natural heritage inventory and evaluation for the medway ... · •a current natural heritage life...

Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation for the

Medway Valley Heritage Forest South ESA

Public Meeting

January 27, 2014

Tonight you will have the opportunity to learn and comment on:

• Purpose of the Inventory and Evaluation

• Approach and Methodology

• Summary of Fieldwork Results

• ESA Criteria Applicable to MVHF

• Revisions to the MVHF Boundary

• Designation of Management Zones

Welcome!

Public Meeting January 27, 2014

Introduction

• This work is in support of the development of a Conservation Master Plan for

the City of London’s Medway Valley Heritage Forest (MVHF)

Environmentally Significant Area (ESA).

• A current natural heritage life science inventory is an important first step

• Most natural heritage data (e.g. flora lists, wildlife observations, Species at

Risk) for the MVHF ESA was collected during the late 1980’s to mid 1990’s.


Objectives

The main objectives of the Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation were to:

• Complete a detailed multi-season inventory and analysis on accessible

lands in the MVHF South ESA

• Confirm and refine the ecological boundaries of the MVHF ESA.

• Apply the criteria for the evaluation of ESAs as per the City’s Environmental

Management Guideline to the MVHF ESA.

• Propose an environmental management strategy for the ESA.


Our Study Area

This study is focused on updating information and completing

evaluations within the MVHF ESA only.

• The MVHF ESA is located in north London

• Focus of the study is on the MVHF ESA

located south of Fanshawe Park Road

West

• Targeted studies undertaken north of

Fanshawe Park Road West

• Study has occurred only on public lands

Study Area


MVHF ESA

City of London

Methodology (Natural Heritage Inventory)


Tasks Methods/Criteria Followed

ELC Validation Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998)

Wildlife Habitat Survey Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR, 2000)

Amphibian Breeding Survey Marsh Monitoring Protocol (Bird Studies Canada et al., 2008)

Salamander Search Marsh Monitoring Protocol (Bird Studies Canada et al., 2008)

Breeding Birds Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Protocol (Cadman et al., 2001)

Flora Wandering transects/area searches

Reptiles Targeted and incidental observations

Mammals Incidental observations

Butterflies, Dragonflies & Damselflies

Area searches during peak flight times

Aquatic Habitat Characterization of Medway Creek and tributaries

Physical Features Observations recorded during field studies

Existing Uses and Disturbances Observations recorded during field studies

Inventory Results


Tasks Summary of Results

ELC Validation Validation of ELC resulted in a total of 16 vegetation communities

Wildlife Habitat Survey Ten different types of habitat were identified

Amphibian Breeding Survey Four species were observed; all of which are common to London

Salamander Search Historic population confirmed to be still present in Snake Creek Valley

Breeding Birds During the breeding season, 55 species were observed and an additional 25 during the migration periods. Ten species (9 migrants, 1 breeding) had not been previously identified in the MVHF ESA

Flora A total of 564 flora species were identified during the inventory with 151 of those not previously recorded in the MVHF ESA

Reptiles Seven species were observed within the MVHF ESA and the Medway Creek/Thames River confluence

Mammals Twenty species were observed during the inventory and by the general public

Butterflies, Dragonflies & Damselflies

Forty-eight species of butterfly (25 not previously documented) and 41 species of dragonflies/damselflies (13 not previously documented) were observed during surveys

Inventory Results (continued)


Species at Risk Observed (Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007)

Rare Species Observed (sensitive to human activities, natural events, less

than 100 occurrences reported in Ontario)

False-Rue Anemone (THR) Northern Long-eared Bat (END) American Gromwell

Butternut (END) Barn Swallow (Visitor) (THR) Cream Violet

Kentucky Coffee-Tree (THR) Chimney Swift (Visitor) (THR) Harbinger-of-Spring (North Only)

Green Dragon (SC) Bald Eagle (Visitor) (SC) White-haired Panic Grass

Cucumber Magnolia (END) Canada Warbler (Migrant)(SC) Slender Satin Grass

Snapping Turtle (SC) Common Nighthawk (Migrant)(SC) Shrubby St. John’s Wort

Eastern Milksnake (SC) Olive-sided Flycatcher (Migrant)(SC) Tri-coloured Bat

Queensnake (END) Monarch (SC) Giant Swallowtail

Spiny Softshell (THR) Tawny Emperor

Little Brown Bat (END) Pronghorn Clubtail

Swamp Darner

Blue-tipped Dancer

Methodology (Environmental Management Strategy Analysis)


ESA Criteria Update

The City’s Guideline Document for Environmentally Significant Areas Identification, Evaluation and Boundary Delineation (July 1997) was reviewed to verify the continued applicability of the ESA Criteria attributed to the MVHF ESA

Boundary Refinement

Ecological boundary of ESA was refined using the Guideline Document for Environmentally Significant Areas Identification, Evaluation and Boundary Delineation (July 1997)

Management Zones

Delineated using a matrix found in the City’s Planning and Design Standards for Trails in ESAs (June 2012). For MVHF South ESA only.

ESA Criteria Update


• To qualify as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) within the City of London,

a natural area must fulfill, at minimum, two of the criteria listed by the City

• MVHF meets all seven criteria outlined in the Guideline Document

• It was determined that some of the rationale or supporting information for the ESA

Evaluation was out-dated or new information could be added for extra support to the ESA

designation

ESA Criteria Update (continued)


• Key updates to the ESA Criteria include: • High concentrations of species indicative of high quality habitat are present (Twinleaf, Sycamore)

• Confirming the presence of 16 ecosites or vegetation communities and a high biodiversity of flora (564

species)

• MVHF ESA is an important migratory stopover for birds; 26 species in addition to the breeding species were

documented using the ESA during the spring and fall migratory periods

• MVHF ESA contains habitat for a number of provincially significant species including Species at Risk

Twinleaf

ESA Boundary Revisions


• Revisions to the ESA Boundary were

completed through interpretation of

applicable guidelines (Guideline Document for Environmentally Significant Areas Identification, Evaluation and Boundary Delineation (July 1997))

• Eight applicable guidelines were used

during the refinement process

• Resulted in a boundary more

representative of the actual ecological

boundary

Guideline 1


• Habitat Zones must be

included within the patch

boundary

• Used to protect interior forest by

increasing the forest edge

buffer (> 100 metres from edge)

Guideline 4(b)


• Watercourses must be included within

the boundary if the watercourse

connects two or more patches within

85 metres: – The connection must include a minimum

corridor width of 30 metres on each side of

the high water mark of small watercourses or

100 metres on the side(s) of large

rivers/creeks such as Medway Creek

Guideline 7(a)


• Cultural savannahs,

woodlands and old

fields must be

included within the

ESA boundary if

they: A) Minimize negative

edge effects by forming a

well-established mantel at

the edge of the tree

patches

Guideline 7(b)


• Cultural savannahs, woodlands

and old fields must be included

within the ESA boundary if they: B) Strengthen internal linkages in the

patch by filling in “bays”

Guideline 8(b)


• Plantations contiguous with

patches of natural vegetation

must be included in the

boundary if the plantation: B) Minimizes edge effects to natural

heritage features by providing a buffer

between the feature and the surrounding

land use

Guideline 9(a)


• Existing land uses within or adjacent to a

patch are subject to the following boundary

considerations: A) Existing lands uses within a patch, such as

recreational trails are included in the patch

Guideline 10


• Residential sites and institutional

areas within or adjacent to a

patch area subject to the

following boundary

considerations

• Stormwater Management

Facilities including supporting

infrastructure are not included

within the ESA Boundary

Management Zones


• Using the revised boundary, management zones were delineated based on

ecological significance and sensitivity to disturbance

• A matrix available in the City’s Planning and Design Standards for Trails in ESAs

(June 2012) was used to identify and delineate zones

• The seven criterion used to evaluate the ESA are used to determine the applicable management zone

• The ecological indicator with the greatest sensitivity rating is used to determine the management zone of each delineated area

Management Zones (continued)


Nature Reserve Zone: Highly sensitive areas, usually containing populations of SAR.

Natural Area Zone 1: The majority of these zones are areas with a moderate to high sensitivity.

Natural Area Zone 2: These zones are those with low sensitivity.

Cultural Heritage Zone: Associated with important culture heritage landscapes.

Access Zone: Provide an entrance for visitors to the MVHF ESA

Management Zones within the MVHF South ESA are separated

into five designations:

Elsie Perrin Williams Estate (Cultural Heritage)

Access Zone off Gainsborough Road

Population of False-Rue Anemone within a Nature Reserve Zone

Restoration Overlay Zones

• Those areas within the MVHF South ESA that require active ecological restoration or special management.

• This primarily involves management of invasive species and planting of native trees & shrubs

• Fifteen Restoration Overlay Zones have been identified


European Common Reed

(Invasive)

Woodland Sedge (Invasive)

Japanese Knotweed (Invasive)

Naturalization/Stewardship

• Areas within the MVHF South ESA that are optimal locations for naturalization projects (e.g. tree planting) were identified, generally these areas overlap with Restoration Overlay Zones

• Private properties that extend into the highest sensitivity management zones (Natural Reserve Zone) are identified as potential partnerships between the landowner and the City for stewardship of the ESA


Above Area in 2013 after Naturalization Efforts Occurred Over 10 Years

Area west of Gainsborough Road in MVHF ESA - 2003

Wildlife Habitat Zones

• Management strategy recommendations to protect wildlife habitat identified during the natural heritage inventory included:

– Existing sensitivities of habitat;

– Potential threats to habitat;

– Current activity levels within habitat;

– Potential opportunities for education, restoration; and,

– Priority levels for protection and/or active management.


Amphibian Breeding Habitat

Amphibian Breeding Habitat

Summary

• The ESA continues to meet all seven criteria for designation for as an ESA.

• Inventory data collected was used to designate Management Zones and develop an Environmental Management Strategy specific to MVHF South ESA.

• The refinement of the ESA boundary has resulted in an ESA boundary more representative of the actual ecological boundary.

• The refined boundary excludes residential sites and infrastructure (i.e. SWM facilities) from the ESA that were previously included within the ESA.

• Management Zones have been applied to MVHF South ESA based on ecological significance and sensitivity to disturbance

• Management Zones were identified based on background and ecological inventory information, and guided by the ESA Criteria that the MVHF South ESA has been recognized for.

• The Environmental Management Strategy considered areas that may benefit from restoration (Restoration Overlays), naturalization, and wildlife habitat protection.

Red-backed Salamander

Green Dragon

Marsh Marigold

Next Steps

Information will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With

the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Following this public meeting, the City of London will review your comments and

address questions or concerns that were raised.

Please complete a comment form tonight, or respond by mail or email before March 10, 2014.

• Phase 2 Start-up Meeting 2014 Date TBD

• Phase 2 Local Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting – 2014 Date TBD

• Phase 2 Process Completed –2015


ESA North Results Tasks Summary of Results

ELC Validation Validation of ELC resulted in a total of 9 vegetation communities

Amphibian Breeding Survey Two species were observed; all of which are common to London

Breeding Birds During the breeding season, 47 species were observed. One species, House Sparrow, had not been previously identified in the MVHF ESA

Flora Focus was on rare and sensitive species at pre-determined sites. Documented five species (Two SAR, Two SCC, One High CC)

Reptiles Two species were observed within the MVHF ESA

natural heritage inventory and evaluation for the medway ... · •a current natural heritage life...

Documents