Essex Region Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 2: Southeast Essex Region Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 3: Point Pelee National Park - Existing Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 4: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 5: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 6: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 7: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 8: Southeast Essex Region - Restoration Concept Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 9: Point Pelee National Park - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 10: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 11: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 12: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . 33Figure 13: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh/Lloyd - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 14: Greater Detroit River Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 15: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Figure 16: Little River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Figure 17: River Canard Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Figure 18: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Figure 19: Greater Detroit River Study Area - Restoration Concept Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Figure 20: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Figure 21: Little River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Figure 22: River Canard Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Figure 23: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Figure 24: Lake Erie Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Figure 25: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Figure 26: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Figure 27: Wigle Creek, Mill Creek, Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . 60Figure 28: Lake Erie Study Area - Restoration Concept Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Figure 29: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Figure 30: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . 67Figure 31: Wigle/Mill Creeks/Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . 68Figure 32: Lake St. Clair Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Figure 33: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Figure 34: Puce River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Figure 35: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Figure 36: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Figure 37: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Figure 38: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Figure 39: Lake St. Clair Study Area - Restoration Concept Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Figure 40: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Figure 41: Puce River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Figure 42: Belle River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Figure 43: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . 88Figure 44: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Figure 45: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Figure 46: Entire Region Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Figure 47: Entire Region Study Area - Restoration Concept Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

vii Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

List of Tables

Table 1: 1994 Essex Region Resource Assessment Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Table 2: Study Areas and Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 3: Southeast Essex Region Landuse Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Table 4: Southeast Essex Region Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 5: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in Southeast Essex Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 6: Southeast Essex Region Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions . . . . . . . . . 29Table 7: Greater Detroit River Landuse Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Table 8: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Table 9: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Greater Detroit River Study Area . . . . . . . . 45Table 10: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 48Table 11: Lake Erie Study Area Landuse Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Table 12: Lake Erie Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Table 13: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake Erie Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Table 14: Lake Erie Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 65Table 15: Lake St. Clair Study Area Landuse Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Table 16: Lake St. Clair Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Table 17: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake St. Clair Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Table 18: Lake St. Clair Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Table 19: Entire Region Study Area Landuse Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Table 20: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Table 21: Entire Region Study Area Detailed GIS Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Table 22: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions . . . . . . . 101

ix Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Executive Summary

Since the time of European settlement in the 1830's, much of the original natural resources ofthe Essex region have either been totally destroyed or have become extremely degraded as adirect or indirect result of clearing and drainage for timber, agriculture, and urban development. The overall loss of approximately 97% of the original wetland area and 95% of the original forestarea has resulted in a highly fragmented and degraded ecosystem. The remaining small,isolated remnants of natural habitats constitute the lowest percentage of any region in all ofOntario. It has long been realized that the cumulative loss and alteration of the region's naturalresources has had profound consequences on the region’s sustainability and ecosystem health,necessitating the need to significantly increase the extent and quality of remaining naturalhabitats.

Environment Canada, in partnership with other government agencies, has developed "AFramework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern” which providesa methodology to establish habitat restoration guidelines and priorities for degraded ecosystemsutilizing geographical information systems (GIS) technology. The purpose of the BiodiversityConservation Strategy is to produce a spatial database of all natural areas in the Essex regionand, utilizing the Environment Canada framework, conduct an analysis of the terrestrial,wetland, and riparian habitats to identify the extent of existing natural vegetation and prioritizeopportunities for habitat rehabilitation and enhancement. The objective is to increase the size,extent, and quality of key natural heritage features, natural corridors, and greenway linkages,thereby improving the ecosystem diversity and ecological functions of the Essex region. Inaddition, by applying the framework to the Detroit River and Wheatley Harbour Areas ofConcern the Strategy will assist in addressing the delisting the impaired beneficial use - loss offish and wildlife habitat, for these ongoing Remedial Action Plans.

Current habitat conditions in all of the study areas examined to date, reveal that the remainingnatural ecosystems of the Essex region are not only far below an amount to be consideredhealthy and sustainable, but are highly fragmented and degraded and hence, in need ofextensive rehabilitation and restoration. The results from this report provide an overallframework to guide where habitat rehabilitation and restoration might be required before theindividual sub-watershed ecosystems can be considered healthy and self-sustaining. The highpriority restoration opportunity areas mapped in this report are to be used as a guide toconcentrate future potential habitat restoration and enhancement works.

Complete restoration of all high priority opportunity areas would lead to an “ideal” ecologicalcondition for our remaining natural resources. However, it is realized that it may be impracticalto fulfil this optimal condition, due to the large expanse of land area, large number of privatelandowners involved, and lack of political will required to reach this goal. It is neverthelesscrucial to implement as much restoration as possible in the areas identified in this report,building upon those few remaining ecosystems remaining in the landscape. Therefore, everyeffort should be made to apply for funding for those landowners within the high priority areaswho are willing to undertake some form of habitat restoration on their property. Only through thislogical approach can we justify financial spending versus resulting ecological value.

1 Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Land Use Area (Ha) Percent Cover

Developed Lands

Agriculture, Urbanization 161,489.65 93.77%

Natural Habitat

Forest (ERCA, 1992) 6,394.75 3.71%

Wetland (ERCA, 1995) 4,242.00 2.46%

Tallgrass Prairie (Pratt, 1994) 79.00 0.05%

Alvar (Managhan et al., 1990) 16.60 0.01%

Natural Habitat Total 10,732.35 6.23%

All Lands

Total Land Area (ERCA, 1992) 172,222.00 100.00%

Table 1: 1994 Essex Region Resource Assessment Estimates

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Essex Region(Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines and Priorities)

“It was realized in the latter half of the nineteenth century that too much timber had beenwastefully cut; in many cases only to reveal land that was not profitable to farming. Some criticized earlier generations which had ‘ripped away’ the forest. They believedthat the solutions to the problems lay in replacing the trees.”

From: Fur Trade To Farmstead (ERCA, 1986) paraphrasing the Bureau of Forestry in 1885

1. Background

Since the time of European settlement in the 1830's, much of the original natural resources ofthe Essex region have either been totally destroyed or have become extremely degraded as adirect or indirect result of clearing and drainage for timber, agriculture, and urban development(ERCA, 1986; Oldham, 1983). Within the region, there has been an overall loss ofapproximately 97% of the original wetland area (Snell, 1989) and 95% of the original forest area(Vandall, 1979). This has resulted in a currently degraded ecosystem characterized by anextreme lack of riparian habitat, wetland area and appropriate buffers, forest cover and corenatural areas, few green linkages between natural features, and poor water quality and aquatichabitat. The small, isolated remnants of forest, wetland, prairie, savanna, alvar, and riparianhabitat shown in Figure 1 now constitute the present extent of the region's natural heritage; thelowest percentage of any region in all of Ontario (Oldham, 1983). Table 1 indicates a 1994estimate of remaining habitat resources in the Essex region.

1A comprehensive glossary of all acronyms used in this report may be found in Appendix I.2The terms restoration and rehabilitation are uses synonymously throughout this document.


It has long been realized that the cumulative loss and alteration of the region's natural resources(i.e., habitats) since European settlement has had profound consequences on the region’ssustainability and ecosystem health, necessitating the need to significantly increase the extentand quality of remaining natural habitats (Reid and Symmes, 1997).

In 1994, the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA1) and its stakeholders drafted aStrategic Plan to help determine environmental priorities for the Essex region (ERCA, 1994). Those priorities truly reflected community values and aspirations. Stakeholders included morethan 75 organizations from member municipalities, environmental, recreation and farm groupsto educators, media, real estate and labour representatives. One of the top prioritiesrecognized in the Plan was the need to Enhance Biodiversity Through Restoration and Tree-planting by developing projects to create or restore wetlands in appropriate regional settings,develop management plans to optimize wildlife habitats, and collaborate with communityorganizations and residents to increase tree-planting in available areas (ERCA, 1994). Thesepriority initiatives formed the basis for completing a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for theregion.

In March of 1997, the “Natural Areas Task Force” (NATF) was formed; a co-ordinatedcommunity-based effort consisting of community volunteers and representatives from variousmunicipalities, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and resource management agencies(see Appendix II). This task force was initiated as a result of the “International CountrysideStewardship Exchange (ICSE) Case Study of Southern Essex County” (Environment Canada,1996), carried out by an international team of resource management specialists in September1996. The primary goal of the NATF was to produce a strategy document designed to halt theloss and achieve a substantial increase in the size and quality of natural communitiescharacteristic of the Essex region. The NATF has prepared prioritized recommendations forconserving and enhancing natural areas in the Essex region utilizing, as starting points, theICSE Case Study, as well as the 1997 “Conservation Strategy for Carolinian Canada” (Reid andSymmes, 1997). Other goals of the NATF include sparking local community action, andinitiating the implementation of these strategic recommendations. One of the essential,preliminary recommendations made by the NATF was to complete the Biodiversity ConservationStrategy to identify all natural areas in the region and recommend priority restoration2 andenhancement opportunities.

Environment Canada, in partnership with other government agencies, has developed a document entitled "A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas ofConcern” (Environment Canada et al., 1998), which provides a methodology to establish habitatrestoration guidelines and priorities for degraded ecosystems utilizing geographical informationsystems (GIS) technology. This document provided the technical basis upon which thisBiodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Essex region was developed.


Figure 1: Essex Region Natural Areas


2. Purpose

The purpose of this study was to produce a spatial database of all natural areas in the Essexregion and conduct an analysis of the terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitats to identify theextent of existing natural vegetation. This was then used to facilitate prioritization ofopportunities for habitat rehabilitation and enhancement. Strategic planning for therehabilitation and restoration of ecosystem features focuses on identifying high priorityopportunities to help restore or improve environmental features and ecological functions thathave been lost or degraded. The objective of these measures is to increase the size, extent,and quality of key natural heritage features, natural corridors, and greenway linkages, therebyimproving the ecosystem diversity and ecological functions of the watersheds. This is the firststep to constructing a healthy, self-sustaining, natural heritage system. This holistic approachthat works towards restoring, to the extent possible, the functions and diverse speciescomposition that comprise an undegraded natural ecosystem is more likely to ensure thatmaximum biodiversity is conserved over the long term. The strategic planning for restorationand conservation of biodiversity is based on the premise that all existing natural areas remainintact and that there is no further loss.

2.1 Applicability to Remedial Action Plans (RAPs)

2.1.1 Detroit River RAP

The Habitat Technical Work Group of the Detroit River RAP has developed recommendations toaddress the loss of fish and wildlife habitat through two objectives: to preserve and protectexisting habitat, and to restore and enhance habitat to maintain a healthy, diverse and self-sustaining fish and wildlife community. The following priority recommendations from the DetroitRiver RAP indirectly address all of the impaired beneficial uses to the Detroit River area ofconcern (AOC) and directly address impaired beneficial use #14, Loss of fish and wildlife habitatand #3, Degradation of fish and wildlife populations:

! Develop a Habitat Inventory (Upland and Aquatic) for the Detroit River AOCA habitat inventory is needed to obtain baseline information on existing wetland habitat,wildlife, and fishery resources. A habitat inventory would provide the information neededto pro-actively give developers and municipalities some guidance regarding habitatsensitivity and appropriate land zoning and permitted uses. Within the AOC, a wetlandsinventory been completed for the Canadian side of the Detroit River (Detroit River RAP,1996; page 82).

! Develop a Habitat Management Plan for the Detroit River RAP To clearly document strategies and their rationale for the protection, restoration andenhancement of fish and wildlife habitat in the AOC. It would pro-actively provideinformation to municipalities and developers that could be incorporated into planningdocuments. In addition, the plan could delineate areas suitable for public accessdevelopment and environmental appreciation and education that would foster a betterunderstanding of the relationship between humans and their environment. The OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Essex Region Conservation Authority(ERCA) have completed a wetlands inventory and evaluation of wetlands within theCanadian portion of the AOC (Detroit River RAP, 1996; page 82).


! Make more efficient use of staff by coordinating environment protection activities withother agenciesTo ensure that government agencies continue to find innovative ways of coordinatingtheir environmental protection activities to restore and protect habitat (Detroit River RAP,1996; page 91).

! Begin remedial actions on the list of proposed habitat candidate sitesThe U.S. National Biological Survey (NBS) has estimated that over 90% of wetlands inthe river (including both Canadian and U.S. sides) in 1873 were destroyed as theshoreline was modified and developed. In the face of these huge losses, restorationactivities should begin immediately (Detroit River RAP, 1996; page 103).

Currently, there is no existing habitat management plan for the Detroit River AOC. By applyingthe restoration guidelines, outlined in "A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in GreatLakes Areas of Concern” (Environment Canada et al., 1998), to the Detroit River AOC, in orderto establish appropriate local targets, the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will assist thenewly formed Detroit River Cleanup Habitat Implementation Subcommittee in the following:

! providing a review of existing habitat conditions;! defining data gaps;! developing delisting criteria for impaired beneficial use #14, loss of fish and wildlife

habitat;! developing implementation plans, and;! prioritizing implementation project proposals.

Furthermore, the Strategy will aid in meeting Canadian-Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets.

2.1.2 Wheatley Harbour RAP

The Wheatley Harbour RAP Team has recommended that vegetated buffer zones beestablished to address the delisting of the impaired beneficial use, Eutrophication or undesirablealgae; and that instream habitat should be preserved and restored to address the delisting ofthe impaired beneficial use, Loss of fish and wildlife habitat (Ontario Ministry of Environmentand Energy, 1995).

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will apply the Environment Canada’s restorationguidelines to the Wheatley Harbour AOC, in order to establish appropriate local targets, andsubsequent results from the analysis will be incorporated into the Draft Muddy Creek/TwoCreeks Implementation Strategy (Dutz, 1998) which is currently being developed. This analysiswill assist in developing and prioritizing appropriate restoration plans, and identifying necessarybuffer zones to aid in delisting these impaired beneficial uses. Furthermore, the Strategy willaid in meeting Canadian-Ontario Agreement Habitat Targets.

3. Study Areas

The Essex region was divided into five large study areas. This division was due to theavailability of funding for individual areas. Table 2 describes the five study areas and thesubsequent sources of funding for completing the analyses:


Study Area Sub-watersheds Funding Source

Southeast Essex Region Point Pelee; Hillman Marsh;Sturgeon Creek; Marentette, EastMarsh, West Marsh and LloydDrainage Schemes; Atwell Drain;Muddy Creek (Wheatley HarbourAOC)

Parks Canada

Greater Detroit RiverArea of Concern (AOC)

Detroit River, Little River, TurkeyCreek, River Canard

Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup FundDucks Unlimited Canada

Lake Erie Sub-watersheds Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, WigleCreek, Big Creek

Essex County Stewardship NetworkHuman Resources Development Canada

Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds

Pike Creek, Puce River, BelleRiver, Ruscom River, Little Creek

Essex County Stewardship NetworkHuman Resources Development Canada

Table 2: Study Areas and Funding Sources

4. Methodology

4.1 Database Compilation

The following information was compiled to construct the geographic information system (GIS)database. Digitized electronic maps were obtained using the 1:50,000 National TopographicSeries (NTS), 1:10,000 Ontario Base Mapping (OBM) (drainage, roads, vegetation, etc.), and1:25,000 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) drainage mapsprior to the start of this project. Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) and sub-watersheddelineations were obtained from ERCA. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) andprovincially significant wetland boundaries were obtained from the OMNR. Soils andphysiography data (1:63,360) were obtained from OMAFRA. Localized wetland boundarymapping (1:2,000) was digitized for the Town of LaSalle. Forest cover and other landcoverinformation was obtained using Landsat Satellite images provided by Parks Canada.

All digital information was imported into ARC/INFO-GIS, a GIS software package, to conductspatial analysis. This GIS database generates maps and documentation describing the currentstate of natural vegetation and adjacent land use and, ultimately, areas for possiblerehabilitation. A scale of 1:50,000 was used only for a broad view of existing habitat in an areaas a first attempt at identifying possible habitat rehabilitation areas. Detailed maps (1:10,000)incorporated information gathered through research with Parks Canada, satellite imagery. 1989Aerial photography at 1:8,000, landowner contacts, and ground-truthing all providedopportunities to verify and update the documentary record.


4.2 Spatial Analysis of Existing Habitat

4.2.1 Forest Cover

Forest cover boundaries from the 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 digital base mapping were cross-referenced with existing aerial photography and ESA and ANSI mapping, and wherever possiblefield validation was conducted to verify unknown boundaries. The limit of 0.5 ha was set as theminimum size of forest patch for inclusion into the forest layer. This limit effectively eliminatedthose areas too small to provide significant wildlife habitat, as well as many smaller hedgerows.

It was felt that areas such as golf courses, roadside plantings, windbreaks, non-native plantings,or plantations which are treated to reduce understorey growth, should not be included in thecalculation of forest cover, as these non-natural habitats do not serve in providing significantecosystem functions, such as wildlife habitat. However, a small number of golf courses haveinitiated a program to naturalize sections of their properties, allowing woody and herbaceousvegetation to re-establish beneath the tree canopy. These areas were identified, delimited, andretained in the forest cover.

It was agreed that plantations of native species would not be considered part of the forest layeruntil such time as they require no maintenance for weeds, have a closed canopy, and havedeveloped a substantial understorey complete with associated wildlife (ERCA, 1992). Detailedrecords were available for those plantations that were established through the ERCA tree-planting program. These were then mapped onto 1:10,000 OBM’s, digitized and added to theGIS database as a separate layer. Analysis by the ERCA Forester revealed the condition ofindividual plantations, with respect to the above criteria, and those that were determined to besufficiently mature were added to the forest cover layer. Those not included were retained inthe database for future consideration.

The swamp forest community type also required additional analysis. All areas known to beswamp forest were delineated and included in the wetland area calculations.

Once the data for the forest cover layer had been verified and corrected, spatial analysis on theinformation was conducted. ARC/INFO-GIS was used to determine the total amount and therelative percentage of forest cover, the size of the largest natural forest patch, and the percentof the study area that is forest cover either 100 m or 200 m from edge (i.e., how much of theforest cover is interior forest). The amount of interior forest was calculated for woodlandsgreater than 10 ha in size, as smaller woodlands would not contain any interior forest habitat.

4.2.2 Riparian (Streambank) Analysis

The stream and drain coverage in a study area was used to determine the percent riparianhabitat. Lengths of all streams, including those of first-, second-, and third-order streams, weredetermined using the corrected 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 mapping. The stream coverage requiredextensive editing and correcting (utilizing ERCA drainage maps) before streams could beassigned stream order.

Several length measurements were calculated to determine percentage riparian habitat that isforested. The length of all streams in the study area was calculated, then the stream data were


overlaid with the forest cover data to extract an estimate of forested streams. The total length ofstreams flowing through forest cover was calculated and is represented as a percentage ofoverall stream length. The same procedure was used for first-, second-, and third-orderstreams. To determine the percent of riparian habitat that is forested within 30 m of a stream,30 m buffers were placed around the first-, second-, and third-order streams and then overlaidwith data for forest cover. This layer was then manually edited to determine which forestwoodlands were 30 m wide. The percent riparian habitat having 30 m wide buffers was thencalculated. Because the Landsat data only allows for identification of forest vegetation, thepercent cover along streams may be somewhat underestimated as grasslands and shrubthickets are not included in the database at this time.

4.2.3 Imperviousness of Urbanized Areas

The percent imperviousness of an urbanized sub-watershed was calculated using a formuladeveloped by Ecological Services for Planning, Ltd. This formula multiplies the percent of urbandevelopment of an area (transportation routes and built-up areas) by 0.75; and adds another 2%of imperviousness to account for individual buildings in rural areas (Environment Canada et al.,1998). Because most of the Essex region is highly agricultural, this analysis only applies toareas in and around the City of Windsor.

The GIS database provided the areas occupied by different “urban development” classes. Thetotal area occupied by the following landcover classes was summed and multiplied by 0.75 tocalculate percent imperviousness in a study area:

! Commercial, institutional and communications! Transportation! Industrial! Residential

4.2.4 Wetland Extent

Wetland boundaries from the 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 digital base mapping were cross-referenced with existing OMNR provincial wetland mapping, and when possible ground-truthingwas conducted to verify unknown boundaries.

As mentioned above, all areas known to be swamp forest were delineated and included in thewetland area calculations.

Once the data for wetland extent had been checked and corrected, spatial analysis on theinformation was conducted. ARC/INFO-GIS was used to determine the percent of a study areathat is occupied by wetland habitat, and the amount of adjacent natural vegetation that is 240 mfrom the wetland edge. A buffer of 240 m wide was placed around existing wetlands to describethe potential areas for upland nesting habitat. This width provides cover for wildlife speciesrequiring both wetland and upland habitat, reduces the rate of nest predation to moderatelevels, and provides very good removal of sediments and nutrients (Environment Canada et al.,1998).


4.2.5 Extent of Prairie, Savanna, Alvar

Specific details for the current extent of prairie, savanna, and alvar habitat types will be addedto the GIS database as new information becomes available. This information will be generatedas a result of the recently published Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A RecoveryPlan produced by the World Wildlife Fund in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources (Rodger, 1998).

4.3 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Development

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy was co-ordinated by ERCA Conservation Biologist, DanLebedyk and developed in association with a technical steering committee (hereafter referred toas “the committee”) made up of various representatives from the professional and localcommunity (Appendix II). Appendix III describes the backgrounds of the various organizationswho were most involved in the development of the Strategy.

Spatial analyses (using overlay and buffering techniques) were carried out throughout thisproject to determine how the various study areas meet the restoration guidelines developed bythe committee. ERCA also utilized its GIS, and existing digital data to model soil loss, and soilloading into watersheds, at 1:50,000 scale. This modelling helped define initial priorityrestoration areas, and will direct any subsequent landowner contact program to areas which areof particularly high concern. This will focus implementation on areas which are not only “bestbets” from a landowner perspective but, more importantly, areas which are high priority forhabitat restoration from a biological perspective.

4.3.1 Environmental Guidelines/Local Targets

The habitat guidelines that were devised by Environment Canada et al. (1998) represent theoptimum conditions for diverse, healthy, functioning ecosystems. However, if optimumconditions are not present, the current state of affairs may be estimated using "benchmarks", orhabitat thresholds. These thresholds represent attempts to indicate how the biologicalcommunity is affected by only partially meeting the optimality guidelines. Birds tend to be usedas indicators of upland habitat status for two reasons: 1) they are easily surveyed and havebeen studied extensively by ecologists and naturalists; and 2) more is known about details oftheir habitat requirements and their ranges of distribution, than any other group of wildlife. Incontrast, hydrologic parameters tend to be used to monitor wetland function.

Based on input from the committee, the results of ERCA investigations, and practicalconsiderations for long-term ecosystem health these optimal environmental guidelines wereadapted to the Essex region yielding appropriate interim local targets. These local targetsreflected an overall desire to ensure:

! that ecosystem integrity was protected and maintained;! that those aspects of the ecosystem which have been lost or degraded over time were

restored and enhanced to healthy, self-sustaining, diverse conditions; and! that the resulting potential and proposed land use changes were practical, feasible, and

realistic based on the local context.


4.3.2 Guiding Principles

Due to the history of land use in the Essex region, especially agricultural land clearing, there arefew natural areas remaining. Consequently, further losses should be prevented to the greatestextent possible. Co-ordinated steps should be taken to rebuild a pattern of nodes and corridorsof natural features into the landscape. This will improve and greatly diversify the biodiversity ofthe Essex region. Each of the following principles are comprised of a series of goals, designedto protect and enhance the natural features and ecological functions; to restore thosefeatures/functions that have been degraded; and to guide future development in a manner thatwill ensure the long-term health of the environment. These principles and goals guided thedevelopment of the Strategy. Goal achievement will be accomplished through fullimplementation of the Strategy.

! To stop further losses of significant natural features and to minimize other losses.

Goals: ! Identify and preserve significant environmental features andecological functions (fish and aquatic habitat, significantwoodlands, significant wetlands, and significant habitats ofvulnerable, threatened, and endangered species).

! Perpetuate existing significant communities.! No loss of natural areas.! No loss of habitat along streams.! Identify and preserve sensitive water quality and quantity features

and hydrologic functions.

! To achieve a net increase in natural cover and enhance the existing ecologicalresources.

Goals: ! Restore appropriate biological communities to yield diversecomposition and age structure of vegetation.

! Natural communities - to increase the area of naturally sustainingor successional vegetation.

! Uplands - to retain and improve the existing woodlandcommunities without losses.

! Wetlands - to retain and improve the existing wetland communitieswithout losses.

! Riparian habitat - to retain existing habitat and restore ripariancommunities.

! Tallgrass prairie/savanna/alvar habitats - to retain existing habitatsand restore/enhance where appropriate.

! Reduce the impacts of existing agricultural and/or urban land uses in an effort to reduce degradation of natural ecosystems.

! To create and improve linkages between natural areas.

Goal: ! Net gain of appropriate, priority linkages and corridors.


! To prescribe for the creation/restoration of larger contiguous areas of naturalcommunities.

Goal: ! To identify, protect, and restore (using existing fragments) majornatural nodes.

! To monitor guiding principles and goals, as they provide a direct measure of the state ofthe environment; and modify as appropriate so as to accommodate new informationand/or changes that occur.

4.3.2.1 Forest Habitat

Guidelines for the protection and restoration of woodlands are based on objectives to promotehealthy, self-sustaining woodland ecosystems. Planting to expand existing areas and/or createnew woodland areas responds to the goal to increase the percentage of total forest cover withinthe Essex region. Enhancement and creation of natural corridors to produce a greenwaysystem involves vegetative plantings that would extend the valleylands and stream corridorsystems, connect woodlands and vegetative remnants, and re-establish linkages to majornatural nodes. This in turn would create new habitat and terrestrial resource areas, reducefragmentation, facilitate the movement of native plant and animal species, and increase thepercentage of natural cover. It is estimated that for plantation-type tree-planting, the planting ofone million trees will yield an increase in forest cover of one percent. An improvement programwould include artificial and/or natural vegetation regeneration or plantings at suitable locationsidentified through further study and consultation during final confirmation of the restorationconcept such as:

! regeneration or plantings on retired or marginal lands;! plantings in high priority areas which would improve connectivity to major natural nodes;! regeneration or plantings to provide buffers to significant or sensitive areas (eg. ESAs,

ANSIs, proximity to endangered species such as Bald Eagle nests, etc.) where neededand where feasible;

! regeneration in areas of high land conversion (i.e., fields to greenhouses).

Wooded areas can be expanded and linked to other woodlands, hedgerows and corridors byactive planting and natural regeneration measures. Provision and restoration of vegetatedcorridors will improve corridor functions and connectivity. Forest Habitat Guidelines

1) Percent forest cover! 30%

2) Size of largest forest patch! more than one 100 ha forest patch which is a minimum 500 m in width

3) Percent of watershed that is forest cover 100 m and 200 m from edge! 100 m or farther from the edge > 10%! 200 m or farther from the edge > 5%

4) Forest shape and proximity to other areas! circular or square in shape! in close proximity to adjacent patches (within 2 km)


5) Fragmented landscapes and the role of corridors! corridors designed to facilitate species movement should be a minimum of 100 m

in width! corridors designed for specialist species should be a minimum of 500 m wide and

refined to meet the needs of the target species6) Forest quality - species composition and age structure

! species composition - as naturally diverse as possible! age structure - ideal basal area (m2/Ha) on average:

! polewood (10 - 24 cm) - 4! small (26 - 38 cm) - 6! medium (40 - 48 cm) - 5! large (50+ cm) - 5! Total - 20(OMNR, 1990; 1993)

Spatial analysis on the landuse information was conducted to determine the percent forestcover across the study area with respect to the recommended habitat guidelines and localinterim targets for forest cover. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987)was utilized to determine which breeding birds occurred in each study area (see Appendix IX). From the list of birds for which breeding evidence was noted, forest-dependent birds potentiallyoccurring in the areas based on their breeding range were identified and divided into threecategories: forest interior, forest interior/edge and forest edge. Comparisons were made withrespect to the expected and actual numbers of forest-dependent bird species occurring in thearea.

Possible reforestation areas were then selected. Areas targeted for reforestation includeopenings in the existing forest woodlands, scrubland near woodlands and forest cover nearstreams. Woodlands were consolidated in an attempt to increase the amount of interior foresthabitat. Measures for reforestation and natural corridor improvement include: vegetativeplantings along natural greenway corridor areas, block regeneration on retired or marginalagricultural lands, education and tax incentives for landowners.

The reforestation opportunities that were identified were then digitized and overlain with existingforest cover in the study area. Spatial analysis then showed the predicted effects ofreforestation.

4.3.2.2 Riparian Habitat

Riparian areas occur immediately adjacent to rivers and streams and are inhabited by diverseplant communities adapted to the hydrology, nutrient-rich soils, and microclimates found in thistransition zone between land and water (Daigle and Havinga, 1996). The variation in moistureconditions, plant communities, and natural debris provides habitat, protection, and movementcorridors for a wide variety of aquatic, avian, terrestrial fauna, and especially to highly sensitiveherptiles (Daigle and Havinga, 1996). There is a need to have adequate vegetative coverpresent to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows. Plant communities in theriparian area are an important source of coarse and large woody debris --- a food source forstream invertebrates and an important structural component. The emphasis of stream andaquatic habitat restoration is to improve the overall physical structure of the stream channelsand bordering shorelines while restoring the stream’s natural morphological characteristics.


Riparian Habitat Guidelines

1) Percent of natural vegetation along first to third order streams! 75% of stream length should be naturally vegetated - either woody or grassy

2) Amount of natural vegetation adjacent to streams! generally, 30 m naturally vegetated buffer on both sides would be optimal. For

specific functions:! species diversity - 3 to 100 m! wildlife movement (corridors) - 3 to 200 m! sediment removal - 10 to 60 m! nutrient removal - 3 to 90 m! water temperature moderation - 15 to 30 m

3) Total suspended solids concentrations! below 25 mg/l for the majority of the year

4) Percent of urbanized watershed that is impervious! less than 15%

Stream rehabilitation techniques would be employed to achieve a stable equilibrium of erosionand deposition along degraded reaches. Initiatives would be closely associated with specificrehabilitation measures and techniques to restore and enhance aquatic habitats, where theytoo, have been degraded. Measures to rehabilitate and enhance riparian habitat could include:! Stabilization of currently eroding streambanks, preferably using natural channel design

techniques and natural materials (such as root wads, live-log crib walls, willow brushbundles and live willow stakes).

! Replanting of vegetative buffer zones using native woody plant species to stabilizestreambanks, filter nutrients, improve groundwater regime, provide shade and increasevegetative diversity along shorelines, as well as enhance terrestrial habitats.

! Restriction of livestock access to watercourses.

The riparian rehabilitation opportunities that were identified were digitized and overlaid with theexisting riparian cover in the study area. Spatial analysis then showed the predicted effects ofrestoration and enhancement.

4.3.2.3 Wetland Habitat

Guidelines for the protection and restoration of wetlands are based on objectives to return thesystem to a close approximation of the predisturbance ecosystem (i.e., it would be persistentand self-sustaining although dynamic in its composition and functioning). Goals include therestoration of functional values such as providing persistent vegetative cover, filtration, storageof flood waters, self-maintaining fish and wildlife populations, and de-nitrification. Wetland Habitat Guidelines

1) Percent wetlands in watershed or sub-watershed! 10% in each major watershed; 6% in each sub-watershed; or restore to original

percentage2) Amount of natural vegetation adjacent to wetland

! 240 m of adjacent natural habitat (can be herbaceous or woody vegetation)


3) Wetland type! marshes and swamps

4) Wetland location! original headwater swamps! on-stream or floodplain marshes and swamps on second and third order

watercourses! lacustrine wetlands! any other location

5) Wetland size! swamps - as large as possible! marshes - range of sizes

6) Wetland shape! swamps - regularly shaped with minimum edge and maximum interior habitat! marshes - irregularly shaped with maximum interspersion

Spatial analysis of the landuse information was conducted to determine the percent wetlandacross the study area, in particular with respect to the habitat guidelines for wetland quantityand quality. Potential areas for wetland rehabilitation and restoration were selected. Areastargeted for rehabilitation and restoration included linkages between established wetlands, newwetlands to provide diversity in habitat (e.g., mudflats and swamps), and buffering around allwetlands to reduce sedimentation and other disturbances. Measures for wetland restorationand natural corridor improvement include: creation of dyked impoundments for blockregeneration on retired or marginal agricultural lands, vegetative plantings along natural corridorareas and buffer strips, and education and tax incentives for landowners.

Guidelines for protecting, enhancing and creating new wetlands:! protect and enhance existing wetlands! create new wetlands

Techniques for restoring wetlands fall into three broad categories:! re-establishing or managing wetland hydrology,! eliminating or controlling chemical elements or other contaminants affecting wetlands,

and! re-establishing and managing native biota (may include control of exotic, invasive

species).

Wetland areas can be expanded and linked to other wetlands, meadows, woodlands, andriparian habitats by artificial and natural regeneration measures. Provision and restoration ofvegetated corridors will improve corridor functions and connectivity throughout the sub-watersheds. In addition, adequate buffering will ensure wetland integrity and stability for long-term ecosystem health.

The wetland restoration opportunities that were identified were then digitized and overlain withthe existing wetland habitat in the study area. Spatial analysis then showed the predicted effects of restoration.


4.3.2.4 Fish Habitat

Guidelines for the protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat are based on objectives tomaintain/rehabilitate fish species composition and diversity to promote healthy, self-sustainingpopulations. These guidelines follow the Toronto Region Conservation Authority FisheriesManagement Plan approach to setting target fish communities in the watershed (EnvironmentCanada et al., 1998). The habitats in Essex region sub-watersheds are classified as warmwaterand they have been identified for protection. To protect, maintain and enhance fish and aquatichabitats in the sub-watersheds, a minimum buffer should be established for the mainwatercourses and their tributaries. These buffers will be used as a guide in the development ofsuitable protection and restoration initiatives. The actual buffer dimensions should be based oncriteria established through a site-specific assessment of the existing shoreline characteristics,as well as input from relevant agencies such as the OMNR. It should integrate such aspects asgroundwater seepage, geomorphology, streamside vegetation, shoreline and benthiccharacteristics, barriers, and opportunities for stormwater management that best fit the specificsite characteristics for habitat protection/restoration.

Detailed, specific opportunities for fish habitat restoration and enhancement will be made inconsultation with OMNR Fisheries habitat specialists as new data becomes available. In theinterim, riparian habitat guidelines will be generally employed until specific recommendationsregarding fish habitat becomes available.

4.3.2.5 Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and Alvar

Guidelines for tallgrass communities follow the recent Tallgrass Communities of SouthernOntario: A Recovery Plan produced by the World Wildlife Fund in cooperation with the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources (Rodger, 1998).

Tallgrass prairies, savannas, and alvars are some of the most endangered ecologicalcommunities in the Essex region. Tallgrass communities once covered a significant part ofsouthern Ontario’s landscape. Owing to degradation and destruction through urbandevelopment, agriculture, pollution and mismanagement, less than 3 percent of the originalsouthern Ontario extent remains. Most remnants exist in small, isolated patches; with theWindsor region containing some of the most extensive intact remnants in Ontario. As thesehighly diverse communities themselves are rare and threatened, so too are many of the wildlifespecies which depend on these communities for their survival (Rodger, 1998).

To make significant strides toward recovering tallgrass communities region-wide, a larger, morecoordinated and strategic approach is required. A species-by-species approach to recoveringtallgrass communities is unrealistic for the task at hand. Because of this, the Recover Planproduced by the World Wildlife Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources deals withrecovering tallgrass communities as a whole, across their range in Ontario. The overall goal ofthis Recovery Plan is to recover, reconstruct and conserve a representative network of tallgrasscommunities, and to recover and protect the full complement of plant and animal life that makesup these diverse ecological communities. To do this on a region-wide scale in a strategic andcomprehensive manner, the following eight goals for recovery provide key direction:


! Improve communication, coordination and information-sharing among those involved intallgrass community conservation.

! Amass complete information regarding all tallgrass community remnants in southernOntario.

! Establish and expand a network of protected tallgrass community remnants.! Encourage protection of tallgrass remnants through sound management.! Encourage restoration and habitat creation initiatives where appropriate to enlarge

existing remnants, make linkages and create new habitat.! Raise public awareness and appreciation of tallgrass communities.! Reduce significantly the number of tallgrass community species at risk.! Encourage basic and applied research relevant to tallgrass community conservation.

(Rodger, 1998)

4.3.2.6 Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Vulnerable, threatened, and endangered species (VTEs) are usually dependent on particularhabitat conditions which provide species-specific features for certain life processes (e.g., reproduction, feeding grounds, etc.). Identification of such habitats, and any recommendationsfor their enhancement or management, are usually prescribed in species-specific RecoveryPlans. When information from these Recovery Plans becomes available, identified criticalhabitats should be overlayed and incorporated into habitat restoration plans, and protected inland use plans where feasible. In addition, management plans for sustaining rare and unusualplant communities should be prepared on a watershed-wide basis. A list of VTEs occurring inthe Essex region may be found in Appendix IV.


Study Area/Landuse Summary

Landuse/Sub-watershedArea

Ha Ac PercentAgricultural 12942.36 31981.27 77.30%Natural 2245.75 5549.37 13.41%Built-up & Roads 1344.10 3321.34 8.03%Quarries 134.69 332.83 0.80%Recreation 75.97 187.73 0.45%

Atwell Drain 537.81 1328.95 3.21%East Marsh 495.78 1225.11 2.96%Hillman Marsh 7416.05 18325.47 44.29%Marentette 311.32 769.29 1.86%Muddy Creek 847.19 2093.46 5.06%Point Pelee 1481.30 3660.36 8.85%Sturgeon Creek 4124.51 10191.90 24.63%West Marsh 1528.89 3777.96 9.13%Total Study Area 16742.86 41372.51 100.00%

Table 3: Southeast Essex Region Landuse Summary

5. Results

5.1 Southeast Essex Region: Point Pelee, Hillman Marsh, Sturgeon Creek, andMuddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watersheds

5.1.1 Study Area

The study area for the southeast Essex region includes the sub-watersheds/drainage areas ofPoint Pelee National Park; Hillman Marsh, including Hillman Creek and Lebo Creek; SturgeonCreek; Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC); Atwell Drain; and the East Marsh/WestMarsh/Marentette/Lloyd drainage schemes (i.e., “the polders”) (Figure 2).

5.1.2 Existing Habitat

Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture is thepredominant landuse, accounting for approximately 77% of the landuse in the study area (Table3). Table 4 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitatguidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Southeast Essex Region study area can befound in Appendix V. In addition, Figures 3 - 7 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions ineach of the sub-watersheds.


Figure 2: Southeast Essex Region Study Area Map

19Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Para

met

er

Guideline

Local Target

Exis

ting

(Bas

ed o

n G

IS A

naly

sis)

Atwell Drain

East Marsh

Hillman Marsh

Marentette Drain

Muddy Creek

Point Pelee

Sturgeon Creek

West Marsh/Lloyd

Total Study Area

% N

atur

al c

over

(all

habi

tats

)12

3.21

2.51

8.78

0.00

6.33

92.6

03.

340.

1113

.41

Size

(ha)

of l

arge

st fo

rest

patc

h10

010

06.

501.

6241

.03

0.00

13.5

718

6.20

9.01

1.62

186.

20

% F

ores

t cov

er (>

0.5

ha)

(upl

and

+ sw

amp)

303.

212.

514.

280.

005.

2022

.18

2.17

0.11

4.84

% F

ores

t cov

er 1

00 m

or

farth

er fr

om e

dge

>10

0.00

0.00

0.24

0.00

0.16

5.17

0.00

0.00

0.58

% F

ores

t cov

er 2

00 m

or

farth

er fr

om e

dge

>50.

000.

000.

020.

000.

001.

640.

000.

000.

15

% R

ipar

ian

habi

tat n

atur

ally

vege

tate

d al

ong

first

- to

third

-or

der s

tream

s(g

uide

line:

30

m o

ptim

um;

loca

l tar

get:

not l

ess

than

3 - 1

0 m

wid

e)

>75

>75

2.69

0.00

12.3

20.

0016

.62

N/A

11.9

70.

089.

93

% W

etla

nds

in a

sub

-w

ater

shed

>60.

000.

004.

890.

001.

2773

.15

1.36

0.00

9.04

Tabl

e 4:

Sou

thea

st E

ssex

Reg

ion

Hab

itat G

uide

lines

vs.

Exi

stin

g H

abita

t Con

ditio

ns


Figure 3: Point Pelee National Park - Existing Habitat


Figure 4: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 5: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 6: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figu

re 7

: Mar

ente

tte/E

ast M

arsh

/Wes

t Mar

sh -

Exis

ting

Hab

itat M

ap



Results indicate that there is 13.41% natural cover within the study area and 4.84% is forestedwoodlands (Table 3). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitat guideline of 30%,which would support most bird species expected. The current forest cover falls in the < 10%threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20%of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Although ecologically-speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should be set by theorganizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.

The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. There is 1 polygon (1.11%of the study area) greater than 100 ha in area. The largest forest patch is part of Point PeleeNational Park and is 186.20 ha in size (Figure 3). This large forest patch will support almost80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There is 1 polygon greater than 50 ha in area which is also located in Point Pelee National Park. This forest patch will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing andedge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forestcover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershedwith forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. With the exception of Point PeleeNational Park (5.17% 100 m interior forest, 1.64% 200 m interior forest), all of the sub-watersheds within the southeast Essex region study area fall well below the lowest threshold forinterior forest cover. This means that Point Pelee National Park is the only location capable ofsupporting 80 to 90% of forest-interior and edge bird species.

Table 5 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of the BreedingBirds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that approximately 45% of the forest-associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the abovethat Point Pelee National Park is most likely the only site within the study area where these 9forest interior bird species are found.


% Forest Cover 4.84

Total Number of Species within Range 102

Number of Species Occurring 72

% of Total Number of Species within Range Present 70.59

Number of FIE and FI Species within Range 66

Number of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 29

Percent of FIE and FI Species within Range Present 43.94

Number of FI Species within Range 20

Total FI Species Present 9

Percent of FI Species within Range Present 45.0

FIE = Forest Interior/EdgeFI = Forest Interior

Table 5: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in Southeast Essex Region


In the study area, the total length of all streams is 250.85 km. Of that, 24.92 km of thesestreams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first-to third-order streams is therefore 9.93% (Table 4). This is under the habitat guideline of 75%forested riparian habitat. At 9.93%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measureindicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada etal., 1996).

Only 8.40% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forestcover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix V). This means that the streammay be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).


In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two piecesof information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the southeast Essex region study area are from the inventory ofevaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existingconditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small,isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.



No information is currently available on the current extent of tallgrass prairie remnants within thestudy area. Known savanna habitat occurs within Point Pelee National Park as a result ofnatural succession and active management of retired residential and agricultural lands withinthe park. These areas are identified in the GIS database and included in the potential/ongoingrestoration opportunities layer.

5.1.3 Habitat Restoration Opportunities

Major nodes and linkages were identified by the steering committee to determine the highestpriority habitat rehabilitation opportunities (Figure 8). Table 6 lists the resulting habitatpercentages if all the identified areas were restored. Figures 9 - 13 illustrate the high priorityareas where habitat restoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collectiveexpertise of the steering committee and the GIS analysis using overlay and bufferingtechniques. If all these areas are restored, the amount of habitat in the study area wouldincrease by approximately 15%.


Figure 8: Southeast Essex Region - Restoration Concept Map

29Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Para

met

er

Guideline

Local Target

Prop

osed

(Bas

ed o

n G

IS A

naly

sis)

Atwell Drain

East Marsh

Hillman Marsh

Marentette Drain

Muddy Creek

Point Pelee

Sturgeon Creek

West Marsh/Lloyd

Total Study Area

% N

atur

al c

over

(all

habi

tats

)12

14.5

699

.26

21.4

292

.43

25.2

092

.91

12.9

28.

2528

.05

Size

(ha)

of l

arge

st fo

rest

patc

h10

010

09.

661.

6265

.52

0.00

56.9

721

4.68

16.3

74.

8921

4.68

% F

ores

t cov

er (>

0.5

ha)

(upl

and

+ sw

amp)

303.

872.

515.

410.

006.

7822

.40

3.09

0.42

5.72

% F

ores

t cov

er 1

00 m

or

farth

er fr

om e

dge

>10

0.02

0.00

0.80

0.00

1.13

3.90

0.06

0.00

0.77

% F

ores

t cov

er 2

00 m

or

farth

er fr

om e

dge

>50.

000.

000.

170.

000.

042.

090.

000.

000.

26

% R

ipar

ian

habi

tat n

atur

ally

vege

tate

d al

ong

first

- to

third

-or

der s

tream

s(g

uide

line:

30

m o

ptim

um;

loca

l tar

get:

not l

ess

than

3 - 1

0 m

wid

e)

>75

>75

96.4

10.

0086

.33

0.00

83.6

7N

/A68

.33

88.9

177

.11

% W

etla

nds

in a

sub

-w

ater

shed

>60.

0096

.75

4.89

92.4

31.

2773

.15

1.36

0.00

13.6

2

Tabl

e 6:

Sou

thea

st E

ssex

Reg

ion

Hab

itat G

uide

lines

vs.

Pro

pose

d R

esto

ratio

n C

ondi

tions


Figure 9: Point Pelee National Park - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 10: Hillman Marsh Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 11: Sturgeon Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 12: Muddy Creek (Wheatley Harbour AOC) Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 13: Marentette/East Marsh/West Marsh/Lloyd - Restoration Opportunities Map



The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 4.84% to 5.72%(Table 6), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, which shouldprovide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interior birdspecies (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would still be only 1 woodland greater than100 ha in area, located in Point Pelee National Park, which would have an area of 214.68 ha (1.28% of the study area) (Figure 9). This large forest patch will support more than 80% offorest interior bird expected in the Essex region (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition,there would be 4 woodlands greater than 50 ha in area (1 additional in Point Pelee NationalPark, Kopegaron Woods ESA, White Oak Woods ESA, and Hillman Sand Hills ESA). Theseforest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing andedge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase theinterior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 8), the amount is by only 0.31% of the study area. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.77% of the area, up fromonly 0.58% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge wouldalso increase, from the existing 0.15% to 0.26%. With the exception of Point Pelee NationalPark all of the sub-watersheds within the southeast Essex region study area still fall well belowthe lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that Point Pelee National Park will stillbe the only location capable of supporting forest-dependent bird species.


Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas wererestored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-orderstreams should increase from 9.93% to 77.11% which should maintain functional warmwaterstreams (Table 6). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated buffers willalso increase, from 8.40% to 79.09% which should maintain functional warmwater streams andrelatively good wildlife corridors (Figures 10 - 13).


To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell(1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for some sub-watersheds, the original wetland per cent exceeded the six per cent guideline, while other sub-watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage atall. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were proposed to restore wetlands tothe original percentage and only for the East Marsh and Marentette drainage schemes, wherelarge expanses of historic wetlands once occurred between Point Pelee and Hillman Marsh. Restoration of this area would increase wetland coverage by nearly 767.41 ha, or by 4.58% ofthe study area. This represents a potential future value of 13.62% wetlands in the study area.



No specific Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna, and/or Alvar restoration sites have been identified in thisstudy area. However, opportunities to create prairie and/or savanna habitat would most likelyoccur on those lands within the potential 30 m riparian buffer along first- to third- order streams,or within the 240 m upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands. Every effort should be made toincrease these habitat types across the landscape.





Detroit River 12249.39 30268.90 20.65%Little River 6737.26 16648.14 11.36%River Canard 34257.95 84653.24 57.75%Turkey Creek 6080.61 15025.53 10.25%Total Study Area 59325.22 146595.82 100.00%

Table 7: Greater Detroit River Landuse Summary

5.2 Greater Detroit River Study Area: Detroit River AOC, Little River, TurkeyCreek, and River Canard Sub-watersheds

5.2.1 Study Area

The greater Detroit River study area includes the Detroit River AOC, and the sub-watershedareas of Little River, Turkey Creek, and the River Canard (Figure 14).


Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture andurbanization are the predominant landuses, accounting for approximately 68% and 25% of thelanduse, respectively, in the study area (Table 7). Table 8 summarizes the results of the spatialanalysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for theGreater Detroit River study area can be found in Appendix VI. In addition, Figures 15 - 18illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions in each of the sub-watersheds.


Figure 14: Greater Detroit River Study Area Map


Parameter

Gui

delin

e

Loca

l Tar

get

Existing (Based on GIS Analysis)

Det

roit

Riv

er

Littl

e R

iver

Riv

er C

anar

d

Turk

ey C

reek

Tota

l Stu

dy A

rea

% Natural cover (allhabitats) 12 8.21 2.51 5.09 10.59 6.01

Size (ha) of largest forestpatch 100 100 62.41 24.49 57.22 62.41 62.41

% Forest cover (>0.5 ha)(upland + swamp) 30 2.62 2.51 4.54 10.22 4.49

% Forest cover 100 m orfarther from edge >10 0.18 0.04 0.37 0.80 0.34


% Riparian habitat naturallyvegetated along first- tothird-order streams(guideline: 30 m optimum;local target: not less than3 - 10 m wide)

>75 >75 7.18 3.06 7.89 13.95 7.87

% Wetlands in a sub-watershed >6 5.59 0.06 0.60 0.38 1.55

% Imperviousness < 15 22.67 13.55 22.91

Table 8: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions


Figure 15: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 16: Little River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 17: River Canard Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 18: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map




The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. Currently there area nowoodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest forest patch is part of the Ojibway PrairieComplex (Spring Garden ANSI/ESA) and is 62.41 ha in size (0.11% of the study area) (Figure18). In addition, there are 4 other woodland polygons greater than 50 ha in area (Canard ValleyKentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA, New Canaan Valley ESA (2 polygons), and a woodlandlocated near the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township ofColchester South). These forest patches will support some forest-interior and area-sensitivebird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canadaet al., 1996).

The next habitat guideline indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forestcover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershedwith forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within thegreater Detroit River Study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al.,1996).

Table 9 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of the BreedingBirds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that approximately 35% of the forest-associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the abovethat the Ojibway Area, and forested areas along the River Canard are most likely the only siteswithin the study area where these 7 forest interior bird species are found.


% Forest Cover 4.49











Table 9: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Greater Detroit River Study Area



Only 9.61% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forestcover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix VI). This means that the streammay be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

The percent imperviousness for the urbanized sub-watersheds are as follows: Detroit River: 22.67%, Little River: 13.55%, and Turkey Creek: 22.91%. Only the Little River sub-watersheddoes not exceed the habitat guideline of less than 15% imperviousness. This indicates that theDetroit River and Turkey Creek sub-watersheds are likely to lose their integrity and becomedegraded (Environment Canada et al., 1996). However, the method for determiningimperviousness only takes into account urban development in the watershed and does nottouch on the physical attributes of the watershed such as soil type, surficial geology andgroundwater movement. As a result, the measure of imperviousness for the Detroit River AOCis probably underestimated.



In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two piecesof information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the greater Detroit River study area study area are from the inventoryof evaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existingconditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small,isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.


The Ojibway Complex contains some of the most significant tracts of remnant tallgrass prairieand savanna habitats in all of southern Ontario. These areas are identified in the GIS databaseand included in the potential/ongoing restoration opportunities layer.




Figure 19: Greater Detroit River Study Area - Restoration Concept Map


Parameter

Gui

delin

e

Loca

l Tar

get

Proposed (Based on GIS Analysis)

Det

roit

Riv

er

Littl

e R

iver

Riv

er C

anar

d

Turk

ey C

reek

Tota

l Stu

dy A

rea

% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 12.81 10.83 13.66 19.64 13.77

Size (ha) of largest forestpatch 100 100 123.21 59.62 179.01 156.20 179.01

% Forest cover (>0.5 ha)(upland + swamp) 30 2.96 2.66 4.82 10.73 4.80



% Riparian habitat naturallyvegetated along first- to third-order streams(guideline: 30 m optimum;local target: not less than3 - 10 m wide)

>75 >75 91.90 97.38 92.44 83.23 91.99

% Wetlands in a sub-watershed >6 5.59 0.00 0.55 0.37 1.51

Table 10: Greater Detroit River Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions


Figure 20: Detroit River Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 21: Little River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 22: River Canard Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 23: Turkey Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map



The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 4.49% to 4.80%(Table 10), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, whichshould provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interiorbird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would be 2 woodlands (representing0.5% of the study area) greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be part of the CanardValley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA located along the River Canard and would be 179.01ha (Figure 22). The other woodland would be the LaSalle Woods ESA and would be 114.75 ha(Figure 23). Each of these large woodlands will support between 60% and 80% of the forestinterior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition, there would be 6woodlands greater than 50 ha in area. These would be located at the New Canaan Valley ESA(2 polygons), the woodland located near the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in theformer Township of Colchester South, the Ojibway Prairie Complex (2 polygons - Spring Gardenand Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park), and 1 woodland formed from the linking of Town of LaSalleCandidate Natural Heritage Areas M3, M4, and M5 (LaSalle, 1996). These forest patches willsupport some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species willdominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase theinterior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 19), the amount is by only 0.58% of the studyarea. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.76% of the area, upfrom only 0.34% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edgewould also increase, from the existing 0.04% to 0.16%. All of the sub-watersheds within thegreater Detroit River study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of50% of edge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations - the Ojibway area and forestedareas along the River Canard.


Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas wererestored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-orderstreams should increase from 7.87% to 91.99% which should maintain functional warmwaterstreams (Table 10). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated bufferswill also increase, from 9.61% to 93.75% which should maintain functional warmwater streamsand relatively good wildlife corridors (Figures 20 - 23).

If all identified areas were reforested, the percent imperviousness of the watershed, asmeasured, will remain the same since reforestation would occur in areas previously classifiedas agricultural. This analysis calculated that the imperviousness of the watershed would notchange. However, these areas would likely be reforested over a period of time and urbandevelopment across the AOC would probably increase. Accordingly, the imperviousness of thestudy area, as measured, could increase. The imperviousness of the watershed may alsochange if the physical attributes of the watershed were taken into account.



To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell(1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for all of the sub-watersheds, the original wetland per cent fell below the six per cent guideline. Some sub-watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage atall. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were not proposed at this time butshould be considered on a site by site basis within the areas identified as potential areas forrestoration of upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands.







Big Creek 7174.18 17727.79 21.66%Colchester Drains 3859.20 9536.29 11.65%Fox/Dolson Creek 1288.51 3183.98 3.89%Cedar Creek 13175.97 32558.53 39.78%Wigle Creek 3061.32 7564.69 9.24%Mill Creek 2214.08 5471.11 6.69%Kingsville Drains 2345.47 5795.78 7.08%Total Study Area 33118.73 81838.17 100.00%

Table 11: Lake Erie Study Area Landuse Summary

5.3 Lake Erie Sub-watersheds: Big Creek, Fox Creek, Cedar Creek, WigleCreek, Mill Creek and Kingsville Drains

5.3.1 Study Area

The Lake Erie study area includes the sub-watershed areas of Big Creek, Fox Creek, CedarCreek, Wigle Creek, Mill Creek and the Kingsville Drains (Figure 24).


Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture is thepredominant landuse, accounting for approximately 82%, in the study area (Table 11). Table 12summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitat guidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Lake Erie study area can be found in Appendix VII. Inaddition, Figures 25 - 27 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions in each of the sub-watersheds.


Figure 24: Lake Erie Study Area Map

57Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Para

met

er

Guideline

Local Target

Exis

ting

(Bas

ed o

n G

IS A

naly

sis)

Big Creek

Colchester Drains

Fox/Dolson Creek

Cedar Creek

Wigle Creek

Mill Creek

Kingsville Drains

Total Study Area

% N

atur

al c

over

(all

habi

tats

)12

17.2

65.

339.

9010

.94

8.29

6.45

6.85

10.7

8

Size

(ha)

of l

arge

st fo

rest

patc

h10

010

061

.21

38.5

542

.93

90.9

342

.09

17.7

519

.86

90.9

3

% F

ores

t cov

er (>

0.5

ha)

(upl

and

+ sw

amp)

307.

535.

148.

809.

937.

806.

456.

858.

16

% F

ores

t cov

er 1

00 m

or

farth

er fr

om e

dge

>10

0.31

0.34

0.96

1.36

0.40

0.17

0.02

0.74

% F

ores

t cov

er 2

00 m

or

farth

er fr

om e

dge

>50.

010.

070.

000.

230.

020.

000.

000.

10

% R

ipar

ian

habi

tat n

atur

ally

vege

tate

d al

ong

first

- to

third

-or

der s

tream

s(g

uide

line:

30

m o

ptim

um;

loca

l tar

get:

not l

ess

than

3 - 1

0 m

wid

e)

>75

>75

6.74

2.30

10.2

79.

078.

4210

.11

16.9

08.

43

% W

etla

nds

in a

sub

-w

ater

shed

>610

.36

0.42

1.60

1.02

0.56

0.00

0.00

2.81

Tabl

e 12

: Lak

e Er

ie S

tudy

Are

a H

abita

t Gui

delin

es v

s. E

xist

ing

Hab

itat C

ondi

tions


Figure 25: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 26: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 27: Wigle Creek, Mill Creek, Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map




The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. Currently there area nowoodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest forest patch is part of the Cedar CreekANSI/ESA and is 90.93 ha in size (0.27% of the study area) (Figure 26). In addition, there are 5other woodland polygons greater than 50 ha in area (Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA, Cedar CreekANSI/ESA - ERCA owned Arner Woods, Marshfield Woods ESA and 2 woodland polygonswithin the Big Creek ANSI/ESA). These forest patches will support some forest-interior andarea-sensitive bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate(Environment Canada et al., 1996).

The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forestcover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershedwith forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within theLake Erie study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This meansthat the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edgebird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

Table 13 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of theBreeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that 50% of the forest-associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the abovethat the forested areas along the Cedar Creek and Big Creek are most likely the only siteswithin the study area where these 10 forest interior bird species are found.


% Forest Cover 8.16











Table 13: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake Erie Study Area



Only 9.99% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forestcover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix VII). This means that the streammay be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).


In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two piecesof information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the Lake Erie study area study area are from the inventory ofevaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existingconditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small,isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.



No information is currently available on the current extent of tallgrass prairie remnants within thestudy area.




Figure 28: Lake Erie Study Area - Restoration Concept Map

65Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Para

met

er

Guideline

Local Target

Prop

osed

(Bas

ed o

n G

IS A

naly

sis)

Big Creek

Colchester Drains

Fox/Dolson Creek

Cedar Creek

Wigle Creek

Mill Creek

Kingsville Drains

Total Study Area

% N

atur

al c

over

(all

habi

tats

)12

36.8

712

.38

22.6

520

.81

17.6

214

.43

13.3

322

.13

Size

(ha)

of l

arge

st fo

rest

pat

ch10

010

019

1.58

72.8

542

.93

132.

8142

.09

17.7

519

.86

191.

58

% F

ores

t cov

er (>

0.5

ha) (

upla

nd+

swam

p)30

9.98

5.18

8.80

11.1

37.

806.

456.

859.

17

% F

ores

t cov

er 1

00 m

or f

arth

erfro

m e

dge

>10

1.45

0.36

0.96

2.21

0.40

0.17

0.03

1.33

% F

ores

t cov

er 2

00 m

or f

arth

erfro

m e

dge

>50.

650.

110.

000.

920.

020.

000.

000.

52

% R

ipar

ian

habi

tat n

atur

ally

vege

tate

d al

ong

first

- to

third

-or

der s

tream

s(g

uide

line:

30

m o

ptim

um; l

ocal

targ

et: n

ot le

ss th

an3

- 10

m w

ide)

>75

>75

57.1

289

.00

71.9

583

.33

87.2

386

.53

78.5

577

.15

% W

etla

nds

in a

sub

-wat

ersh

ed>6

10.3

60.

421.

601.

320.

560.

000.

002.

93

Tabl

e 14

: Lak

e Er

ie S

tudy

Are

a H

abita

t Gui

delin

es v

s. P

ropo

sed

Res

tora

tion

Con

ditio

ns


Figure 29: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 30: Cedar Creek and Fox Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 31: Wigle/Mill Creeks/Kingsville Drains Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map



The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 8.16% to 9.17%(Table 14), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, whichshould provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interiorbird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would be 4 woodlands (representing1.7% of the study area) greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be located on Knapp’sIsland within the Big Creek sub-watershed and would be 192.16 ha in area (Figure 29). Theother woodlands would be located in Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (111.74 ha), Cedar CreekANSI/ESA - ERCA owned Arner Woods (132.94 ha), and Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA (127.60ha) (Figure 30). Each of these large woodlands will support between 60% and 80% of theforest interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). In addition, there would be 7woodlands greater than 50 ha in area. These would be located at the Balkwill Woods ESA,Marshfield Woods ESA, New Settlement Woods ESA, Big Creek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons), CedarCreek ANSI/ESA (east side of Arner Townline), and in the 4th Conc. of the former Township ofColchester South east of Marshfield Woods ESA. These forest patches will support some forestinterior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (EnvironmentCanada et al., 1996).

Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase theinterior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 28), the amount is by only 1.01% of the studyarea. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 1.33% of the area, upfrom only 0.74% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edgewould also increase, from the existing 0.10% to 0.52%. All of the sub-watersheds within theLake Erie study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. Thismeans that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% ofedge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations.




To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell(1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for the Big Creek sub-watersheds, the original wetland per cent exceeded the six per cent guideline, while other sub-watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage atall. The Big Creek sub-watershed currently exhibits 10.36% wetland coverage. Therefore,potential wetland restoration opportunities were proposed to restore wetlands to an approximateoriginal percentage and only for the area at the mouth of the Cedar Creek where historicalriverine mouth marsh habitat once existed. Restoration of this area would increase wetlandcoverage by 39.29 ha, or by 0.12% of the study area. This represents a potential future value of2.93% wetlands in the study area.








Pike Creek 9927.12 24530.45 16.49%Puce River 9166.87 22651.83 15.23%Belle River 11973.00 29585.93 19.89%Duck & Moison Creek 4204.39 10389.28 6.98%Ruscom River 19452.87 48069.09 32.31%Little Creek 5483.34 13549.63 9.11%Total Study Area 60207.59 148776.21 100.00%

Table 15: Lake St. Clair Study Area Landuse Summary

5.4 Lake St. Clair Sub-watersheds: Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, DuckCreek, Moison Creek, Ruscom River, and Little Creek

5.4.1 Study Area

The Lake St. Clair study area includes the sub-watershed areas of Pike Creek, Puce River,Belle River, Duck Creek, Moison Creek, Ruscom River, and Little Creek (Figure 32).


Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire study area. Agriculture is thepredominant landuse, accounting for approximately 92% of the landuse in the study area (Table15). Table 16 summarizes the results of the spatial analysis and compares them to the habitatguidelines. Detailed results of the analyses for the Lake St. Clair study area can be found inAppendix VIII. In addition, Figures 33 - 38 illustrate the existing natural habitat conditions ineach of the sub-watersheds.


Figure 32: Lake St. Clair Study Area Map

73Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Para

met

er

Guideline

Local Target

Exis

ting

(Bas

ed o

n G

IS A

naly

sis)

Pike Creek

Puce River

Belle River

Duck/Moison Creek

Ruscom River

Little Creek

Total Study Area

% N

atur

al c

over

(all

habi

tats

)12

3.63

3.48

3.88

0.78

2.18

0.71

2.72

Size

(ha)

of l

arge

st fo

rest

pat

ch10

010

050

.59

31.7

326

.98

7.98

31.1

44.

7150

.59

% F

ores

t cov

er (>

0.5

ha)

(upl

and

+ sw

amp)

303.

493.

483.

810.

762.

040.

332.

61

% F

ores

t cov

er 1

00 m

or f

arth

erfro

m e

dge

>10

0.34

0.26

0.12

0.01

0.11

0.00

0.15

% F

ores

t cov

er 2

00 m

or f

arth

erfro

m e

dge

>50.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00

% R

ipar

ian

habi

tat n

atur

ally

vege

tate

d al

ong

first

- to

third

-or

der s

tream

s(g

uide

line:

30

m o

ptim

um; l

ocal

targ

et: n

ot le

ss th

an3

- 10

m w

ide)

>75

>75

0.96

0.17

1.18

0.00

0.06

0.00

0.44

% W

etla

nds

in a

sub

-wat

ersh

ed>6

0.14

0.00

0.15

0.03

0.14

0.39

0.14

Tabl

e 16

: Lak

e St

. Cla

ir St

udy

Area

Hab

itat G

uide

lines

vs.

Exi

stin

g H

abita

t Con

ditio

ns


Figure 33: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 34: Puce River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 35: Big Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 36: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 37: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map


Figure 38: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Existing Habitat Map




The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. There are no polygonsgreater than 100 ha in size and only 1 polygon greater than 50 ha. This feature is known asthe Fairplay Woods (ESA) and is 50.59 ha in size (Figure 33). This size forest patch willsupport some forest-interior and area-sensitive bird species, but several will be missing andedge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forestcover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershedwith forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within theLake St. Clair study area fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. Thismeans that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% ofedge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

Table 17 and Appendix IX outline the analysis comparing the data from the Atlas of theBreeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 1987). Results indicate that only 15% of the forest-associated birds within our range are present in the study area. We can deduce from the abovethat the Fairplay Woods ESA is the only forest patch capable of potentially supporting these 3forest interior bird species.


% Forest Cover 2.61











Table 17: Number of Forest-associated Bird Species in the Lake St. Clair Study Area


In the study area, the total length of all streams is 1139.02 km. Of that, only 4.97 km of thesestreams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first-to third-order streams is therefore 0.44% (Table 16). This is under the habitat guideline of 75%forested riparian habitat. At 0.44%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measureindicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada etal., 1996).

Only 1.01% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forestcover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (see Appendix VIII). This means that the streammay be degraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).


In order to test the per cent wetland guidelines for watersheds and sub-watersheds, two piecesof information were required: the present extent of wetlands, and the historic extent of wetlands. The data on wetlands for the Lake St. Clair study area study area are from the inventory ofevaluated wetlands compiled by the MNR. This information provides a picture of existingconditions; however it is based toward larger wetlands, so it is likely that a number of small,isolated wetlands exist but have not been identified in the wetland evaluations.



No information is currently available on the current extent of tallgrass prairie remnants within thestudy area.




Figure 39: Lake St. Clair Study Area - Restoration Concept Map

84Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Para

met

er

Guideline

Local Target

Prop

osed

(Bas

ed o

n G

IS A

naly

sis)

Pike Creek

Puce River

Belle River

Duck/Moison Creek

Ruscom River

Little Creek

Total Study Area

% N

atur

al c

over

(all

habi

tats

)12

11.8

29.

5410

.89

9.67

9.25

8.91

10.0

4

Size

(ha)

of l

arge

st fo

rest

pat

ch10

010

079

.85

38.3

128

.51

15.0

657

.14

4.84

79.8

5

% F

ores

t cov

er (>

0.5

ha) (

upla

nd +

swam

p)30

3.74

3.73

3.97

0.93

2.21

0.33

2.78

% F

ores

t cov

er 1

00 m

or f

arth

erfro

m e

dge

>10

0.52

0.44

0.23

0.07

0.20

0.00

0.27

% F

ores

t cov

er 2

00 m

or f

arth

erfro

m e

dge

>50.

020.

050.

000.

000.

040.

000.

02

% R

ipar

ian

habi

tat n

atur

ally

vege

tate

d al

ong

first

- to

third

-ord

erst

ream

s(g

uide

line:

30

m o

ptim

um; l

ocal

targ

et: n

ot le

ss th

an3

- 10

m w

ide)

>75

>75

70.7

366

.31

56.9

777

.79

65.9

973

.79

66.8

2

% W

etla

nds

in a

sub

-wat

ersh

ed>6

0.14

0.00

0.15

0.03

0.14

0.39

0.14

Tabl

e 18

: Lak

e St

. Cla

ir H

abita

t Gui

delin

es v

s. P

ropo

sed

Res

tora

tion

Con

ditio

ns


Figure 40: Pike Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 41: Puce River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 42: Belle River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 43: Duck Creek and Moison Creek Sub-watersheds - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 44: Ruscom River Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map


Figure 45: Little Creek Sub-watershed - Restoration Opportunities Map



The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 2.61% to 2.78%(Table 18), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, whichshould provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interiorbird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). There would be no woodlands greater than100 ha in area. The largest, would be located at Fairplay Woods ESA within the Pike Creeksub-watershed and would be 79.85 ha in area (Figure 40). In addition, there would be only 1other woodland greater than 50 ha in area. This would be located in Conc. 10 of the formerTownship of Mersea (Figure 44). These forest patches will support some forest interior birdspecies, but several will be missing and edge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al.,1996).

Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase theinterior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 39), the amount is by only 0.13% of the studyarea. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.27% of the area, upfrom only 0.15% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edgewould also increase, from the existing 0.00% to 0.02%. All of the sub-watersheds within theLake St. Clair study area still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. Thismeans that the entire study area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% ofedge bird species, usually restricted to 1 or 2 locations - the Fairplay Woods ESA.




To determine appropriate wetland restoration opportunities, historic wetlands, utilizing the Snell(1989) and OMAFRA soils data were examined. It was determined that for all of the sub-watersheds, the original wetland per cent fell below the six per cent guideline. Some sub-watersheds historically would not have contained a substantial amount of wetland coverage atall. Therefore, potential wetland restoration opportunities were not proposed at this time butshould be considered on a site by site basis within the areas identified as potential areas forrestoration of upland nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands.







Southeast 16742.86 41372.51 9.88%Detroit River 59325.22 146595.82 35.02%Lake Erie 33118.73 81838.17 19.55%Lake St. Clair 60207.59 148776.21 35.54%Entire Region 169394.40 418582.71 100.00%

Table 19: Entire Region Study Area Landuse Summary

5.5 Entire Region

5.5.1 Study Area

The entire region portion of the analysis includes all of the previous study areas and iscomposed of the watersheds within the mainland portion of Essex County, Point Pelee NationalPark, and the City of Windsor (Figure 46). This portion of the analysis does not include any ofthe Lake Erie islands or that portion of Essex County within the Township of Lakeshore that fallswithin the watershed jurisdiction of the Lower Thames Region Conservation Authority.


Landuse percentages have been calculated for the entire region. Agriculture is the predominantlanduse, accounting for approximately 80%, in the study area (Table 19). Figure 46 illustratesthe existing natural habitat conditions. Table 20 summarizes the results of the spatial analysisand compares them to the habitat guidelines. In addition, detailed results from the GIS analysisare shown in Table 21.


Figure 46: Entire Region Study Area Map


Parameter

Gui

delin

e

Loca

l Tar

get Existing (Based on

GIS Analysis)

Entire Region

% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 6.50

Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 186.20

% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) (upland +swamp) 30 4.57

% Forest cover 100 m or farther from edge >10 0.37


% Riparian habitat naturally vegetatedalong first- to third-order streams(guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: notless than 3 - 10 m wide)

>75 >75 4.76

Table 20: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions

Summary of Existing Forest Area (greater than 0.5 Ha)Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac Percent

Southeast

Upland

732.73 1810.62 4.38%Detroit River 2643.27 6531.66 4.46%Lake Erie 2638.67 6520.30 7.97%Lake St. Clair 1556.19 3845.43 2.58%Total Upland Forest 7570.86 18708.00 4.47%Southeast

Swamp

78.16 193.14 0.47%Detroit River 22.31 55.13 0.04%Lake Erie 63.86 157.80 0.19%Lake St. Clair 12.47 30.81 0.02%Total Swamp Forest 176.80 436.88 0.10%Southeast

Upland + Swamp

810.89 2003.75 4.84%Detroit River 2665.58 6586.79 4.49%Lake Erie 2702.53 6678.10 8.16%Lake St. Clair 1568.66 3876.24 2.61%Total Forest Cover 7747.66 19144.89 4.57%

Table 21: Entire Region Study Area Detailed GIS Analysis


Summary of Existing Wetland AreaWatershed Type Ha Ac Percent

Southeast

Open Water

544.89 1346.45 3.25%Detroit River 526.02 1299.82 0.89%Lake Erie 735.62 1817.76 2.22%Lake St. Clair 12.16 30.05 0.02%Total Open Water Wetland 1818.69 4494.08 1.07%Southeast

Marsh

889.96 2199.14 5.32%Detroit River 370.86 916.42 0.63%Lake Erie 132.33 326.99 0.40%Lake St. Clair 57.83 142.90 0.10%Total Marsh Wetland 1450.98 3585.45 0.86%Southeast

Swamp

78.16 193.14 0.47%Detroit River 22.31 55.13 0.04%Lake Erie 63.86 157.80 0.19%Lake St. Clair 12.47 30.81 0.02%Total Swamp Wetland 176.80 436.88 0.10%Southeast

Vegetated Wetland(Marsh + Swamp)

968.12 2392.28 5.78%Detroit River 393.17 971.54 0.66%Lake Erie 196.19 484.80 0.59%Lake St. Clair 70.30 173.72 0.12%Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 1627.78 4022.33 0.96%Southeast

All Wetlands(Open Water + Marsh +

Swamp)

1513.01 3738.73 9.04%Detroit River 919.19 2271.37 1.55%Lake Erie 931.81 2302.55 2.81%Lake St. Clair 82.46 203.76 0.14%Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 3446.47 8516.41 2.03%

Summary of Existing Natural Area (All Types)Watershed Type Ha Ac Percent

Southeast

All Natural Areas(Forest + Wetlands)

2245.74 5549.34 13.41%Detroit River 3562.46 8803.03 6.01%Lake Erie 3570.48 8822.85 10.78%Lake St. Clair 1638.65 4049.19 2.72%Total Natural Area 11017.33 27224.42 6.50%


Existing Interior Forest

Sub-watershed Buffer (m)Area

Ha Ac PercentSoutheast

100

96.28 237.91 0.58%Detroit River 198.98 491.69 0.34%Lake Erie 243.58 601.90 0.74%Lake St. Clair 91.90 227.09 0.15%

Total 100 m Interior Forest 630.74 1558.59 0.37%Southeast

200

25.62 63.31 0.15%Detroit River 25.53 63.09 0.04%Lake Erie 33.74 83.37 0.10%Lake St. Clair 0.38 0.94 0.00%

Total 200 m Interior Forest 85.27 210.71 0.05%Total 100 m + 200 m Interior Forest 716.01 1769.30 0.42%

Size of Largest Existing Forest Patch

Sub-watershedExisting Area Area After Proposed Restoration

Ha Ac Ha AcSoutheast 186.20 460.11 214.68 530.49Detroit River 62.41 154.22 179.01 442.34Lake Erie 90.93 224.69 191.58 473.40Lake St. Clair 50.59 125.01 79.85 197.31

Largest Contiguous Natural Area

Sub-watershedExisting Area After Restoration

Ha Ac Ha AcSoutheast 1246.32 3079.72 1276.42 3154.10Detroit River 372.33 920.05 376.90 931.34Lake Erie 572.11 1413.71 1504.30 3717.21Lake St. Clair 50.59 125.01 79.85 197.31

% of 1st to 3rd Order Streams with 30 m Buffer of Forested Riparian Habitat

Sub-watershedArea of 30 m Buffer

ForestedRiparian Habitat

within 30 mBuffer

% ofRiparianHabitat

Ha Ac Ha Ac

Southeast 1470.22 3632.99 123.51 305.20 8.40%Detroit River 3721.09 9195.01 357.52 883.45 9.61%Lake Erie 3159.46 7807.20 315.56 779.77 9.99%Lake St. Clair 4033.27 9966.43 40.88 101.02 1.01%Total 12384.04 30601.63 837.47 2069.43 6.76%


Stream Order

Existing ProposedRiparian

Forest (m) Total Length (m) % RiparianForest

RiparianForest (m)

% RiparianForest

Southeast

1 8078.29 160408.96 5.04% 129769.70 80.90%2 5928.28 60941.64 9.73% 46283.45 75.95%3 10911.81 29502.14 36.99% 17379.94 58.91%

1 to 3 24918.38 250852.74 9.93% 193433.09 77.11%

Detroit River

1 18139.63 337344.34 5.38% 316687.61 93.88%2 16189.10 179141.61 9.04% 162156.17 90.52%3 10369.43 51701.47 20.06% 43830.38 84.78%

1 to 3 44698.16 568187.42 7.87% 522674.16 91.99%

Lake Erie

1 16899.23 300451.16 5.62% 248931.36 82.85%2 12128.90 137146.95 8.84% 98167.79 71.58%3 13872.35 71086.88 19.51% 45364.36 63.82%

1 to 3 42900.48 508684.99 8.43% 392463.51 77.15%

Lake St. Clair

1 1072.19 740549.07 0.14% 475222.93 64.17%2 498.81 245230.13 0.20% 172666.81 70.41%3 3396.67 153236.86 2.22% 113224.40 73.89%

1 to 3 4967.67 1139016.06 0.44% 761114.14 66.82%Total 117484.69 2466741.21 4.76% 1869684.90 75.80%

Restoration Opportunities - Riparian Buffers (30 m)Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent

Southeast 1039.21 2567.94 70.68%Detroit River 3131.04 7736.97 84.14%Lake Erie 2127.78 5257.86 67.35%Lake St. Clair 3992.39 9865.41 98.99%Total 10290.42 25428.18 83.09%

Restoration Opportunities - Wetlands*/Wetland Buffers (240 m)Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent



Restoration Opportunities - 100 m Interior Forest

Sub-watershedResulting Area After Restoration Increase in Original ExtentHa Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent

Southeast 129.44 319.85 0.77% 33.16 81.94 0.20%Detroit River 449.36 1110.39 0.76% 250.38 618.70 0.42%Lake Erie 439.08 1084.99 1.33% 195.50 483.09 0.59%Lake St. Clair 161.07 398.01 0.27% 69.17 170.92 0.11%Total 1178.95 2913.25 0.70% 548.21 1354.66 0.32%



Southeast 44.20 109.22 0.26% 18.58 45.91 0.11%Detroit River 119.25 294.67 0.20% 93.72 231.59 0.16%Lake Erie 173.14 427.84 0.52% 139.40 344.46 0.42%Lake St. Clair 13.62 33.66 0.02% 13.24 32.72 0.02%Total 350.21 865.39 0.21% 264.94 654.68 0.16%

Recent Forest Plantations and Areas Currently in Natural SuccessionSub-watershed Ha Ac Percent


Restoration Opportunities - Qualitative Addition to Upland ForestsSub-watershed Ha Ac Percent


Total Restoration Opportunities - All Natural AreasSub-watershed Ha Ac Percent


99Es

sex

Reg

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Con

serv

atio

n St

rate

gy

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

Sout

heas

t

Fore

st*

810.

8920

03.7

54.

84%

147.

0936

3.47

0.88

%95

7.98

2367

.22

5.72

%D

etro

it R

iver

2665

.58

6586

.79

4.49

%18

0.96

447.

160.

31%

2846

.54

7033

.95

4.80

%La

ke E

rie27

02.5

366

78.1

08.

16%

336.

0983

0.50

1.01

%30

38.6

275

08.5

99.

17%

Lake

St.

Cla

ir15

68.6

638

76.2

42.

61%

106.

8126

3.93

0.18

%16

75.4

741

40.1

82.

78%

Tota

l For

est C

over

7747

.66

1914

4.89

4.57

%77

0.95

1905

.06

0.46

%85

18.6

121

049.

955.

03%

Sout

heas

tW

etla

nd**

/W

etla

ndBu

ffers

(240

m)

1434

.85

3545

.59

8.57

%12

29.0

630

37.0

77.

34%

2663

.91

6582

.67

15.9

1%D

etro

it R

iver

896.

8822

16.2

41.

51%

1246

.96

3081

.31

2.10

%21

43.8

452

97.5

43.

61%

Lake

Erie

867.

9521

44.7

52.

62%

1250

.72

3090

.60

3.78

%21

18.6

752

35.3

56.

40%

Lake

St.

Cla

ir69

.99

172.

950.

12%

244.

8860

5.11

0.41

%31

4.87

778.

060.

52%

Tota

l Wet

land

3269

.67

8079

.53

1.93

%39

71.6

298

14.0

92.

34%

7241

.29

1789

3.62

4.27

%So

uthe

ast

Rip

aria

n

123.

5130

5.20

8.40

%10

39.2

125

67.9

470

.68%

1162

.72

2873

.14

79.0

8%D

etro

it R

iver

357.

5288

3.45

9.61

%31

31.0

477

36.9

784

.14%

3488

.56

8620

.42

93.7

5%La

ke E

rie31

5.56

779.

779.

99%

2127

.78

5257

.86

67.3

5%24

43.3

460

37.6

377

.33%

Lake

St.

Cla

ir40

.88

101.

021.

01%

3992

.39

9865

.41

98.9

9%40

33.2

799

66.4

310

0.00

%To

tal R

ipar

ian

837.

4720

69.4

36.

76%

1029

0.42

2542

8.18

83.0

9%11

127.

8927

497.

6289

.86%

Sout

heas

t

Oth

erU

plan

d***

0.00

0.00

0.00

%34

.78

85.9

40.

21%

34.7

885

.94

0.21

%D

etro

it R

iver

0.00

0.00

0.00

%50

.23

124.

120.

08%

50.2

312

4.12

0.08

%La

ke E

rie0.

000.

000.

00%

43.2

310

6.82

0.13

%43

.23

106.

820.

13%

Lake

St.

Cla

ir0.

000.

000.

00%

62.5

815

4.64

0.10

%62

.58

154.

640.

10%

Tota

l Oth

er U

plan

d0.

000.

000.

00%

190.

8247

1.53

0.11

%19

0.82

471.

530.

11%

Sout

heas

t

All T

ypes

2245

.74

5549

.34

13.4

1%24

50.1

460

54.4

314

.63%

4695

.88

1160

3.77

28.0

5%D

etro

it R

iver

3562

.46

8803

.03

6.01

%46

09.1

911

389.

567.

77%

8171

.65

2019

2.59

13.7

7%La

ke E

rie35

70.4

888

22.8

510

.78%

3757

.82

9285

.78

11.3

5%73

28.3

018

108.

6322

.13%

Lake

St.

Cla

ir16

38.6

540

49.1

92.

72%

4406

.66

1088

9.09

7.32

%60

45.3

114

938.

2910

.04%

Tota

l Nat

ural

Are

a11

017.

3327

224.

426.

50%

1522

3.81

3761

8.86

8.99

%26

241.

1464

843.

2715

.49%

* For

est =

Upl

and

+ Sw

amp

** W

etla

nd =

Mar

sh +

Ope

n W

ater

*** O

ther

Upl

and

= N

atur

al S

ucce

ssio

n, M

eado

ws,

Pra

irie,

Shr

ub T

hick

ets,

Pla

ntat

ions



Results indicate that there is 6.50% natural cover within the entire Essex Region study area and4.57% is forested woodlands (Table 20). The existing forest cover does not meet the habitatguideline of 30%, which would support most bird species expected. The current forest coverfalls in the < 10% threshold, which should provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird speciesbut only about 20% of forest-interior bird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996). Althoughecologically-speaking, 100% of each guideline is needed, acceptable threshold levels should beset by the organizations and communities residing in each individual sub-watershed area.

The majority of the forest woodlands are smaller than 10 ha in size. Currently, there is only 1polygon greater than 100 ha in area. This is the largest existing forest patch in the region at186.20 ha in size, and is located in Point Pelee National Park (Figure 3). This large forest patchwill support almost 80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (EnvironmentCanada et al., 1996). In addition, there are a total of 12 other woodland polygons greater than50 ha in area. They are found at the following locations: Point Pelee National Park, CedarCreek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons), Arner Pin Oak Woods ESA, Marshfield Woods ESA, Big CreekANSI/ESA (2 polygons), Canard Valley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA, New Canaan ValleyESA (2 polygons), Fairplay Woods ESA, and a woodland located near the intersection of EssexCo. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township of Colchester South. These forest patches willsupport some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing and edge species willdominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

The next habitat guidelines indicates that greater than 10% of the watershed should have forestcover that is 100 m for further from the woodland edge and greater than 5% of the watershedwith forest cover further than 200 m from the woodlot edge. All of the sub-watersheds within theentire region fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means that thearea will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species, usuallyrestricted to 1 or 2 locations (Environment Canada et al., 1996).


For the entire region, the total length of all streams is 2466.74 km. Of that, 117.48 km of thesestreams flow through forested areas. The amount of riparian habitat that is forested along first-to third-order streams is therefore 4.76% (Table 20). This is under the habitat guideline of 75%forested riparian habitat. At 4.76%, it falls in the < 25% threshold category. This measureindicates that streams will be degraded, and fisheries severely limited (Environment Canada etal., 1996).

Only 6.76% of first- to third-order streams in the watershed have a 30 m wide buffer of forestcover, well below the habitat guideline of 75% (Table 21). This means that the stream may bedegraded and wildlife movement may be inhibited (Environment Canada et al., 1996).


Parameter

Gui

delin

e

Loca

l Tar

get Proposed (Based on

GIS Analysis)

Entire Region

% Natural cover (all habitats) 12 15.49

Size (ha) of largest forest patch 100 100 214.68

% Forest cover (>0.5 ha) (upland + swamp) 30 5.03



% Riparian habitat naturally vegetated alongfirst- to third-order streams(guideline: 30 m optimum; local target: not lessthan 3 - 10 m wide)

>75 >75 89.86

Table 22: Entire Region Study Area Habitat Guidelines vs. Proposed Restoration Conditions


Figure 47 is a composite map illustrating all high priority areas where habitatrestoration/rehabilitation opportunities exist, based on the collective expertise of the steeringcommittee and the GIS analysis using overlay and buffering techniques. Table 22 lists theresulting habitat percentages if all the identified areas were restored. If all these areas arerestored, the amount of habitat in the entire region would increase by approximately 9% (Table21).


Figure 47: Entire Region Study Area - Restoration Concept Map



The total amount of forest cover across the study area should increase from 4.57% to 5.03%(Table 22), indicating that the resulting forest cover still falls in the < 10% threshold, whichshould provide habitat for about 50 to 60% of bird species but only about 20% of forest-interiorbird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

There would be 7 woodlands greater than 100 ha in area. The largest, would be located inPoint Pelee National Park, which would have an area of 214.68 ha. This large forest patch willsupport more than 80% of forest interior bird expected in the Essex region (EnvironmentCanada et al., 1996). The other woodlands would be found in the following locations: Big CreekANSI/ESA - Knapp’s Island (192.16 ha), Canard Valley Kentucky Coffee Tree Woods ESA(179.01 ha), Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA - ERCA owned Arner Woods (132.94 ha), Arner Pin OakWoods ESA (127.60 ha), LaSalle Woods ESA (114.75 ha), and Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (111.74ha). Each of these large woodlands will support between 60% and 80% of the forest interiorbird species (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

In addition, there would be 19 woodlands greater than 50 ha in area. These would be located inthe following areas: Point Pelee National Park; Kopegaron Woods ESA; White Oak WoodsESA; Hillman Sand Hills ESA; New Canaan Valley ESA (2 polygons); the woodland locatednear the intersection of Essex Co. Rd. 15 and Conc. 8 in the former Township of ColchesterSouth; the Ojibway Prairie Complex (2 polygons - Spring Garden and Tallgrass Prairie HeritagePark); 1 woodland formed from the linking of Town of LaSalle Candidate Natural Heritage AreasM3, M4, and M5 (LaSalle, 1996); Balkwill Woods ESA; Marshfield Woods ESA; New SettlementWoods ESA; Big Creek ANSI/ESA (2 polygons); Cedar Creek ANSI/ESA (east side of ArnerTownline); in the 4th Conc. of the former Township of Colchester South east of MarshfieldWoods ESA; Fairplay Woods ESA, and in Conc. 10 of the former Township of Mersea. Theseforest patches will support some forest interior bird species, but several will be missing andedge species will dominate (Environment Canada et al., 1996).

Although the squaring-off or connecting of existing forest patches would help to increase theinterior forest habitat in the study area (Figure 47), the amount is by only 0.48% of the entireregion. There would be forest cover greater than 100 m from the edge in 0.70% of the area, upfrom 0.37% that exists now. Forest cover greater than 200 m form the woodland edge wouldalso increase, from the existing 0.05% to 0.21%. All of the sub-watersheds within the entireEssex Region still fall well below the lowest threshold for interior forest cover. This means thatthe entire area will support very few forest-interior and a maximum of 50% of edge bird species(Environment Canada et al., 1996).


Riparian habitat and water quality would also increase if all the identified opportunity areas wererestored. The amount of riparian habitat that is vegetated along first-, second-, and third-orderstreams should increase from 4.76% to 75.80% which should maintain functional warmwaterstreams (Table 21). The percent of riparian habitat with at least 30 m wide vegetated bufferswill also increase, from 6.76% to 83.09% which should maintain functional warmwater streamsand relatively good wildlife corridors (Figure 47).


6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Current habitat conditions in all of the study areas examined to date, reveal that the remainingnatural ecosystems of the Essex region are not only far below an amount to be consideredhealthy and sustainable, but are highly fragmented and degraded and hence, in need ofextensive rehabilitation and restoration. The results from this report provide an overallframework to guide where habitat rehabilitation and restoration might be required before theindividual sub-watershed ecosystems can be considered healthy and self-sustaining. The highpriority restoration opportunity areas mapped in this report are to be used as a guide toconcentrate future potential habitat restoration and enhancement works.

Habitat restoration within the Essex region should emphasize riparian habitat and bufferingopportunities. This is due to the large expanse of existing agricultural land use and drainagesystems. This specific restoration priority will not only yield a substantial improvement in waterquality and aquatic habitat, but will create the necessary linkage between the major nodes. Dueto the extensive removal of forest cover since European settlement, the forest guidelines forforest-interior birds cannot be practically met. There will be however, several major forestnodes which should support at least low population numbers of the majority of forest-dependentbird species found within our range. In addition, opportunities for tallgrass prairie creation are inthose areas identified as wetland or riparian buffer.

Complete restoration of all high priority opportunity areas would lead to an “ideal” ecologicalcondition for our remaining natural resources. However, it is realized that it may be impracticalto fulfil this optimal condition, due to the large expanse of land area, large number of privatelandowners involved, and lack of political will required to reach this goal. It is neverthelesscrucial to implement as much restoration as possible in the areas identified in this report,building upon those few remaining ecosystems remaining in the landscape. Therefore, everyeffort should be made to apply for funding for those landowners within the high priority areaswho are willing to undertake some form of habitat restoration on their property. Only through thislogical approach can we justify financial spending versus resulting ecological value.


7. Strategy Implementation (NATF - A Conservation Strategy for Natural Areas in theEssex Region.)

7.1 Introduction

The Natural Areas Task Force (NATF) for the Essex region was formed in March, 1997, inresponse to a recommendation of the International Countryside Stewardship Exchange, aninternational group of volunteer resource management specialists who visited southern EssexCounty in September 1996 (Environment Canada, 1996). A list of agencies and individualsinvited to sit on the task force, as well as a list of active members is provided in Appendix II.The task force brings together agencies, groups and individuals with an interest in the naturalenvironment of the Essex region.

The Essex region contains significant natural areas that provide habitat for diverse, unusual andoften rare plant and animal species. Noteworthy natural areas in the region include Point PeleeNational Park, the Cedar Creek basin, the large forest, savanna and tall grass system nearWindsor, the Canard River watershed, Pelee Island and twelve other important wetlands anddeciduous woodlands in Mersea Township. The Detroit River plus Lake Erie and Lake St. Clairall attract and serve as reservoirs for biodiversity in the region.

Reports by the Essex Region Conservation Authority, the International CountrysideStewardship Exchange (Environment Canada, 1996), and others, have identified the importanceof natural areas on Pelee Island. It is indeed a different category of natural resource fromothers in the region, being significantly larger, more isolated and thus far, less developed thananywhere else in the region. Seven environmentally significant sites occur on Pelee Island andone each on East Sister and Middle Islands, both of which are in Pelee Township. Known as theErie archipelago, these islands include fine examples of deciduous forest, savanna, and alvar,in many cases dependent upon the limestone bedrock which reaches the surface in contrast tomost of the region.

The Essex region ecosystem lies within an area referred to as the Carolinian zone. This zoneoccurs in Canada only in a narrow band found south of an imaginary line running roughly fromToronto to Grand Bend in extreme southwestern Ontario. The Essex region ecosystem is foundin the most southwesterly portion of the Carolinian zone and contains plants and animals thatrarely occur even within this zone. In fact, Essex County is the southern most locale in Canadaand contains the greatest variety of plants and animals in the entire country.

The Carolinian zone or “Banana Belt” is unique due to its mild climate. The area experiencesthe warmest average annual temperatures, longest frost-free seasons, and mildest winters inOntario. Due to these mild conditions, plants and animals characteristic of the southerly“Carolina” States are found here.

Carolinian Canada contains less than one per cent of Canada’s total land area and yet supportsa greater number of both floral and faunal species than any other ecosystem in Canada. It isestimated that some 2,200 species of indigenous herbaceous plants are found here, including64 species of ferns, at least 110 species of grasses, and more than 130 different sedge species.There are also more than 70 species of indigenous trees. This same zone harbours one third ofthe rare, threatened and endangered species found in all of Canada.


The Essex region ecosystem contains some of the most significant biological communities in allof Ontario. These include remnant tracts of Carolinian forest, tallgrass prairie, oak savanna andwetlands. This region in the Carolinian zone is one of Canada’s most significant landscapes.

Natural communities which are very rare in Ontario and Canada occur in the Carolinian eco-region of Southern Ontario. Yet it is in the Carolinian region that destruction of naturalecosystems is most advanced and land use conflicts are most serious. Many townships inEssex, Kent and Elgin counties have lost more than 99% of their original natural vegetation.It is recognized that in Ontario, a variety of programs, often uncoordinated or relativelyineffective, are the only protection measures for natural areas and the biodiversity theycontain.

The first goal of this group is to prepare a strategy for the long term conservation of biodiversityin the Essex region. This report includes prioritized action plans to achieve this objective. Oneof the essential preliminary recommendations, completion of the Biodiversity Conservation(Habitat) Strategy, is underway now. This study will characterize all natural areas using GIStechnology and mapping, and prioritize areas for restoration initiatives. Information produced bythe Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will be an important component in the NATF Strategyaction plans. In addition, the NATF strategy will be completed in the context of analysis by threeother task force groups, including the Eco-Tourism, and Land Use Task Forces.

Upon completion of this strategy, it is anticipated that all member agencies and groups will workin a coordinated effort to implement the highest priority objectives identified in this report. In thelong run, it will be the combined efforts and shared ideas that will result in the greatestprotection for Essex region’s significant and precious natural areas. For more information,contacts are provided in Appendix II.

7.2 Terms of Reference

1. Determine principles for conserving biodiversity and associated natural areas in theEssex region using the “Carolinian Canada Strategy” (Reid and Symmes, 1997) as astarting point and model.

2. Prepare recommendations for conserving and enhancing natural areas in the Essexregion in order of priority using the “International Countryside Stewardship ExchangeCase Study of Southern Essex County”, the “Carolinian Canada Strategy” and the“Essex Region Conservation Authority Environmentally Significant Areas Report” as astarting point.

3. Suggest mechanisms for implementing recommendations.4. Correct and update data on natural areas in the Essex region.

The Committee recognized that Step 4, involving detailed descriptions of the many naturalareas in the region, will take months, if not years to complete. However, abundant data isavailable to identify the present state of natural areas in the region, for purposes of preparingthe strategy.

It was also agreed that the “Carolinian Canada Strategy” document provides an excellentbackground for the relevant issues, and justification for the conservation of natural ecosystemsin the Carolinian zone. Readers are referred to this document for information on Carolinianecosystems and the issues affecting them. The Vision, Approach, and Priority Goals described


below for the Essex region are taken from the Carolinian Canada Strategy, modified slightly toreflect the particular needs and priorities in this area.

7.3 Vision

The over arching principle guiding this strategy is to halt the loss and then achieve a substantialincrease in the size and quality of natural communities characteristic of the Essex region.

While all elements of the region’s landscape merit attention, special emphasis is recommendedfor:< Forest cover, in particular interior forest and linkages between separate forest patches;< Tall grass prairie, savanna, and alvar systems; < Stream water, wetland, and aquatic habitat quality;< Great Lakes shorelines and;< Native species and natural areas in urban settings.

7.4 Approach

The strategy will be developed using five principles:

Education: undertaking extensive education and communication promoting biodiversity, naturalcommunities in the Essex region, threatened and endangered species and the benefits ofecosystem restoration including greater use of native species in urban green space;

Science: using scientific findings and results from landscape ecology to make sound choicesand to design effective measures for the protection and restoration of habitats;

Cooperation: finding common cause with farmers to develop programs that benefit bothagriculture and nature, and with other landowners, to develop programs that benefit both theirproperties and nature;

Community Action: sparking local community action through a range of stewardshipopportunities and activities;

Planning: encouraging and supporting community planning and legislation that supports,protects and enhances biodiversity and natural areas in the Essex region. Generally:

< The Conservation Authority, County of Essex and City of Windsor should work togetherto carry out a region-wide vision that includes as many different view points as possible,and considers a range of issues, including the region’s environment and natural areas.

< Municipal support for local environmental programs should continue in the form offinancial support for the Conservation Authority, purchase of native trees from nurserieswith the Natural Habitat Restoration Program (NHRP), in-kind support for volunteergroups working to better the environment, etc.

< The County should recognize a system of protected parks or areas that represent viablesamples of each major natural community (deciduous forest, tallgrass system, wetland,shoreline, and alvar). This system may consist of publicly or privately owned lands thatare protected in perpetuity. The system should be added to wherever possible.


< The community should continue support for the “Its Our Nature” campaign of the EssexRegion Conservation Foundation, that will provide a trust fund for public acquisition of the LaSalle Woodlot, Cedar Creek properties and the Greenway.

< Municipalities should incorporate environmental policies for protecting and whereverpossible, enhancing natural heritage and linkages into municipal plans and zoning by-laws.

7.5 Priority Goals

Certain goals flow directly from the above principles:

7.5.1 Social Goals

Planning Goal: Achieve protection of designated natural areas in the Essex region, by meansof long-term planning and political action that includes legislation and associated incentivessuch as tax rebates and land trusts.

Community Action Goal: Achieve support of conservation of natural communities, andprotection of endangered species throughout the Essex region through various means, butespecially through public initiatives, and long-term community action.

Education Goal: Achieve general awareness of the importance and value of naturalecosystems and biodiversity, and the specific importance of endangered populations in theEssex region by all residents and stakeholders, particularly rural and urban landowners, andmunicipal representatives.

7.5.2 Ecosystem Goals

These goals place emphasis on protecting ecological function viability of an ecosystemachieving connections between patches of natural communities, restoring communities inappropriate locations, maintaining native species, and protecting the ecological function ofecosystems.

Forest Goal: Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase includingan appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections between forests.

Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Goal: Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in qualityand extent of stream, wetland, and shoreline habitats.

Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Goal: Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats andrestore the full range of native prairie/savanna communities in appropriate locations.

7.6 Objectives and Action Plans

Objectives for each goal are described below along with preliminary Action Plans which will berefined and expanded based on experience and needs identified during implementation.


7.6.1 Planning Goal

Achieve protection of designated natural areas in the Essex region, by means of long-termplanning and political action that includes legislation and associated incentives such as taxrebates and land trusts.

Planning Objective 1:

Involve municipal officials in the NATF strategy and therefore, in the process of protectingnatural areas.

Action:< Appear as a delegation at an ERCA Board meeting. Provide copies of draft strategy

with questionnaires for each board member to take back to their respective council.< Appear as a delegation at municipal meetings. Wherever possible, incorporate municipal

comments into strategy.

What do we need?< Collaboration to prepare the presentation and questionnaire.< NATF members to make the presentations to ERCA Board, and/or municipal councils.< Analysis of comments, responses to them, incorporation in NATF strategy, and follow-up

presenations.


Protect and enhance natural areas by incorporating environmental policies for natural heritageand linkages into municipal plans and zoning by-laws in order to ensure a viable system ofprotected natural areas.

Action:< NATF and LUTF members develop language (using successful official plans such as

Windsor and LaSalle as examples) to include in upcoming official plan revisions and the Essex County official plan.

< ERCA continues to provide technical support to municipalities with respect to protectingnatural areas during development.

< A core of LUTF and NATF members provide municipalities with “landowner outreach”support to help educate landowners about the importance and positive impact of newenvironmental policies. For example, volunteer members, preferably landowners fromthe same municipality, could attend open houses, or where needed, meet withlandowners.

What do we need?< Discussion with the LUTF or other parties in order to develop further action plans.


Prepare a report on the feasibility of developing legislation or a land trust where levies fromdevelopment projects and real estate transactions are used to acquire and/or restore naturalareas.


Action:< Prepare a report as outlined above.< Develop a communication plan and engage in dialogue to reach suitable consensus.


Recommend that the County of Essex produce and implant “natural area conservation” by-lawsfor Essex County.

Action:< NATF members to prepare presentation, and draft example(s) of “natural area

conservation” by-law(s) in consultation with ERCA’s Forester Biologist, Countyadministration, and others.

< NATF members to make presentation regarding benefits and need for such by-laws toCounty Council (could be done in conjunction with other topics as discussed underEducation Objective 6, and Forest Objective 1)

What do we need?< Discussion with appropriate parties to determine best approach, best organization to

implement these by-laws.< Preparation of draft by-laws and the presentation for County Council by NATF members

7.6.2 Community Action Goal

Achieve support of conservation of natural communities, and protection of endangered speciesthroughout the Essex region through various means, but especially through public initiatives,and long-term community action.

Community Action Objective 1:

Involve the public in the NATF strategy.

Action:< Prepare a newsletter or paper insert that outlines:< the data, status, values and purpose with maps,< the draft actions with an invitation to provide input at an open house, or to provide

written comments.


Encourage community advocacy for natural areas by developing and distributing “landownerinformation packages” on the protection/enhancement of natural areas and biodiversity in theEssex region. Packages should include information on:

-responsible landscaping for homeowners,-use of native species in landscaping,-wildlife habitat improvements for landowners,-reasons for restoration and enhancement,-incentives and programs to protect and carry out enhancement, etc.


Action:< After developing pamphlets, distribute to every nature centre, libraries, schools, Windsor

Park & Rec office, ERCA office, County Fairs, other special functions etc.< Have ERCA technicians distribute appropriate pamphlets when visiting landowners and

homeowners.< Incorporate information from pamphlets (and the pamphlets as well ) into seminars on

tree planting, back yard habitat enhancement, etc.< Work with EWSWA to include pamphlets (or portions of ) with the blue box schedule, or

other materials that they distribute.

What do we need?< Funding to prepare pamphlets and distribute.< Commitment from NATF members to distribute, or keep pamphlets up to date in their

offices, nature centres, etc.


Promote and market Essex region Natural Areas to urban residents, and rural residents whoown one half of an acre or less in land.

Action:< Prepare multi-media marketing package (using the strategy being developed by

Carolinian Canada with examples from Essex region added), to promote the importanceof natural areas to various groups including churches, service clubs, school boards,municipal councils, etc.

< Use a core of volunteers to make presentations to the above list, and hold Open Housemeetings.

< Ensure that all Nature centres, libraries, etc. have a “landowner information kit” topromote good stewardship and incentives/programs to assist with achieving this goal.

< ERCA technicians (others?) distribute “landowner information packages” that includereasons for protection and restoration and incentive programs when visitinghomeowners (see also Objective 2).

What do we need?< Volunteers.< Funding to prepare materials and organize efforts.


Support and provide programs for rural landowners who own large tracts of natural areas topromote continued stewardship and protection through education, and wherever possible,incentive programs.

Action:< Implement a landowner contact program for owners of natural areas. The program

should include the “Landowner Information Package”, mentioned under Objective 2. Priority of areas to contact should be determined as much as possible by the“Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy” discussed under Ecosystems Objective 1.


< Work with landowner groups, such as the Woodlot Owners Association and farmorganizations, to promote this program, and other information to their members.

< Have ERCA technicians (others?) distribute “landowner information packages” thatinclude reasons for protection and restoration and incentive programs when visitinglandowners.

< Work with OMAFRA, and ERCA’s Soil and Water Conservation Technician toincorporate information on natural areas and incentive programs into farm plans, orother documents.

What do we need?< Funding to design and implement a landowner contact program.< Meetings with OMAFRA, ERCA’s SWC Technician, and other farm/landowner groups as

discussed above.

7.6.3 Education Goal

Achieve general awareness of the importance and value of natural ecosystems and biodiversity,and the specific importance of endangered populations in the Essex region by all residentsand stakeholders, particularly rural and urban landowners, and municipal representatives.

Education Objective 1:

Use a marketing analysis approach (audience analysis, priority message development,targeting delivery mechanism) to examine and refine current messages regarding natural areas,and the importance of their protection as a basis for educating students, the general public,researchers, decision makers and other influential groups.

Action:Develop the marketing analysis including the following as some of the priority messages:1) The Essex region has lost more natural areas than any other county in Ontario.2) The protection of the natural areas that are left is important because of the high

frequency of rare species that they contain.3) To sustain diversity we have to protect our remaining natural areas and restore more, as

outlined in the Habitat Strategy.

What do we need?< Funding and input from NATF members to prepare the analysis and messages.


Encourage school boards, staff and parents to participate, or increase participation in naturalarea education.

Action:Using ideas and messages from the analysis in Education Objective 1, numerous programscould be implemented including the following:< ERCA and PPNP continuing work with school boards in their education programs.< NATF representatives making presentations to school boards.


< NATF members preparing a package promoting natural area education and makingpresentations to school PAC’s/SAC’s (advisory committees) and staff.

What do we need to accomplish our objective?< Funding to prepare materials and organize presentations


At the elementary and high school levels, encourage development of nature programs,additions to existing programs, and use of tools that promote awareness of natural areas andtheir importance in the Essex region by means of the Ontario curriculum.

Action:Using ideas and messages from the analysis in Education Objective 1, numerous programscould be implemented including the following:< Programs that teachers can implement close to school, such as taking a class for a walk

to learn about “nature on the street”, or “in the park.”< Web sites to help children learn about natural areas and biodiversity, with a

supplementary information kit for teachers.< Ensuring that existing programs teach children about the loss of habitat in the Essex

region and the solutions to this problem.< Distributing videos on natural areas and their importance to schools, possibly using

videos created by Carolinian Canada, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists or bystudents from the Communication Studies program at University of Windsor.

< A portable display and/or kit on natural areas that can be shared among schools.< Assistance for schools to naturalize their school yards (the current ERCA program could

be expanded).

What do we need?< Funding to prepare programs, and web site information package.


At University and College level, direct research towards important regional conservation issues,and ensure wherever possible that relevant courses include natural areas information in theircurriculum. Research needs would be derived from the analysis discussed in EducationObjective 1.

< Develop relationships through collaboration on NATF with the faculty at University ofWindsor including the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research.

< Work with St. Clair College and University representatives to incorporate, where neededand relevant, information on Essex region natural areas and native species in theircurriculum.

What do we need?< Continued (and additional) commitment from various members, organizations.< Funding or other means of support to work with educational institutions to review and

possibly add to or change curriculums.


7.6.4 Ecosystem Goals

Forest: Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase includingan appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections betweenforests.

Stream/Wetland/Shoreline: Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in quality andextent of stream, wetland, and shoreline habitats.

Prairie/Savanna/Alvar: Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats andrestore the full range of prairie/savanna communities inappropriate locations.

There are several objectives that pertain to each of the Forest, Stream/Wetland/Shoreline andPrairie/Savanna/Alvar goals as identified below.

Ecosystem Objective 1:

Support the continuing work on the “Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy”, a technicaldocument that identifies and maps priority areas for protection and restoration, and outlinesmeasures needed to restore the Essex region natural environment to a healthy, self-sustainingstate and provides the capability to monitor changes and improvements over time.

Action:< NATF members continue developing the “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy” (This

report is available from the Essex Region Conservation Authority).

What do we need?< Continued commitment from NATF members to develop this strategy.

Ecosystems Objective 2:

To develop and implement new or enhanced incentive and securement programs.

Action:< Analyze alternative programs, tailor them for the Essex region, and develop an

implementation proposal.

What do we need?< Funding/in-kind contributions to prepare proposal

Ecosystems Objective 3:

Develop acquisition, restoration and rehabilitation programs based on recommendations of the“Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy”, described under Ecosystems Objective 1.

Action:< ERCA incorporates the strategy into current programs.< ERCA, ECFNC, (and any other organization who may purchase natural areas) consider


acquisition recommendations from the “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy” before purchasing natural lands.

< Work with OMAFRA to incorporate “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy”recommendations in farm plans.

What do we need?< Continued commitment from NATF partners.< Action plans (very brief!) to incorporate recommendations into current and future

acquisition and restoration programs.

Ecosystem Objective 4:

Support the Pelee Island Natural Heritage Committee, Municipal Council, and other appropriateparties to develop natural area conservation initiatives on Pelee Island and the Lake Eriearchipelago.

Action:< Support efforts to develop the “Biodiversity Conservation (Habitat) Strategy” for Pelee

Island.< Support National Marine Conservation Area feasibility initiative.< Support efforts of the Pelee Island Natural Heritage Committee, and assist if needed.

This could be done by letter to Committee members.

What do we need?< Funding to complete the Habitat Strategy (proposal submitted) and continued technical

input from NATF members once strategy preparation is underway.< Preparation of letter to the Committee as described above.

7.6.4.1 Forest Goal

Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increase including an appropriateproportion of interior forest and improved connections between forests.

Forest Objective 1:

Encourage and promote the use of native species.

Action:< Continue to support the Natural Habitat Restoration Program (NHRP), working with the

Carolinian Canada feasibility study to expand markets for native species.< Continue to promote native species through the ERCA tree planting program. Develop

an information pamphlet on local nurseries who sell native trees to provide to home andland owners.

< Encourage and work with municipal councils to develop programs to include a nativetree on each new subdivision lot, and to use native species in parks and municipalproperties.

< Action plans, based on discussion with NATF partners to ensure that NHRP continues tothrive.


What do we need?< Funding and/or in-kind contributions to develop displays and web site listings for

nurseries.< NATF members to make presentations to municipal councils (in conjunction with

presentation listed under Community Action Objective 6).

7.6.4.2 Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Goal

Halt the loss of wetland, shoreline, and stream habitats and achieve a substantialincrease in the quality and extent of these habitats.

Stream/Wetland/Shoreline Objective 1:

Use innovative designs for storm water management (both quality and quantity) which alsoincorporate habitat creation.

Action:< ERCA, through its permit process, should continue working with municipalities,

industries, developers, etc. to design and implement projects that manage storm waterand create habitat.

< Wherever possible, ERCA should work with municipalities to develop sub-watershedplans that incorporate these types of projects.

What do we need?< Funding for sub-watershed plans.< Continued commitment to innovative projects. < (Support from municipalities? Ask Stan)

Stream/Wetlands/Shorelines Objective 2:

Encourage availability of local wetland plants for restoration projects in the region.

Action:< Support or wherever possible, assist wetland “nursery” recently started by ERCA, but

which still needs additional work to produce a regular supply of wetland plants.

What do we need?< A meeting to discuss with ERCA’s Biologist (Dan Lebedyk) what is needed to further the

nursery, and determine what assistance, if any, can be provided by other NATFmembers.

7.6.4.3 Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Goal

Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats and restore the full range of nativeprairie/savannah communities in appropriate locations.


Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Objective 1:

Follow implementation guidelines from the “Tall Grass Prairie Communities Recovery Plan”(now in progress) wherever possible.

Action:< Continue management of prairie/savannah habitats in public ownership.< Determine further steps upon completion of the Recovery Plan.

What do we need?< Continued financial support for prairie habitat management.< Further discussion once Recovery plan is complete.

Prairie/Savanna/Alvar Objective 2:

Support and work with groups involved with alvar restoration.

7.7 Summary of Actions

Prepare presentation to ERCA Board and Municipal Councils to elicit comments frommunicipalities on the Draft Strategy.

Prepare newsletter and arrange community open house (or other means?) to receive commentsfrom the general public on the Strategy.

Prepare funding requests for priority objectives.

Develop a marketing study that analyses audiences, develops priority messages, and preparestargeted delivery mechanism as per Education Objective #1.

Meet with LUTF members to discuss strategies to incorporate protection of natural areas intomunicipal plans.

Make presentations to municipalities regarding:-the importance of natural areas,-planting native trees on new subdivision lots

Finish Habitat Strategy (ongoing; some parts now finished).

Prepare landowner information packages.

Make presentations to school boards regarding:-importance of natural areas education,-need to incorporate natural areas education into curriculum

Prepare various education programs, web site, etc. as per Education Objective 3.


Make presentations to various groups including:-rural groups (farm groups, Woodlot Owners Assoc., etc.)-urban groups (church groups, service clubs, etc.)-school PAC/SAC’s and staff

Meet with ERCA administration to discuss:-incorporating Natural Areas messages into education programs,-having ERCA technicians distribute landowner education pamphlets,-keeping pamphlets in office,-discuss results of habitat strategy and its impact on various programs/acquisition plans

Meet with County Administration/ERCA Forester and Biologist to prepare strategy for “naturalarea protection” by-law.

Meet with OMAFRA and farm organizations regarding impacts of Habitat Strategy on farmsplans.

Develop web site/information pamphlet on local nurseries who supply native trees.

Obtain funding for and implement a landowner contact program(s).


8. References

Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds ofOntario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press. 617 pp.

Daigle, J. and D. Havinga. 1996. Restoring Nature’s Place: A Guide to Naturalizing OntarioParks and Greenspace. Ecological Outlook Consulting and Ontario Parks AssociationPublication. 226 pp.

Detroit River Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 1996. 1996 Detroit River Remedial Action PlanReport. Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment & Energy, U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, and Michigan Department of Environmental QualityPublication. 420 pp.

Dutz, J. 1998. Draft Muddy Creek/Two Creeks Implementation Strategy.

Environment Canada, 1996. International Countryside Stewardship Exchange in Ontario,Canada - 1996 Report: Essex County, Mono Township, Quinte Country. 72 pp.

Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry ofEnvironment and Energy. 1996. Identifying Habitat Rehabilitation Targets and Prioritiesin Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Upland Systems. An Interim Report for Circulationand Comment. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee.

Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry ofEnvironment and Energy. 1998. A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in GreatLakes Areas of Concern. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee.

Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). 1983. Conservation Plan. Essex RegionConservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 41 pp.

ERCA. 1986. Fur Trade to Farmstead: A History of Renewable Natural Resources in the EssexRegion 1750-1900. Compiled by A. P. Pegg. Essex Region Conservation AuthorityPublication. Essex, Ontario. 115 pp.

ERCA. 1992. Forest Cover Survey for the Essex Region. Essex Region Conservation AuthorityPublication. Essex, Ontario. 34 pp.

ERCA. 1994. Strategic Plan. Essex Region Conservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario.16 pp.

ERCA. 1995. Provincially significant wetland area analysis. Dan Lebedyk, Biologist. Essex,Ontario.

Ewel, J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. In Restoration Ecology: ASynthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Edited by W. Jordan, M. Gilpin, and J. Aber.Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 31-33.


LaSalle, Town of. 1996. Town of LaSalle Official Plan Review - Candidate Natural HeritageArea Biological Inventory and Land Use Planning Policy Direction (Discussion Paper No.1). Prepared by Prince, Silani & Associates Ltd., Urban and Rural Planning Consultantsand G. Waldron, Consulting Biologist. 104 pp.

Managhan, S., D. Kirk, and J. Kamstra. 1990. Stone Road Alvar Research/ManagementReport. Essex Region Conservation Authority, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, andOntario Ministry of Natural Resources Publication. 119 pp.

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, andpublic policy. Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems - Science, Technology,and Public Policy, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences,Environment, and Resources. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 552 pp.

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 1998. NHIC Database. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario.

Oldham, M. 1983. Environmentally Significant Areas of the Essex Region. Essex RegionConservation Authority Publication. Essex, Ontario. 426 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OmoEE). 1995. Wheatley Harbour RemedialAction Plan (RAP) - Stage 1/Stage 2 Report (Draft). Environmental Conditions andProblem Definition. Delisting Strategy. 233 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1990. A Silvicultural Guide for the TolerantHardwoods Working Group in Ontario. Science and Technology Series, Vol. 7. OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto. 178 pp.

OMNR. 1993. A Tree-marking Guide for the Tolerant Hardwoods Working Group in Ontario.Science and Technology Series, Vol. 87. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto. 227 pp.

Pratt, P. 1994. Personal Communication. City Naturalist - Corporation of the City of Windsor,Department of Parks and Recreation, Ojibway Nature Centre. June, 1994.

Reid, R. and R. Symmes. 1997. Conservation Strategy for Carolinian Canada. Prepared for:The Carolinian Canada Steering Committee. London, Ontario.

Rodger, L. 1998. Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan. World WildlifeFund Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Publication. 66 pp.

Snell, E. A. 1989. Recent wetland loss trends in southern Ontario. In Proceedings of theConference on Wetlands: Inertia or Momentum. Edited by M. J. Bardecki and N.Patterson. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. Toronto, ON. pp. 183-197.

Sutherland, D.A. 1994. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Birds. Ontario Natural HeritageInformation Centre. Peterborough, Ontario. 24 pp.


Vandall, P. E. 1979. A brief history of Essex County. In Field Studies in the Detroit-Windsor-Essex County Region. Department of Geography, University of Windsor Publication. Windsor, Ontario.


9. Appendices

Appendix I: Acronym Glossary

ANSI # Area of Natural and Scientific InterestAOC # Area of ConcernCEA # Citizens Environment AllianceDU # Ducks Unlimited CanadaECFA # Essex County Federation of AgricultureECFNC # Essex County Field Naturalists ClubECWOA # Essex County Woodlot Owners AssociationERCA # Essex Region Conservation AuthorityESA # Environmentally Significant AreaGIS # Geographical Information SystemsICSE # International Countryside Stewardship ExchangeNATF # Natural Areas Task ForceNAWMP # North American Waterfowl Management PlanNHRP # Natural Habitat Restoration ProgramNBS # National Biological SurveyNGO # Non Government OrganizationNHIC # Natural Heritage Information CentreNTS # National Topographic SeriesOBM # Ontario Base MappingOMAFRA # Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural AffairsOMNR # Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesPSW # Provincially Significant WetlandRAP # Remedial Action PlanVTE # Vulnerable, Threatened, or Endangered Species


Appendix II: Steering Committee/Reviewers/Natural Areas Task Force (NATF) Members

(NATF Members are indicated with an asterisk (*))

Name Title Contact Information

Role

SteeringCommittee

Member

InterestedParticipant/Reviewer

ResourcePerson

Chris Allsop* Chair, Natural Areas Task Force


(519) 776-5209 ext. 351

T

Terry Anderson* Essex County Woodlot OwnersAssociation

Agriculture and Agrifood CanadaResearch Centre

Harrow ON N0R 1G0(519) 738-2251

[email protected]

T

Ken Bondy* Chair, CAW Windsor RegionalEnvironmental Council

13150 Harvest LaneTecumseh ON N8N 4N7

(519) 979-2336

Jim Boothby*Stewardship Co-ordinator,Essex County Stewardship

Network

c/o Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources

P.O. Box 11681023 Richmond St.

Chatham ON N7M 5L8(519) 354-6274

T

Tom Clark* Essex County Federation ofAgriculture

R.R. #3Comber ON N0P 1J0

(519) [email protected]

T

Bob Clay Manager, Western Ontario FieldOffice

Ducks Unlimited Canada566 Welham Rd.

R.R. #8Barrie ON L4M 6E7


T

Ken Colthurst Forester


(519) 776-5209 ext. 377

T

Lee Anne Doyle* County Planning Advisor

County of Essex360 Fairview Ave. W.Essex ON N8M 1Y6

(519) 776-6441 ext. 329

T

Jodi Dutz BiologistEcoServices

407-85 Fiddlers Green Rd.London ON N6H 4S9


T


Role

SteeringCommittee

Member


ResourcePerson


Diane Furlong*2071 Willistead Cres.

Windsor ON N8Y 1K6(519) 254-2312

Geordon Harvey GIS Technician


(519) 776-5209 ext. [email protected]

T

Don Hector* Area Biologist

Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 1168

1023 Richmond St.Chatham ON N7M 5L8


T

Tom Hurst* President

Essex County Field Naturalists ClubP.O. Box 23011 Devonshire P.O.

3100 Howard Ave.Windsor ON N8Y 3X3

(519) 839-4635

T

Fred Johnson* Acting Area Supervisor




T

Gary Johnson Senior Project Advisor

Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment and Energy

1094 London Rd.Sarnia ON N7S 1P1


T

Dan Lebedyk* Conservation Biologist



T

Janice Leboeuf Soil and Water Quality Technician


(519) 776-5209 ext. 369

T

Jon Lovett-Doust* Professor

Department of Biological Sciences University of Windsor

401 Sunset Blvd.Windsor ON N9B 3P8


T


Role

SteeringCommittee

Member


ResourcePerson


George McCracken* Wildlife Photographer/Naturalist

P.O. Box 231Comber ON N0P 1J0


T

Gary McCullough Canadian Wildlife Service

465 Gideon DriveP.O. Box 490, Lambeth Station

London ON N6P 1R1(519) 472-5750

[email protected]

T

Brian McHattie

Contractor to Environment Canada-

Canadian Wildlife Service andGreat Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund

1 Barclay St.Hamilton ON L8S 1P1


T

Gary Mouland Park Warden

Point Pelee National Park1118 Point Pelee Dr.

R.R. #1Leamington ON N8H 3V4


T

Ian Naisbitt*Little River Enhancement Group

399 Woodridge Dr.Windsor ON N8N 3A7


T

Michael Oldham* Botanist/Herpetologist

Natural Heritage Information CentreP.O. Box 7000

(2nd Floor, N. Tower, 300 Water St.)Peterborough ON K9J 8M5


T

Janet Planck

Environmental Conservation Branch,Ontario Region

Restoration Program DivisionCanada Centre for Inland Waters

867 Lakeshore RoadPO Box 5050

Burlington ON L7R 4A6(905) 336-6282

[email protected]

T

Paul Pratt*City Naturalist,

Department of Parks andRecreation

Corporation of the City of Windsor

Ojibway Nature Centre5200 Matchette Rd.

Windsor ON N9C 4E8(519) 966-5852

[email protected]

T

Judy Recker* Councillor, Town of LaSalle5950 Malden Rd.

LaSalle ON N9H 1S4(519) 969-7770


Role

SteeringCommittee

Member


ResourcePerson


Dan Reive* Chief Park Warden

Point Pelee National Park1118 Point Pelee Dr.

R.R. #1Leamington ON N8H 3V4


T

Peter Roberts Canada-Ontario RAP SteeringCommittee Representative

OMAFRA1 Stone Road West

Guelph ON N1G 4Y2T

Al Robinson* Superintendent, RondeauProvincial Park

R.R. #1Morpeth ON N0P 1X0

Mr. John Shaw

Environment CanadaGreat Lakes 2000 Clean-Up Fund

Environmental Conservation Branch867 Lakeshore Road

Burlington ON L7R 4A6

T

Lily Shuster* 11 Ontario St.Leamington ON N8H 2T5

Larry Silani

Prince, Silani & Associates LimitedUrban & Rural Planning Consultants

287 Main St. E.Kingsville ON N9Y 1A7

(519) 733-9610

T

Owen Steele* Biologist

Ducks Unlimited Canada566 Welham Rd.

R.R. #8Barrie ON L4M 6E7

(705) 721-4444

T

Bill Stephenson* RegionalConservation Biologist

Parks Canada111 Water Street

Cornwall ON N6H 6S3(613) 938-5934

[email protected]

T

Robert Sweet Aquatic Biologist

Michigan Dept. of Environ. QualityKnapp's CentreP.O. Box 30273

Lansing MI 48909 USA(517) 355-4182

T

Ric Symmes* President

STERNSMAN International Inc.R.R .#1

Terra Cotta ON LOP 1NO(905) 887-6342

[email protected]

T

Ron Tiessen* Pelee Island Heritage Centre Pelee Island ON N0R 1M0(519) 724-2291

Lisa Tulen*Citizen's Environment Alliance

P.O. Box 548Windsor ON N9A 6M6

(519) 973-1116

T


Role

SteeringCommittee

Member


ResourcePerson


Doug van Hemessen* Program Secretary

Carolinian Canadac/o Ministry of Natural Resources

659 Exeter Rd.London ON N6E 1L3


T

Gerry WaldronConsulting Ecologist,

ECSN Landscape Strategy forWetlands in the Western Basin

7641 Highway 18R.R. #1

Amherstburg ON N9V 2Y7(519) 736-2978

[email protected]

T

Al Woodliffe* Area Ecologist




T


Appendix III: Contributor Backgrounds

(In alphabetical order)

Carolinian Canada (CC)Website: http://www.carolinian.org

The Carolinian Canada Program was established in 1984 as a partnership between governmentagencies and non-government conservation groups to address the goal of protecting 38 specificareas representing the ecological diversity of the Carolinian life zone of Southwestern Ontario. Protection of these sites is accomplished through the encouragement of private landstewardship initiatives and the sponsorship of land purchase where necessary. Originally a jointproject of World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the NatureConservancy of Canada, and the Richard Ivey Foundation, the program soon expanded toinvolve other partners.

Because of recent changes in provincial and municipal governments, as well as the fundingsources to a wide range of conservation programs, it was necessary to consider a new focus forthe Carolinian Canada program - a program that is more community-oriented, addresses thelandscape rather than individual sites, and builds broad support. The development of aconservation strategy was commissioned by the Carolinian Canada Steering Committee in1996. This conservation strategy was a highly participative process to ensure that the resultingdocument was more than a plan developed in isolation. It was meant to reflect the aspirationsand priorities of landowners, conservation staff and volunteers and other with a stake in thefuture of the Carolinian region. The following is the vision and priority goals of the CarolinianCanada Conservation Strategy:

Vision:! Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in the size and quality of natural

communities characteristic of Carolinian Canada.Priority Goals:! Education Goal - Achieve broad awareness of the importance of ecosystems, natural

communities and endangered species in the Carolinian region by the general public,farmers and other landowners and gain their support for measures to protect thesespecies and habitats.

! Community Action Goal - Achieve broad community action to support conservation ofnative ecosystems, communities and endangered species throughout the Carolinianregion, including the cities and towns.

! Forest Goal - Halt the loss of native forest cover and achieve a substantial increaseincluding an appropriate proportion of interior forest and improved connections betweenforests.

! Stream/Wetlands Goal - Halt the loss and achieve a substantial increase in quality andextent of stream and wetland habitats.

! Prairie/Savanna Goal - Protect all significant remaining prairie/savanna habitats andrestore the full range of native prairie/savanna communities in appropriate locations.


Citizens Environment Alliance (CEA)Website: http://www.mnsi.net/~cea

Formerly the Windsor and District Clean Water Alliance, the CEA was formed in December of1985 by a group of citizens concerned about spills from the Chemical Valley into the St. ClairRiver. By 1986 the CEA was involved in the bigger question of toxics in the Great Lakes as wellas becoming involved with air quality in Windsor and Essex County. In 1987 the Alliancestarted to speak out on the issue of waste management and the 3 R’s, and by 1989-90 thegroup was working on issues concerning wetlands and land-use planning. Finally, beginning in1991 the CEA has initiated the larger task of educational awareness on the whole question ofdevelopment and the environment and the long-term implication for Windsor-Essex County andsurrounding districts.

The CEA is now a fully ecosystem group concerned with the inter-relationship of air, land andwater and the implications of human impacts. The CEA is comprised of citizens from all sectorsof society, working in a voluntary capacity along with contract staff to deal with the evermounting challenge of environmental integrity in the decade of the nineties.

Ducks Unlimited Canada (DU)Website: http://www.ducks.ca

Ducks Unlimited Canada, along with its international partners - Ducks Unlimited, Inc. in theUnited States, Ducks Unlimited du Mexico, and Ducks Unlimited Incorporated of New Zealand -form a private, non-profit, charitable network of waterfowl conservation organizations whose roleis to conserve dwindling populations of waterfowl species through improving habitat. DucksUnlimited Canada operates throughout Canada, with 40 field offices servicing the public andadministering wetland construction work.

DU has long recognized Ontario as one area in Canada where intensive waterfowl conservationactivities must be carried out to buffer ever-continuing industrial, commercial, residential andfarming developments that simply consume the most productive habitat for ducks.

Across the province over 80 local DU volunteer committees are active in organizing fundraisingevents and promoting the cause of waterfowl conservation. DU Canada’s staff throughoutOntario biologically assess waterfowl habitat, design improvements to highly rated wetlands andadjacent nesting upland, finance and supervise construction of water level control works andmanage project sites on an on-going basis. As well, the organization develops and carries outinformation activities on waterfowl and wetlands, and raises funds for its habitat improvementwork. No other single conservation organization on the continent has the depth and range ofspecialized staff focussing on wetlands and waterfowl.


Essex County Federation of Agriculture (ECFA)Website: http://www.ofa.on.ca

“Farmers Working for Farmers”. Serving the 1600+ OFA Members in Pelee, Windsor andEssex County.

The goals of the ECFA are:! To improve the social and economic well being of Essex County farmers.! To inform and assist ECFA members on issues relevant to either personal or

professional life, including OFA activities.! To increase public awareness of Essex County’s agriculture and food system.! To work with related rural organizations and assist in special projects as needed.

Essex County Field Naturalists Club (ECFNC)Website: http://www.city.windsor.on.ca/ojibway/ECFN.htm

Organized in 1984 and incorporated in March 1985, the Essex County Field Naturalists’ Club isa volunteer organization affiliated with the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the CanadianNature Federation. Our members are from various backgrounds and some work professionallyin the fields of conservation and education. The Natural Habitat Restoration Committee, inalliance with other organizations in the county, works to restore indigenous ecosystems. Mostof the volunteer energy is provided by ECFNC in the areas of native tree and shrub seedcollection, propagation, fundraising and improving public awareness of the need to plant locallynative species.

The objectives of the ECFNC are:! To promote the appreciation and conservation of the diverse natural heritage of Essex

County and the surrounding region.! To provide opportunities for people to become acquainted with and better understand

the natural environment.! To promote the identification, preservation, maintenance and restoration of nautral

habitat areas.! To co-operate with and support other organizations with similar objectives.

Essex County Stewardship Network (ECSN)Website: http://www.ontariostewardship.org/Essex/essex.htm

The Essex County Stewardship Network is a rural community group made up of the diversenatural resource interests and private landowners representative of Essex County. The ECSN’spurpose is to focus on people who own the land and promote responsible land stewardshipethics so that the land they own is left in the same or better condition for the future.


The ECSN actively seeks partnerships in order to conserve the soil; manage, enhance, andprotect natural resources; ensure the land continues to be productive for future generations; andassist in educating residents. The ECSN seeks resources and develops mechanisms that showlandowners how beneficial responsible land stewardship can be and acts broadly to guide andfocus land stewardship efforts within the county.

ECWOA Essex County Woodlot Owners Association (ECWOA)

The Essex County Woodlot Owners Association was formed in 1995 and is dedicated to thevoluntary management and preservation of woodlots in Essex County. The primary focus of thisassociation is to share information, meet fellow woodlot owners and work towards becomingbetter stewards of this valuable resource. Some of the more important issues which this groupdeals with include:! Land tax issues! Government regulations! Wildlife concerns! Tree identification! Estimating timber volumes! Timber values! Proper cutting techniques! Maintaining biodiversity

Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA)Website: http://www.erca.org

Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, provides Conservation Authorities with themandate to establish and undertake, in areas over which they have jurisdiction, programsdesigned to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of naturalresources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals (ERCA, 1983). In 1983, based on this mandateof renewable resource conservation, the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA)developed policies and operational objectives which relate to the conservation and restorationof habitat. In addition, as a result of ERCA's 1994 Strategic Planning exercise, the followinginitiatives and projects relating to habitat were identified as priorities for the region:

Policies:! To... take its own initiative to carry out a program for fish and wildlife enhancement which

will result in increased abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat and nativespecies..." (ERCA, 1983)

Operational Objectives:! To protect Environmentally Significant Areas.! To manage and increase forest resources for environmental, recreational, commercial

and ameliorative purposes.! To improve fish and wildlife resources. (ERCA, 1983)


Strategic Plan Initiatives:Enhance Biodiversity Through Restoration and Tree-planting

! Develop projects to create or restore wetlands in appropriate regional settings.! Collaborate with community organizations and residents to increase treeplanting in

available areas. (ERCA, 1994)

Little River Enhancement Group (Lil’Reg)Website: http://www.lilreg.com

In 1991, the Little River Enhancement Group was created by educators andrepresentatives of the City of Windsor, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, EssexRegion Conservation Authority, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Habitat 2000Club. Accordingly, Lil’ Reg “adopted” the Little River Watershed, which drains portions of theTown of Tecumseh and the City of Windsor. Several local schools and community volunteershave helped with Lil’s Reg’s efforts to improve the quality of the watershed ecosystem. Thisnon-profit umbrella group coordinates beneficial environmental activities throughout the riverbasin using a multi-partnership model of participation and cooperation.

Objectives:

! Support the creation of greenways/natural corridors/nature trails;! Encourage the restoration and protection of natural habitat areas;! Collaborate in the revision of land-use planning documents;! Participate in reforestation projects in the County of Essex;! Address water quantity and quality issues;! Promote community involvement and public education;! Assist other community groups and projects.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)Website: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/index.html

MNR's Goal:! To contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of Ontario through

the sustainable development of natural resources.

MNR's Objectives:! To ensure the long-term health of ecosystems by protecting and conserving our valuable

soil, aquatic resources, forest and wildlife resources as well as their biologicalfoundations.

! To ensure the continuing availability of natural resources for the long-term benefit of thepeople of Ontario; that is, to leave future generations a legacy of the natural wealth thatwe still enjoy today.

! To protect natural heritage and biological features of provincial significance.


! To protect human life, the resource base and physical property from the threats of forestfires, floods and erosion.

This calls for an ecosystem-based approach to the management of Ontario's natural resources,with ecosystems defined to include the economic and social activities of humans as well as thenatural environment.

Since the essential attribute of healthy ecosystems is sustainability, MNR's goal can also bedescribed as the maintenance of ecosystem health through the balancing of environmental,economic and social components.

Fiscal constraints and rapid change are moving governments to concentrate on outcomes. Theaccountability of a ministry can be more clearly defined and systematically evaluated if thesepreferred results are clearly defined, priorities are more explicitly determined, and thecontribution of various activities, functions and strategies are more rigorously assessed.

MNR's contribution to each benefit varies across the province. Other government agencies andother sectors of society also contribute to these benefits.

Point Pelee National Park/Parks Canada

Website: http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/ontario/point_pelee/Point_pelee_e.htm

It is the prime role of Point Pelee National Park to protect the nationally and internationallysignificant natural resources and processes of the park, particularly those which arerepresentative of the St. Lawrence Lowlands; and to encourage public understandingappreciation and enjoyment so as to leave it unimpaired for this and future generations.

Natural Heritage Resource Objectives! To provide the nationally and internationally significant natural resources and processes

of Point Pelee National Park, in particular those physical and biotic resources andprocesses representative of the southern portion of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, with thehighest degree of protection in order to maintain their natural qualities and preventfurther human impact. In accordance with the National Parks Act and Parks Canadapolicy, the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the Carolinian forest and southernGreat Lakes marsh ecosystems represented in the park, will be the prime considerationin the planning, operation and management of Point Pelee.

! To provide the greatest possible protection to those features, processes, habitats orpopulations of species which are unique, sensitive, rare or endangered in a park,regional, national or international context.

! To emphasize the protection of habitats which are of limited distribution and extent, andwithout which adequate populations of many species could not survive.

! To base the management of the natural resources of Point Pelee National Park onsound scientific knowledge, coordinating research and resource management with otheragencies and landowners in the region.

As part of an active regional conservation network, the park will work in close co-operation withthe managers of lands surrounding the park to address common resource protection and


environmental issues. In particular, the park will work with those agencies which manage otherprotected areas representing the Carolinian ecosystem.

A wide variety of agreements with public and private sector partners will be in place to assistParks Canada in carrying out its obligations. Through increased reliance on agreements, co-operative activities and involvement in regional planning and resource management programs,the park will be managed, not in isolation, but as a key player in regional resource management,environmental education and tourism. Parks Canada’s major partner will continue to be theFriends of Point Pelee, the park’s co-operating association.

University of Windsor, Department of Biological SciencesWebsite: http://www.uwindsor.ca

The University of Windsor strives:

! To provide an atmosphere fostering creativity, discovery, application, critical thinking,service, and communication in a collegial environment, in which people can worktogether in ways conducive to personal growth and embodying the principles of equity,accessibility, mutual respect and understanding, integrity, and freedom of expression inall we do;

! to serve students and community through support of excellent instruction in a focusedarray of academic, professional and lifelong learning opportunities;

! to support excellence in research and creative activity in both emerging and establishedfields and to provide graduate programs of recognized strength, including in areas ofimportance to its geographic region;

! to develop, through its programs and services, the intellectual, social, physical, moral,and spiritual potentials of the campus and wider community;

! to support the local community through interaction with business, labour, communitygroups and institutions, and to provide the international community with access to oureducational resources.

The Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Windsor is a full service departmentengaged in both undergraduate and graduate teaching and committed to excellence inteaching, research and community service. Biological science majors will acquire the tools andskills necessary to successfully compete for positions in industry, government or any one ofseveral professional programs including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine,physical therapy - just to name a few. Unlike in many universities, undergraduate students atWindsor are given the opportunity to gain practical hands-on laboratory and field experiencebeginning in the first year of study. The small class size of most biology courses, breadth ofcourses offered, and close contact between students and professors makes learning at Windsora rewarding and stimulating experience.

Through faculty counselling students are able to design their academic program to acquireexpertise in two broad areas of study: cell, molecular and developmental biology andenvironmental biology. Within these broad areas of biology students have the flexibility to designinterdisciplinary programs, or to specialize in areas such as biotechnology, neuroscience oraquatic biology.


Appendix IV: Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species of the Essex Region

Based on current and historical Element Occurrence records in the Natural Heritage InformationCentre (NHIC) databases (NHIC, 1998).

Scientific Name Common Name MNR1 COSEWIC2

Herptiles

Acris crepitans blanchardi Blanchard's Cricket Frog END END

Ambystoma texanum Smallmouth Salamander VUL VUL

Apalone spinifera spinifera Eastern Spiny Softshell THR THR

Bufo fowleri Fowler's Toad VUL VUL

Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle VUL VUL

Clemmys insculpta Wood Turtle VUL VUL

Coluber constrictor foxii Blue Racer END END

Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake END

Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Hognose Snake VUL VUL

Nerodia sipedon insularum Lake Erie Water Snake END END

Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Eastern Massasauga THR THR

Birds

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow END END

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk VUL VUL

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover END END

Chlidonias niger Black Tern VUL NAR

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite END

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler VUL VUL

Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher END

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat VUL VUL

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern VUL

Lanius ludovicianus migrans Migrant Loggerhead Shrike END END

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler END

Rallus elegans King Rail END

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush VUL VUL



Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern IND IND

Tyto alba Common Barn-owl THR VUL

Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler THR

Fish

Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon NAR

Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker VUL

Etheostoma blennioides Greenside Darter VUL

Etheostoma pellucidum Eastern Sand Darter THR

Hybopsis storeriana Silver Chub VUL

Ichthyomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey VUL

Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar VUL

Lepomis gulosus Warmouth VUL

Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker VUL

Moxostoma erythrurum Golden Redhorse NAR

Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner VUL

Percina copelandi Channel Darter THR

Mammals

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole VUL

Plants

Agalinis skinneriana Skinner's Purple False Foxglove END

Aletris farinosa White-tubed Colicroot THR THR

Arisaema dracontium Green Dragon VUL

Camassia scilloides Wild Hyacinth VUL

Carex lupuliformis False Hop Sedge THR

Castanea dentata American Chestnut THR

Celtis tenuifolia Dwarf Hackberry VUL

Fraxinus quadrangulata Blue Ash VUL THR

Gentiana flavida White Prairie Gentian END

Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffee-tree THR THR

Hydrastis canadensis Golden Seal THR THR



Justicia americana American Water-willow VUL THR

Lespedeza virginica Slender Bush-clover END

Liatris spicata Dense Blazing Star VUL

Liparis liliifolia Purple Twayblade THR THR

Lipocarpha micrantha Dwarf Bulrush THR THR

Morus rubra Red Mulberry THR

Opuntia humifusa Prickly Pear Cactus END END

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng THR

Phegopteris hexagonoptera Broad Beech Fern VUL

Plantago cordata Heart-leaved Plantain END END

Platanthera leucophaea Prairie White-fringed Orchid VUL

Polygala incarnata Pink Milkwort END

Ptelea trifoliata Hop Tree VUL

Quercus shumardii Shumard's Oak VUL

Rosa setigera Prairie Rose VUL

Smilax rotundifolia Common Greenbrier VUL THR

Trillium flexipes Drooping Trillium END

Triphora trianthophora Nodding Pogonia THR

1MNR Status:Status assigned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.END Endangered. Any native species that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is at risk of

extinction or extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if thelimiting factors are not reversed. Endangered species are protected under the Province'sEndangered Species Act.

THR Threatened. Any native species that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is at risk of becoming endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if thelimiting factors are not reversed.

VUL Vulnerable. Any native species that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is a speciesof special concern in Ontario, but is not a threatened or endangered species.

IND Indeterminate. Any native species for which there is insufficient scientific information on which to base astatus recommendation.

2COSEWIC Status:Status assigned by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.END Endangered. A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction throughout its Range.THR Threatened. A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.VUL Vulnerable. A species of special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive

to human activities or natural events.IND Indeterminate. A species for which there is insufficient information to support a status designation.NAR Not At Risk. A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk.


Appendix V: Southeast Essex Region Detailed GIS Analyses




Atwell Drain 537.81 1328.95 3.21%East Marsh 495.78 1225.11 2.96%Hillman Marsh 7416.05 18325.47 44.29%Marentette 311.32 769.29 1.86%Muddy Creek 847.19 2093.46 5.06%Point Pelee 1481.30 3660.36 8.85%Sturgeon Creek 4124.51 10191.90 24.63%West Marsh 1528.89 3777.96 9.13%Total Study Area 16742.86 41372.51 100.00%



Atwell Drain

Upland

17.29 42.72 3.21%East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51%Hillman Marsh 288.33 712.49 3.89%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 42.91 106.03 5.07%Point Pelee 288.25 712.28 19.46%Sturgeon Creek 81.86 202.29 1.98%West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11%Total Upland Forest 732.73 1810.61 4.38%Atwell Drain

Swamp

0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 29.00 71.67 0.39%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 1.16 2.88 0.14%Point Pelee 40.27 99.51 2.72%Sturgeon Creek 7.72 19.09 0.19%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Swamp Forest 78.16 193.14 0.47%Atwell Drain

Upland + Swamp

17.29 42.72 3.21%East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51%Hillman Marsh 317.34 784.16 4.28%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 44.07 108.91 5.20%Point Pelee 328.52 811.79 22.18%Sturgeon Creek 89.59 221.38 2.17%West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11%Total Forest Cover 810.89 2003.76 4.84%



Atwell Drain

Open Water

0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 178.14 440.19 2.40%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 6.48 16.02 0.77%Point Pelee 325.59 804.56 21.98%Sturgeon Creek 34.68 85.69 0.84%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Open Water Wetland 544.89 1346.46 3.25%Atwell Drain

Marsh

0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 155.75 384.87 2.10%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 3.09 7.64 0.36%Point Pelee 717.63 1773.30 48.45%Sturgeon Creek 13.49 33.34 0.33%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Marsh Wetland 889.96 2199.15 5.32%Atwell Drain

Swamp

0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 29.00 71.67 0.39%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 1.16 2.88 0.14%Point Pelee 40.27 99.51 2.72%Sturgeon Creek 7.72 19.09 0.19%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Swamp Wetland 78.16 193.14 0.47%


Watershed Type Ha Ac PercentAtwell Drain


0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 184.76 456.54 2.49%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 4.25 10.51 0.50%Point Pelee 757.90 1872.81 51.16%Sturgeon Creek 21.22 52.43 0.51%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 968.13 2392.29 5.78%Atwell Drain

All Wetlands(Open Water + Marsh + Swamp)

0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 362.90 896.73 4.89%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 10.74 26.53 1.27%Point Pelee 1083.49 2677.37 73.15%Sturgeon Creek 55.89 138.11 1.36%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 1513.02 3738.75 9.04%


Atwell Drain


17.29 42.72 3.21%East Marsh 12.46 30.79 2.51%Hillman Marsh 651.23 1609.22 8.78%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 53.65 132.57 6.33%Point Pelee 1371.74 3389.65 92.60%Sturgeon Creek 137.76 340.41 3.34%West Marsh 1.62 4.01 0.11%Total Natural Area 2245.75 5549.37 13.41%




Ha Ac PercentAtwell Drain

100

0.02 0.06 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 18.13 44.80 0.24%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 1.32 3.26 0.16%Point Pelee 76.62 189.33 5.17%Sturgeon Creek 0.18 0.45 0.00%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Total 100 m Interior Forest 96.28 237.92 0.58%Atwell Drain

200

0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 1.38 3.41 0.02%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Point Pelee 24.24 59.89 1.64%Sturgeon Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%




Ha Ac Ha AcAtwell Drain 6.50 16.07 9.66 23.87East Marsh 1.62 4.01 1.62 4.01Hillman Marsh 41.03 101.40 65.52 161.91Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Muddy Creek 13.57 33.54 56.97 140.77Point Pelee 186.20 460.12 214.68 530.48Sturgeon Creek 9.01 22.26 16.37 40.44West Marsh 1.62 4.01 4.89 12.08




Ha Ac Ha AcAtwell Drain 6.50 16.07 9.66 23.87East Marsh 1.62 4.01 781.05 1930.03Hillman Marsh 347.73 859.25 379.68 938.20Marentette 0.75 1.85 781.05 1930.03Muddy Creek 29.15 72.03 164.22 405.79Point Pelee 1246.32 3079.73 1276.42 3154.11Sturgeon Creek 65.22 161.16 244.20 603.44West Marsh 3.79 9.37 50.98 125.98




within 30 mBuffer

% ofRiparianHabitat

Ha Ac Ha Ac

Atwell Drain 63.27 156.34 2.37 5.85 3.74%East Marsh 78.66 194.38 0.01 0.02 0.01%Hillman Marsh 693.56 1713.82 68.86 170.15 9.93%Marentette 11.78 29.10 0.00 0.01 0.04%Muddy Creek 83.75 206.94 12.93 31.94 15.43%Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%Sturgeon Creek 385.65 952.96 36.69 90.67 9.51%West Marsh 153.56 379.46 2.65 6.55 1.73%Total 1470.22 3633.00 123.51 305.20 8.40%


Stream Order



RiparianForest (m)

% RiparianForest

Atwell Drain

1 299.87 7807.77 3.84% 7443.78 95.34%2 0.00 3329.01 0.00% 3293.04 98.92%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 299.87 11136.78 2.69% 10736.83 96.41%

East Marsh

1 0.00 10412.34 0.00% 0.00 0.00%2 0.00 3203.98 0.00% 0.00 0.00%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 0.00 13616.32 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

Hillman Marsh

1 4529.19 71473.13 6.34% 66750.30 93.39%2 3682.08 30916.98 11.91% 25640.11 82.93%3 6272.60 15166.47 41.36% 9090.53 59.94%

1 to 3 14483.87 117556.58 12.32% 101480.94 86.33%

Marentette

1 0.00 1209.30 0.00% 0.00 0.00%2 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 0.00 1209.30 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

Muddy Creek

1 234.94 10338.92 2.27% 10049.04 97.20%2 2024.91 3262.06 62.07% 1331.44 40.82%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 2259.85 13600.98 16.62% 11380.48 83.67%

Point Pelee

1 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%2 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

Sturgeon Creek

1 2992.90 38411.79 7.79% 27827.93 72.45%2 221.29 12854.54 1.72% 8705.75 67.73%3 4639.21 14335.67 32.36% 8289.41 57.82%

1 to 3 7853.40 65602.00 11.97% 44823.09 68.33%

West Marsh

1 21.39 20755.71 0.10% 17698.65 85.27%2 0.00 7375.07 0.00% 7313.11 99.16%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 21.39 28130.78 0.08% 25011.76 88.91%Total 24918.38 250852.74 9.93% 193433.10 77.11%



Atwell Drain 53.30 131.71 84.24%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 564.23 1394.25 81.35%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 69.04 170.61 82.45%Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00%Sturgeon Creek 242.59 599.46 62.90%West Marsh 110.05 271.93 71.66%Total 1039.21 2567.95 70.68%


Atwell Drain 4.23 10.46 0.79%East Marsh* 479.67 0.00 96.75%Hillman Marsh 267.31 660.53 3.60%Marentette* 287.74 711.02 92.43%Muddy Creek 68.16 168.43 8.05%Point Pelee 0.00 0.00 0.00%Sturgeon Creek 112.40 277.73 2.73%West Marsh 9.56 23.62 0.63%Total 1229.06 1851.79 7.34%



Atwell Drain 0.09 0.22 0.02% 0.07 0.16 0.01%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 59.38 146.74 0.80% 41.25 101.93 0.56%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 9.59 23.69 1.13% 8.27 20.43 0.98%Point Pelee 57.72 142.63 3.90% -18.90 -46.70 -1.28%Sturgeon Creek 2.66 6.57 0.06% 2.47 6.11 0.06%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total 129.44 319.85 0.77% 33.16 81.94 0.20%




Atwell Drain 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%East Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Hillman Marsh 12.92 31.94 0.17% 11.55 28.53 0.16%Marentette 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Muddy Creek 0.31 0.76 0.04% 0.31 0.76 0.04%Point Pelee 30.97 76.52 2.09% 6.73 16.63 0.45%Sturgeon Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%West Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total 44.20 109.21 0.26% 18.58 45.91 0.11%








148

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

Atw

ell D

rain

Fore

st*

17.2

942

.72

3.21

%3.

508.

660.

65%

20.7

951

.38

3.87

%Ea

st M

arsh

12.4

630

.79

2.51

%0.

000.

000.

00%

12.4

630

.79

2.51

%H

illman

Mar

sh31

7.34

784.

164.

28%

84.0

620

7.73

1.13

%40

1.40

991.

895.

41%

Mar

ente

tte0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

Mud

dy C

reek

44.0

710

8.91

5.20

%13

.38

33.0

51.

58%

57.4

514

1.96

6.78

%Po

int P

elee

328.

5281

1.79

22.1

8%3.

278.

080.

22%

331.

7981

9.87

22.4

0%St

urge

on C

reek

89.5

922

1.38

2.17

%38

.03

93.9

80.

92%

127.

6231

5.36

3.09

%W

est M

arsh

1.62

4.01

0.11

%4.

8411

.96

0.32

%6.

4615

.97

0.42

%To

tal F

ores

t Cov

er81

0.89

2003

.76

4.84

%14

7.09

363.

460.

88%

957.

9823

67.2

25.

72%

Atw

ell D

rain

Wet

land

**/

Wet

land

Buffe

rs(2

40 m

)

0.00

0.00

0.00

%4.

2310

.46

0.79

%4.

2310

.46

0.79

%Ea

st M

arsh

0.00

0.00

0.00

%47

9.67

1185

.29

96.7

5%47

9.67

1185

.29

96.7

5%H

illman

Mar

sh33

3.89

825.

064.

50%

267.

3166

0.53

3.60

%60

1.20

1485

.59

8.11

%M

aren

tette

0.00

0.00

0.00

%28

7.74

711.

0292

.43%

287.

7471

1.02

92.4

3%M

uddy

Cre

ek9.

5723

.66

1.13

%68

.16

168.

438.

05%

77.7

319

2.08

9.18

%Po

int P

elee

1043

.22

2577

.86

70.4

3%0.

000.

000.

00%

1043

.22

2577

.86

70.4

3%St

urge

on C

reek

48.1

711

9.03

1.17

%11

2.40

277.

732.

73%

160.

5639

6.76

3.89

%W

est M

arsh

0.00

0.00

0.00

%9.

5623

.62

0.63

%9.

5623

.62

0.63

%To

tal W

etla

nd14

34.8

635

45.6

18.

57%

1229

.06

3037

.08

7.34

%26

63.9

265

82.6

915

.91%

Atw

ell D

rain

Rip

aria

n

2.37

5.85

3.74

%53

.30

131.

7184

.24%

55.6

713

7.56

87.9

9%Ea

st M

arsh

0.01

0.02

0.01

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.01

0.02

0.01

%H

illman

Mar

sh68

.86

170.

159.

93%

564.

2313

94.2

581

.35%

633.

0915

64.4

091

.28%

Mar

ente

tte0.

000.

010.

04%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

010.

04%

Mud

dy C

reek

12.9

331

.94

15.4

3%69

.04

170.

6182

.45%

81.9

720

2.55

97.8

8%Po

int P

elee

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%St

urge

on C

reek

36.6

990

.67

9.51

%24

2.59

599.

4662

.90%

279.

2969

0.13

72.4

2%

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

149

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Wes

t Mar

sh2.

656.

551.

73%

110.

0527

1.93

71.6

6%11

2.70

278.

4973

.39%

Tota

l Rip

aria

n12

3.51

305.

208.

40%

1039

.21

2567

.95

70.6

8%11

62.7

228

73.1

679

.09%

Atw

ell D

rain

Oth

erU

plan

d***

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%Ea

st M

arsh

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%H

illman

Mar

sh0.

000.

000.

00%

21.9

354

.19

0.30

%21

.93

54.1

90.

30%

Mar

ente

tte0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

Mud

dy C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%9.

2822

.93

1.10

%9.

2822

.93

1.10

%Po

int P

elee

0.00

0.00

0.00

%1.

303.

200.

09%

1.30

3.20

0.09

%St

urge

on C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%2.

275.

610.

06%

2.27

5.61

0.06

%W

est M

arsh

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%To

tal O

ther

Upl

and

0.00

0.00

0.00

%34

.78

85.9

40.

21%

34.7

885

.94

0.21

%At

wel

l Dra

in

All T

ypes

17.2

942

.72

3.21

%61

.04

150.

8211

.35%

78.3

319

3.55

14.5

6%Ea

st M

arsh

12.4

630

.79

2.51

%47

9.67

1185

.29

96.7

5%49

2.13

1216

.08

99.2

6%H

illman

Mar

sh65

1.23

1609

.22

8.78

%93

7.53

2316

.70

12.6

4%15

88.7

639

25.9

221

.42%

Mar

ente

tte0.

000.

000.

00%

287.

7471

1.02

92.4

3%28

7.74

711.

0292

.43%

Mud

dy C

reek

53.6

513

2.57

6.33

%15

9.86

395.

0218

.87%

213.

5152

7.59

25.2

0%Po

int P

elee

1371

.74

3389

.65

92.6

0%4.

5611

.28

0.31

%13

76.3

134

00.9

392

.91%

Stur

geon

Cre

ek13

7.76

340.

413.

34%

395.

2997

6.78

9.58

%53

3.05

1317

.19

12.9

2%W

est M

arsh

1.62

4.01

0.11

%12

4.45

307.

528.

14%

126.

0731

1.52

8.25

%To

tal N

atur

al A

rea

2245

.75

5549

.37

13.4

1%24

50.1

460

54.4

414

.63%

4695

.89

1160

3.80

28.0

5%* F

ores

t = U

plan

d +

Swam

p**

Wet

land

= M

arsh

+ O

pen

Wat

er**

* Oth

er U

plan

d =

Nat

ural

Suc

cess

ion,

Mea

dow

s, P

rairi

e, S

hrub

Thi

cket

s, P

lant

atio

ns


Appendix VI: Greater Detroit River Detailed GIS Analyses




Detroit River 12249.39 30268.90 20.65%Little River 6737.26 16648.14 11.36%River Canard 34257.95 84653.24 57.75%Turkey Creek 6080.61 15025.53 10.25%Total Study Area 59325.22 146595.82 100.00%


Detroit River

Upland

320.78 792.66 2.62%Little River 164.87 407.41 2.45%River Canard 1536.85 3797.64 4.49%Turkey Creek 620.77 1533.96 10.21%Total Upland Forest 2643.27 6531.67 4.46%Detroit River

Swamp

0.00 0.00 0.00%Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06%River Canard 17.65 43.62 0.05%Turkey Creek 0.69 1.70 0.01%Total Swamp Forest 22.31 55.12 0.04%Detroit River

Upland + Swamp

320.78 792.66 2.62%Little River 168.84 417.21 2.51%River Canard 1554.50 3841.26 4.54%Turkey Creek 621.46 1535.66 10.22%Total Forest Cover 2665.58 6586.80 4.49%



Detroit River

Open Water

468.72 1158.23 3.83%Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00%River Canard 51.36 126.92 0.15%Turkey Creek 5.94 14.68 0.10%Total Open Water Wetland 526.02 1299.82 0.89%Detroit River

Marsh

216.58 535.18 1.77%Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00%River Canard 137.76 340.40 0.40%Turkey Creek 16.52 40.83 0.27%Total Marsh Wetland 370.86 916.41 0.63%Detroit River

Swamp

0.00 0.00 0.00%Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06%River Canard 17.65 43.62 0.05%Turkey Creek 0.69 1.70 0.01%Total Swamp Wetland 22.31 55.12 0.04%Detroit River


216.58 535.18 1.77%Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06%River Canard 155.41 384.02 0.45%Turkey Creek 17.21 42.53 0.28%Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 393.17 971.53 0.66%Detroit River


685.30 1693.40 5.59%Little River 3.97 9.80 0.06%River Canard 206.77 510.94 0.60%Turkey Creek 23.15 57.21 0.38%Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 919.19 2271.36 1.55%


Detroit River


1006.07 2486.07 8.21%Little River 168.84 417.21 2.51%River Canard 1743.62 4308.58 5.09%Turkey Creek 643.93 1591.18 10.59%Total Natural Area 3562.46 8803.03 6.01%




Ha Ac PercentDetroit River

100

22.20 54.86 0.18%Little River 2.97 7.33 0.04%River Canard 125.27 309.56 0.37%Turkey Creek 48.54 119.95 0.80%

Total 100 m Interior Forest 198.98 491.69 0.34%Detroit River

200

6.27 15.49 0.05%Little River 0.00 0.00 0.00%River Canard 11.53 28.49 0.03%Turkey Creek 7.73 19.10 0.13%




Ha Ac Ha AcDetroit River 62.41 154.22 123.21 304.46Little River 24.49 60.50 59.62 147.33River Canard 57.22 141.39 179.01 442.35Turkey Creek 62.41 154.22 156.20 385.97



Ha Ac Ha AcDetroit River 372.33 920.05 376.90 931.35Little River 24.41 60.32 59.62 147.33River Canard 63.18 156.12 179.01 442.35Turkey Creek 62.41 154.22 156.20 385.97



Forested RiparianHabitat within 30 m

Buffer% of

RiparianHabitat

Ha Ac Ha Ac

Detroit River 217.23 536.79 12.78 31.59 5.88%Little River 559.95 1383.65 23.81 58.84 4.25%River Canard 2494.63 6164.36 259.58 641.43 10.41%Turkey Creek 449.28 1110.20 61.35 151.60 13.66%Total 3721.09 9195.00 357.52 883.46 9.61%


Stream Order



RiparianForest (m)

% RiparianForest

Detroit River

1 2137.94 30427.71 7.03% 27940.14 91.82%2 605.82 7772.59 7.79% 7166.77 92.21%3 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%

1 to 3 2743.75 38200.30 7.18% 35106.91 91.90%

Little River

1 2199.19 52621.46 4.18% 50833.28 96.60%2 463.94 24226.96 1.92% 23763.02 98.09%3 55.43 12021.93 0.46% 11946.76 99.37%

1 to 3 2718.56 88870.35 3.06% 86543.06 97.38%

River Canard

1 9479.06 217207.00 4.36% 207970.80 95.75%2 10389.16 120108.60 8.65% 108453.90 90.30%3 9152.82 30551.69 29.96% 23632.38 77.35%

1 to 3 29021.04 367867.29 7.89% 340057.08 92.44%

Turkey Creek

1 4323.44 37088.17 11.66% 29943.39 80.74%2 4730.18 27033.46 17.50% 22772.48 84.24%3 1161.18 9127.85 12.72% 8251.24 90.40%

1 to 3 10214.79 73249.48 13.95% 60967.11 83.23%Total 44698.14 568187.42 7.87% 522674.16 91.99%


Detroit River 193.75 478.77 89.19%Little River 536.13 1324.82 95.75%River Canard 2047.97 5060.64 82.10%Turkey Creek 353.18 872.73 78.61%Total 3131.04 7736.96 84.14%

Restoration Opportunities - Wetland Buffers (240 m)Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent





Detroit River 64.97 160.54 0.53% 42.77 105.68 0.35%Little River 16.00 39.55 0.24% 13.04 32.22 0.19%River Canard 254.01 627.67 0.74% 128.74 318.11 0.38%Turkey Creek 114.37 282.63 1.88% 65.83 162.68 1.08%Total 449.36 1110.39 0.76% 250.38 618.70 0.42%



Detroit River 18.80 46.46 0.15% 12.53 30.96 0.10%Little River 3.18 7.86 0.05% 3.18 7.86 0.05%River Canard 67.20 166.04 0.20% 55.66 137.55 0.16%Turkey Creek 30.08 74.32 0.49% 22.35 55.22 0.37%Total 119.25 294.68 0.20% 93.72 231.59 0.16%







155

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

Det

roit

Riv

er

Fore

st*

320.

7879

2.66

2.62

%41

.23

101.

890.

34%

362.

0189

4.55

2.96

%Li

ttle

Riv

er16

8.84

417.

212.

51%

10.5

025

.95

0.16

%17

9.34

443.

162.

66%

Riv

er C

anar

d15

54.5

038

41.2

64.

54%

98.2

724

2.84

0.29

%16

52.7

840

84.1

14.

82%

Turk

ey C

reek

621.

4615

35.6

610

.22%

30.9

576

.47

0.51

%65

2.41

1612

.13

10.7

3%To

tal F

ores

t Cov

er26

65.5

865

86.8

04.

49%

180.

9644

7.15

0.31

%28

46.5

470

33.9

54.

80%

Det

roit

Riv

erW

etla

nd**

/W

etla

ndBu

ffers

(240

m)

685.

3016

93.4

05.

59%

328.

1581

0.88

2.68

%10

13.4

525

04.2

88.

27%

Littl

e R

iver

0.00

0.00

0.00

%14

.50

35.8

30.

22%

14.5

035

.83

0.22

%R

iver

Can

ard

189.

1246

7.32

0.55

%73

7.98

1823

.60

2.15

%92

7.10

2290

.92

2.71

%Tu

rkey

Cre

ek22

.47

55.5

10.

37%

166.

3341

1.01

2.74

%18

8.79

466.

523.

10%

Tota

l Wet

land

896.

8822

16.2

31.

51%

1246

.96

3081

.31

2.10

%21

43.8

452

97.5

53.

61%

Det

roit

Riv

er

Rip

aria

n

12.7

831

.59

5.88

%19

3.75

478.

7789

.19%

206.

5351

0.36

95.0

8%Li

ttle

Riv

er23

.81

58.8

44.

25%

536.

1313

24.8

295

.75%

559.

9513

83.6

610

0.00

%R

iver

Can

ard

259.

5864

1.43

10.4

1%20

47.9

750

60.6

482

.10%

2307

.55

5702

.07

92.5

0%Tu

rkey

Cre

ek61

.35

151.

6013

.66%

353.

1887

2.73

78.6

1%41

4.53

1024

.33

92.2

7%To

tal R

ipar

ian

357.

5288

3.46

9.61

%31

31.0

477

36.9

684

.14%

3488

.56

8620

.42

93.7

5%D

etro

it R

iver

Oth

erU

plan

d***

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%Li

ttle

Riv

er0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

Riv

er C

anar

d0.

000.

000.

00%

50.2

312

4.13

0.15

%50

.23

124.

130.

15%

Turk

ey C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%To

tal O

ther

Upl

and

0.00

0.00

0.00

%50

.23

124.

130.

08%

50.2

312

4.13

0.08

%D

etro

it R

iver

All T

ypes

1006

.07

2486

.07

8.21

%56

3.13

1391

.53

4.60

%15

69.2

138

77.6

012

.81%

Littl

e R

iver

168.

8441

7.21

2.51

%56

1.14

1386

.60

8.33

%72

9.98

1803

.81

10.8

3%R

iver

Can

ard

1743

.62

4308

.58

5.09

%29

34.4

672

51.2

18.

57%

4678

.08

1155

9.79

13.6

6%Tu

rkey

Cre

ek64

3.93

1591

.18

10.5

9%55

0.46

1360

.20

9.05

%11

94.3

829

51.3

819

.64%

Tota

l Nat

ural

Are

a35

62.4

688

03.0

36.

01%

4609

.19

1138

9.55

7.77

%81

71.6

520

192.

5813

.77%

* For

est =

Upl

and

+ Sw

amp

** W

etla

nd =

Mar

sh +

Ope

n W

ater

*** O

ther

Upl

and

= N

atur

al S

ucce

ssio

n, M

eado

ws,

Pra

irie,

Shr

ub T

hick

ets,

Pla

ntat

ions


Appendix VII: Lake Erie Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses




Big Creek 7174.18 17727.79 21.66%Colchester Drains 3859.20 9536.29 11.65%Fox/Dolson Creek 1288.51 3183.98 3.89%Cedar Creek 13175.97 32558.53 39.78%Wigle Creek 3061.32 7564.69 9.24%Mill Creek 2214.08 5471.11 6.69%Kingsville Drains 2345.47 5795.78 7.08%Total Study Area 33118.73 81838.17 100.00%


Big Creek

Upland

494.72 1222.48 6.90%Colchester Drains 189.70 468.75 4.92%Fox/Dolson Creek 106.97 264.34 8.30%Cedar Creek 1307.17 3230.10 9.92%Wigle Creek 236.74 585.00 7.73%Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45%Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85%Total Upland Forest 2638.67 6520.30 7.97%Big Creek

Swamp

45.32 111.99 0.63%Colchester Drains 8.80 21.76 0.23%Fox/Dolson Creek 6.46 15.97 0.50%Cedar Creek 1.17 2.90 0.01%Wigle Creek 2.10 5.20 0.07%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Swamp Forest 63.86 157.81 0.19%


Sub-watershed Type Ha Ac PercentBig Creek

Upland + Swamp

540.04 1334.47 7.53%Colchester Drains 198.50 490.50 5.14%Fox/Dolson Creek 113.44 280.31 8.80%Cedar Creek 1308.35 3233.00 9.93%Wigle Creek 238.85 590.20 7.80%Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45%Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85%Total Forest Cover 2702.54 6678.12 8.16%


Big Creek

Open Water

583.46 1441.77 8.13%Colchester Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Fox/Dolson Creek 10.89 26.90 0.84%Cedar Creek 129.83 320.83 0.99%Wigle Creek 11.44 28.27 0.37%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Open Water Wetland 735.62 1817.77 2.22%Big Creek

Marsh

114.62 283.24 1.60%Colchester Drains 7.38 18.25 0.19%Fox/Dolson Creek 3.27 8.07 0.25%Cedar Creek 3.52 8.69 0.03%Wigle Creek 3.54 8.74 0.12%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Marsh Wetland 132.33 326.99 0.40%Big Creek

Swamp

45.32 111.99 0.63%Colchester Drains 8.80 21.76 0.23%Fox/Dolson Creek 6.46 15.97 0.50%Cedar Creek 1.17 2.90 0.01%Wigle Creek 2.10 5.20 0.07%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Swamp Wetland 63.86 157.81 0.19%


Watershed Type Ha Ac PercentBig Creek


159.94 395.23 2.23%Colchester Drains 16.19 40.00 0.42%Fox/Dolson Creek 9.73 24.04 0.76%Cedar Creek 4.69 11.59 0.04%Wigle Creek 5.64 13.94 0.18%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 196.19 484.80 0.59%Big Creek


743.41 1837.00 10.36%Colchester Drains 16.19 40.00 0.42%Fox/Dolson Creek 20.62 50.94 1.60%Cedar Creek 134.52 332.42 1.02%Wigle Creek 17.08 42.21 0.56%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 931.82 2302.57 2.81%


Big Creek


1238.13 3059.48 17.26%Colchester Drains 205.88 508.75 5.33%Fox/Dolson Creek 127.59 315.28 9.90%Cedar Creek 1441.70 3562.51 10.94%Wigle Creek 253.82 627.22 8.29%Mill Creek 142.77 352.78 6.45%Kingsville Drains 160.60 396.85 6.85%Total Natural Area 3570.49 8822.87 10.78%




Ha Ac PercentBig Creek

100

21.96 54.27 0.31%Colchester Drains 13.24 32.71 0.34%Fox/Dolson Creek 12.40 30.65 0.96%Cedar Creek 179.55 443.67 1.36%Wigle Creek 12.17 30.07 0.40%Mill Creek 3.73 9.21 0.17%Kingsville Drains 0.53 1.31 0.02%

Total 100 m Interior Forest 243.58 601.90 0.74%Big Creek

200

0.58 1.43 0.01%Colchester Drains 2.53 6.24 0.07%Fox/Dolson Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Cedar Creek 30.17 74.56 0.23%Wigle Creek 0.46 1.14 0.02%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00%




Ha Ac Ha AcBig Creek 61.21 151.26 191.58 473.40Colchester Drains 38.55 95.26 72.85 180.02Fox/Dolson Creek 42.93 106.09 42.93 106.08Cedar Creek 90.93 224.70 132.81 328.18Wigle Creek 42.09 104.00 42.09 104.01

Mill Creek 17.75 43.86 17.75 43.86Kingsville Drains 19.86 49.08 19.86 49.08



Ha Ac Ha AcBig Creek 572.11 1413.72 1504.30 3717.20Colchester Drains 38.55 95.26 98.56 243.55Fox/Dolson Creek 42.93 106.09 230.36 569.24Cedar Creek 306.79 758.10 636.08 1571.80Wigle Creek 42.09 104.00 98.33 242.97Mill Creek 14.75 36.45 69.09 170.72Kingsville Drains 19.86 49.08 42.06 103.94





within 30 mBuffer

% ofRiparianHabitat

Ha Ac Ha Ac

Big Creek 681.36 1683.67 48.55 119.96 7.12%Colchester Drains 293.75 725.87 6.68 16.51 2.28%Fox/Dolson Creek 96.39 238.18 11.38 28.12 11.80%Cedar Creek 1314.54 3248.29 163.09 403.01 12.41%Wigle Creek 322.55 797.03 30.74 75.97 9.53%Mill Creek 235.10 580.94 27.07 66.88 11.51%Kingsville Drains 215.78 533.20 28.05 69.32 13.00%Total 3159.46 7807.19 315.56 779.78 9.99%

Stream Order



RiparianForest (m)

% RiparianForest

Big Creek

1 4030.67 76806.27 5.25% 52277.72 68.06%2 2643.10 38796.91 6.81% 19531.37 50.34%3 1948.34 12351.66 15.77% 1278.90 10.35%

1 to 3 8622.10 127954.84 6.74% 73087.99 57.12%

Colchester Drains

1 432.50 29685.86 1.46% 26076.63 87.84%2 649.11 15057.64 4.31% 13514.33 89.75%3 0.00 2328.05 0.00% 2303.39 98.94%

1 to 3 1081.62 47071.55 2.30% 41894.35 89.00%

Fox/Dolson Creek

1 1121.86 7978.36 14.06% 6161.55 77.23%2 208.86 3037.86 6.88% 1809.76 59.57%3 428.24 6103.93 7.02% 4346.38 71.21%

1 to 3 1758.95 17120.15 10.27% 12317.69 71.95%

Cedar Creek

1 7314.42 126666.30 5.77% 111680.00 88.17%2 4080.22 46269.60 8.82% 35166.15 76.00%3 6540.97 24915.97 26.25% 18023.98 72.34%

1 to 3 17935.60 197851.87 9.07% 164870.13 83.33%

Wigle Creek

1 482.09 24915.30 1.93% 22672.01 91.00%2 754.88 11463.32 6.59% 10623.10 92.67%3 2967.56 13536.10 21.92% 10244.30 75.68%

1 to 3 4204.53 49914.72 8.42% 43539.41 87.23%


Stream Order



RiparianForest (m)

% RiparianForest

Mill Creek

1 1245.21 14390.60 8.65% 13046.01 90.66%2 635.44 13667.04 4.65% 12627.06 92.39%3 1583.47 6195.73 25.56% 3967.43 64.03%

1 to 3 3464.12 34253.37 10.11% 29640.50 86.53%

Kingsville Drains

1 2272.48 20008.47 11.36% 17017.44 85.05%2 3157.29 8854.58 35.66% 4896.02 55.29%3 403.77 5655.44 7.14% 5199.98 91.95%

1 to 3 5833.54 34518.49 16.90% 27113.44 78.55%Total 42900.46 508684.98 8.43% 392463.50 77.15%


Big Creek 443.27 1095.34 65.06%Colchester Drains 237.67 587.30 80.91%Fox/Dolson Creek 71.84 177.51 74.53%Cedar Creek 815.04 2014.01 62.00%Wigle Creek 235.49 581.92 73.01%Mill Creek 175.97 434.84 74.85%Kingsville Drains 148.50 366.95 68.82%Total 2127.78 5257.86 67.35%





Sub-watershedResulting Area After Restoration Increase In Original ExtentHa Ac Percent Ha Ac Percent

Big Creek 104.37 257.90 1.45% 82.41 203.64 1.15%Colchester Drains 14.03 34.67 0.36% 0.79 1.96 0.02%Fox/Dolson Creek 12.41 30.66 0.96% 0.01 0.01 0.00%Cedar Creek 291.65 720.68 2.21% 112.10 277.01 0.85%Wigle Creek 12.11 29.91 0.40% -0.07 -0.16 0.00%Mill Creek 3.74 9.25 0.17% 0.02 0.04 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.77 1.91 0.03% 0.24 0.60 0.01%Total 439.08 1084.98 1.33% 195.50 483.09 0.59%



Big Creek 46.68 115.34 0.65% 46.10 113.91 0.64%Colchester Drains 4.26 10.53 0.11% 1.74 4.29 0.05%Fox/Dolson Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Cedar Creek 121.74 300.82 0.92% 91.57 226.26 0.69%Wigle Creek 0.47 1.15 0.02% 0.00 0.01 0.00%Mill Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Kingsville Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total 173.14 427.85 0.52% 139.40 344.48 0.42%








164

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

Big

Cre

ek

Fore

st*

540.

0413

34.4

77.

53%

176.

0443

4.99

2.45

%71

6.08

1769

.47

9.98

%C

olch

este

r Dra

ins

198.

5049

0.50

5.14

%1.

493.

690.

04%

199.

9949

4.19

5.18

%Fo

x/D

olso

n C

reek

113.

4428

0.31

8.80

%0.

000.

000.

00%

113.

4428

0.31

8.80

%C

edar

Cre

ek13

08.3

532

33.0

09.

93%

158.

5639

1.81

1.20

%14

66.9

136

24.8

111

.13%

Wig

le C

reek

238.

8559

0.20

7.80

%0.

000.

000.

00%

238.

8559

0.20

7.80

%M

ill C

reek

142.

7735

2.78

6.45

%0.

000.

000.

00%

142.

7735

2.78

6.45

%Ki

ngsv

ille D

rain

s16

0.60

396.

856.

85%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%16

0.60

396.

856.

85%

Tota

l For

est C

over

2702

.54

6678

.12

8.16

%33

6.09

830.

491.

01%

3038

.63

7508

.61

9.17

%Bi

g C

reek

Wet

land

**/

Wet

land

Buffe

rs(2

40 m

)

698.

0917

25.0

19.

73%

782.

1919

32.8

310

.90%

1480

.28

3657

.84

20.6

3%C

olch

este

r Dra

ins

7.38

18.2

50.

19%

32.8

381

.12

0.85

%40

.21

99.3

71.

04%

Fox/

Dol

son

Cre

ek14

.15

34.9

71.

10%

90.5

922

3.86

7.03

%10

4.75

258.

838.

13%

Ced

ar C

reek

133.

3532

9.52

1.01

%29

4.95

728.

842.

24%

428.

3010

58.3

53.

25%

Wig

le C

reek

14.9

837

.01

0.49

%50

.16

123.

951.

64%

65.1

416

0.96

2.13

%M

ill C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%Ki

ngsv

ille D

rain

s0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

Tota

l Wet

land

867.

9521

44.7

62.

62%

1250

.72

3090

.60

3.78

%21

18.6

752

35.3

66.

40%

Big

Cre

ek

Rip

aria

n

48.5

511

9.96

7.12

%44

3.27

1095

.34

65.0

6%49

1.82

1215

.30

72.1

8%C

olch

este

r Dra

ins

6.68

16.5

12.

28%

237.

6758

7.30

80.9

1%24

4.35

603.

8183

.18%

Fox/

Dol

son

Cre

ek11

.38

28.1

211

.80%

71.8

417

7.51

74.5

3%83

.21

205.

6386

.33%

Ced

ar C

reek

163.

0940

3.01

12.4

1%81

5.04

2014

.01

62.0

0%97

8.13

2417

.02

74.4

1%W

igle

Cre

ek30

.74

75.9

79.

53%

235.

4958

1.92

73.0

1%26

6.24

657.

8982

.54%

Mill

Cre

ek27

.07

66.8

811

.51%

175.

9743

4.84

74.8

5%20

3.04

501.

7286

.36%

King

sville

Dra

ins

28.0

569

.32

13.0

0%14

8.50

366.

9568

.82%

176.

5543

6.27

81.8

2%To

tal R

ipar

ian

315.

5677

9.78

9.99

%21

27.7

852

57.8

667

.35%

2443

.35

6037

.64

77.3

3%

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

165

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Big

Cre

ek

Oth

erU

plan

d***

0.00

0.00

0.00

%5.

7014

.09

0.08

%5.

7014

.09

0.08

%C

olch

este

r Dra

ins

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%Fo

x/D

olso

n C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%1.

804.

440.

14%

1.80

4.44

0.14

%C

edar

Cre

ek0.

000.

000.

00%

31.4

877

.78

0.24

%31

.48

77.7

80.

24%

Wig

le C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%M

ill C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

801.

960.

04%

0.80

1.96

0.04

%Ki

ngsv

ille D

rain

s0.

000.

000.

00%

3.47

8.56

0.15

%3.

478.

560.

15%

Tota

l Oth

er U

plan

d0.

000.

000.

00%

43.2

310

6.83

0.13

%43

.23

106.

830.

13%

Big

Cre

ek

All T

ypes

1238

.13

3059

.48

17.2

6%14

07.2

034

77.2

619

.61%

2645

.32

6536

.74

36.8

7%C

olch

este

r Dra

ins

205.

8850

8.75

5.33

%27

1.99

672.

117.

05%

477.

8811

80.8

612

.38%

Fox/

Dol

son

Cre

ek12

7.59

315.

289.

90%

164.

2240

5.80

12.7

5%29

1.81

721.

0822

.65%

Ced

ar C

reek

1441

.70

3562

.51

10.9

4%13

00.0

232

12.4

39.

87%

2741

.72

6774

.94

20.8

1%W

igle

Cre

ek25

3.82

627.

228.

29%

285.

6570

5.87

9.33

%53

9.48

1333

.08

17.6

2%M

ill C

reek

142.

7735

2.78

6.45

%17

6.77

436.

807.

98%

319.

5378

9.58

14.4

3%Ki

ngsv

ille D

rain

s16

0.60

396.

856.

85%

151.

9737

5.52

6.48

%31

2.57

772.

3713

.33%

Tota

l Nat

ural

Are

a35

70.4

988

22.8

710

.78%

3757

.82

9285

.79

11.3

5%73

28.3

118

108.

6622

.13%

* For

est =

Upl

and

+ Sw

amp

** W

etla

nd =

Mar

sh +

Ope

n W

ater

*** O

ther

Upl

and

= N

atur

al S

ucce

ssio

n, M

eado

ws,

Pra

irie,

Shr

ub T

hick

ets,

Pla

ntat

ions


Appendix VIII: Lake St. Clair Study Area Detailed GIS Analyses




Pike Creek 9927.12 24530.45 16.49%Puce River 9166.87 22651.83 15.23%Belle River 11973.00 29585.93 19.89%Duck & Moison Creek 4204.39 10389.28 6.98%Ruscom River 19452.87 48069.09 32.31%Little Creek 5483.34 13549.63 9.11%Total Study Area 60207.59 148776.21 100.00%



Pike Creek

Upland

346.66 856.62 3.49%Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48%Belle River 445.42 1100.65 3.72%Duck & Moison Creek 31.83 78.66 0.76%Ruscom River 396.28 979.24 2.04%Little Creek 17.30 42.75 0.32%Total Upland Forest 1556.19 3845.42 2.58%Pike Creek

Swamp

0.00 0.00 0.00%Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Belle River 10.96 27.07 0.09%Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Ruscom River 0.87 2.16 0.00%Little Creek 0.64 1.59 0.01%Total Swamp Forest 12.47 30.82 0.02%Pike Creek

Upland + Swamp

346.66 856.62 3.49%Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48%Belle River 456.37 1127.73 3.81%Duck & Moison Creek 31.83 78.66 0.76%Ruscom River 397.16 981.39 2.04%Little Creek 17.94 44.34 0.33%Total Forest Cover 1568.66 3876.24 2.61%



Pike Creek

Open Water

11.86 29.32 0.12%Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Belle River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Ruscom River 0.30 0.74 0.00%Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total Open Water Wetland 12.16 30.06 0.02%Pike Creek

Marsh

1.73 4.27 0.02%Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Belle River 7.58 18.72 0.06%Duck & Moison Creek 1.10 2.72 0.03%Ruscom River 26.45 65.35 0.14%Little Creek 20.98 51.85 0.38%Total Marsh Wetland 57.83 142.91 0.10%Pike Creek

Swamp

0.00 0.00 0.00%Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Belle River 10.96 27.07 0.09%Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Ruscom River 0.87 2.16 0.00%Little Creek 0.64 1.59 0.01%Total Swamp Wetland 12.47 30.82 0.02%

Watershed Type Ha Ac PercentPike Creek


1.73 4.27 0.02%Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Belle River 18.53 45.80 0.15%Duck & Moison Creek 1.10 2.72 0.03%Ruscom River 27.32 67.50 0.14%Little Creek 21.62 53.43 0.39%Total Vegetated Wetland (Marsh + Swamp) 70.30 173.72 0.12%Pike Creek

All Wetlands(Open Water + Marsh +

Swamp)

13.59 33.58 0.14%Puce River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Belle River 18.53 45.80 0.15%Duck & Moison Creek 1.10 2.72 0.03%Ruscom River 27.62 68.25 0.14%Little Creek 21.62 53.43 0.39%Total Wetland (Open Water + Marsh + Swamp) 82.47 203.78 0.14%



Pike Creek


360.25 890.21 3.63%Puce River 318.69 787.50 3.48%Belle River 463.95 1146.45 3.88%Duck & Moison Creek 32.93 81.38 0.78%Ruscom River 423.90 1047.48 2.18%Little Creek 38.93 96.19 0.71%Total Natural Area 1638.65 4049.20 2.72%



Ha Ac PercentPike Creek

100

33.36 82.42 0.34%Puce River 23.55 58.19 0.26%Belle River 13.90 34.34 0.12%Duck & Moison Creek 0.26 0.64 0.01%Ruscom River 20.84 51.49 0.11%Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Total 100 m Interior Forest 91.90 227.09 0.15%Pike Creek

200

0.12 0.31 0.00%Puce River 0.20 0.49 0.00%Belle River 0.00 0.00 0.00%Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%Ruscom River 0.06 0.14 0.00%Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00%




Ha Ac Ha AcPike Creek 50.59 125.02 79.85 197.33Puce River 31.73 78.40 38.31 94.67Belle River 26.98 66.67 28.51 70.46Duck & Moison Creek 7.98 19.72 15.06 37.22Ruscom River 31.14 76.94 57.14 141.20Little Creek 4.71 11.65 4.84 11.95




Ha Ac Ha AcPike Creek 50.59 125.02 79.85 197.33Puce River 31.73 78.40 38.31 94.67Belle River 26.98 66.67 70.67 174.63Duck & Moison Creek 7.98 19.72 30.40 75.13Ruscom River 31.14 76.94 57.14 141.20Little Creek 20.92 51.69 26.16 64.65



Forested RiparianHabitat within 30 m

Buffer% of

RiparianHabitat

Ha Ac Ha Ac

Pike Creek 732.46 1809.94 17.44 43.09 2.38%Puce River 530.15 1310.04 2.68 6.62 0.51%Belle River 743.97 1838.40 15.42 38.11 2.07%Duck & Moison Creek 337.07 832.92 0.74 1.84 0.22%Ruscom River 1267.50 3132.06 3.70 9.14 0.29%Little Creek 422.12 1043.08 0.89 2.21 0.21%Total 4033.27 9966.43 40.88 101.01 1.01%


Stream Order

Existing ProposedRiparianForest

(m)Total Length (m) % Riparian

ForestRiparian

Forest (m)

%RiparianForest

Pike Creek

1 0.00 127913.10 0.00% 88031.96 68.82%2 0.17 44886.72 0.00% 31853.95 70.97%3 1904.94 25161.41 7.57% 20134.84 80.02%

1 to 3 1905.11 197961.23 0.96% 140020.75 70.73%

Puce River

1 46.35 102970.20 0.05% 72206.16 70.12%2 213.46 32334.78 0.66% 20478.35 63.33%3 0.00 14794.03 0.00% 6844.13 46.26%

1 to 3 259.81 150099.01 0.17% 99528.64 66.31%

Belle River

1 992.01 139144.10 0.71% 69256.83 49.77%2 168.29 48469.27 0.35% 31023.71 64.01%3 1422.91 30567.24 4.66% 24016.83 78.57%

1 to 3 2583.21 218180.61 1.18% 124297.37 56.97%

Duck & Moison Creek

1 0.00 56552.87 0.00% 42411.64 74.99%2 0.00 13517.45 0.00% 10710.32 79.23%3 0.00 16593.16 0.00% 14292.84 86.14%

1 to 3 0.00 86663.49 0.00% 67414.80 77.79%

Ruscom River

1 33.83 237549.40 0.01% 151173.40 63.64%2 116.89 83848.58 0.14% 59419.28 70.87%3 68.82 48536.54 0.14% 33530.15 69.08%

1 to 3 219.54 369934.52 0.06% 244122.83 65.99%

Little Creek

1 0.00 76419.40 0.00% 52142.94 68.23%2 0.00 22173.33 0.00% 19181.20 86.51%3 0.00 17584.48 0.00% 14405.61 81.92%

1 to 3 0.00 116177.21 0.00% 85729.74 73.79%Total 4967.67 1139016.07 0.44% 761114.13 66.82%



Pike Creek 715.02 1766.85 97.62%Puce River 527.47 1303.41 99.49%Belle River 728.55 1800.29 97.93%Duck & Moison Creek 336.33 831.09 99.78%Ruscom River 1263.80 3122.92 99.71%Little Creek 421.22 1040.86 99.79%Total 3992.39 9865.41 98.99%

Restoration Opportunities - Wetland Buffers (240 m)Sub-watershed Ha Ac Percent




Pike Creek 51.94 128.35 0.52% 18.58 45.92 0.19%Puce River 40.50 100.08 0.44% 16.95 41.89 0.18%Belle River 27.67 68.37 0.23% 13.77 34.02 0.12%Duck & Moison Creek 3.03 7.49 0.07% 2.77 6.84 0.07%Ruscom River 37.93 93.73 0.20% 17.09 42.24 0.09%Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total 161.07 398.01 0.27% 69.17 170.92 0.11%




Pike Creek 1.75 4.32 0.02% 1.62 4.01 0.02%Puce River 4.75 11.73 0.05% 4.55 11.24 0.05%Belle River 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Duck & Moison Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Ruscom River 7.13 17.61 0.04% 7.07 17.47 0.04%Little Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00%Total 13.62 33.65 0.02% 13.24 32.72 0.02%







174

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

Pike

Cre

ek

Fore

st*

346.

6685

6.62

3.49

%24

.79

61.2

70.

25%

371.

4691

7.89

3.74

%Pu

ce R

iver

318.

6978

7.50

3.48

%23

.03

56.9

20.

25%

341.

7284

4.42

3.73

%Be

lle R

iver

456.

3711

27.7

33.

81%

19.1

347

.27

0.16

%47

5.50

1174

.99

3.97

%D

uck

& M

oiso

n C

reek

31.8

378

.66

0.76

%7.

0817

.50

0.17

%38

.91

96.1

60.

93%

Rus

com

Riv

er39

7.16

981.

392.

04%

32.7

780

.98

0.17

%42

9.93

1062

.37

2.21

%Li

ttle

Cre

ek17

.94

44.3

40.

33%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%17

.94

44.3

40.

33%

Tota

l For

est C

over

1568

.66

3876

.24

2.61

%10

6.81

263.

940.

18%

1675

.47

4140

.17

2.78

%Pi

ke C

reek

Wet

land

**/

Wet

land

Buffe

rs(2

40 m

)

13.5

933

.58

0.14

%48

.97

121.

010.

49%

62.5

615

4.59

0.63

%Pu

ce R

iver

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%Be

lle R

iver

7.58

18.7

20.

06%

89.1

122

0.19

0.74

%96

.68

238.

910.

81%

Duc

k &

Moi

son

Cre

ek1.

102.

720.

03%

30.2

774

.80

0.72

%31

.37

77.5

10.

75%

Rus

com

Riv

er26

.75

66.0

90.

14%

50.3

712

4.48

0.26

%77

.12

190.

570.

40%

Littl

e C

reek

20.9

851

.85

0.38

%26

.16

64.6

40.

48%

47.1

411

6.49

0.86

%To

tal W

etla

nd70

.00

172.

970.

12%

244.

8860

5.11

0.41

%31

4.88

778.

070.

52%

Pike

Cre

ek

Rip

aria

n

17.4

443

.09

2.38

%71

5.02

1766

.85

97.6

2%73

2.46

1809

.94

100.

00%

Puce

Riv

er2.

686.

620.

51%

527.

4713

03.4

199

.49%

530.

1513

10.0

310

0.00

%Be

lle R

iver

15.4

238

.11

2.07

%72

8.55

1800

.29

97.9

3%74

3.97

1838

.40

100.

00%

Duc

k &

Moi

son

Cre

ek0.

741.

840.

22%

336.

3383

1.09

99.7

8%33

7.07

832.

9310

0.00

%R

usco

m R

iver

3.70

9.14

0.29

%12

63.8

031

22.9

299

.71%

1267

.50

3132

.06

100.

00%

Littl

e C

reek

0.89

2.21

0.21

%42

1.22

1040

.86

99.7

9%42

2.11

1043

.07

100.

00%

Tota

l Rip

aria

n40

.88

101.

011.

01%

3992

.39

9865

.41

98.9

9%40

33.2

799

66.4

210

0.00

%Pi

ke C

reek

Oth

erU

plan

d***

0.00

0.00

0.00

%24

.72

61.0

70.

25%

24.7

261

.07

0.25

%Pu

ce R

iver

0.00

0.00

0.00

%4.

9512

.22

0.05

%4.

9512

.22

0.05

%Be

lle R

iver

0.00

0.00

0.00

%2.

766.

820.

02%

2.76

6.82

0.02

%D

uck

& M

oiso

n C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%0.

000.

000.

00%

0.00

0.00

0.00

%R

usco

m R

iver

0.00

0.00

0.00

%28

.03

69.2

70.

14%

28.0

369

.27

0.14

%

Sum

mar

y of

Nat

ural

Are

a R

esto

ratio

n

Sub-

wat

ersh

edTy

peEx

istin

gPr

opos

ed/R

ecen

tly C

ompl

eted

Res

ultin

gH

aAc

Perc

ent

Ha

AcPe

rcen

tH

aAc

Perc

ent

175

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Littl

e C

reek

0.00

0.00

0.00

%2.

135.

250.

04%

2.13

5.25

0.04

%To

tal O

ther

Upl

and

0.00

0.00

0.00

%62

.58

154.

640.

10%

62.5

815

4.64

0.10

%Pi

ke C

reek

All T

ypes

360.

2589

0.21

3.63

%81

3.50

2010

.20

8.19

%11

73.7

529

00.4

111

.82%

Puce

Riv

er31

8.69

787.

503.

48%

555.

4513

72.5

56.

06%

874.

1421

60.0

59.

54%

Belle

Riv

er46

3.95

1146

.45

3.88

%83

9.54

2074

.56

7.01

%13

03.5

032

21.0

110

.89%

Duc

k &

Moi

son

Cre

ek32

.93

81.3

80.

78%

373.

6892

3.39

8.89

%40

6.61

1004

.76

9.67

%R

usco

m R

iver

423.

9010

47.4

82.

18%

1374

.98

3397

.65

7.07

%17

98.8

844

45.1

39.

25%

Littl

e C

reek

38.9

396

.19

0.71

%44

9.51

1110

.75

8.20

%48

8.43

1206

.94

8.91

%To

tal N

atur

al A

rea

1638

.65

4049

.20

2.72

%44

06.6

610

889.

107.

32%

6045

.31

1493

8.30

10.0

4%* F

ores

t = U

plan

d +

Swam

p**

Wet

land

= M

arsh

+ O

pen

Wat

er**

* Oth

er U

plan

d =

Nat

ural

Suc

cess

ion,

Mea

dow

s, P

rairi

e, S

hrub

Thi

cket

s, P

lant

atio

ns

176

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

App

endi

x IX

: Fo

rest

Bird

Ass

ocia

tions

and

Rar

ity S

tatu

s

Com

mon

Nam

eSc

ient

ific

Nam

eH

abita

t Ass

ocia

tion

(Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a et

al.,

1998

)

Stud

y Ar

eaR

arity

Sta

tus

(Sut

herla

nd, 1

994)

Southeast Essex Region

Greater Detroit River

Lake Erie Sub-watersheds


GR

ANK

SRAN

KM

NR

CO

SEW

IC

Gre

at B

lue

Her

onAr

dea

hero

idas

Unc

lass

ified

TT

TG

5S5

B,SZ

N

Gre

en-b

acke

d H

eron

Buto

rides

stri

atus

Unc

lass

ified

TT

TT

G5

S4

Blac

k-cr

owne

d N

ight

Her

onN

yctic

orax

nyc

ticor

axU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

G5

S3B,

SZN

Can

ada

Goo

seBr

anta

can

aden

sis

Unc

lass

ified

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

S5N

Woo

d D

uck

Aix

spon

saU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

TG

5S5

B,S5

N

Mal

lard

Duc

kAn

as p

laty

rhyn

chos

Unc

lass

ified

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

S5N

Turk

ey V

ultu

reC

atha

rtes

aura

Inte

rior

TT

TG

5S4

Red

-taile

d H

awk

Bute

o ja

mai

cens

isU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

TG

5S5

B,S5

N

Amer

ican

Kes

trel

Falc

o sp

arve

rius

Unc

lass

ified

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

S5N

Ruf

fed

Gro

use

Bona

sa u

mbe

llus

Int/E

dge

TG

5S5

Com

mon

Sni

peG

allin

ago

gallin

ago

Unc

lass

ified

TG

5S5

b,SZ

N

Amer

ican

Woo

dcoc

kSc

olop

ax m

inor

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Mou

rnin

g D

ove

Zena

ida

mac

rour

aEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

Blac

k-bi

lled

Cuc

koo

Coc

cyzu

s er

thro

ptha

lmus

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S4

Com

mon

Nam

eSc

ient

ific

Nam

eH

abita

t Ass

ocia

tion

(Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a et

al.,

1998

)

Stud

y Ar

eaR

arity

Sta

tus

(Sut

herla

nd, 1

994)





GR

ANK

SRAN

KM

NR

CO

SEW

IC

177

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Yello

w-b

illed

Cuc

koo

Coc

cyzu

s am

eric

anus

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S4

East

ern

Scre

ech-

Ow

lO

tus

asio

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5N

AR

Gre

at H

orne

d O

wl

Bubo

virg

inia

nus

Inte

rior

TT

TT

G5

S5

Long

-ear

ed O

wl

Asio

otu

sIn

terio

rT

TG

5S4

Com

mon

Nig

htha

wk

Cho

rdei

les

min

orU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

G5

S4S5

Whi

p-po

or-w

illC

aprim

ulgu

s vo

cife

rsu

Int/E

dge

TT

G5

S5

Chi

mne

y Sw

iftC

haet

ura

pela

gica

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Rud

y-th

roat

ed H

umm

ingb

irdAr

chilo

chus

col

ubris

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Belte

d Ki

ngfis

her

Cer

yle

alcy

onEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

B,SZ

N

Red

-hea

ded

Woo

dpec

ker

Mel

aner

pes

caro

linus

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S3S4

B,SZ

N

Nor

ther

n (C

omm

on) F

licke

rC

olap

tes

aura

tus

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Dow

ny W

oodp

ecke

rPi

coid

es p

ubes

cens

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Hai

ry W

oodp

ecke

rPi

coid

es v

illosu

sIn

terio

rT

TG

5S5

East

ern

Woo

d-Pe

wee

Com

topu

s vi

rens

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Alde

r Fly

catc

her

Empi

dona

x al

noru

mEd

geT

TG

5S5

Com

mon

Nam

eSc

ient

ific

Nam

eH

abita

t Ass

ocia

tion

(Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a et

al.,

1998

)

Stud

y Ar

eaR

arity

Sta

tus

(Sut

herla

nd, 1

994)





GR

ANK

SRAN

KM

NR

CO

SEW

IC

178

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Acad

ian

Flyc

atch

erEm

pido

nax

vire

scen

sIn

terio

rT

TG

5S5

Willo

w F

lyca

tche

rEm

pido

nax

trallii

Unc

lass

ified

TT

TT

G5

S5

Leas

t Fly

catc

her

Empi

dona

x m

inim

usEd

geT

G5

S5

East

ern

Phoe

beSa

yorn

is p

hoeb

eIn

t/Edg

eT

TG

5S5

Gre

at C

rest

ed F

lyca

tche

rM

yiar

chus

crin

itus

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5

East

ern

King

bird

Tyan

nus

tyan

nus

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Tree

Sw

allo

wTa

chyc

inet

a bi

colo

rEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

Nor

ther

n R

ough

-win

ged

Swal

low

Stel

gido

pter

yx s

errip

enni

sU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

TG

5S5

Blue

Jay

Cya

noci

tta c

rista

taIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

TG

5S5

Amer

ican

Cro

wC

orvu

s co

rax

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S4N

,S5B

Blac

k-ca

pped

Chi

ckad

eePa

rus

atric

apillu

sIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

G5

S5

Whi

te-b

reas

ted

Nut

hatc

hSi

tta c

arol

inen

sis

Inte

rior

TT

TT

G5

S5

Tufte

d Ti

tmou

sePa

rus

atric

apillu

sIn

terio

rT

T

Brow

n C

reep

erC

erth

ia a

mer

ican

aIn

terio

rT

G5

S3S4

N,S

5B

Car

olin

a W

ren

Thyo

thor

us lu

dovi

cian

usU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

G5

S3S4

Com

mon

Nam

eSc

ient

ific

Nam

eH

abita

t Ass

ocia

tion

(Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a et

al.,

1998

)

Stud

y Ar

eaR

arity

Sta

tus

(Sut

herla

nd, 1

994)





GR

ANK

SRAN

KM

NR

CO

SEW

IC

179

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Hou

se W

ren

Trog

lody

tes

aedo

nEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

Blue

-gra

y G

natc

atch

erPo

liopt

ila c

aeru

laIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

G5

S4

Veer

yC

atha

rus

fusc

esce

nsIn

terio

rT

TG

5S5

Woo

d Th

rush

Hyl

ocic

hla

mus

telin

aIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

TG

5S5

Amer

ican

Rob

inTu

rdus

mig

rato

rius

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Gra

y C

atbi

rdD

umet

ella

car

olin

ensi

sIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

TG

5S5

Brow

n Th

rash

erTo

xost

oma

rufu

mEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

B,SZ

N

Ced

ar W

axin

gBo

mby

cilla

ced

roru

mEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

B,SZ

N

Euro

pean

Sta

rling

Stur

nus

vulg

aris

Edge

T

TT

TG

5SE

Whi

te-e

yed

Vire

oVi

reo

solit

ariu

sIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

G5

S2

Yello

w-th

roat

ed V

ireo

Vire

o fla

vifro

nsIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

G5

S4

War

blin

g Vi

reo

Vire

o gi

lvus

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Red

-eye

d Vi

reo

Vire

o ol

ivac

eus

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Blue

-win

ged

War

bler

Verm

ivor

a ch

ryso

pter

aEd

geT

TT

G5

S4

Yello

w W

arbl

erD

endr

oica

pet

echi

aEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

Com

mon

Nam

eSc

ient

ific

Nam

eH

abita

t Ass

ocia

tion

(Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a et

al.,

1998

)

Stud

y Ar

eaR

arity

Sta

tus

(Sut

herla

nd, 1

994)





GR

ANK

SRAN

KM

NR

CO

SEW

IC

180

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Che

stnu

t-sid

ed W

arbl

erD

endr

oica

pen

sylv

anic

aEd

geT

G5

S5

Amer

ican

Red

star

tSe

toph

aga

rutic

illa

Inte

rior

TT

G5

S5

Poth

onot

ary

War

bler

Prot

onot

aria

citr

eaIn

t/Edg

eT

TG

5S2

Ove

nbird

Seiu

rus

auro

capi

llus

Inte

rior

TT

G5

S5

Mou

rnin

g W

arbl

erO

poro

rnis

phi

lade

lphi

aEd

geT

G5

S5

Com

mon

Yel

low

thro

atG

eoth

lypi

s tri

chas

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Yello

w-b

reas

ted

Cha

tIc

teria

vire

nsEd

geT

TT

G5

S2S3

VUL

Scar

let T

anag

erPi

rang

a ol

ivac

eaIn

terio

rT

TT

G5

S5

Nor

ther

n C

ardi

nal

Car

dina

lis c

ardi

nalis

Int/E

dge

TT

TT

G5

S5

Ros

e-br

east

ed G

rosb

eak

Pheu

ctic

us lu

dovi

cian

usIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

TG

5S5

Indi

go B

untin

g Pa

sser

ina

cyan

eaEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

Ruf

ous-

side

d To

whe

ePi

pilo

ery

thro

phth

alm

usIn

t/Edg

eT

TT

TG

5S4

B,SZ

N

Chi

ppin

g Sp

arro

wSp

izel

la p

asse

rina

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Song

Spa

rrow

Mel

ospi

za m

elod

iaEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

B,SZ

N

Swam

p Sp

arro

w

Mel

ospi

za g

eorg

iana

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Com

mon

Nam

eSc

ient

ific

Nam

eH

abita

t Ass

ocia

tion

(Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a et

al.,

1998

)

Stud

y Ar

eaR

arity

Sta

tus

(Sut

herla

nd, 1

994)





GR

ANK

SRAN

KM

NR

CO

SEW

IC

181

Esse

x R

egio

n Bi

odiv

ersi

ty C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

Red

-win

ged

Blac

kbird

Agel

aius

pho

enic

eus

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Com

mon

Gra

ckle

Qui

scal

us q

uisc

ula

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S5B,

SZN

Brow

n-he

aded

Cow

bird

Mol

othr

us a

ter

Edge

TT

TT

G5

S3S4

N,S

5B

Orc

hard

Orio

leIc

teru

s sp

uriu

sU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

TG

5S5

B,SZ

N

Nor

ther

n O

riole

Icte

rus

galb

ula

Edge

T

TT

TG

5S5

Hou

se F

inch

Car

poda

cus

mex

ican

usU

ncla

ssifi

edT

TT

G5

S5

Amer

ican

Gol

dfin

chC

ardu

elis

tris

tisEd

geT

TT

TG

5S5

Hou

se S

parro

wPa

sser

dom

estic

usEd

geT

TT

TG

5SE

Unc

lass

ified

1315

1410

Edge

3032

3027

Inte

rior/E

dge

2020

2114

Inte

rior

97

103

Tota

l72

7475

54

Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy · i Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed to the development of this Biodiversity

Documents